Increasing Student Engagement
While Reducing Textbook Costs
Using GinkgoTree
July 8th, 2014
Sloan-C Blended Conference
Dow...
Why pilot Ginkgotree?
42 46 44 4927 20 25 2531 34 31 26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Open textbook
authoring
Mobile devices Video sharing eTexts
What are...
Solution
Why use Ginkgotree in your
class?
Enhanced the packaging of content
Improved access to content
Increased interactivity
An Example: English course
What did students think?
Easy
Agree Neutral Disagree
Ginkgotree 86.7 8.4 4.8
Registering 80.7 9.6 9.6
Features and navigation 78.3 10.8 7.2
0
10
20
30
4...
Engaged
CC Flickr Vandy CFT
Agree Neutral Disagree
Feel like part of the class 50.6 32.5 10.8
Increase participation 51.8 26.5 18.1
Increase interacti...
Learned
CC Flickr katherine.a
Agree Neutral Disagree
Understand course material 68.7 30.1 1.2
Benefical to learning 68.7 26.5 4.8
Helped connect ideas 5...
Liked!
Agree Neutral Disagree
Another course 61.4 28.9 7.2
Recommend continued use 73.5 18.1 8.4
Overall 71.1 21.7 7.2
0
10
20
30...
Agree Neutral Disagree
More portable 73.5 19.3 6
More relevant content 61.4 27.7 9.6
Better than 57.8 24.1 13.3
Prefer ove...
Learning
Satisfaction
Engagement
(r = .84, p<.001)
(r = .67, p<.001)
(r = .60, p<.001)
What surprised us?
Flexibility
Agree Neutral Disagree
Greater flexibility to
learn
66.3 24.1 7.2
Better organize and
structure learning
62.7 ...
Predicts learning
Flexibility
Engagement
Learning
F(2, 144) = 328.60, p<.001
Approximately 82% of the variance
accounted f...
Recommendations
Based on the results of our data
analyses from the student and
instructor surveys
Use OER
Annotate text
Agree Neutral Disagree
Annotations connected
to instructor
62.9 26.5 10.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Make Active
Annotation Highlighting Commenting Discussions
Use Rich Content
Book
Chapters
(2)
Articles Videos
(3)
Images Audio Web
Pages
(1)
Check Pricing
Connect and Share
CC Flickr bengray
Make Time
CC Flickr zamboni.andrea
Not just an e-text
Questions
Thank you!
Tanya Joosten, tjoosten@uwm.edu, @tjoosten
Dylan Barth, djbarth@uwm.edu, @dylanbarth
Resources
• Faculty interests survey
• Ginkgotree instructor midterm evaluation
survey
• Ginkgotree end-of-the-semester st...
Not included
Agree Neutral Disagree
Improved overall grade 43.4 42.2 9.6
Got better grades 34.9 44.6 18.1
Discussions helped do
better
...
Agree Neutral Disagree
Ginkgotree introduction 84.2 13.2 2.6
Ginkgotree instructions 88 10.6 1.3
Recommend instructor 79.4...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Increasing Student Engagement While Reducing Textbook Costs Using GinkgoTree

602 views
585 views

Published on

July 8th, 2014 , Sloan-C Blended Conference

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
602
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
59
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • A total of 151 students responded to the questionnaire regarding their use of Ginkgotree. Summed scores for interactivity (M = 29.07, SD = 7.23), learning (M = 26.08, SD = 6.41), satisfaction (M = 27.98, SD = 4.46), and flexibility (M = 17.35, SD = 4.56) were calculated.
  • See https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iun76lc77po2eao/AACmzekO-2fybpr3pZPefVcLa

    OER
    Flexibility

    Interactivity, learning, satisfaction

    Grades and retention, https://www.dropbox.com/s/kovolfj98ke8mkt/Grade%20Codebook%2013_14%20Spring.docx
  • See https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iun76lc77po2eao/AACmzekO-2fybpr3pZPefVcLa

    OER
    Flexibility

    Interactivity, learning, satisfaction

    Grades and retention, https://www.dropbox.com/s/kovolfj98ke8mkt/Grade%20Codebook%2013_14%20Spring.docx
  • See https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iun76lc77po2eao/AACmzekO-2fybpr3pZPefVcLa

    OER
    Flexibility

    Interactivity, learning, satisfaction

    Grades and retention, https://www.dropbox.com/s/kovolfj98ke8mkt/Grade%20Codebook%2013_14%20Spring.docx
  • Students seemed to like:
    -that it was easy
    -that it their materials were organized
    -they could see what their instructor thought through annotations
    -they had a bunch of different materials (articles, readings, notes, etc.) to help them understand the content material.

    See https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iun76lc77po2eao/AACmzekO-2fybpr3pZPefVcLa

    OER
    Flexibility

    Interactivity, learning, satisfaction

    Grades and retention, https://www.dropbox.com/s/kovolfj98ke8mkt/Grade%20Codebook%2013_14%20Spring.docx
  • interactivity was positively associated with both learning (r = .84, p<.001) and satisfaction (r = .67, p<.001). In addition, satisfaction and learning were also positively related (r = .60, p<.001).

