Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Online learning environments:                same place; different demographic space?                                     ...
OverviewThis paper presents a large scale, quantitativeinvestigation of the impact of demographicdifferences on the studen...
BackgroundOLEs, like many other learning technologytrends before them, have been adopted byhigher education institutions a...
The influence of (3) demographicsGender: Historically posited that structuralfactors led to males having more opportunitie...
Why the interest at Deakin?A major provider of distance and onlineeducationPolicy that all OLE activity be migrated to ace...
The projectGiven the University’s commitment (in terms ofcentral infrastructure, policy development, androll-out of online...
MethodologyDuring June and July of 2005, all students atDeakin University were invited via email tocomplete the DSO evalua...
MethodologyThe collected data were analysed and thefollowing information was compiled: response rate and demographic comp...
Response rate & demographic information                                          Sample         Population       Responden...
Mean importance & satisfaction ratings OLE element/function                                       Importance    Satisfacti...
Mean importance & satisfaction ratings OLE element/function                                       Importance    Satisfacti...
Importance-Satisfaction grid               7.0                                                                            ...
Mean ratings by gender              7.0                                                                                   ...
Mean ratings by gender                 7.0                                                                                ...
Mean ratings by gender                 7.0                          Receiving feedback on assignments                 6.5 ...
Conclusions – genderFemale respondents generally gave higherratings than males, and gave significantlyhigher ratings in bo...
Importance-Satisfaction grid               7.0                                                                            ...
Mean ratings by level of study               7.0                                                                          ...
Mean ratings by level of study                  7.0                                                                       ...
Mean ratings by level of study                  7.0                                                                       ...
Conclusions – level of studyPostgraduate respondents generally gave lowersatisfaction ratings than undergraduatestudents, ...
Importance-Satisfaction grid               7.0                                                                            ...
Mean ratings by mode of study               7.0                                                                           ...
Mean ratings by mode of study                  7.0                                                                        ...
Mean ratings by mode of study               7.0                                                                           ...
Mean ratings by mode of study                  7.0                                                                        ...
Mean ratings by mode of study               7.0                                                                           ...
Mean ratings by mode of study                  7.0                                                                        ...
Mean ratings by mode of study                  7.0                                                                        ...
Conclusions – mode of studyResults were mixed, but fell into three groups:1) no significant difference2) significantly low...
Some data triangulation               7.0                                                                                 ...
Don’t care – low Imp. and low Sat.               7.0                                                                      ...
Some data triangulation               7.0                                                                                 ...
Very happy – high Imp. and high Sat.               7.0                                                        Accessing le...
Some data triangulation               7.0                                                                                 ...
Needs fixing – high Imp. and low Sat.               7.0                                                                   ...
ConclusionsAn examination of the observed variation ininstitutional level mean ratings of importanceof, and/or satisfactio...
ConclusionsThe discovery of significant differences betweendemographic groups in responses to items onthe evaluation surve...
ConclusionsThe findings challenge the institution tounderstand the reasons for the observeddemographic differences, and, i...
Thank you for your time                          40
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Sp091008

298 views

Published on

Online learning environments: same place; different demographic space?

