• Save
Research on Technology Integration
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Research on Technology Integration

on

  • 607 views

From 2011 EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) Annual Conference on research conducted about UTK instructional technology research support program - Project RITE.

From 2011 EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) Annual Conference on research conducted about UTK instructional technology research support program - Project RITE.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
607
Views on SlideShare
606
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.visualcv.com 1

Accessibility

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

    Research on Technology Integration Research on Technology Integration Presentation Transcript

    • Faculty Research on Technology Integration: Strengthening Studies and Improving Institutional Support  Jean Derco (jderco@utk.edu), Executive Director, OIT Support Organization Trena Paulus (tpaulus@utk.edu), Associate Professor, Educational Psychology & Counseling Gina Phipps (gphipps@utk.edu), Manager of Instructional Development & Training and Interim Associate CIO, OIT John Harrison, Assistant Professor & NCATE Coordinator, Carter & Moyers School of Education, Lincoln Memorial University Copyright Jean Derco, Trena Paulus, & Gina Phipps 2010. This work is the intellectual property of the author. 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.
    • Does your institution/department consider use of instructional technology in the Promotion and Tenure (P&T) process?
      • Yes
      • No
      • I don’t know
      Introduction
    • Introduction
      • Yes
      • No
      • I don’t know
      Do you have a program at your institution that encourages faculty to conduct research specifically on instructional technology?
    • History
      • 5 year funding from Chancellor.
      • 2002- 2005 focused on funding development of learning objects.
      • In 2006, interviewed Department Heads about instructional technology use and the P&T process.
      • 32 interviews conducted.
    • Interview Outcomes
      • No department had a formalized process in place for including IT in the P&T review.
        • Only one department had considered the IT use of one faculty member as part of his P&T review.
      • All departments had faculty who were using IT or were increasingly using IT.
        • IT in teaching was generally looked upon favorably or as inevitable.
    • Interview Outcomes
      • Most departments EXPECT technology use among faculty, in teaching, communications and research.
      • LEVEL of technology use would dictate the level of importance in the P&T process.
      • IT use that promotes a RESEARCH agenda would have more importance and weight in the P&T process
    • New Direction
      • In 2006, we transitioned from funding learning objects development to funding instructional technology research.
      • Project RITE – R esearch in I nstructional T echnology & E ducation.
      • To review abstracts and project reports:
      • http://edtech.tennessee.edu/rite
    • New Direction
      • 2006 – present, 32 research projects have been funded with 2.5-5K each.
      • 2006 funded from “5-year funding.”
      • Subsequent years funded from OIT budget.
    • A Sample of Funded Studies
      • 4 purposes represented:
        • Tool/Instrument Development
        • Characteristics
        • Media Comparison
        • Strategy Implementation
    • Tool/Instrument Development
      • Evaluating Instructional Media for CS 100 (2006) Michael W. Berry & Murray Browne, Department of Computer Science, UT Knoxville Sarah Lowe, Graphic Design, School of Art, UT Knoxville
      • Testing the Efficacy of DAWG, a Suite of Online Active-Learning Modules for Enhancing Student Learning of Statistical Analysis (2007) Arnold Saxton, Animal Sciences, UT Knoxville Robert Auge, John Cummins, Plant Sciences, UT Knoxville
    • Characteristics
      • An Assessment of Factors Affecting Dropout of Students Enrolled in the University of Tennessee Online New College Bachelor's Degree Program (2006) Jeff Hoyer, Department of Communications, UT Martin
      • Teacher Concerns toward the Use of Technology in the Classroom as Predictors of Instructional Practices (2007) Glenda Rakes, Department of Educational Studies, UT Martin
      • Teacher Beliefs as Predictors of Concerns Regarding the Effect of Instructional Technology on Students (2008) Glenda Rakes, Department of Educational Studies, UT Martin
    • Media Comparison
      • The Impact of Traditional, Performance-Based and Online, Learner-Based Assessments on Student Learning (2007) Katherine Greenberg, Educational Psychology & Counseling, UT Knoxville
      • Using Podcasts to Replace Lecture (2010)
      • Blanche O’Bannon, Associate Professor, Theory & Practice in Teacher Education, UT Knoxville
      • Didactic Versus Interactive Teaching (2010)
      • Peggy Davis, Assistant Professor, Nursing, UT Martin
    • Strategy Implementation
      • Handheld Technology and Cooperative Learning (2006) Tami Wyatt, College of Nursing, UT Knoxville
      • Learning Beyond the Classroom: Blogging for Reflection, Retention, and Application of Learning Concepts (2007) Trena Paulus, Educational Psychology & Counseling, UT Knoxville Lisa Jahns, Nutrition, UT Knoxville
      • Engaging Students in a True Intercultural Dialogue: Network-based Discourse Communities and Culture Learning in the FL Classroom (2007) Sebastien Dubreil, Modern Foreign Languages & Literatures, UT Knoxville
