Educause2007 Presentation

Learning technology in the future: Connecting today’s innovations to institutional priorities and challenges Patricia A. McGee, PhD Veronica M. Diaz, PhD Associate Professor/2003 NLII Fellow Instructional Technology Manager Instructional Technology Adjunct Faculty Department of Counseling, Education Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction Psychology, and Adult and Higher Education Maricopa Community Colleges University of Texas at San Antonio

Seminar Overview • Higher education’s goals and challenges • Technology adoption and diffusion assessment models • The technology and the strategy • Experimentation to institutionalization to long-term maintenance

What we are talking about • Institutional challenges • Teaching and learning • Today and tomorrow • Innovative practices and models that address the challenges

Who we are: Roles Roles Attendees CIO/VP 2 Managers and Coordinators 9 Directors 14 Support Staff 3 Specialists and Consultants 4 4-year institutions 26 2-year institutions 7

Who we are: Areas Areas Attendees Information Technology 10 Academic Technology 19 Library 3 Faculty Member 1

Challenges, Mission, and Goals PART ONE

Grand Challenges and Information/Learning Technology • Access – Retention • Accountability • Assessment • Productivity

Status Quo + Challenges = ? access How can we provide increased access to education? When and how are resources and services available? accountability How can we demonstrate what is or is not working? How do we meet growing demands with limited resources? assessment How do we know what is or is not working? How are the strategies and tools that we’ve selected and implemented working? How do we measure success? retention How can we retain students, especially under‐prepared students? How do we provide readily accessible services to students that encourage retention?

Teaching and 1. Establishing a culture of evidence Learning Technology: 2. Demonstrating improved learning Top 10 Issues 3. Translating research into practice 4. Selecting models and strategies for eLearning 5. Providing tools to meet student expectations 6. Providing support and professional development for new audiences 7. Sharing content, applications, and application development 8. Protecting institutional data 9. Addressing emerging ethical challenges 10. Understanding an evolving role

Institutional Type and Priorities Type Focus Grand Challenge Priority Doctoral New knowledge through research Masters Instruction Professional Skills Abilities Baccalaureate Instruction Professional Foundations Associate Instruction Vocational

Activity: Evidence of Challenge Your institution: – Consider institutional roles at your institution and – What are your grand challenges

Planning for Teaching and Learning with Technology • Macro: developing national curriculum, specifying qualification standards = societal or system • Meso: designing an educational program or a course on institutional level = campus • Micro: preparing course materials, designing learning environment = classroom

Case: Changing Mission What are the implications of shifting missions for teaching and learning with technology?

Activity: Goal(s) • Who has been consulted/involved in goal-setting or vision- making? • How do stakeholders or constituencies see the goals?

Activity: Relationship to Mission • How do the goals relate to the mission?

Transformative Assessment Process • Darren Cambridge, George Mason University (dcambrid@gmu.edu) • Steve Ehrmann, Flashlight Program/TLT Group (ehrmann@tltgroup.org) Product of several years • Gary Brown, Washington State University of work via the National (browng@wsu.edu) Learning Infrastructure • Joan Lippincott, CNI (joan@cni.org) Initiative (NLII) currently • the EDUCAUSE Patricia McGee, University of Texas at San Antonio (patricia.mcgee@utsa.edu) Learning Initiative (ELI). • Vicki Suter, Pepperdine University, (vsuter@gmail.com) • Robin Zuniga, TLT Group (zuniga@tltgroup.org)

Transformative Assessment Process (TAP) • Identify stakeholders/constituents • Articulation of shared views about – how students learn best, – mission and goals, – relationships among learning, teaching, curriculum, technology use, and assessment • Matrix of connections • Institutional inventory • Revisit mission/vision • Create culture of evidence

Where are you? Apply TAP to a recent • project How many and which areas • have you completed What are your plans to • complete the rest (if anything)

Academic analytics and learning technology strategic planning • Enrollment predictive modeling at Baylor U • Predicting/improving retention at Alabama U • Student success and early alert at Sinclair CC • Resource utilization, risk and outcomes at Northern Arizona U • Course Management Systems and at-risk students at Purdue U

Enrollment Predictive Modeling: Baylor University • Variables from inquiry Variables stage forward • Attendance at premier event • Campus visit • Top 75% are sent • Extracurricular interest expensive recruitment • Interest response via mail-in materials • High school attended • Bottom 25% are sent a • SAT score reply card and application • Number of self-initiated contacts • Fall 2005: 15,000 • Telecounselor score • Fall 2006: 26,000

Course Management Systems and At-Risk Students: Purdue University • Student success is based on – Student’s aptitude via Variables standardized test scores • ACT or SAT score – Student’s effort via CMS • Overall GPA • Freshman model • CMS usage composite correctly classifies 80% • CMS assessment composite • All student model • CMS assignment composite • CMS calendar composite correctly classifies 67%

Analysis Framework 1. What is the goal? 2. Where are we now? 3. Where are we going? 4. What is the difference? 5. What are our S-W-O-T-Ts? 6. People, Data, Things (PDT)?

