BISG's MIP for Higher Ed Publishing 2013 -- Rebecca Griffiths

Uploaded on

Rebecca Griffiths of Ithaka S+R presents at BISG's Making Information Pay for Higher Ed Publishing conference, February 7, 2013.

Rebecca Griffiths of Ithaka S+R presents at BISG's Making Information Pay for Higher Ed Publishing conference, February 7, 2013.

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Now welcoming Rebecca Griffiths Program Director for Online Learning, Ithaka S+R “The Promise of Highly Interactive Online Learning”© 2013, the Book Industry Study Group, Inc. 1
  • 2. Interactive Online Learning in Public Universities Randomized Study of Interactive Online Statistics Course Testing the Benefits of MOOCs Rebecca Griffiths Program Director for Online Learning, Ithaka S+R Feb 7, 2012
  • 3. Motivations for Online Learning Program  Budget crises and pressure to increase graduation rates, particularly at public universities  Potential of sophisticated, interactive online systems, especially when used in hybrid mode, to • Improve student outcomes • Reduce disparities in outcomes • Reduce costs without sacrificing learning  Need for solid evidence about effectiveness or cost-saving potential of such systems
  • 4. Randomized Study of Interactive Online StatisticsCourse • Study conducted by William G. Bowen, Matthew Chingos, Tom Nygren, Kelly Lack • Completed spring 2012 • Test of introductory statistics course developed at Carnegie Mellon University  Primarily text-based with cognitive tutors • Hybrid vs. traditional face-to-face class sections
  • 5. Summary of Research Design  Registration and recruitment (not necessarily in that order) • Students register for introductory statistics course • Students recruited to participate in study  Random assignment of participants • Traditional section of statistics course • Hybrid section of statistics course  Baseline measures (beginning of semester) • Student background survey • Score on standardized test of statistical reasoning (CAOS test)  Outcome measures (end of semester) • Completion rate • Pass rate • Score on common final exam questions • Score on CAOS test (second administration of test) • Student satisfaction survey
  • 6. Fall 2011 Study Sizes Traditional Hybrid Total Institution A 45 52 97 Institution B 112 117 229 Institution C 45 47 92 Institution D 7 9 16 Institution E Department 1 16 15 31 Department 2 24 26 50 Institution F 43 47 90 Total 292 313 605
  • 7. Demographics of Study Participants Adjusted Traditional Hybrid Signif.? Diff.Proportion of students who are black 14% 14% 0%Proportion of students who are Hispanic 20% 14% -5%Proportion of females 54% 61% 7% +Proportion of students whose parents’ 49% 50% -2% +income is <$50,000 a yearProportion of students who have at least 49% 47% 2%one parent with a college degreeProportion of full-time students 90% 90% 0%Mean cumulative college GPA 2.63 2.63 -0.01Notes: Adjusted differences (average within-institution differences) control for institutional dummy variables.“Signif.?” indicates whether the result is statistically significant from zero at ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p< 0.10.
  • 8. How Participants Compare with Non-Participants Non- Adjusted Participants participants Signif.? Diff. Proportion of students who are black 14% 13% 0% Proportion of students who are Hispanic 17% 10% 3% * Proportion of females 58% 56% 1% Proportion of full-time students 90% 86% 5% ** Mean age 21.9 21.6 -0.3 Mean cumulative college GPA 2.63 2.24 0.12 * Proportion of students who passed course 78% 81% -5% * Notes: Adjusted differences control for institutional dummy variables. “Signif.?” indicates whether the result is statistically significant from zero at ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p< 0.10.
  • 9. Completion Rates and Pass Rates Completion and Pass Rates (Percentages) 100 90 88% 84% 81% 80 78% 70 60 50 Traditional Hybrid 40 30 20 10 0 Completion Rate Pass Rate (n=605) (n=605) Results depicted control for institution effects and were not significant at p<0.10.
  • 10. Performance on End-of-Semester Assessments Post-Course CAOS Scores and Scores on Common Final Exam Questions (Percentage of Questions Answered Correctly) 100 90 80 70 57% 59% 60 50 47% 48% Traditional 40 Hybrid 30 20 10 0 Post-Course CAOS Score Common Final Exam Questions (n=458) (n=431) Results depicted control for institution effects and were not significant at p<0.10.
  • 11. Results by SubgroupSubgroup Pass Post- Final Rate CAOS ExamBlack/Hispanic 0.02 0.00 -0.00 N=188 N=143 N=131White/Asian 0.05 0.01 0.03 N=406 N=308 N=292Male 0.04 -0.00 -0.00 N=257 N=194 N=173Female 0.05 0.01 0.04 N=348 N=264 N=258First-generation college students 0.01 -0.00 0.02 N=316 N=231 N=258Students who have at least one parent with a college degree 0.07 0.01 0.03 N=289 N=227 N=216Pre-CAOS test low 0.02 0.01 -0.03 N=266 N=215 N=196Pre-CAOS test high -0.02 0.00 0.06+ N=265 N=234 N=222Notes: Significant at +p<0.10. Results depicted control for institution effects.
