Presentation at the Finnish Educational Research Association Conference 2019. Intervention research through learning.

1. 21.11.19
1
Learning in a (not so) digitalized
society
FERA 2019
Kwok Ng (PhD)
Postdoctoral researcher
Special Education//School of
Educational Sciences and psychology
UEF @kwokwng
(University of Limerick, Ireland)
Mirva Poikola, PhD Candidate
Merja Mannerkoski, PhD Candidate
Eija Kärnä, Professor
Content
➢ Background
➢ Intervention Plan
➢ Timeline
➢ Results
➢ Conclusion
1
2

2. 21.11.19
2
UEF // University of Eastern Finland
Background
•The rise in using digital platforms in education has brought forth a challenge to
higher educational issues related to teachers (Zawacki-Richter & Latchem, 2018).
•One of the assumptions of digital learning is the convenience it has over the
traditional face to face learning whereby schedules are determined by the
course planner (Simpson, 2012).
•Courses contained within an online platform have the potential to be accessed
by anyone, anywhere and at anytime (given there is access to the internet and a
browser), making courses low in costs when compared to paid teachers.
•However, criticism in online courses are that they lack the level of student
support and require self-regulated skills (Pardo, 2016).
UEF // University of Eastern Finland
•In addition to those concerns, teacher training often includes teaching
experiences and that has troubled course management to support online only
courses.
•There is relatively weak evidence to support whether online learning can
replace face to face, particularly for teacher training (George et al, 2019).
•Therefore, the purpose of this study was to conduct a pilot three arm non-
randomised control trial of a course in learning environments designed for
teacher education.
Study Rationale
3
4

3. 21.11.19
3
UEF // University of Eastern Finland
Intervention Plan
Course materials, activities and
assessment tools were
developed for a 6 lesson course
by
• Face-to-Face course (arm 1)
• Online only course (arm 2)
• Remote taught course (arm 3)
Recruitment through
university registration systems
with option for arm 2
Student
enrolled
Online only
(intervention)
Face to Face
(in person)
Face to Face
(remote)
Pre course
evaluation
Teaching
Post course
evaluation
Follow up
evaluation
UEF // University of Eastern Finland
Course planning
•Content Mapping exercise
– Materials from the lecture to be put into online content
– Moodle supported content
•Interactive content of learning environments
•Using the Digicampus to allow cross-
university access
•Transferring powerpoints into H5P plugin
presentation
•Short videos through hand drawing
5
6

4. 21.11.19
4
UEF // University of Eastern Finland
Interactive activity in Moodle for all students
UEF // University of Eastern Finland
Online only course - Powerpoints
7
8

5. 21.11.19
5
UEF // University of Eastern Finland
Outcome measures
Measure Definition Mode
Applied knowledge of inclusion Connected learning of inclusion Written exam
Attitudes Attitudes towards inclusion Questionnaire
Self-efficacy Teacher-efficacy for inclusion Questionnaire
Subjective Norms Beliefs around the individual Questionnaire
Intention Intention to deliver inclusion in class Questionnaire
Mode of learning Course attribution and attendance Analytics
Satisfaction Student satisfaction of learning Questionnaire
UEF // University of Eastern Finland
Preliminary Results – Description
Arm 1 Arm2 Arm3 Total
Enrolled 70 38 32 140
T1 Data 64 27 13 104
T1 Data % 91.4% 71.0% 40.6% 74.3%
Total Spoilt (contamination) 19 (15.4%)
Most respondents in arm 1 (face to face) and arm 2 (MOOC) completed surveys, whereas less than half
(40%) in the remote course completed the online survey.
8.6/15 – Applied Knowledge
9
10

6. 21.11.19
6
UEF // University of Eastern Finland
Preliminary Results Post Course – Means (SD)
Arm 1 Arm2 Arm3 P (ANOVA) Group
Knowledge T1 (15 points) 10.6 (2.7) 10.5 (2.0) 11.6 (1.9) 0.420 10.4 (3.3)
Attitudes T1 (7 point scale) 4.5 (0.7) 4.6 (0.7) 4.6 (0.6) 0.686 4.5 (0.7)
Self-efficacy T1 (9 point scale) 6.8 (0.9) 7.1 (0.8) 6.6 (1.0) 0.220 6.9 (0.9)
Subject Norms T1 (6 point scale) 3.7 (0.9) 3.7 (0.8) 3.7 (0.9) 0.906 3.7 (0.8)
Although knowledge scores were higher in Arm 3 (Remote) than the other two groups, the differences were
not statistically significant.
All other differences (of the outcome variables) were not statistically significant between the three groups
UEF // University of Eastern Finland
Discussion
•The results of this study demonstrated the ability for collection of robust data
without spoiling the learning outcomes of students.
– Consent from students (GDPR)
– Study Protocol (unpublished in Education Sciences)
– Publication Checklists such as TIDIER (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) (yet
to be found in Educational Sciences)
•There were no differences in students’ outcomes after the course between the
modes of learning. Similar results have been reported elsewhere, suggesting
the need to study more about the needs of the personalised learning rather
than only the mode of studies (Pardo, 2016).
11
12

7. 21.11.19
7
UEF // University of Eastern Finland
Conclusions
•This study requires follow up on the students in relation to how the
experiences of the course impact actual teaching experiences.
•More high quality and robust research that is replicable in educational science
is needed.
•Controlling for confounders, contamination effects, fidelity are needed to
generate strong intervention evidence
Thank you!
Kwok Ng (PhD)
Postdoctoral researcher
Special Education//School of Educational Sciences
and psychology UEF (
(University of Limerick, Ireland) @kwokwng
Mirva Poikola, PhD Candidate
Merja Mannerkoski, PhD Candidate
Eija Kärnä, Professor
13
14