The Process Is GAP working? everthing we are What do An IDEA We SWOTT TAPAn changing know? answer

Scenario Goal: Using Course Management System Data to Identify At- Risk Students People: Faculty, learner, data base managers, institutional researchers, educational researchers, programmers, student services, retention specialists. Units such as enrollment management, institutional research, IT, registrar, academic divisions, student affairs. Data: Enrollment, attrition, course management data. Things: Servers, accounts, software.

Activity: Scenario at your Institution • SWOTT • GAP Analysis – – Start with the status quo Strengths – – Determine intended Weaknesses outcomes – Opportunities – Compare the two and – Threats determine the difference – Trends

Technology Adoption/Diffusion Assessment Models PART TWO

Who are your students? • Demographics • Discipline-driven needs • Ownership of, use of, skill with information/learning technology • Information technology in courses • Information technology and the academic experience

ECAR 2007: About the Survey • Freshmen & Seniors at 103 institutions (4-year & CCs) • N: 28,000 • Focus groups & open-ended questions • Findings are instructive/indicative, NOT conclusive • Data is self-reported (student perceptions and impressions)

Student Tech Ownership: 05-07 Source: ECAR 2007

Change in Tech Use: 05-07 Source: ECAR 2007

Students’ IT Learning Preferences Source: ECAR 2007

Course Management Systems Top 9 Useful CMS Tools Top 9 CMS Tools Used 1. Online syllabus (3) 1. Grade tracking 2. Online readings (5) 2. Online access to sample exams/quizzes 3. Grade tracking (1) 3. Online syllabus 4. Online access to sample exams/quizzes (2) 4. Turning in assignments 5. Turning in assignments (4) 5. Online readings 6. Online discussion boards (9) 6. Taking exams/quizzes 7. Taking exams/quizzes (6) 7. Getting assignments back online 8. Getting assignments back online (7) 8. Online sharing of materials 9. Online sharing of materials (8) 9. Online discussion boards

Learners Today Benefits of IT On The Rise • 73.7% own a laptop and 64% own • Better research for courses one that is less than 1 year old • More prompt feedback from • 83% use CMSs (up 13% from 2005) instructors • 82.5% prefer to use • Better control of course college/university email as activities communication method • Communication with • 12% own a Smartphone classmates • 11.9% own a PDA • Improves learning • 59.3% prefer a moderate amount of • More engaged in courses IT in courses requiring use of IT • Only 25% of laptop owners bring them to class

Your Learners: Then and Now 1990s 2000s Digital divide is pronounced, across “Net Generation” learner emerges, ethnicity and SES some are still part of digital divide Some have a PC, but it’s a desktop Most have a PC, but it’s a laptop Most have mobile phones Most have multiple information and communication technology tools Prevalent use of email Incessant use of email, instant message, text message, etc. Single function technologies Multi‐function technologies (phone, camera, video, music player) (music + video + phone + camera) Sporadic, limited access to Internet Ubiquitous access to Internet

Your Learners: Then and Now 1990s 2000s Are not used to pervasive Prefer moderate use of technology technology in class in class Some use CMS for learning, but are Most use CMS for learning, but faculty‐created web pages they are enterprise‐level systems Gender differences for technology Gender differences for technology preferences are suspected preferences relate to ownership, and skills with and preference for specific technology Primarily one mode of instructional A diversity of delivery modes delivery: F2F emerge Expect face‐to‐face interaction Rely on electronic communication with instructor with instructor Assignments primarily non‐digital Assignments primarily digital

College 2.0? • What are some characteristics of your students? – Demographics – Discipline needs – Own, use, skill with technology • In what ways will your use of learning and information technology serve to address your grand challenges – How much IT in courses – IT in the academic experience

Supporting the Learner • Explore the assumptions • Consider diversity of support • Keep in mind the student consumer

