37
Karen Swan Kent State University Research Center for Educational Technology Assessing the Impact of Technology on Learning
| Date post: | 30-Nov-2014 |
| Category: |
Technology |
| Upload: | jkchapman |
| View: | 1,939 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
Karen Swan
Kent State University
Research Center for Educational
Technology
Assessing the Impact of Technology
on Learning
The Great Media Debate
Kozma
VS
Clark
What is the question?
outcomesprocessesinputs
outcomesprocessesinputs
satisfaction
retention
success
achievement
proficiencies
performance
Understanding By Design, Wiggins & McTighe
enduring understandings
important to know & do
worth being familiar with
achievement
outcomesprocessesinputs
satisfaction
retention
success
achievement
proficiencies
performance
outcomesprocessesinputs
learner characteristics
design
learning resources
professional development
learner characteristics
F2F, E, M
85.9%n=11,286
85.8%n=6,460
91.5%n=2,079
72.7%n=378
86.7%n=2,369
86.5%n=5,639
74.8%n=821
94.1%n=1,036
89.1%n=1,043
64.7%n=148
79.6%n=230
88.4%n=3,263
84.1%n=2,376
68.9%n=298
78.5%n=526
Arts & Sciences,Business Admin.,Hospitality Mgmt. Education Engineering
Health & Pub. Affairs
O
females males A&S BA & Hosp. mgmt
F2F E, M, O E, MF2F
Overall
factors influencing success(Dziuban & Moskal, 2006)
learner characteristics
reactive behavior patterns(Long-Dziuban frame)
aggressive passive
independenthigh energy, action-oriented, not concerned with approval, speaks out freely, gets into confrontational situations
low energy, not concerned with approval, prefers to work alone, resists pressure from authority, non-communicative
dependenthigh energy, action-oriented, concerned with approval, rarely expresses negative feelings, performs at or above ability
Low energy, concerned with approval, highly sensitive to the feelings of others, compliant and pleasing
outcomesprocessesinputs
learner characteristics
design
learning resources
professional development
design
http://www.esac.org/fdi/rubric/finalsurvey/demorubric.asp
http://www.tltgroup.org/
outcomesprocessesinputs
learner characteristics
course design
learning resources
professional development
learning
ubiquitous technologies
outcomesprocessesinputs
use
representations
conceptualizations
learning
UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)
multiple representations
across a wide range of media
UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)
percentage of time spent in:
regular classroom SBCAC
individual 12.96 8.52
small groups 31.31 58.73
large groups 7.78 0.00
whole class 47.95 32.75
GROUP SIZE
UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)
CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING
average rating across classes
high ability 10
medium ability 9.4
low ability 8.5
special needs 9.3
UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)
TEACHING PRESENCE
PRESENCE
SOCIAL COGNITIVEPRESENCE
EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE
Community of Inquiry Model (Garrison, 2006)
outcomesprocessesinputs
Teaching PresenceDesign & Organization
1. The instructor clearly communicated important course topics.2. The instructor clearly communicated important course goals.3. The instructor provided clear instructions on how to
participate in course learning activities.4. The instructor clearly communicated important due dates/time
frames for learning activities.Facilitation
5. The instructor was helpful in identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on course topics that helped me to learn.
6. The instructor was helpful in guiding the class towards understanding course topics in a way that helped me clarify my thinking.
7. The instructor helped to keep course participants engaged and participating in productive dialogue.
8. The instructor helped keep the course participants on task in a way that helped me to learn.
9. The instructor encouraged course participants to explore new concepts in this course.
10. Instructor actions reinforced the development of a sense of community among course participants.
Direct Instruction11. The instructor helped to focus discussion on relevant
issues in a way that helped me to learn.12. The instructor provided feedback helped me
understand my strengths and weaknesses. 13. The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion.
Social PresenceAffective Expression
14. Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the course.
15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants.16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium
for social interaction.
Open Communication17. I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium.18. I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions.19. I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants.
Group Cohesion20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants
while still maintaining a sense of trust.21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other
course participants. 22. Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration.
