Effectiveness of an Online Summer course Programme

  • 804 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education , Technology
  • 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

Views

Total Views
804
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Effectiveness of an Online Summer course Programme 13th Edineb Congress Thursday 15th of June 2005, Lisbon, 9.00-10.30 http://www.web-spijkeren.nl Bart Rienties (University Maastricht) b.rienties@algec.unimaas.nl Dirk Tempelaar d.tempelaar@ke.unimaas.nl Joost Dijkstra Joost.dijkstra@educ.unimaas.nl Martin Rehm m.rehm@algec.unimaas.nl Geke Blok g.blok@educ.unimaas.nl 22/05/2008
  • 2. Prior Knowledge (UCM) 54% 32% Proportions and percents 23% Signed numbers and variables : difficult items 43% 27% 27% 22/05/2008
  • 3. Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Online remedial teaching model 3. Methodology and research design 4. Evaluation of courses 5. Study success 6. Didactical scenarios 7. Discussion 22/05/2008
  • 4. Introduction - Assumptions • Increasing internationalization of enrollment (60% of students is foreign) • Introduction of Bachelor-Master structure • New accreditation procedures (Treaty of Bolognia) • Differences in prior knowledge • Completion rates 1st year differ – 12% “ other”foreign students – 50 % Dutch/German students • Incentive problems physical summer course • Problems at Master level even higher 22/05/2008
  • 5. 2. Online Remedial Teaching Model 1. Online Availability 24/7 (Vrasides & Zembylas, 2003) 2. Adaptive (Falmange et al., 2004) 3. Rapid feedback (Draaijer, 2004, Vrasides & Zembylas, 2003) 4. Interactive (Bryant et al. 2005, Ronteltap & Van der Veen, 2002) 5. Flexible Learning Methods & Assessment (Marshall, 2003, Segers, 2004) 22/05/2008
  • 6. Online Remedial Teaching Model Electronic Learning Environment Interaction Student feedback Student fee ck db ba e ad ac ed tiv k fe a pti ap ve ad Technology tion Inte Fee ck 24/7 online rac rac dba dba Inte tion Fee ck Teacher 22/05/2008
  • 7. 3. Methodology 22/05/2008
  • 8. Prior knowledge test Mathematics • # attempts 524 • # completed tests 230 • # above threshold 39 (17%) • # below threshold 191 (83%) • # of students starting at Maastricht 101 – 55 joined (55%), mainly German “ Grundkurs”students Economics • # attempts 379 • # completed tests 211 • # above threshold 60 (25%) • # below threshold 151 (75%) • # of students starting at Maastricht ?? – 50 joined From 01-04-2005 till 01-09-2005 22/05/2008
  • 9. Start of Online Summercourse Intro in Economics Mathematics • weeks of online & 4 •4 weeks of individual learning collaborative Problem Based •200 items Learning •Entry assessment of true • PBL-tasks 6 mastery •Online chapters, video’ and s •Learning path individual and animated graphs from Parkin & unique! Bade (2004) •Use of ALEKS •Use of Discussion forum •Final Assessment (Polaris) •15-20 hours per week. •Use of Weekly Assessment (Blackboard) •Final Assessment •15-20 hours week 22/05/2008
  • 10. Economics (Link) 22/05/2008
  • 11. 22/05/2008
  • 12. 22/05/2008
  • 13. Mathematics 22/05/2008
  • 14. “Ideal”individual learning-path Based on outcomes of entry- assessment, a student could be evaluated at any point on the knowledge space of topic X. Student A can have a different learning path than Student D to reach point f Ideally, the learning materials and teachings methods should adapt to the knowledge/skills of each individual student. 22/05/2008
  • 15. ALEKS: learning pie 22/05/2008
  • 16. Evaluation Mathematics n=38 Table 1 End evaluation online summer course mathematics This Summer course offered me a lot 4,6 (0,6) The contents of the Summer course were inspiring 4,2 (0,5) The format of the Summer course was good 4,4 (0,7) The Summer course was well organized 4,5 (0,6) The quality of the material in ALEKS is good 4,3 (0,6) The material in ALEKS motivated me to keep up with the subject matter 3,9 (0,7) Learning in an e-learning environment as ALEKS is not different from learning from a hard-copy book 2,4 (0,9) It was fun that I could attend this Summer course via the internet 4,2 (0,8) I gained enough knowledge and skills in mathematics to start with my study in Maastricht 3,5 (0,8) It was easy to motivate myself to finish this Summer course 3,5 (1,1) It was good that I could work on the subject matter at my own pace 4,5 (0,6) I think that I have learned more by individually attending this course than I would have learned if I had to collaborate 3,9 (1,0) (P) 3,0 (0,9) (NP) T-value= 1,53** Questions via e-mail were answered well by the teacher 3,8 (0,8) Give an overall grade for the quality of support you were given by ALEKS in this Summer course (1 = very bad - 10 = very good) 8,4 (1,0) Give an overall grade for the quality of this Summer course (1 = very bad - 10 = very good) 8,7 (0,9) Hours worked per week 17,5 (5,1) (P) 6,7 (4,0) (NP) T-value= 14,10** Source: Rienties, Dijkstra, Rehm, Tempelaar, Blok (2005), p. 249. Note:All questions on Likert scale of 1 (=totally disagee) to 5 (totally agree) with exception to last three questions. Standard deviation between brackets. If no distinction is made between the groups (P=Passed, NP= Not Passed), then Independent T-sample test is not significant and average of entire group is depicted. * p < .05; ** p < .01 of Independent T-sample test. 22/05/2008