Pressure on Faculty to Adapt • New technologies turn the faculty into novices • Students’ writing skills are declining • Balance “social” learning with cheating concerns • Technology has added a layer of “policing” • New learning environment is rich in and out of classroom

Pressure on Faculty to Adapt • Increasingly visual environment leads to avoidance of reading assignments and lengthy test questions • Technology has expanded faculty work life • Intellectual property issues • Faculty perception of technology is different from that of students • Technology has increased the faculty’s dependency on others

Student Recommendations for Faculty Members 1. Develop instructors’ technology skill sets 2. Train instructors on how and when to effectively integrate technology and pedagogy 3. Increase instructor awareness of how their students differ: technology savvy, access to technology resources, and how to factor that into instruction 4. Improve the speed, reliability, and support of the institution’s network and academic applications, especially CMSs

Your Faculty: Then and Now 1990s 2000s Email with students is an option Email with students is and rarely used as a means of commonplace and is often used as communication, by instructors and an official means of communication institutions. by institutions. Some faculty members use course Many, if not most, faculty members websites to distribute information, use an online course management many are home-made. systems to manage their courses. Most universities do not provide Most universities provide resources resources that can be accessed accessible off campus. remotely via the Internet. Most faculty members do not have Most faculty members have home home Internet service and use Internet service and mobile their office phone only. phones.

Your Faculty: Then and Now 1990s 2000s Few universities offer or require Most universities offer email accounts student email accounts. and require that students use them for university-related purposes. Few, if any, classrooms have Internet Most classrooms have Internet access access. and many campuses have wireless throughout. Few classrooms have computers with About one-half of classrooms have projectors, but most have overhead computers with projectors. projectors. Some universities provide technical Most universities provide faculty support to both students and faculty member support for technology, members. hardware, software and instruction. Few students use or own their own Many students use and own their own technology, e.g. PDAs, computers, etc. technology, e.g. PDAs, computers, iPods, cell phones, etc.

Support of faculty members • Exploring the assumptions • Collecting data • 4 models of support

Professor I Love Data • Seeks evidence • Looks at what others have done as a model of success • Knows everything • Delivers instruction • Focuses on research Supported By: • Rewards and acknowledgements • Opportunity to investigate • Just-in-need support

Lecturer I’m Not Sure • Prefers to model • Enjoys collaborating • Works independently • Integrates lesson-by-lesson • Focus on teaching Supported by: • Hands-on • Reference materials • Make and take • Activity- based workshops

Professor I Love Technology • Always has the latest technology • Impatient for change • Expert in many things • Does not want input • Well organized • Doesn’t necessarily require participation of students • Focus on service Supported by: • Tutorials • Self-reference, self-serve materials • Rewards that provide for tools or higher learning

Lecturer Old School • Late adopter • Influenced by peers, often in department • Low awareness of technology Supported By: • Many incentives (monetary and support) • Hands-on and one-on-one support/training • Recognition (admin, peer, student)

Teaching and Learning with Technology Checklist • Take a moment to complete checklist • Tell us where the faculty are • What adoption model/strategy might you use that addresses your learner and faculty?

Delivery, Pedagogy and Assessment PART THREE

Change occurs more readily when it is embedded in Beliefs • Values • Traditions*

Teaching and Learning with Technology: The Big Picture • How are we using distributed technology to support teaching and learning? • How does your support result in the outcomes you intend? • How does this priority determine selection of tools for teaching and learning?

Course Delivery Models • Distributed Engagement (Emporium and Buffet) • Web-Enhanced • Blended/Hybrid • 100% Online

Distributed Engagement • Allows the learner to complete instructional sequences at their own pace • Various learning environments • Various supports • On-campus and distributed environments • Allows students to progress through material in the way and speed that is most appropriate for them

Foothill College: Math My Way • Hands-on • Self-paced • Math learning modules • Patient, caring instruction with a group of students who have similar math skill levels • Small groups and one-on-one • Computer and paper drills • Computer games • Pass/No Pass • Complete in 1 quarter what originally took 2 quarters • http://www.foothill.edu/psme/index.php

Web-Enhanced • Classroom courses that include between- class meeting activities using learning systems or other information and computer technologies

University of Texas, Brownsville • Campus web-enhanced project • Template-driven course structure • Online activities were mapped to classroom • Online activities were used in class meetings

Blended/Hybrid • Blended learning courses combine online and classroom learning activities and resources in an optimal way to improve student learning outcomes and to address important institutional issues • Classroom attendance (“seat time”) is reduced

