• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Acbsp student engagement and satisfaction in online courses
 

Acbsp student engagement and satisfaction in online courses

on

  • 116 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
116
Views on SlideShare
116
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

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
  • As of fall 2013 term
  • Audrey Cohen vision: empowering minority womenMCNY mission: promoting social justiceDescribe the average student: female, 37, mother working, black; experience in the field, coming back to get a degreePCE model: experiential learning centered on a purpose for each term [get Business school purposes for undergrad terms]Cohort model – innately strengthens the power of peer learning
  • Learning through the application of knowledge (Field Component)
  • Notes for the “institutional support” factor: The gains for black colleges are unequal, according to the survey, with public institutions showing far more interest than private institutions. Two-thirds of public black colleges are offering distance programs, compared to only 12 percent of private institutions. In addition, the report found relatively little distance education activity among those black institutions -- which tend to be private -- with the highest graduation rates. Among those institutions, only Hampton University offers a full degree online. In some cases, the public-private gap may relate to institutional mission.Source: Black Colleges Expand Distance Learning Inside Higher Edhttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/01/hbcuExplanation for “ensure support for students” – this is validated in recent publications – “The results show that students have positive attitudes in general to web-enhanced course delivery, especially if they feel they have adequate support available (Cooper, 1999; Junk & Fox, 1998; Kuittinen, 1998).
  • Missing summer 2012

Acbsp student engagement and satisfaction in online courses Acbsp student engagement and satisfaction in online courses Presentation Transcript