  • 17. Evaluation Economics Passed Failed T-value Table 2 End evaluation online summer course Economics n=25 n=10 This Summer course offered me a lot 4,3 (0,5) 3,5 (1,0) 2,394* The contents of the Summer course were inspiring 4,2 (0,6) 3,9 (0,6) 1,246 The format of the Summer course was good 4,2 (0,8) 3,6 (0,7) 1,764 The Summer course was well organized 4,2 (0,8) 3,4 (0,7) 2,817** The quality of the digital material was good 4,5 (0,6) 3,9 (0,7) 2,626* The digital material motivated me to keep up with the subject matter 3,8 (1,0) 2,9 (0,6) 2,520* Learning with an E-book is not different from learning from a hard-copy book 2,3 (1,1) 2,2 (1,0) 0,303 It was fun that I could attend this Summer course via the internet 4,0 (0,8) 3,2 (0,6) 2,994** I am satisfied with what I learned in terms of knowledge, skills and insight 4,0 (0,7) 2,8 (0,6) 4,989** I gained enough knowledge and skills in economics to start with my study in Maastricht 3,8 (0,6) 3,2 (0,4) 2,968** The group in which I participated functioned well 4,0 (0,9) 3,1 (0,9) 2,664* It was fun to collaborate with others in this Summer course 4,2 (0,7) 3,1 (1,1) 3,529** Collaborating with others facilitated my understanding of the subject matter 3,9 (0,6) 3,2 (0,8) 3,015** I think I was motivated to finish this Summer course because I could work in my own pace 3,8 (1,0) 2,4 (0,5) 5,231** Give an overall grade for the functioning of the Online Summer course team (1 = very bad - 10 = very good) 8,3 (1,0) 7,4 (1,9) 1,857 Give an overall grade for the quality of the Online Summer course team (1 = very bad - 10 = very good) 8,4 (1,0) 8,1 (1,6) 0,659 Hours worked per week 14,6 (5,7) 6,0 (4,9) 13,406** Source: Rienties, Dijkstra, Rehm, Tempelaar, Blok (2005), p. 248. Note:All questions on Likert scale of 1 (=totally disagee) to 5 (totally agree) with exception to last three22/05/2008 deviation between brackets. questions. Standard * p < .05; ** p < .01 of Independent T-sample test.
  • 18. 5.1 Study success QM 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% aj in il K ac LK ,2 ,2 ss B1 Fa G hM hM A1 B1 tB Pa rm O rm C In at at W O O C S G tM G tM W W V S In In V V Figure 2: Passing rates QM1 (in %) 22/05/2008
  • 19. Figure 3: Passing rates & exam participation QM1 (in %) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% SC Pass 50% SC Fail No SC 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Going for exam Passing Exam Going & Passing QM1 Exam QM1 22/05/2008
  • 20. Figure 4: Partial scores in QM1 final exam (1-20) 16 14 12 10 SC Pass 8 SC Fail NO SC 6 4 2 0 MathExam StatsExam 22/05/2008
  • 21. Selection bias? 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 aj il in K LK ac ss ,2 ,2 B1 Fa G hM hM B1 A1 tB Pa rm O rm C In at at VW O O C S G G tM tM W W S In In V V Figure 5: Hours studying with ALEKS during QM1 22/05/2008
  • 22. 5.2 Study success Economics 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 EconPrior NoEconPrior SC-pas s SC-f ail Figure 6: Passing rates EcBus (%) 22/05/2008
  • 23. Figure 7: Average grades final exam EcBus (0-10) 7,4 7,2 7 6,8 6,6 6,4 6,2 6 5,8 5,6 5,4 EconPrior NoEconPrior SC-pass SC-fail 22/05/2008
  • 24. 6. Didactical scenario • Mathematics (individual) vs. Economics (collaborative/PBL) • “ think that I have learned more by individually attending I this course than I would have learned if I had to collaborate” 3.6 for the math summer course : • “ think I learned more in this Summercourse through I collaboration with others than I would have learned if I had to work” 3.2 score for the economics summer course. : • Individual learning is regarded more suitable for the math summer course • Collaborative learning most suitable for the economics summer course. • Students’ opinion on the appropriateness of the didactical scenario is dependent upon success in the summer course 22/05/2008
  • 25. 6. Discussion 1. Are summer courses necessary if one wants to become a truly international university? 2. Is online assessment/collaboration a good tool to monitor progress of students? 3. What is the role of Virtual Learning Environments in providing summer courses? 22/05/2008
  • 26. 22/05/2008
  • 27. Effectiveness of an Online Summer course Programme 13th Edineb Congress Thursday 15th of June 2005, Lisbon, 9.00-10.30 http://www.web-spijkeren.nl Bart Rienties (University Maastricht) b.rienties@algec.unimaas.nl Dirk Tempelaar d.tempelaar@ke.unimaas.nl Joost Dijkstra Joost.dijkstra@educ.unimaas.nl Martin Rehm m.rehm@algec.unimaas.nl Geke Blok g.blok@educ.unimaas.nl 22/05/2008