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Sp091008

  1. 1. Online learning environments: same place; different demographic space? Stuart Palmer and Dale Holt Institute of Teaching and Learning Deakin UniversitySource: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elearning6.gif Same places, different spaces 1
  2. 2. OverviewThis paper presents a large scale, quantitativeinvestigation of the impact of demographicdifferences on the student experience of usingan online learning environment (OLE) 2
  3. 3. BackgroundOLEs, like many other learning technologytrends before them, have been adopted byhigher education institutions almostautomatically and uncriticallyMuch of the research into online learning seemsto assume no influence from the demographiccharacteristics of system users 3
  4. 4. The influence of (3) demographicsGender: Historically posited that structuralfactors led to males having more opportunitiesto engage with educational technology – recentfindings suggest a closing of the ‘gender gap’Level of study: Not found to contribute to use,motivation and attitudeMode of study: ‘No significant difference’ inlearning outcomes, but limited work oninfluence of mode (on/off) on use of OLEs 4
  5. 5. Why the interest at Deakin?A major provider of distance and onlineeducationPolicy that all OLE activity be migrated to acentral LMS by 2004Policy that all units have at least a basic onlinepresence by 2004Policy that from 2004 all students complete atleast one unit of study in ‘wholly online’ mode 5
  6. 6. The projectGiven the University’s commitment (in terms ofcentral infrastructure, policy development, androll-out of online elements to all taught units) toonline education, it was considered essential toevaluate the effectiveness of this investmentThis current investigation focuses on the 2526responses obtained from students, seeking toidentify what elements of the OLE were valuedand used most by students 6
  7. 7. MethodologyDuring June and July of 2005, all students atDeakin University were invited via email tocomplete the DSO evaluation survey onlineSought responses from students relating to:  demographic and background information  perception of importance and satisfaction with a range of OLE elements  a number of overall OLE satisfaction measures  open-ended written comments about the OLE 7
  8. 8. MethodologyThe collected data were analysed and thefollowing information was compiled: response rate and demographic comparison information importance-satisfaction analysis overall satisfaction measures 8
  9. 9. Response rate & demographic information Sample Population Respondents 2526 32354 Gender Female 61.5% 57.3% Male 38.5% 42.7% Mode of study On-campus 61.8% 64.7% Off-campus 38.2% 35.3% Level of study Undergraduate 75.1% 73.7% Postgraduate 24.9% 26.3% Faculty Arts 16.0% 20.0% Business and Law 34.4% 36.9% Education 12.0% 13.7% Health and Behavioural Sciences 17.6% 14.2% Science and Technology 20.1% 15.2% Campus† Burwood 52.5% 58.3% Toorak 6.8% 5.5% Waurn Ponds 25.8% 19.6% Waterfront 7.5% 6.3% Warrnambool 4.7% 5.3% Offshore 2.7% 5.0% †In 2008, Deakin divested itself of the Toorak campus, with all Toorak operations moving to the Burwood campus 9
  10. 10. Mean importance & satisfaction ratings OLE element/function Importance Satisfaction N/A 9. Accessing Unit Guides/unit information 6.32 (1.11) 5.19 (1.52) 2.2% 10. Accessing lecture notes/tutorial notes/lab notes 6.51 (1.02) 5.01 (1.58) 2.7% 11. Contacting your lecturer via internal unit messaging 5.63 (1.58) 4.63 (1.73) 6.5% 12. Contacting other students via internal unit messaging 4.73 (1.78) 4.60 (1.68) 10.1% 13. Using calendar 3.08 (1.83) 3.94 (1.78) 25.0% 14. Interacting with learning resources 5.62 (1.40) 4.68 (1.49) 7.3% 15. Contributing to discussions 5.08 (1.64) 4.82 (1.61) 7.5% 16. Reading contributions to discussions 5.62 (1.46) 5.05 (1.61) 5.2% 17. Using chat and/or whiteboard 3.59 (1.90) 3.70 (1.73) 33.7% 18. Working collaboratively in a group 4.67 (1.88) 4.00 (1.75) 30.0% 19. Completing quizzes/self tests 5.36 (1.76) 4.68 (1.75) 26.1% 20. Submitting assignments 6.30 (1.34) 4.58 (1.91) 21.8% 21. Receiving feedback on assignments 6.36 (1.19) 3.86 (1.90) 18.7% 22. Viewing my marks 6.42 (1.12) 4.27 (2.01) 11.8% 23. Reviewing unit progress 5.96 (1.34) 4.17 (1.76) 14.3% 10