  • 12. End-of-Semester Student Survey Responses Mean Course Rating and Amount Learned at End of Semester 4.0 About the 3.5 vertical axis: Rating / Amount Learned 3.0 0 = Rated course much worse than 2.5 typical lecture- 2.10 2.10 based course / 1.85 + 1.89 + Learned much 2.0 Traditional less Hybrid 1.5 4 = Rated course much better than typical lecture- 1.0 based course / Learned much 0.5 more 0.0 Overall Rating Amount Learned (n=435) (n=438) Significant at +p<0.10. Results depicted control for institution effects.
  • 13. Takeaways of Empirical Study Students in the hybrid sections had roughly similar learning outcomes to students in traditional-format sections. Our finding of no significant differences is precisely estimated We also calculated results separately for each institution, and for subgroups of students, defined in terms of characteristics like race/ethnicity, gender, parental education, primary language spoken, and GPA. • Results broken down by institution did not reveal any noteworthy patterns. • We did not find any evidence that the hybrid-format effect varied by any subgroup characteristics. Worries that use of online courses may hurt basic student learning outcomes do not appear to be well-founded.
  • 14. Instructor Experience 25 Average Years of College-Level Teaching Experience 20 15 10 5 0 Hybrid Instructors Face-to-face Instructors
  • 15. Instructor Interaction with Students Average Classroom time Attendance Rates Spent Lecturing 100 70 60 80 50 60 40 30 40 20 10 20 0 0 Hybrid Face-to-face Hybrid Face-to-face Instructors Instructors Instructors Instructors
  • 16. Instructors’ Assessment of the Hybrid CourseLong term impact on time spent:• If hybrid course used regularly, 5 out of 10 instructors said much less or somewhat less time would be spent in the long run; only 1 said somewhat more timeEvaluation of online course:• Mixed reviews; most found it acceptable, but all mentioned a few areas of mismatch.• Many instructors believed their students had negative views of the online course.CMU course is a good prototype, but there is room for improvement
  • 17. Next steps • Encourage the development of more high quality, interactive, customizable online learning systems and content • More evidence • Further exploration of the potential for cost savings
  • 18. Along came 2012 Class of MOOCs – MassivelyOpen Online Courses • Massive – some have attracted over 100,000 registrations • Open – freely accessible to anyone with internet connection • Online Courses – • Led by an instructor at an institution • Have a beginning and an end • Have lectures, in-video quizzes, assignments, quizzes and tests • Heavy reliance on peer collaboration, even for grading • Offer certificates, exploring options for accreditation (e.g. testing centers, ACE) Not quite what institutions need, but is there a way to bridge the gap?
  • 19. Testing the Benefits of MOOCs Partnership with the University System of Maryland to test the hypothesis that MOOCs can be used to improve student outcomes and/or reduce costs within a public university system. Research plan:: » 5-7 controlled side-by-side tests » 5-10 case studies Why not randomized? Things are moving too fast!
  • 20. What We Aim to Learn • Can MOOCs be used to improve student outcomes? • What implementation challenges arise, and how can these be overcome? • What models of adoption are there? What are the potential benefits and challenges of each? • What can we learn about cost savings?
  • 21. Other Things We Might Learn • Will MOOCs be adopted like multimedia textbooks? • How can one tell a good MOOC from a bad MOOC? • What are the key differences between MOOC platforms? • Which features of MOOCs work well in a campus environment? Which do not? • What conditions are conducive to success?
  • 22. How Do / Will MOOCs “Make Information Pay”? • Student – instructor – developer feedback loops enable constant improvement of courses • More data and better analytics needed to model student profiles, behavior, experience, knowledge, etc. • Ownership of these data will be a key issue
  • 23. Interactive Online Learning in Public Universities Rebecca Griffiths (
  • 24. Participating Institutions City University of New York • Baruch College • Borough of Manhattan Community College* • City College State University of New York • University of Albany • SUNY-Institute of Technology • Nassau Community College* University of Maryland • Baltimore County • Towson University Montgomery County College, Maryland* * Data from these institutions were analyzed separately and are not included in this presentation. Cautionary note: We cannot assume that the findings presented today for 4-year public institutions necessarily hold for community colleges, nor can we compare outcomes at community colleges with outcomes at 4-year institutions.