Presentation on theme: "INNOVATIONS 2012 What Works & WHY? Finding Effective Learning Technology David E. Kephart, PhD Adjunct Professor of Mathematic University of South Florida."— Presentation transcript:
INNOVATIONS 2012 What Works & WHY? Finding Effective Learning Technology David E. Kephart, PhD Adjunct Professor of Mathematic University of South Florida Director of Academic Research Link-Systems International
Students Use the Web To Get their Education Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011, Sloan Consortium
The Hopes for Online Technology Anywhere, anytime, just-in-time educational impact Remotely located learners become engaged learners Learning, participation, and effort can be directly measured Learners always have a take-away Educator can adapt practice to learner preferences and culture
Versus Online Learning Technology-phobia Will it be offer too little real support? Too much? Will the technical challenge of using it be a hindrance to progress? Will it convey information accurately? Can we even tell? Will it compete with or replace established campus resources?
A New Meaning for Evidence-Based Quantitative comparison & coexistence with f2f solutions Student achievement (end-of-course, GPA, etc.) Student persistence in the course Student retention in program
A New Meaning for Evidence-Based The overall quality of the learning experience Students fluency with a changing technology Faculty speaking and at ease with a new educational medium Administrative comprehension of which products offer better prospects
A New Meaning for Evidence-Based The development of fundamentally better learners & educators Continuation into & successful completion of four-year programs Adoption of learning practices known to favor skill development and success Collaborative learning changes learning in traditional circumstances
Testing for Educational Effectiveness The mix Campus originates, maintains, and develops technology Campus-based technology complemented by vendor-based technology Vendor provides, maintains, and develops technology
Tests for Educational Effectiveness The cases Hampton State University/Thomas Nelson Community College, 1999 Stony Brook (SUNY), 2004 University of Idaho, 2005 Pima Community College, 2006 University of South Florida, University of Phoenix/Axia College, Mount San Antonio College,
Gathering the Evidence: Research Type Comparative studies Investigative studies Feasibility studies Surveys
Gathering Evidence: Criteria Practicality Statistical power Non-ambiguity Audience potential
Gathering Evidence: Instruments Surveys Interviews Campus statistics Vendor or portal-specific data
Hampton State University/Thomas Nelson Community College Feasibility-type study Principle Investigator: Arun Verma Technology: LSI WorldWideWhiteboard®/campus office hours Academics: tandem use of online office hour technology Classes selected by investigator Technology set up in cooperation with vendor Post-semester assessment written up by PI Results Affirm the notion that students will talk with professors online Show that mathematics notation is vital to that discussion
Stony Brook (SUNY) Product comparison study Investigators: Gordon Smith and William Klein Technology: LSI NetTutor® and WorldWideWhiteboard, Blackboard WebEQ® Subject participation mandatory Technology set up in cooperation with vendor Post-semester assessment written by investigators Results Suggest superiority of fully flexible whiteboard environment for online teaching Robustness of technology is key to faculty use Ability to express subject-specific concepts is more important than perceived convenience of technology
University of Idaho Comparative study using community of inquiry model Investigators: David Thomas, Qing Li, Libby Knott, Zhongxiao Li Technology: WorldWideWhiteboard, 3 basic math courses Academics: matrix of interrelationships between students in three mathematics courses Results The roles that students play in online discussions are strongly correlated to individual achievement Asynchronous discussions can play a verifiably critical role in establishing content-focused dialogue
Pima Community College Survey and longitudinal research into implementation of campus online mentoring Investigators: Penney Turrentine, Lucy MacDonald Technology: various campus solutions, online tutoring vendor, LSI WorldWideWhiteboard Academics Results Online programs are practicality and supplement the existing curriculum Solutions vary in applicability and must be customized for use by campus programs The use by students and institutions is increasing and giving birth to unexpected alliances within the institution
University of South Florida Investigation of the effectiveness of online tutoring Principal investigator: Gladis Kersaint Technology: LSI NetTutor Online Tutoring Service Classes: eight courses in College Algebra Results: Gains in content knowledge of students who used the tutoring services was better than those who did not use it Students least prepared for College Algebra were most likely to seek help from an online tutoring service Persistence rates were 25% higher among test subjects and particularly among students who used NetTutor
University of Phoenix/Axia College Longitudinal, multi-observer study Principal Investigator: Susan Brewer Technology: UOP-based small group tutoring with LSI WorldWideWhiteboard, after-hours one-on-one tutoring from LSI NetTutor Academics: 40,000 students in Mathematics and Writing Results [in progress] Initial surveys demonstrate initial student attitudes and tendencies Rubric measures intra-session learning attained in online interactions
Mt. San Antonio College Investigative study of campus online tutoring and live classroom participation Principal investigator: Bailey Smith Technology: WorldWideWhiteboard-powered online tutoring lab Academics: faculty participants, writing across the curriculum, QEP verification Results [in progress] Surveys establish tutor attitudes and development Surveys gauge student collaborative learning response (Subject to IRB agreement) Campus data correlates activities to measurable achievement.