    Next, a stepwise regression analysis was performed to test whether both interactivity and satisfaction contribute significantly in predicting students’ self-reported learning outcomes. At step 1, interactivity entered in to the model and was significantly associated with learning, F(1, 50) = 118.34, p<.001. Approximately 70% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .697) in learning could be accounted for by interactivity. Satisfaction did not enter in to the equation, t = 1.03, p>.05.
    Another stepwise regression analysis was performed to test whether both interactivity and learning contribute significantly to students’ satisfaction with Ginkgotree. At step 1, interactivity entered in to the model and was significantly associated with satisfaction, F(1, 50) = 35.35, p<.001. Approximately 40% (adjusted R2 = .402) of the variance in satisfaction with Ginkgotree was accounted for my interactivity. Learning was excluded from the model, t = 1.03, p>.05.
  • Flexibility and interactivity entered in to the model and were significantly associated with learning, F(2, 79) = 154.11, p<.001. Approximately 79% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .791) in learning could be accounted for by interactivity and perceived flexibility.


  • For Spring 2014, stepwise regression analyses were performed to test whether interactivity, satisfaction, and flexibility contribute significantly in predicting students’ self-reported learning outcomes. Course size and mode were entered first as control variables. After controlling for course size and mode, flexibility and interactivity entered in to the model and were significantly associated with learning, F(2, 144) = 328.60, p<.001. Approximately 82% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .818) in learning could be accounted for by flexibility and interactivity.

    For Fall 2013, Flexibility and Interactivity/Engagement entered in to the model and were significantly associated with learning, F(2, 79) = 154.1, p<.001. Approximately 79% of the variance in Learning is explained by Flexibility and Interactivity (adjusted R2 = .791). Both controls, discipline and content, as well as Satisfaction did not enter into our model.

  • Independent samples t-tests using OER as the grouping variable illustrates OER classes reported significantly higher self-perceived learning (M = 37.29, SD = 7.79) as compared to courses that did no use OER content (M=32.41, SD = 6.58), t(80) = 2.86, p < .01.

    Additionally, OER courses reported significantly higher self-perceived satisfaction in Ginkgotree (M = 31.06, SD = 4.72) as compared to non-OER content courses (M = 27.34, SD = 4.75), t(80) = 3.404, p < .01.

    Finally, OER courses exhibited significantly higher self-perceived flexibility of Ginkgotree (M = 24.93, SD = 4.38) as compared to their non-OER counterparts (M = 20.04, SD = 4.08), t(80) = 4.95, p < .001.

    See https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iun76lc77po2eao/AACmzekO-2fybpr3pZPefVcLa

    OER
    Flexibility

    Interactivity, learning, satisfaction

    Grades and retention, https://www.dropbox.com/s/kovolfj98ke8mkt/Grade%20Codebook%2013_14%20Spring.docx
  • Quantitative finds suggest student felt that annotations made them connected to their instructor and helped them learn more

    Which of following types of content in Ginkgotree helped me with learning information for this course:
    Instructor-annotated articles

    59/77 or 77% strongly/agreed that instructor annotated articles helped them learn

    35
    24
    13
    3
    2
    77
    M = 1.87





    See https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iun76lc77po2eao/AACmzekO-2fybpr3pZPefVcLa

    OER
    Flexibility

    Interactivity, learning, satisfaction

    Grades and retention, https://www.dropbox.com/s/kovolfj98ke8mkt/Grade%20Codebook%2013_14%20Spring.docx
  • Instructors reported GT helped them…

    Allow students to see instructor thoughts (builds connection to instructor, allows you to unpack thoughts)
    Increase engagement with the content (type of content, reactions to content, annotate, highlight, comment, )
    Show students specific items (image or video or webclip with a specific example)

    Qualitative instructor surveys felt that they needed to take advantage of the interactivity tools and rethink the use of LMS discussions and GT discussions

    Increase Interaction Possibilities
    “The lack of interaction between students…”







    See https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iun76lc77po2eao/AACmzekO-2fybpr3pZPefVcLa

    OER
    Flexibility

    Interactivity, learning, satisfaction

    Grades and retention, https://www.dropbox.com/s/kovolfj98ke8mkt/Grade%20Codebook%2013_14%20Spring.docx
  • Students report web clips, book chapters, and videos helped them learn most (after annotated articles).

    Why Use GT to Offer a Variety of Materials?

