The University of Central Florida - Institute for Learning and ...

ius.edu
  • No tags were found...

The University of Central Florida - Institute for Learning and ...

Student ResultsStudent satisfaction in fully online andmixed-mode courses5045403539%41%38%44%Fully online (N = 1,526)Mixed-mode (N = 485)302520151050Very SatisfiedSatisfied9%Neutral11% 9%3%Unsatisfied5%1%Very UnsatisfiedNAU May 2006 3


Students’ positive perceptions aboutblended learning• Convenience• Reduced Logistic Demands• Increased Learning FlexibilityReduced OpportunityCosts for Education• Technology Enhanced LearningStudents’ less positive perceptions aboutblended learning• Rd Reduced dFace-to-Face F Time• Technology Problems• Reduced Instructor AssistanceIncreased OpportunityCosts for Education• Overwhelming• Increased WorkloadNAU May 2006 4


Success rates by modalitySpring 01 through Spring 03Percent989694929088868497Total N= 119,393 studentsF2FMW949493 9392 92 92 9291 91 91 9191 91 91 9190 9089Spring01Summer01Fall01Spring0297Summer02Fall02Spring03Success rates by modality forHealth & Public AffairsTotal N= 26,073 studentsF2FMWPercent9894908682787499 98 98 99 9896 9694 9495959293 9291 91 91 9192 91 91Spring01Summer01Fall01Spring02Summer02Fall02Spring03NAU May 2006 5


A segment model for successArts & Sciences,Overall85.9%n=11,286HealthBusiness Admin.,& Pub.Hospitality Mgmt. Education EngineeringAffairs85.8%n=6,46091.5%n=2,07972.7%n=37886.7%n=2,369F2F, E, M W F2F E, M, W F2FE, M86.5% 74.8% 94.1% 89.1% 64.7% 79.6%n=5,639 n=821 n=1,036 n=1,043 n=148 n=230females males A&S BA & Hosp. mgmt88.4%n=3,26384.1%n=2,37678.5%n=52668.9%n=298Student GenerationsNAU May 2006 7


Some characteristics of thegenerations• Matures (prior to 1946)• Dedicated to a job theytake on• Respectful of authority• Place duty beforepleasure• Baby boomers (1946-1964)• Live to work• Generally optimistic• Influence on policy &products• Generation X (1965-1980)• Work to live• Clear & consistentexpectations• Value contributing to thewhole• Millennials (1981-1994)• Live in the moment• Expect immediacy oftechnology• Earn money forimmediate consumptionTechnology is anything inventedafter you were born*Boomers Gen Xers Millennials• TV• Mainframes• Telephones• Party lines• LPs• Video games• PCs• Commands• E-mail• Mailing lists• Cassettes• The Web• Mobiledevices• IM, blogs• Virtualcommunities• CDs, MP3s* Alan KayNAU May 2006 8


Students Gone Wild on Web Site LeavingCollege Officials in a Muddle, Palm Beach Post• Social Networking• Facebook.com• Myspace.com• Ratemyprofessor.comSearching for DummiesNew York Times• National Center for Education Statistics• Ability to interpret complex texts• 1992: 40%• 2006: 31%• Times of London• Students more poorly prepared• Less teachableNAU May 2006 9


Students who were very satisfied bygeneration6055%Percent50403038%26%20100Boomer1946-1964n=328Generation X1965-1980n=815Millennial1981-1994n=346Better able to integrate technologyinto their learning807067%Percent6050403048%34%20100Boomer1946-1964n=328Generation X1965-1980n=815Millennial1981-1994n=346NAU May 2006 10


Because of the web I changed myapproach to learning605051%Percent403037%23%20100Boomer1946-1964n=328Generation X1965-1980n=815Millennial1981-1994n=346Success in Blended Courses byGender and Generational MembershipSuccess(N=18,732)93%Female(N=12,184)94%Male(N=6,548)90%Mature-Boomer(N=1,800)98%Gen X(N=6,431)95%Millennials(N=3,913)90%Mature-Boomer(N=5,521)95%Gen X(N=3,809)92%Millennials(N=2,182)83%NAU May 2006 11


Success rates by generation andcourse levelBaby BoomerGen XMillennial1009093% 91% 90%96% 94%95%Percent807083% 81%75%6050Lower Undergrad Upper Undergrad GraduateCollege Level Academic Skills Test (CLAST)English Scores by Generation330Mean325320323320315315310Boomer1946-1964(N = 383)Gen X1965-1980(N = 872)Millennial1981-1994(N = 1,152)NAU May 2006 12