  11. 11. Mean importance & satisfaction ratings OLE element/function Importance Satisfaction N/A 9. Accessing Unit Guides/unit information 6.32 (1.11) 5.19 (1.52) 2.2% 10. Accessing lecture notes/tutorial notes/lab notes 6.51 (1.02) 5.01 (1.58) 2.7% 11. Contacting your lecturer via internal unit messaging 5.63 (1.58) 4.63 (1.73) 6.5% 12. Contacting other students via internal unit messaging 4.73 (1.78) 4.60 (1.68) 10.1% 13. Using calendar 3.08 (1.83) 3.94 (1.78) 25.0% 14. Interacting with learning resources 5.62 (1.40) 4.68 (1.49) 7.3% 15. Contributing to discussions 5.08 (1.64) 4.82 (1.61) 7.5% 16. Reading contributions to discussions 5.62 (1.46) 5.05 (1.61) 5.2% 17. Using chat and/or whiteboard 3.59 (1.90) 3.70 (1.73) 33.7% 18. Working collaboratively in a group 4.67 (1.88) 4.00 (1.75) 30.0% 19. Completing quizzes/self tests 5.36 (1.76) 4.68 (1.75) 26.1% 20. Submitting assignments 6.30 (1.34) 4.58 (1.91) 21.8% 21. Receiving feedback on assignments 6.36 (1.19) 3.86 (1.90) 18.7% 22. Viewing my marks 6.42 (1.12) 4.27 (2.01) 11.8% 23. Reviewing unit progress 5.96 (1.34) 4.17 (1.76) 14.3% 11
  12. 12. Importance-Satisfaction grid 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 20 9 23 6.0 11 16 5.5 14 19 5.0 15 Importance 18 4.5 12 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 12
  13. 13. Mean ratings by gender 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 20 9 23 6.0 11 16 5.5 14 19 5.0 15 Importance 18 4.5 12 4.0 17 3.5 • Male Female 13 x Mean 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 13
  14. 14. Mean ratings by gender 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 20 9 23 6.0 11 16 5.5 14 19 5.0 15 Importance 18 4.5 12 4.0 17 3.5 • Male Female 13 x Mean 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction I and S sig. diff. Imp. sig. diff. Sat. sig. diff. 14
  15. 15. Mean ratings by gender 7.0 Receiving feedback on assignments 6.5 21 6.0 Contacting your lecturer via internal unit messaging 11 16 5.5 Reading contributions to discussions 5.0 15 Importance Contributing to discussions 4.5 12 Contacting other students via internal unit messaging 4.0 3.5 • Male Female x Mean 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction I and S sig. diff. 15
  16. 16. Conclusions – genderFemale respondents generally gave higherratings than males, and gave significantlyhigher ratings in both importance andsatisfaction to a group of OLE elements relatedto online interaction and communityA recommendation here is that additionalsupport be provided to all students, and malestudents in particular, in understanding thevalue of online learning communities 16
  17. 17. Importance-Satisfaction grid 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 20 9 23 6.0 14 16 5.5 11 19 15 5.0 Importance 12 18 4.5 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 17
  18. 18. Mean ratings by level of study 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 20 9 23 6.0 14 16 5.5 11 19 15 5.0 Importance 12 18 4.5 4.0 17 3.5 • Undergrad Postgrad 13 x Mean 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 18
  19. 19. Mean ratings by level of study 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 20 9 23 6.0 14 16 5.5 11 19 15 5.0 Importance 12 18 4.5 4.0 17 3.5 • Undergrad Postgrad 13 x Mean 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction I and S sig. diff. Imp. sig. diff. Sat. sig. diff. 19
  20. 20. Mean ratings by level of study 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 20 9 23 6.0 14 16 5.5 11 Completing quizzes/self tests 19 15 5.0 Importance 12 18 4.5 4.0 17 3.5 • Undergrad Postgrad 13 x Mean 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction I and S sig. diff. 20
  21. 21. Conclusions – level of studyPostgraduate respondents generally gave lowersatisfaction ratings than undergraduatestudents, though the occurrences of significantdifferences were fewThese results suggest that differences based onlevel of study may be more in shades thanblack-and-white 21
  22. 22. Importance-Satisfaction grid 7.0 10 6.5 22 21 9 20 23 6.0 14 16 11 5.5 19 15 5.0 18 12 Importance 4.5 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 22
  23. 23. Mean ratings by mode of study 7.0 10 6.5 22 21 9 20 23 6.0 14 16 11 5.5 19 15 5.0 18 12 Importance 4.5 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 • On-campus Off-campus x Mean 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 23
  24. 24. Mean ratings by mode of study 7.0 10 6.5 22 21 9 20 23 6.0 14 16 11 5.5 19 15 5.0 18 12 Importance 4.5 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 • On-campus Off-campus x Mean 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction I and S sig. diff. Imp. sig. diff. Sat. sig. diff. 24