Estrella Mountain Community College EMCC Strategic Sloan-C Learning College Priorities and quot;The Five Pillarsquot; Themes Direction Maximizing Access Access Technology Creating Dynamic Learning Effectiveness Learning Outcomes Learning Environments Student satisfaction Underprepared Students Recruiting and Retaining Faculty satisfaction Staff Recruitment & Quality and Diverse Development Employees Resources for Growth Cost effectiveness and Institutional Commitment Maximizing Collaboration Organizational Culture Developing Strong Identity

100% Online All course activities, resources, interactions, and communications occur online, typically through an institutional learning/course management system

100% Online Courses Rio Salado College

Model Selection Considerations • Institutional perspective • Support systems • Pedagogy • Discipline • Faculty members • Learners • Technology (security, servers, access)

Models and You • How do these delivery models relate to the grand challenges you’ve identified? • What models have you used and why? – Do these address your grand challenges and mission? • What is the process by which you consider reviewing, and re-deployment of ‘old’ courses?

Adding value by: • Providing a rich and varied set of evidence of learner progress • Tracking attendance and participation of learner • Shifting seat time to engaged time

The Tools Impact of Deep Personalization – Connectivism – Mobility – Transferability – Individualism – Reuse

Challenges and Choices? Access What technologies increase access? Accountability What technologies can document student progress? Assessment What strategies can capture successful applications? Retention What technologies make life easier, better, more satisfying?

Pedagogical Functions of Tools Consider: • Both what faculty and learner will be expected to Pedagogy + Web 2.0 do • The skills, abilities, and knowledge of learners and instructors in different disciplines at different levels of study • Allowances for each to use the way they need/want

Technology Teaching and Learning Continuum • Pedagogical Objective • Demonstrated Skills of the Learner • Possible Instructional Technology Uses • Instructor Expertise Required • Level of Learner • Engagement

Where does adoption and acceptance reside? • Student ownership of technology • Gender differences • Undergraduate vs. graduate • Alignment with K-12 • Multiple delivery formats • Just-in-time, low investment information and supports

Assessment and Evaluation Assessment Evaluation • Characterizes the value • Makes a judgment about and appraisal of the the value of instructional individual; experiences and designs; • Well institutionalized, • Less documented across • May not always be programs colleges, accurate about learner institutions achievement

Alignment of Assessment & Evaluation Assessment Evaluation Experience Success Individual Performance Satisfaction Course Outcomes Learner Learning Collective learning enrollment, demand, fit Instructor Evaluation Transfer Other Courses Other Assessments Pass Course/ Merit Results Graduate/Promotion Program Quality Graduation Rates Attrition Rates

Experimentation to Institutionalization PART FOUR

Models: Common Characteristics Stages Characteristics • Data collection throughout 1. Experimentation • Communication with 2. Extension and transition campus community 3. Standardization of support • Innovative culture 4. Integration into curriculum • Strong connection to 5. Diffusion curriculum and disciplines • Robust support for the faculty and students

Duke University: iPod Project Challenges Addressed • Retention – Applied research – Leaner engagement • Accountability – System data capture • Accessibility – Flexibility in learning processes

University of Central Florida: Blended Learning Challenges Addressed • Accessibility – Learner engagement – Support for learner and instructor • Accountability – Tracking of progress and satisfaction

Texas State University: Sakai Challenges Addressed • Accountability – Potential of data capture • Accessibility – Expanded access to l earning resources – Increased choices for faculty and students – Well articulated supports for learner and instructor

Future-Proofing Teaching and Learning with Technology • Re-visit, re-vise, re-vision • What will change in the next 10 years? • What will change in next five years? • What will change tomorrow? • How long will your goal be viable/relevant?

The Homeland Generation • New wave of ultra-protection of children • The last generation in the Millennial cycle • Unlike their quot;Civicquot; Millennial predecessors who have adult (and government and institutional) eyes and attention on them all the time, Homeland kids are protected by their conforming, not sticking up, not drawing attention to themselves • Survival of the family

Contact Information Patricia A. McGee, PhD patricia.mcgee@utsa.edu Veronica M. Diaz, PhD veronica.diaz@domail.maricopa.edu Copyright Veronica Diaz & Patricia McGee, 2007. This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

Educause2007 Presentation

by Veronica on Oct 21, 2007

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 13

Statistics

Educause2007 Presentation — Presentation Transcript