    Helps students better meet learning objectives
    It becomes a “one-stop shop”
    Widens content available to students
    Pinpoints specific examples of course components
    A picture can speak 1000 words
    Sometimes you just need audio and visual


    Keys:
    -learning objectives
    -one place for all the content materials
    -allowing instructors to widen the content pool to help make the important concepts more clear
    -ability to show specific examples of course topic areas
    -importance of image use—especially in the different fields
    -YouTube videos to show sampling designs


    See https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iun76lc77po2eao/AACmzekO-2fybpr3pZPefVcLa

    OER
    Flexibility

    Interactivity, learning, satisfaction

    Grades and retention, https://www.dropbox.com/s/kovolfj98ke8mkt/Grade%20Codebook%2013_14%20Spring.docx
  • Decrease Cost of Copyrighted Materials
    “The price is not quite right…”





    See https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iun76lc77po2eao/AACmzekO-2fybpr3pZPefVcLa

    OER
    Flexibility

    Interactivity, learning, satisfaction

    Grades and retention, https://www.dropbox.com/s/kovolfj98ke8mkt/Grade%20Codebook%2013_14%20Spring.docx
  • Increasing Student Engagement While Reducing Textbook Costs Using GinkgoTree

    1. 1. Increasing Student Engagement While Reducing Textbook Costs Using GinkgoTree July 8th, 2014 Sloan-C Blended Conference Download at slideshare.net/tjoosten
    2. 2. Why pilot Ginkgotree?
    3. 3. 42 46 44 4927 20 25 2531 34 31 26 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Open textbook authoring Mobile devices Video sharing eTexts What are you interested in learning more about? Very/interested Neutral Very/uninterested M=2.94M=2.99 M=2.96 M=2.79
    4. 4. Solution
    5. 5. Why use Ginkgotree in your class?
    6. 6. Enhanced the packaging of content
    7. 7. Improved access to content
    8. 8. Increased interactivity
    9. 9. An Example: English course
    10. 10. What did students think?
    11. 11. Easy
    12. 12. Agree Neutral Disagree Ginkgotree 86.7 8.4 4.8 Registering 80.7 9.6 9.6 Features and navigation 78.3 10.8 7.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ease of use
    13. 13. Engaged CC Flickr Vandy CFT
    14. 14. Agree Neutral Disagree Feel like part of the class 50.6 32.5 10.8 Increase participation 51.8 26.5 18.1 Increase interaction with content 61.4 28.9 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Engagement
    15. 15. Learned CC Flickr katherine.a
    16. 16. Agree Neutral Disagree Understand course material 68.7 30.1 1.2 Benefical to learning 68.7 26.5 4.8 Helped connect ideas 59 32.5 7.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Learning
    17. 17. Liked!
    18. 18. Agree Neutral Disagree Another course 61.4 28.9 7.2 Recommend continued use 73.5 18.1 8.4 Overall 71.1 21.7 7.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Satisfaction
    19. 19. Agree Neutral Disagree More portable 73.5 19.3 6 More relevant content 61.4 27.7 9.6 Better than 57.8 24.1 13.3 Prefer over 55.4 25.3 19.3 Learned more 48.2 37.3 14.5 Read more 50.6 27.7 20.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Textbook comparison
    20. 20. Learning Satisfaction Engagement (r = .84, p<.001) (r = .67, p<.001) (r = .60, p<.001)
    21. 21. What surprised us?
    22. 22. Flexibility Agree Neutral Disagree Greater flexibility to learn 66.3 24.1 7.2 Better organize and structure learning 62.7 26.5 10.8 More efficient study time 59 31.3 8.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
    23. 23. Predicts learning Flexibility Engagement Learning F(2, 144) = 328.60, p<.001 Approximately 82% of the variance accounted for by flexibility and interactivity (adjusted R2 = .818)
    24. 24. Recommendations Based on the results of our data analyses from the student and instructor surveys
    25. 25. Use OER
    26. 26. Annotate text Agree Neutral Disagree Annotations connected to instructor 62.9 26.5 10.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
    27. 27. Make Active Annotation Highlighting Commenting Discussions
    28. 28. Use Rich Content Book Chapters (2) Articles Videos (3) Images Audio Web Pages (1)
    29. 29. Check Pricing
    30. 30. Connect and Share CC Flickr bengray
    31. 31. Make Time CC Flickr zamboni.andrea
    32. 32. Not just an e-text
    33. 33. Questions
    34. 34. Thank you! Tanya Joosten, tjoosten@uwm.edu, @tjoosten Dylan Barth, djbarth@uwm.edu, @dylanbarth
    35. 35. Resources • Faculty interests survey • Ginkgotree instructor midterm evaluation survey • Ginkgotree end-of-the-semester student survey • Ginkgotree end-of-the-semester instructor survey
    36. 36. Not included
    37. 37. Agree Neutral Disagree Improved overall grade 43.4 42.2 9.6 Got better grades 34.9 44.6 18.1 Discussions helped do better 47 34.9 4.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Performance
    38. 38. Agree Neutral Disagree Ginkgotree introduction 84.2 13.2 2.6 Ginkgotree instructions 88 10.6 1.3 Recommend instructor 79.4 13.2 7.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Satisfaction

    ×