Some Last Points Research design is pivotal Consider all stakeholders Braid resources Aim to reach your colleagues, not just the institution Power of research hinges on quantity, practicality hinges on involvement Buy-in by investigators Buy-in by faculty Buy-in by affected learners
Wanted: Research Collaborators Large budget not necessary Work with existing research programs Tap resources from the local university Find a distance learning software vendor will to find out what you want to find out Potential Areas of Investigation Student benefit from locally designed online homework Use of HTML5 and mobile technology by students Outreach via Web-based learning to maximize funding impact What have you wondered about?
Thanks! Questions & Answers
Where to Find the Studies Cited Kersaint, G., Barber, J., Dogbey, J. & Kephart, D. (2011). The Effect of Access to an Online Tutorial Service on College Algebra Student Outcomes. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning. 19(1), February, Smith, G. and Klein, W. (2004). Diagrams and math notation in e-learning. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology. 35(5) pp Thomas, D., Li, Q., Knott, L., & Li, Z. (2006). The Structure of Student Dialogue in Web-Assisted Mathematics Courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. ( ). 36(4). pp Retrieved March 1, 2011 from Turrentine, P. & MacDonald, L. (2006). Tutoring Online: Increasing Effectiveness with Best Practices. National Association for Developmental Education Digest. 2(2). Fall Retrieved March 15, 2011 from p. 4. Verma, A. K. (1999), Using NetTutor for Conducting Online Interactive Office Hours. Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics. 12(017). Retrieved March 7, 2011 from Resuchle, S. & Loch, B. (2008). "Conducting a Trial Web Conferencing Software." Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education''. 9(3). July, Retrieved from
Still More Reading Anderson, L. W. (Ed.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Berk, L., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding Children's Learning: Vygotsky and Early Childhood Education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc. Krathwohl, D. (Autumn 2002). Revising Bloom's Taxonomy. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), Lee, F. J., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Does learning of a complex task have to be complex? A study in learning decomposition. Cognitive Psychology, 42(3), Menon, S. (2010). A Pedagogy/Andragogy-Neutral Learning Platform for Improving Effectiveness of Online Learning. Proceedings of the Sixth Pan-Commonwealth Conference. Kochi, India: In Press. Neville, Alan J. (1999). The problem-based learning tutor: Teacher? Facilitator? Evaluator? Medical Teacher. 21(4), pp Perin, D. (2011). Facilitating Student Learning Through Contextualization. CCRC Brief, 1-4. Piaget, J. (1998). De la pedagogie. Paris: Odile Jacob. Rosenbloom, P. S., Laird, J. E., & Newell, A. (1987). The Chunking of Skill and Knowledge. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University Artificial Intelligence and Psychology Project. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
REFERENCES More about Link-Systems International Anthony, A. Enhancing the Online Tutoring Experience Through Synergistic Tutor Training, Association for the Tutoring Profession 2011 (ATP). Orlando, Florida: March 29, 2011 Cengage Learning. (n.d.). GEAR UP Partners. Retrieved from Kephart, D. The Methodology of Link-Systems International: Integrated Cognitive Contextualized Learning. LSI White-paper series. July, 2011 (in manuscript) Workforce Distance Learning Services LLC. (n.d.). ALEKS. Retrieved from