The research is the Ministry’s provision and participation (Published), achievement report and the learners annotated bibliography (forthcoming). The e-learning category in the graphs is based on an aggregation of the Internet Field categories i.e. Web-Supported where a course provides students access to limited online materials and resources. Access is optional, as online participation is likely to be a minor component of study. Web-Enhanced = where a course expects students to access online materials and resources. Access is expected, as online participation is likely to make a major contribution to study. Web-Based = where a course requires students to access the accompanying online materials and resources. Access is required, as online participation is required. More detailed breakdowns of the individual categories are available in the reports. EFTS was used for the provision and participation and achievement because it is a more accurate volume measure. Students may be enrolled in multiple courses and this can be not be adjusted for in the data. Course level adjustments used to remove bias as more degree level provision in e-learning and they tend to have higher completion rates. Provision at the course level will also include a compare and contrast with system level provision EFTS is a more accurate measure as individual students are likely to be enrolled in multiple courses and this would more likely inflate the e-learning figures. The Internet field puts courses into pre-determined categories based on the expected levels of Internet access required by students split into four categories No Access, where a course provides students access to limited online materials and resources. Access is optional, as online participation is likely to be a minor component of study. Web-Enhanced = where a course expects students to access online materials and resources. Access is expected, as online participation is likely to make a major contribution to study. The e-learning category aggregates the three Web-Based categories which mitigates differences in provider intrepreation and gives a more accurate picture of e-learning. Web-Based = where a course requires students to access the accompanying online materials and resources. Access is required, as online participation is required . The e-learning category aggregates the four categories
Course level is critical in determining e-learning provision and participation. Degree level is much higher than the system and growing faster – System 2004 44.35%, 2008 47.84% compared to Degrees 2004 65.16%, 2008 72.49%. But certificates much less and decreasing 2004 22.64%, 2008, 18.83%. This may explain why at a system level e-learning is still not a majority of provision.
Web-Supported is the majority of provision. It is much larger at certificate level than the system (2004 62.35%, 2008 62.12%) and degrees but growth decreasing 2004 92.18%, 2008 80.18%. In contrast degrees while smaller than certificates and the system is still a small majority and growing faster 2004 51.12 %, 2008 55.09%. Web-Enhanced opposite with degrees much larger than certificates and the system (2004 32.05%, 2008 29.54%). This is the smallest category for certificates. Again growth opposite decreasing for degrees (but like the system) 2004 43.42%, 2008 37.69% but growing for certificates 2004 1.8%, 2008 6.28%. Web-Based similar trend to Web-Supported. Much larger at certificates than degrees and the system (2004 5.6%, 2008 8.19%). This is the smallest category for degrees and slightly smaller than system. Both had growth but much larger for certificates: degrees 2004 5.46%, 2008 7.22% certificates 2004 5.41%, 2008 13.53%. Large jump in 2005 likely reflects shift in provision at some regional polytechnics.
This shows that institutions are also important. Note this is an aggregate of all ITPs/universities and does not reflect individual institutional variation. At the aggregate level universities provide more e-learning and it is growing at a faster rate than degrees, the system and overall certificates whilst polytechnics have much less. Very different growth at certificates universities much more ITPs much less but degrees comparable. Unis degrees 2004 70.91%, 2008 78.58%, ITPs degrees 2004 36.79%, 2008 44.05%, Unis certificates 2004 18.83%, 2008 39.44%, ITPs certificates 2004 25.94%, 2008 19.05% It could be that as an aggregate universities are leveraging increased provision and associated infrastructure and capability here to provide more right across their provision than polytechnics who have much less provision and associated capability and infrastructure.
As is the case at system level by 2008 Web-Supported was the majority or provision. ITPs have much more provision at degree level than universities in the Web-Supported category. But their growth is decreasing while universities is increasing – ITPs 2004 80.37%, 2008 70.5%, universities 2004 48.18%, 2008 54.43. But Web-Enhanced universities much larger at universities but growth opposite – universities decreasing and ITPs increasing – universities 2004 46.01%, 2008 38.98%, ITPs 2004 17.67%, 2008 27.54. Web-Based smallest category for both but larger at universities. Growth at universities but not at ITPs, universities 2004 5.81%, 2008 7.59%, ITPs 2004 1.96, 2008, 1.97%.
Web-Supported as is the case at system level much more dominant at certificate level. Over the time period based on starkly contrasting growth patterns universities became larger in Web-Supported category, universities 2004 70.39%, 2008, 86.67%, ITPs 2004 88.83%, 2008 64.84%. Opposite is the case at Web-Enhanced. Based on starkly contrasting growth patterns by end of time period larger at ITPs where it had largest relative growth, universities 2004 20.6%, 2008 9.1%, ITPs 2004 1.9%, 2008 11.53%. Web-Based smallest category at universities but for ITPs larger than Web-Enhanced. Largest growth for ITPs in absolute terms but large (relative) decline at universities, ITPs 2004 9.27%, 2008 23.63%, universities 2004 9.01%, 2008 4.23%. This also supports above explanation of shift in provision in 2005 at some regional polytechnics
Pasifika had the highest e-learning participation at degree level of all the ethnic groups and by 2008 higher than overall degree provision – 2004 67.23%, 2008 73.41%. But 18-19 year olds even higher and much higher than older (40+) learners 2004 71.8%, 2008 78.25%. This provides an opportunity to meet two of the strategy’s priorities increase participation by these learner groups in degree level study. But Māori had much less although they did have stronger growth.