  • Evidence of Serving Predominantly Black Minority Students in Online Classes
  • Presented by Dr. Tilokie Depoo, Dean & Professor of Management, Director of E-Learning Ms. Davinder Kaur, Undergraduate Program Coordinator & Adjunct Faculty School for Business, Metropolitan College of New York Presented at ACBSP Region 1 Conference San Juan, Puerto Rico October 9-11, 2013
  • Objectives of Presentation 1. Implementation of DL programs 2. Present findings of student engagement, academic progress and student satisfaction at MCNY, a predominantly minority-serving institution 3. Addressing the digital divide
  • Presentation Outline • School for Business – Unique curricula – Purpose-Centered Education & Constructive Action • Literature Review • Planning and Implementation distance learning (DL) course offerings • Presentation of Research Findings – Satisfaction measured through registrations – Passing and withdrawal rates as indicators of growth – Overall student satisfaction • Results &Conclusions • Q&A
  • School for Business Metropolitan College of New York School for Business Associate of Scien ce Bach elors in Bu sin es s Ad min ist rat ion BBA in Health care System s Man agemen t MBA Gen eral Man agemen t MBA Fin an cial Servic e s MBA Med ia Man agem en t School for Human Services School for Public Affairs & Administration Total Student Enrollment: 1287 (Office of Institutional Research)
  • Metropolitan College of New York o Student Characteristics o Ethnicities o Learning culture o Attitude to technology o Working Adults o Educational Philosophy o Uniqueness of Purpose-Centered Education o Strength of the Cohort Model
  • Student Demographics 3% 4% Race 21% Black Hispanic White Non-resident Alien 72%
  • Purpose-Centered Education & Constructive Action PURPOSE 1 Constructive Action CLASSROOM SKILLS PURPOSE SELF/ OTHERS Self & Others SYSTEMS Systems FIELD COMPONENT Skills Learning through the application of knowledge • Human Biology • Principles of Business • Computer Applications Purpose 2 Values & Ethics • Critical Thinking & Writing Purpose 3 Purpose 4 Constructive Action VALUES/ ETHICS • Developing Career Goals
  • Literature Review Need for DL Offerings • Increased enrollment in colleges of minority students • Rise of online course offerings (Conway, 2013) • Student Needs (Howell, n.d.) – Flexibility & options – Growing population – Growth of minority learners • 30% of students in higher education take at least one course online (Allen, 2010) – Continued and projected growth in online enrollments
  • Literature Review Minority Students in Higher Education • Significant increase of African-American students (Howell, n.d.) • “College enrollments in the fall of 2008 increased at rates not yet seen in the past 40 years, led by growth in community colleges, increased enrollment of minority students and the rise of online classes” (Conway, 2013, pg. 1)
  • Literature Review Minority Students Completion Rates • Focus on disparities in minority populations (Fairlie, 2007) – Digital divide with minority (African-American) students (Conway, 2013) – African American students fared more poorly in online courses (Lederman, 2013) • Not accounted for was quality of the online courses • Conflicting findings show that that every group fared less well in an online environment (Lederman, 2013)
  • DL Implementation • Fully DL Courses – Launched spring 2010 term • Contributing Factors: – Faculty Committee – Course Identification – Course Fit for DL delivery – Transitioning to revised curriculum – Purpose-Centered Education & Consistency
  • Challenges Challenges: – Institutional support – No prior program-level DL courses offered – College perceptions of students skills – Ensure support for students, faculty & staff – Transition to new curriculum and LMS (Moodle)
  • Development Strategy • • • • Consistency across courses Syllabi minimal standards Standardization of course layout Quality Assurance – Quality Matters Rubric Standards
  • Quality Assurance Quality Matters Rubric Standards 2011-2013* – – – – – – – – Course Overview and Introduction Learning Objectives Assessment and Measurement Resources and Materials Learner Engagement Course Technology Learner Support Accessibility *The Quality Matters
  • Research Methods • Analysis of Enrollment Data – Measure satisfaction & growth • Analysis of Passing Rates – Measure academic performance • Feedback Surveys – Measure student satisfaction
  • Three Major Trends 1. Enrollment 2. Passing & Withdrawal Rates 3. Student Satisfaction
  • Analysis of Enrollment Data Spring 2010 – Spring 2013 Sp '10 Su '10 Fa '10 Sp '11 Su '11 Fa '11 Sp '12 Su '12 Fa '12 Sp '13 % Change Registrations 120 217 280 277 254 364 423 458 532 524 337% Unique Student Count 79 128 164 172 159 209 236 250 353 343 334% Dropped Courses 64 45 66 72 43 84 96 80 186 161 152% Unique Dropped Courses 37 29 46 51 32 68 77 62 142 127 243% National trends in Distance Learning •HBCU grad rates=36%, •national average for Afro-Americans =below 45% •Recent report: online and incomplete connection, community colleges
  • Total Enrollment “DIST” Courses Spring 2010 – Summer 2013 Unduplicated Students Linear (Unduplicated Students) 400 353 350 287 300 250 208 200 164 128 150 100 50 0 79 232 187 302 343 286
  • Total Undergraduate Enrollment “DIST” Courses Spring 2010 – Spring 2013 Unduplicated Students Linear (Unduplicated Students) 400 359 350 278 300 250 210 200 151 150 100 50 0 86 163 158 153 256 344