College Level Academic Skills Test (CLAST)Math Scores by Generation330325320Mean315316315310305307300Boomer1946-1964(N = 401)Gen X1965-1980(N = 909)Millennial1981-1994(N = 1,628)College Level Academic Skills Test (CLAST)Reading Scores by Generation330325325323Mean320315316310Boomer1946-1964(N = 384)Gen X1965-1980(N = 869)Millennial1981-1994(N = 1,157)NAU May 2006 13


Student Behavior TypesResearch on reactive behaviorpatterns• Theory of William A. Long, University ofMississippi• Ambivalence brings out behavior patterns• Provides a lens for how “types” react todifferent teaching stylesNAU May 2006 14


Resources• Personality• Emotional maturity• Sophistication level• Level of intellect• Educational levell• Character developmentA description of Long behaviortypes• Aggressive Independent • Aggressive Dependent• high energy• action-oriented• not concerned with approval• speaks out freely• gets into confrontationalsituations• Passive Independent• low energy• not concerned with approval• prefers to work alone• resists pressure from authority• high energy• action-oriented• concerned with approval• rarely expresses negativefeelings• performs at or above ability• Passive Dependent• low energy• concerned with approval• highly sensitive to the feelings ofothers• very compliantNAU May 2006 15


A description of Long behaviortraits• Phobic • Impulsive• exaggerated fears of things• often feels anxious• often sees the negative side• doesn’t take risks• Compulsive• highly organized• neat, methodical worker• perfectionist• strongly motivated to finishtasks• explosive• quick-tempered• acts without thinking• frank• short attention span• Hysteric• dramatic and emotional• more social than academic• artistic or creative• tends to overreactStudents who were very satisfied withblended learning Long type45403530252015105039%32% 33%24%Aggressive Passive Aggressive PassiveIndependent Independent Dependent Dependent(N = 168) (N = 204) (N = 458) (N = 122)NAU May 2006 16


Distribution of Long types and traitsfor fully online studentsAD54%(N=1,437)PD 80 75%7% 70PI18%AI21%605040302010051%26% 30%P C I H(N=1,520)Distribution of Long Types andTraits for Composition I StudentsAD44%PD 6014% 50%53%50AI20%40302038% 40%PI23%(N=1,054)100P C I HNAU May 2006 17


Faculty ResultsTime to develop course as compared with acomparable face-to-face sectionMoreworkEqualto orless than77%21%2%Wn=5652%43%5%MN=43A lot more timeA little more timeAbout the sameA little less timeA lot less timeModalityNAU May 2006 18


Quality of interaction in Web classescompared to comparable F2F sectionsBetterinteraction35%33%30%37%IncreasedSomewhatincreasedAbout the sameSomewhatdecreasedDecreasedEqualto orless than22% 19%9%14%2%Wn=55ModalityMN=43Faculty willingness to teach Web courses inthe futurePositive69%81%DefinitelyProbablyProbably notDefinitely notNeutralornegative16%13%10%2%6% 4%Wn=71ModalityMN=53NAU May 2006 19


Student RatingsA decision rule based on student evaluation responsesand the probability of faculty receiving an overallrating of ExcellentIf...Facilitation of learningExcellent Very Good Good Fair PoorCommunication of ideasThen...The probability of an overall rating of Excellent = .93The probability of an overall rating of Fair or Poor =.00&NAU May 2006 20


A comparison of excellent ratings by college unadjustedand adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1College Unadjusted % Adjusted %Arts & Sciences 41.6 92.4Business 34.9 90.9Education 56.8 94.8Engineering 36.2 91.3H&PA 46.1 93.9(N=441,758) (N=147,544)A comparison of excellent ratings by coursemodality--unadjusted and adjusted for instructorssatisfying Rule 1CourseModality Unadjusted % Adjusted %F2F 42.0 92.2E 44.0 92.3M 40.6 92.0W 55.4 92.7ITV 20.9 86.7N=709,285 N=235,745NAU May 2006 21


Research Initiative for TeachingEffectivenessFor more information contact:Dr. Chuck Dziuban(407) 823-5478dziuban@mail.ucf.eduDr. Patsy Moskal(407) 823-0283pdmoskal@mail.ucf.eduhttp://rite.ucf.eduNAU May 2006 22

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines