Upload
rosa-sparks
View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jason ColeConsultant
As presented at theSakai Summer Conference
12 June 2007 | Amsterdam, Netherlands
The public face of eLearning
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
The public perception
Tuition and Required Fees Public Universities
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004
Pe
rce
nt
cha
ng
e
Tuition public universities
Consumer price index
Digest of Education Statistics 2004, NCES
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
The press
Federal Study Finds No Edge for Students Using Technology-Based Reading and Math Products
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
The U.S. Congress
… the breach of trust between schools and students. There is an important relationship there that some schools, though certainly not all, have been far too cavalier with.
Senator Robert P. Casey, 6 June 2007
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
The Spellings Commission
• And some [students] never complete their degrees at all, at least in part because most colleges and universities don’t accept responsibility for making sure that those they admit actually succeed.
• Many students who do earn degrees have not actually mastered the reading, writing, and thinking skills we expect of college graduates.
U.S. Department of Education, 18 September 2006
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
But the Commission wrote
• “We recommend that America’s colleges and universities embrace a culture of continuous innovation and quality improvement. We urge these institutions to develop new pedagogies, curricula and technologies to improve learning, particularly in the areas of science and mathematics.”
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
U.S. Department of Education study of
educational software• “Congress posed questions about the
effectiveness of educational technology and how effectiveness is related to conditions and practices. ... On average, after one year, products did not increase or decrease test scores by amounts that were statistically different from zero.”
• As reported in the press: education technology doesn’t work.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Training: A comment
• The most important training [for eLearning users] is how to use the technology to achieve lesson objectives, not how to use the software.
• Training requires assistance during the early use of the software.
Debra Sprague, Graduate School of Education, George Mason University, responding to questions about the study at the Blackboard Forum, National Press Club,
Washington, DC USA 11 May 2007
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Presidents on e-Learning
• “Based on his work with the University of South Australia and his conversations with presidents and financial officers, [Bill Becker] said there is a general belief that eLearning increases the cost of education. He said the cost of the distance learning courses at the University of South Australia exceed those offered in the classroom because of the amount of time that faculty spend responding to students.”
“Access and Persistence Symposium,” September 8, 2005, Washington, DC
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Observations
• Evidence suggests eLearning appears to be most effective for first and second year students.
• Pedagogy is important to effectiveness of eLearning; “best practices” must be available to faculty.
• Methods of instruction must be adapted to student preparation, motivation, and constraints.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Evidence being used
• Improvements when eLearning is used:
• Retention
• Satisfactory completion
• Performance in sequent courses
• Graduation rates
• Scope of mastery of the subject
• Student engagement
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
More work
• “What works” - Colleges and universities should produce and document evidence of educational effectiveness of eLearning.
• Pedagogy - The key to effectiveness is guidance for faculty on the effective use of eLearning resources, not the learning system software
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
“Further study”
• Why are faculty turning to publisher’s online services instead of local eLearning services?
• Which eLearning services are most effective for which courses?
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Evaluation of Education Technology: High School Algebra
“Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First
Student Cohort
Report to Congress,” Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, March
2007.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Effectiveness of Reading andMathematics Software
Products• U.S. Congressionally mandated report
by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
• Issued March 2007
• First and fourth grade reading, sixth grade mathematics and high school algebra.
• Context: The Department again did not seek funding for educational technology.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Summary findings
• “Congress posed questions about the effectiveness of educational technology and how effectiveness is related to conditions and practices. ... On average, after one year, products did not increase or decrease test scores by amounts that were statistically different from zero.”
• As reported in the press: education technology doesn’t work.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Study findings
• “Nearly all teachers received training and believed the training prepared them to use the products.”
• “Technical difficulties using products mostly were minor.”
• “When products were being used, students were more likely to engage in individual practice and teachers were more likely to facilitate student learning rather than lecture.”
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Warning
These data are based on teaching high school algebra and would not be representative of other subjects, levels of instruction, or students with different characteristics.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Training
• Teachers received about 12 hours of training, including practice using the software.
• At the end 81% were “confident they were prepared to use the product”
• By the time of the first classroom observation, only 66% considered themselves prepared to use the software.
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Training: A comment
• The most important training is how to use the technology to achieve lesson objectives, not how to use the software.
• Training requires assistance during the early use of the software.
Debra Sprague, Graduate School of Education, George Mason University, responding to questions about the study at the Blackboard Forum, National
Press Club, Washington, DC USA 11 May 2007
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Use of the software
A B C AllTutorials Few Many ManyPractice Many Many Many
Indivudalization Automatic P,A T,P,A T,P,A Teacher P,A T,P,A T,P Student T,P T,P,A T,P
Days per school year 40 9 20 22Minutes per day used 41 28 38 34Hours of annual use 28 5 13 15
Software Products
T - Tutorial, P - Practice, A - Assessment
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Test Results
Using Technology Traditional Difference
Overall score 37 38 -0.86Concepts 36 37 -1.70Processes 35 36 -1.09Skills 41 41 0.39
ETS End-of-Course Algebra Examination
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Cost of software
• Software provides tutorial, practice, and assessment opportunities.
• Average licensing fees about $15 per student for the school year; a range of $7 to $30.
• [Teachers reported] students used the software and average of 118 minutes per week for 23 weeks or 46 hours (of 180 hours).
Georg
eto
wn
U
niv
ers
ity
Impact on classroom activities
Using Technology Traditional
Teacher RoleLeader 12% 50%Facilitator 63% 28%Monitor/observer 16% 14%Working on other tasks 6% 7%Other 4% 1%
Instructional ActivityIndividual practice 85% 32%Lecture 8% 36%Question and answer 3% 15%Review of student work 1% 13%Other 3% 5%
Student on task 74% 65%