• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Free range learners
 

Free range learners

on

  • 854 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
854
Views on SlideShare
854
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Objective: Emphasize the breadth of considerations for print to digital conversions that may or may not be readily apparentScript: How well will your booklist translate?Old editionsNon-textbook items – trade books and CD’sPublisher bundlesAnthologies and digital rightsPublisher Interactive ProductsLead time for fulfillment of digital contentAddressing academic freedom and faculty choiceWhat about the institution bookstore?Exclusive contractsRevenue shareThe function of book adoptions Are you meeting Accessibility requirementsAnalytics and engagement data differentiate digital from printExecutive sponsorship is key to driving change
  • The Open Course Library is a collection of expertly developed educational materials – including textbooks, syllabi, course activities, readings, and assessments – for 82 high-enrollment college courses. 42 courses have been completed so far, providing faculty with a high-quality option that will cost students no more than $30 per course.

Free range learners Free range learners Presentation Transcript

  •  Glenda Morgan, U of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign Tracy Hurley, Texas A&M at Antonio Shannon Meadows, CourseSmart TJ Bliss, OER Policy Fellow, Inacol Connie Broughton, Washington State Board for Community & Technical Colleges
  • Glenda Morgan University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignWCET Annual Meeting, San Antonio Nov 1 2012
  •  Chuck Dziuban, UCF Flora McMartin, Broad Based Knowledge Josh Morrill, University of Wisconsin-Madison Patsy Moskal, UCF Alan Wolf, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  •  Funded by National Science Digital Library Looking at learning resources more generally Mixed methods study Paths through the material Qualitative findings pointed us to certain kinds of behaviors
  • Ambivalent Adaptive Rebel/ Free Time Learners Learners Form Sensitive 48% of 26% of Learners Learners Sample Sample 13% of 11% ofThis segment addresses This segment exhibits a Sample Samplelearning problems using lot of characteristics ofa plan (at least they “ideal” learners (They This group is not This segment is similarbelieve that they have a solve problems with a systematic in their to the adaptive learnersplan). But, mostly, they plan, they are learning, and do not in many ways (use ado not feel strongly systematic, they set solve problems with plan, are systematic,about their learning. goals, they ask for help if plans. But they are etc), but they are just notThey are confident in they experience a willing to change what quite as strong in thesetheir ability to find problem, they enjoy they do when presented skills. Directionally theyinformation, but do not studying and have a with new information are identical to adaptiveenjoy studying nor do need to learn). A (may speak to an learners. The other keythey have a need to differentiator in this experiential type of difference is that thislearn. This is the largest group is that there is learner). This group also group is the most likelylearner segment from the more variance around feels like they have a to set specific times tosample. setting specific times to need to learn, but are study, and least likely to study. For example, this among the least likely to ask for assistance with a could be a learner who set aside specific time to problem. This is also the studies in a hallway study. smallest learner whenever they had some segment. free time.
  • Learning Factors Ambivalent Adaptive Rebel/ Free Time Sensitive Learners Learners Form Learners Learners LEARNING FACTORS-Agency 48.7 51.8 49.2 53.6-Preparedness 45.5 55.5 50.9 60.1-Organization 47.2 54.9 46.0 59.8-Engagement 46.5 53.4 51.8 58.6NOTE: Lowest scores shaded in red, Highest scores shaded ingreen.
  • Interest vs. Difficulty Factors Ambivalent Adaptive Rebel/ Free Time Sensitive Learners Learners Form Learners Learners Interest Factors-Search, Browse, Ask 49.4 54.7 52.9 56.9-Friends, Social Network 49.8 53.8 51.8 57.1-Internet Search 49.5 51.1 51.5 48.2 Difficulty Factors-Outreach 49.9 53.4 52.6 57.9-Internet Search 49.5 52.0 51.2 50.4-Written Material 49.7 54.2 52.8 55.6-Engagement 50.4 51.2 50.2 53.2NOTE: Lowest scores shaded in red, Highest scores shaded ingreen.
  • Profiles Green= highest in row; Red= lowest in row Ambivalent Adaptive Rebel/ Free Time Sensitive Learners Learners Form Learners Learners Profiling Variables-% full time student 54% 55% 39% 47%-% part time students 9% 5% 10% 11%-% former students 30% 33% 44% 33% School/Institution-2 year/ community college 13% 15% 21% 28%-4 year college/ university 72% 57% 51% 55% Race-% White/ Caucasian 74% 75% 73% 48% Is / Was Major-Business, management, 17% 14% 17% 25%marketing-Engineering 10% 13% 7% 10%-Humanities -&- Fine Arts 8% 11% 20% 8%
  • Profiles Green= highest in row; Red= lowest in row Ambivalent Adaptive Rebel/ Free Time Sensitive Learners Learners Form Learners Learners Employment-% NOT employed (0 hours) 36% 37% 37% 50% Gender-% female 38% 51% 40% 50% Housing-% Living in on campus 39% 33% 16% 26%housing Wikipedia-% Use Wikipedia (work or 56% 57% 62% 47%school) Age-Average Age 24.0 25.1 26.4 25.7 GPA-Self Reported Average GPA 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.4