      • Utilizing the Communicative and Generative Qualities of Video-Narrative in the Development of Early Childhood Preservice Teacher Inquiry (2008) Mary Jane Moran, Child & Family Studies, UT Knoxville
    • Strategy Implementation
      • The Effects of Virtual Classroom Learning Environments on Middle Grades Mathematics Teachers' Instructional Practices (2008) JoAnn Cady, Theory & Practice in Teacher Education, UT Knoxville
      • Angling for Language Acquisition with TACLE: Leveraging Second Life to Create a Technology-Assisted Constructivist Language Environment for Spanish 111/112 (2008) Dolly Young, Doug Canfield, Modern Foreign Languages & Literatures, UT Knoxville
      • Geospatial Informational Technologies & Preservice Science Teachers (2010)
      • Rita Hagevik, Assistant Professor, Theory & Practice in Teacher Education, UT Knoxville
      • Using Technology to Manage Speech Anxiety (2010)
      • Suzy Prentiss, Lecturer, Communication Studies, UT Knoxville
      • Rationale for study:
      • Non-completion of online degrees as high as 50%
      • Factors reported as effecting completion: environment, design, technology, and learner motivation
      • Wanted to determine factors influencing those who dropped out of online courses offered at University of Tennessee, Martin
      An Assessment of Factors Affecting Dropout of Students Enrolled in the University of Tennessee Online New College Bachelor's Degree Program (2006) Jeff Hoyer, Department of Communications, UT Martin
      • Methodology:
      • N=78
      • Email survey
      • 55% response rate
      An Assessment of Factors Affecting Dropout of Students Enrolled in the University of Tennessee Online New College Bachelor's Degree Program (2006) Jeff Hoyer, Department of Communications, UT Martin
      • Results:
      • Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test revealed significance at
      • the .05 value for the following factors:
      • Home demands
      • Work demands
      • Not being able to schedule enough time to take the course
      • Before taking an online course I was apprehensive about taking online courses
      • The course failed to encourage my interest in the way it was designed
      An Assessment of Factors Affecting Dropout of Students Enrolled in the University of Tennessee Online New College Bachelor's Degree Program (2006) Jeff Hoyer, Department of Communications, UT Martin
      • Significance:
      • Most of the significant factors were motivational
      • Needed to consider how design and facilitation of the course can contribute to motivation
      An Assessment of Factors Affecting Dropout of Students Enrolled in the University of Tennessee Online New College Bachelor's Degree Program (2006) Jeff Hoyer, Department of Communications, UT Martin
    • The Impact of Traditional, Performance-Based and Online, Learner-Based Assessments on Student Learning (2007) Katherine Greenberg, Educational Psychology & Counseling, UT Knoxville
      • Study compared in-class VS online exams:
      • In-class: 1 hour, 15 min time frame, no access to course materials
      • Online: In Blackboard
        • unlimited attempts over 1 week
        • Feedback only indicated if response was correct or incorrect
        • Could use course materials
      • Methodology:
      • Six class sections randomly assigned to three exam groups
      • 3 exams and a final exam
      • Exams: each group had one in-class exam and two online exams, rotated between exams
      • Final exam was in-class for everyone
      The Impact of Traditional, Performance-Based and Online, Learner-Based Assessments on Student Learning (2007) Katherine Greenberg, Educational Psychology & Counseling, UT Knoxville
      • Quantitative Results:
      • No significant difference between methods
      • However…
      The Impact of Traditional, Performance-Based and Online, Learner-Based Assessments on Student Learning (2007) Katherine Greenberg, Educational Psychology & Counseling, UT Knoxville
      • In-Class Exams
      • Theme 1: It’s just like any other normal test
      • Theme 2: I had no idea what to expect
      • Theme 3: I knew it to where I could do it. It’s more thinking involved/Didn’t matter if I understood
      • Online Exams
      • Theme 1: It let me focus on learning
        • It took the pressure off
        • I had control over the score
      • Theme 2: It just depends on how you look at it: Go back and Re-search/Just take it and get it over with
      The Impact of Traditional, Performance-Based and Online, Learner-Based Assessments on Student Learning (2007) Katherine Greenberg, Educational Psychology & Counseling, UT Knoxville Qualitative Results:
      • Instructors’ Perceptions:
      • Performance-based assessments damaged relationships with students. Teaching methods changed [to prep students for the in-class test]. Traditional lecture occurred more and there was less time for experiential activities and real-world tasks.
      The Impact of Traditional, Performance-Based and Online, Learner-Based Assessments on Student Learning (2007) Katherine Greenberg, Educational Psychology & Counseling, UT Knoxville
      • Significance of findings:
      • “ Offering assessments with which students can actively engage, gain feedback, ask questions about, and feel genuine competence toward, can help students move out of the stands and onto the playing field.”
      The Impact of Traditional, Performance-Based and Online, Learner-Based Assessments on Student Learning (2007) Katherine Greenberg, Educational Psychology & Counseling, UT Knoxville
      • Research question:
      • Does the use of m-learning technology and techniques using a cooperative learning model enhance the didactic and clinical learning of nurse practitioner students?