  25. 25. Mean ratings by mode of study 7.0 10 6.5 22 21 9 20 23 Reviewing unit progress 6.0 14 16 5.5 11 19 15 5.0 18 12 Contacting other students Importance 4.5 4.0 17Using chat / whiteboard 3.5 13 3.0 Using calendar • On-campus Off-campus x Mean 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 25
  26. 26. Mean ratings by mode of study 7.0 10 6.5 22 21 9 20 23 6.0 14 16 11 5.5 19 15 5.0 18 12 Importance 4.5 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 • On-campus Off-campus x Mean 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction I and S sig. diff. Imp. sig. diff. Sat. sig. diff. 26
  27. 27. Mean ratings by mode of study 7.0 10 6.5 22 Submitting assignments 9 21 20 Receiving assignment feedback 23 6.0 Interacting with learning resources 14 16 5.5 Contacting your lecturer11 Reading discussions 19 15 5.0 18 12 Contributing to discussions Importance 4.5 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 • On-campus Off-campus x Mean 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction Imp. sig. diff. 27
  28. 28. Mean ratings by mode of study 7.0 10 6.5 22 21 9 20 23 6.0 14 16 11 5.5 19 15 5.0 18 12 Importance 4.5 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 • On-campus Off-campus x Mean 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction I and S sig. diff. Imp. sig. diff. Sat. sig. diff. 28
  29. 29. Mean ratings by mode of study 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 9 20 Accessing lecture/tute/lab notes 23 6.0 14 16 5.5 11 Completing quizzes/self tests 19 15 5.0 18 12 Importance 4.5 Working collaboratively in groups 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 • On-campus Off-campus x Mean 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction I and S sig. diff. 29
  30. 30. Conclusions – mode of studyResults were mixed, but fell into three groups:1) no significant difference2) significantly lower satisfaction rating by off- campus students3) significantly higher importance rating by off- campus students 30
  31. 31. Some data triangulation 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 20 9 23 6.0 11 16 5.5 14 19 5.0 15 Importance 18 4.5 12 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 31
  32. 32. Don’t care – low Imp. and low Sat. 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 20 9 23 6.0 11 16 5.5 14 19 5.0 15 Importance 18 4.5 12 4.0 17 Using chat and/or whiteboard 3.5 13 Using calendar 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 32
  33. 33. Some data triangulation 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 20 9 23 6.0 11 16 5.5 14 19 5.0 15 Importance 18 4.5 12 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 33
  34. 34. Very happy – high Imp. and high Sat. 7.0 Accessing lecture/tutorial/lab notes 10 6.5 21 22 20 9 Accessing unit guides/information 23 6.0 11 16 5.5 14 19 5.0 15 Importance 18 4.5 12 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 34
  35. 35. Some data triangulation 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 20 9 23 6.0 11 16 5.5 14 19 5.0 15 Importance 18 4.5 12 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 35
  36. 36. Needs fixing – high Imp. and low Sat. 7.0 10 6.5 21 22 Viewing my marks 20 9 Receiving feedback on assignments 23 6.0 Reviewing unit progress 11 16 5.5 14 19 5.0 15 Importance 18 4.5 12 4.0 17 3.5 13 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 Satisfaction 36
  37. 37. ConclusionsAn examination of the observed variation ininstitutional level mean ratings of importanceof, and/or satisfaction with, elements of an OLEgiven by students in a whole-of-institutionsurvey highlighted some significantdifferences between demographicgroupings 37
  38. 38. ConclusionsThe discovery of significant differences betweendemographic groups in responses to items onthe evaluation survey highlights the importanceof up-to-date research-based surveys of studentperceptions of the OLEThe need for timely data on student and staffOLE usage is given extra urgency with manyAustralasian universities recently changing, orabout to change, their institutional OLEs 38
  39. 39. ConclusionsThe findings challenge the institution tounderstand the reasons for the observeddemographic differences, and, if appropriate, toact to ensure equity in online experiences forall studentsThey also challenges the value ofstandard, one-size-fits-all institutional policiesand templates relating to the use of the OLE 39
  40. 40. Thank you for your time 40

×