  • Total Graduate Enrollment “DIST” Courses Spring 2010 – Spring 2013 Unduplicated Students Linear (Unduplicated Students) 250 202 200 154 150 117 100 50 0 66 34 119 101 173 145 180
  • Enrollment “DIST” Courses Spring 2010 - Spring 2013 600 500 400 Registrations 300 200 Unduplicated Student Count 100 Dropped Courses 0 Unduplicated Spring 2010 Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Summer 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Registrations 120 217 280 316 278 367 460 532 524 Unduplicated Student Count 79 128 164 208 187 232 287 353 343
  • Total Undergrad Enrollment “DIST” Courses Spring 2011-Spring 2013 344 350 300 278 250 218 200 158 151 150 92 86 100 51 55 50 50 30 58 34 79 44 Registrations 60 Unduplicated Student Count Dropped Courses Unduplicated 0 Spring 2010 Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2010 Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Registrations 86 158 278 344 Unduplicated Student Count 51 92 151 218 Dropped Courses 55 50 58 79 Unduplicated 30 34 44 60
  • Total Graduate Enrollment “DIST” Courses Spring 2011 – Spring 2013 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 180 145 125 119 85 80 34 28 67 38 33 22 17 9 7 82 Registrations Unduplicated Student Count Dropped Courses Spring 2010 Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2010 Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Registrations 34 119 145 180 Unduplicated Student Count 28 80 85 125 Dropped Courses 9 22 38 82 Unduplicated 7 17 33 67 Unduplicated
  • Overall Passing Rates: 2010 – 2011 (fall) 75.2% 80.0% 70.0% 75.1% 63.6% 62.0% 57.7% 60.0% 53.0% 50.0% 2010 40.0% 2011 30.0% 2012 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2010 Distance Courses 53.0% Onsite Courses 57.7% 2011 62.0% 63.6% 2012 75.2% 75.1%
  • Overall Passing Rates: Same Online & Onsite Courses 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2010 2011 2012 80.0% 74.4% 73.0% 54.1% 56.1% 60.8% 61.5% 58.2% 83.8% 57.4% 45.9% 35.2% 2010 2011 2012 Distance Undergrad 45.9% 54.1% 56.1% Onsite Undegrad 58.2% 60.8% 61.5% Distance Grad 73.0% 35.2% 57.4% Onsite Grad 80.0% 74.4% 83.8%
  • Average Passing Rates: Undergraduate and Graduate Courses 2010 – 2012 (Fall) 84.6% 100.0% 80.0% 65.5% 63.4% 56.3% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Onsite Distance Undergraduate 65.5% 63.4% Graduate 56.3% 84.6% Onsite Distance
  • Passing Rates: Fall 2010 vs. Fall 2012 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Fall 2012 Fall 2011 Fall 2010 19% 18% 14% 15% 13% 14% Fall 2012 Fall 2011 Fall 2010 Distance 19% 18% 14% Onsite 15% 13% 14%
  • Overall Withdrawal Rates: Same Online & Onsite Courses 35.0% 31.4% 30.0% 25.0% 25.9% 22.5% 20.1% 20.0% 19.2% 20.8% 20.0% 19.4% 20.8% 16.3% 15.0% 12.2% 2010 8.8% 10.0% 2011 5.0% 2012 0.0% 2010 2011 2012 Distance Undergrad 22.5% 20.1% 19.2% Onsite Undegrad 25.9% 20.8% 19.4% Distance Grad 12.2% 8.8% 31.4% Onsite Grad 20.0% 20.8% 16.3%
  • Student Satisfaction by Semester Spring 2010 –Fall 2012 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.65 3.52 3.48 3.5 3.70 3.48 3.49 3.44 3.13 3.0 3.26 2.95 3.13 3.06 3.35 3.21 3.25 3.06 2.86 2.69 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Spr 2010 Sum 2010 Fall 2010 Spr 2011 Sum 2011 Fall 2011 Spr 2012 Sum 2012 Did the course meet your expectations of a Distance Learning course? How did this course comapre to other similar courses you have taken in traditional classroom settings? Fall 2012
  • Results Enrollment in DL Courses 1. 2. 3. Steady increase in national trend Continued and project overall growth of minority learners online Consistent with Conway, 2013 Passing Rates (DL versus Onsite) 1. 2. Relatively even when compared to onsite courses Inconsistent with findings suggesting Black student’s grades falling significantly more in online courses (Lederman, 2013) Withdrawal Rates (DL versus Onsite) 1. 2. No significant deviation between DL and onsite courses Lower withdrawal rates for quantitative courses vs. non-quantitative courses Overall Student Satisfaction 1. 2. Relatively positive As indicated by expectations and comparison to onsite courses
  • Conclusions 1. Minority students are receptive and adaptive to online (DL) courses 2. There is no significant differences in withdrawal rates (onsite vs. online courses) 3. Students are performing similar to onsite courses (passing rates) 4. Students are satisfied with DL courses
  • References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: online education in the united states, 2010. Conway, K., Wladis, C., & Hachey, A. (2013). Minority student access in the online environment. (Master's thesis, Borough of Manhattan Community College)Retrieved from http://www.hets.org/journal/articles/68-minoritystudent-access-in-the-online-environment Fairlie, R. (2007, Octorber 24). Explaining differences in access to home computers and the internet: A comparison of latino groups to other ethnic and racial groups. Retrieved from http://people.ucsc.edu/~rfairlie/papers/published/ecr 2007 latino technology.pdf Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. K. (n.d.). Thirty-two trends affecting distance education: an informed foundation for strategic planning. Lederman, D. (2013, February 25). Study finds some groups fare worse than others in online courses. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com
  • Thank You Dr. Depoo: tdepoo@mcny.edu Ms. Kaur: dkaur@mcny.edu QUESTIONS?