  • Free Ranger Learner Zone Ambivalent Adaptive Rebel/ Free Time Learners Learners Form Sensitive 48% of 26% of Learners Learners Sample Sample 13% of 11% ofThis segment addresses This segment exhibits a Sample Samplelearning problems using lot of characteristics ofa plan (at least they “ideal” learners (They This group is not This segment is similarbelieve that they have a solve problems with a systematic in their to the adaptive learnersplan). But, mostly, they plan, they are learning, and do not in many ways (use ado not feel strongly systematic, they set solve problems with plan, are systematic,about their learning. goals, they ask for help if plans. But they are etc), but they are just notThey are confident in they experience a willing to change what quite as strong in thesetheir ability to find problem, they enjoy they do when presented skills. Directionally theyinformation, but do not studying and have a with new information are identical to adaptiveenjoy studying nor do need to learn). A (may speak to an learners. The other keythey have a need to differentiator in this experiential type of difference is that thislearn. This is the largest group is that there is learner). This group also group is the most likelylearner segment from the more variance around feels like they have a to set specific times tosample. setting specific times to need to learn, but are study, and least likely to study. For example, this among the least likely to ask for assistance with a could be a learner who set aside specific time to problem. This is also the studies in a hallway study. smallest learner whenever they had some segment. free time.
  •  Flesh out further behaviors according to each type Further implications of each type of learner for how we support teaching and learning More info on what kinds of info they use and how they learn from it
  • gmorgan@illinois.edu
  • Texas A&M San Antonio CourseSmart
  •  How well will your booklist translate? Addressing academic freedom & faculty choice Will the institution bookstore play a role? Are you meeting Accessibility requirements? Analytics differentiate digital from print Executive sponsorship is key to driving change
  •  $300,000 Printing agreements 40 out of 400 Authorization and proposals funded implementation of 2 year program student fees Custom e-books Faculty development Publisher Instructional designer agreements Program evaluation
  •  Faculty will most likely not readily adopt and encourage e-book use due to technology resistance Administrators will not receive profit sharing from bookstore sales Students unfamiliar with product
  • A Case Study: Texas A&M University- San Antonio 10 Publishers:  McGraw-Hill/Irwin  WHFreeman  Pearson/Prentice-Hall  CQ Press  Cengage  CRC Press  Wiley  No Starch Press  Human Kinetics  Jones-Bartlett
  •  Bulk discount Up to 70% off hard copy textbook price Electronic course material available (MyLabs, Aplia, Connect, Homework Mgr) Custom E-books 100% sell-through for publishers Mandatory electronic course material fee E-books available 1st day of class Print on demand feature
  •  4600 E-books issued by students in Fall 2010  6700 e-books issued in Fall 2013 49% of all classes are e-book classes Average course fee* = $64 9.5% of tuition Course fee ranged from $28-$70 25% of students used Institutional printing option *Course fee includes, program administration, and electronic homework manager product (where adopted)
  • #1 problem: Access code distribution#2 problem: Logistics of Institutional Printing option#3 problem: Learning curve from university, publishers, and Printing Partner#4 problem: Resistance to change
  •  Surveys sent to all students using e-books at the end of the Fall 2010, Spring 2011 & Fall 2011 semesters Over 1100 students completed a survey Demographics mirror the university Majors are consistent with the proportion enrolled in e-book courses
  •  76% of students reported that they felt that e-books were a cost effective alternative to regular textbooks 58% of the students reported looking forward to taking additional e-book classes 69% were very satisfied with the e-book program while only 14% were not 59% of the students felt that e-books provided greater flexibility when compared to traditional textbooks
  •  25% of e-books issued were also ordered as a printed version. 64% of students felt that the institutional printing option was valuable to their educational success Fifty percent reported that printed e-books improved their study habits and grades
  • Open Course Library A collection of openly licensed (CC BY)educational materials for 82 high-enrollment college courses Project Goals: 1. Lower textbook costs for students 2. Improve course completion rates 3. Provide new resources for faculty Credit: Timothy Valentine & Leo Reynolds CC BY- NC-SA
  • Open Course Library Timeline Phase 1: 42 courses ◦ http://opencourselibrary.org ◦ http://saylor.org Phase 2 : 40 courses ◦ Available Spring 2013
  •  Connie Broughton cbroughton@sbctc.edu http://opencourselibrary.org