      Handheld Technology and Cooperative Learning (2006) Tami Wyatt, College of Nursing, UT Knoxville
      • Methodology:
      • Pre and post surveys/post class focus group
      • Students were given PDAs loaded with a variety of clinical applications
      • PDAs incorporated into classroom learning experiences, to complete case studies, sharing with one another
      Handheld Technology and Cooperative Learning (2006) Tami Wyatt, College of Nursing, UT Knoxville
      • Results:
      • All students used their PDA either daily or 3 times a week
      • Two clinical applications were preferred
      • No changes in pre/post survey regarding perceptions of the PDA’s usefulness
      • All students valued the ability to share
      • Suggested integrating more treatment discussion in the case studies while using PDA resources
      • Include practice and guided instruction in the classroom on use of PDA to identify technical issues that might occur later
      Handheld Technology and Cooperative Learning (2006) Tami Wyatt, College of Nursing, UT Knoxville
    • Handheld Technology and Cooperative Learning (2006) Tami Wyatt, College of Nursing, UT Knoxville
      • Findings
      • All students believed the PDA as a learning and clinical tool should be part of the graduate program
      • All students perceived that cooperative learning was a positive aspect of their course experience
    • This Study
      • Interest in how to better support faculty in the design of Project RITE research proposals
      • OIT faculty fellow project (2009-2010)
      • Findings can inform future calls for proposals
    • Research Questions
      • What are the characteristics of studies being proposed?
      • What support do faculty have/need to more effectively conduct research?
    • Methods
      • Content analysis of 60 proposals submitted from 2006-2010 (Cohen’s kappas calculated for reliability)
      • In-house 16 item questionnaire sent to 71 people who had submitted proposals (23 responded, all but one had been funded)
    • Content analysis results
    • Disciplinary affiliation
      • 68% came from outside of education
      • 32% Education
      • 27% Humanities/social sciences/social work
      • 12% Business/computer science
      • 12% Health sciences
      • 8% Agricultural sciences
      • 5% Communications
      • 4% Math/natural sciences
    • Collaboration
      • 65% of proposals were submitted by individuals
      • 35% were collaborative
      • 25% within the same department
      • 10% across departments
    • Literature review
      • 43% of the proposals cited the literature
      • 32% did not acknowledge any literature at all
      • 25% acknowledged literature but did not cite it
    • Classroom contexts
      • 55% proposed studies outside of the classroom
        • Recruited students as participants
        • Instrument development, survey studies
    • Distance education
      • 33% of proposals were to study issues related to distance education
        • Blended or online learning components
        • DE initiatives at our institution
    • Media comparison
      • 43% were to study a strategy implementation
      • 22% were designed as media comparison
      • 20% examined learner/instructor characteristics
      • 15% were tool/instrument development
    • Research design
      • 53% quantative
      • 30% mixed methods
      • 12% qualitative
      • 5% development/evaluation/action research
    • Measurable outcomes
      • 60% performance outcomes
      • 33% satisfaction outcomes
      • 5% both
      • 2% neither
    • What would you do?
      • Based on these findings, what changes might you make to the request for proposals for the Project RITE grant?
    • Advice from session attendees:
      • Ask for impacts in discipline
      • Conduct training for faculty in educational research and/or make connections to those who know how to do it, i.e. College of Ed.
      • Expect peer-reviewed journal articles
      • Require lit review
      • Revise language of CFP – “what will you do that can make a change in teaching/learning practices?”
      • Perhaps too much focus on tools in the overview – align with institutional goals, focus on learning process/outcomes
      • Call for pre-proposal, meet w/ed tech specialist, librarian, educational researcher to revise
      • Figure out ways to involve students?
    • Our plans
      • Require literature review
      • Provide incentive for collaboration
      • Pair faculty/mentors (IT CoP)
      • Encourage design-based research
      • Encourage match with institutional goals in terms of classroom change/distance education growth, etc.
    • Questionnaire results
      • Out of 23 responses (all but one were funded)
    • Resources/support
      • Research and technology workshops (10)
      • Facilities (6)
      • Colleagues at UT and elsewhere (3)
      • Funds (3)
    • Barriers/challenges
      • Research and technology resources (varies by campus) (9)
      • Time (5)
      • Access to participants/IRB process (4)
      • Knowledge of the IT field/mentoring (4)
    • Research outcomes
      • Presentations (19)
      • Publications (9)
      • Planned publications/presentations/grant submissions (13)
      • External grant submission (1)
    • Practical outcomes
      • Changes in teaching/curriculum/testing (13)
      • Online course/material development (4)
      • Research outcomes (4)
      • Student learning outcomes (2)
    • Next steps
      • Additional studies on technology (13)
      • Studies related to social media (7)
      • Online teaching focus (2)
      • Teacher/student concerns/uses (2)