WS stands for Web-Supported, WE for Web-Enhanced and WB for Web-Based. Web-Supported largest category and strongest growth for all groups but largest for Māori and largest growth for Pasifika. Majority of provision by 2008 for all priority groups. Pasifika 2004 42.85%, 2008 55.13%, Māori 2004 51.39%, 2008 56.35%, 18-19 2004 49.67%, 2008 55.07%. Web-Enhanced only category to show decline in growth for all groups. Largest decline for Pasifika, smallest for Māori. But Pasifika has highest participation and Māori least. Pasifika 2004 52.59%, 2008 40.15%, Māori 2004 36.74%, 2008 31.9%, 18-19 2004 45.35%, 2008 36.92. Web-Based smallest category but Māori have highest participation and Pasifika least. But 18-19 strongest growth. Pasifika 2004 4.55%, 2008 4.72, Māori 2004 11.86%, 2008 11.76%, 18-19 2004 4.98%, 2008 8%.
Pasifika have the highest e-learning participation at certificate level as well but in this case higher than 18-19 year olds and is the only group showing growth. But 18-19 year olds higher than certificate average despite decreased growth. Māori are lowest as is the case with degrees and below certificate average and they also have decreased growth. Pasifika 2004 23.21%, 2008 26.8%, Māori 2004 19.87%, 2008 13.65%, 18-19 year olds 2004 25.03%, 2008, 22.98%
Web-Supported the predominant category for all groups but all had a decline in growth. Largest decline for Māori, smallest for Pasifika. So Pasifika had the highest participation and Māori lowest. Pasifika 2004 92.41%, 2008 89.17%, Māori 2004 93.53%, 2008 75.19%, 18-19 2004 93.78%, 2008 88.1%. Web-Enhanced smallest category for Pasifika & Māori. All groups had growth strongest for Māori smallest for 18-19. But Pasifika strongest growth of all categories. Pasifika 2004 3.16%, 2008 5.03%, Māori 2004 1.36%, 2008 7.57%, 18-19 4.27%, 2008 5.97%. Web-Based smallest for 18-19. Māori and 18-19 had strongest growth in this category, larger in relative terms 18-19 but absolute Māori. Pasifika 2004 4.43%, 2008 5.8%, Māori 2004 5.11%, 17.23%, 18-19 1.96%, 5.94%. It suggests proportionally that the additional Web-Based provision at ITPs in 2005 went to Māori not Pasifika or 18-19.
As is the case with provision this is an aggregate of all universities and ITPs. It does not reflect individual performance or variation and is not linked to TEC EPIs. WE will be examining individual ITPs and universities in our published achievement report. Despite high provision at universities e-learning (adjusted for course level) has lower achievement than traditional delivery 83.1% vs. 81.2%, ITPs 64.1% vs. 57.3%. But reflecting the provision pattern the gap is larger for ITPs and they have much lower levels than universities again most likely because their core provision is in certificates so they have less capability and infrastructure than universities to support student achievement.
Higher achievement rate at universities and minimal difference between delivery modes. But at ITPs Web-Enhanced noticeably higher and Web-Based lower. Universities Web-Supported 81.9%, Web-Enhanced 81.7%, Web-Based 79.5%. ITPs Web-Supported 61.7%, Web-Enhanced 64.9%, Web-Based 53.4%
Pasifika and 18-19 year olds showed high participation in e-learning at degree level but have lower achievement (adjusted for course level) than traditional delivery. But Māori who are comparable to Pasifika in traditional delivery have much lower e-learning achievement. Both Māori and Pasifika much lower than 18-19 year olds. 18-19 75% vs. 72.8%. For Pasifika this is gap is much larger 57.6% vs. 51.4% but larger still for Māori 57.4% vs. 48.1%
18-19 have highest achievement in all categories and minimal difference between delivery modes (slightly lower for Web-Based). Māori higher achievement than Pasifika. Pasifika noticeably higher for Web-Enhanced and lower for Web-Based. Māori also noticeably higher for Web-Enhanced but minimal difference between Web-Supported and Web-Based. Pasifika Web-Supported 56.3%, Web-Enhanced 61.1%, Web-Based 50.5%, Māori Web-Supported, 57.4%, Web-Enhanced 62.8%, Web-Based 56.4%, 18-19 Web-Supported 79%, Web-Enhanced 79.8%, Web-Based 77.2%
Broad educational understandings are the importance of teachers, institutions and students. For teacher practice and pedagogy the major finding is the importance of appropriate, timely, frequent and where possible personalised interactions. Institutions not only pastoral support but Reliable user-friendly systems, and technical support. Students (particularly in e-learning environments that are learner centred) need motivation, independence and self-directed. But self-efficacy also important. Capabilities include ICT, digital literacy. Prior experience an advantage. Major e-learning affordances are: increased flexibility, (study anywhere, anytime at a pace of learner’s choosing), equalising access to study, teachers, resources and different authentic experiences e.g. simulations. Because Web-Based is often intertwined with distance in the literature hard to separate effects. But blended learning is growing in popularity and generally has higher achievement and this is supported by our research above.
NTLTC 2011 - What does the elearning data tell us
What does the e-learning data tell us?
Introduction <ul><li>This presentation is based on research published in 2011 or that is forthcoming. </li></ul><ul><li>The data used in the graphs are from the SDR Internet Field. </li></ul><ul><li>The percentages in the graphs are based on the EFTS weight of the course not student enrolments. </li></ul><ul><li>Achievement is adjusted for course level. </li></ul><ul><li>Focus of presentation on key findings in relation to course level, institutions, TES priority learner groups and research literature. </li></ul>
Priority Learner Group e-learning category achievement
Key Messages from Literature <ul><li>Confirms broad educational understandings. </li></ul><ul><li>E-learning has a number of key affordances different to face-to-face delivery </li></ul><ul><li>Blended learning generally has higher achievement than other e-learning delivery modes </li></ul>