Cognitive PresenceTriggering Event
23. Problems posed increased my interest in course issues.24. Course activities piqued my curiosity. 25. I felt motivated to explore content related questions.
Exploration26. I utilized a variety of information sources to explore problems
posed in this course. 27. Brainstorming and finding relevant information helped me
resolve content related questions.28. Online discussions were valuable in helping me appreciate
different perspectives.
Integration29. Combining new information helped me answer questions
raised in course activities.30. Learning activities helped me construct
explanations/solutions.31. Reflection on course content and discussions helped me
understand fundamental concepts in this class.Resolution
32. I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this course.
33. I have developed solutions to course problems that can be applied in practice.
34. I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or other non-class related activities.
outcomesprocessesinputs
pedagogy
interactions
assessment
course design
course assignments
instructor feedback
instructor
instructor /discussion
affect
learning
content analysis– “additional comments:”(Swan, Schenker, Lin, Shea & Aviv, 2006)
pedagogy
r p r p r p r p
design & organization
.64
< .01 .59
< .01 .64
< .01 .60
< .01
facilitating discourse
.64
< .01 .58
< .01 .61
< .01 .58
< .01
direct instruction
.64
< .01 .61
< .01 .63
< .01 .61
< .01
SUMMER 2002 (n=1140)
SPRING 2003 (n=6088)
satisfaction per. learn.per. learn.
teaching presence(Shea, et al., 2003, 2004)
satisfaction per. learn.
pedagogy
outcomesprocessesinputs
pedagogy
interactions
assessment
interactions
interactivity & generations(Hartman,Moskal & Dziuban, 2005)
social software
commenting tools (Track Changes, audio/ video feedback)
threaded discussion, chat, email
whiteboards / application sharing (Elluminate, Wimba, Learnlinc)
blogs
wikis
distributed classification systems (Digg, Plum, Flickr YouTube)
interactions
outcomesprocessesinputs
pedagogy
interactions
assessment
assessment
~criteria criteria
total posts 40.55 58.30
total threads 15.50 18.80
posts/thread 1.65 2.04
thread depth 0.71 0.98
greatest depth 1.90 2.70
~criteria criteria
initial posts/stud 0.83 0.82
initial post length 147.19
145.40
responses/stud** 1.52 1.96
response length* 68.73 70.12
messages read** 11.83 23.05*significant at p>.05; **significant at p>.01
assessment of online discussion(Schenker, Swan, Arnold & Kuo, 2006)
enduring understandings
important to know & do
worth being familiar withAssessment Types
informal checks
observation/dialogue
quizzes/tests
academic prompts
performance task/project
assessment
Understanding By Design, Wiggins & McTighe
assessment: rubrics
discussion postings rubrics (Pelz, 2004)
points 0 points 1/2 point 1 point
article summary no summary of article weak summary of article, misses some major points
clear summary of article, addresses all major points
covered in article
addresses questions posed doesn't address any of the questions
addresses only some questions or some
questions superficially
addresses all questions well &/or adds original
critique
links to module content, other lit. &/or personal experiences
doesn't link to either module or own experience
weak links to module &/or own experience
strong links to module topics &/or own
experience
points 0 points 1/2 point 1 point
objectives objectives neither state what students will learn
nor match evaluation rubrics
weak objectives (don't state what students will
learn or don't match rubrics)
objectives clearly state what students will learn from the lesson and are
linked to evaluation
assessment no rubrics rubrics don't match objectives &/or don't give skill levels w/in categories
rubrics give specific descriptions of skill levels w/in categories and
categories match objectives
scope and sequence
poorly structured lesson inappropriate for grade
level, curriculum & objectives
weak lesson that doesn't clearly address objectives.
well structured lesson that fits curriculum and grade level and
clearly addresses objectives
activities no activities weak links between activities, lesson and
curriculum
excellent activities encouraging active learning, & transfer of learning
to other areas of curriculum
lesson plan rubrics
article critique rubrics assessment: rubrics
AAHE ePortfolio clearinghouse http://ctl.du.edu/portfolioclearinghouse/
collection of student work providing evidence of learning
•linked to learning goals
•demonstrating progress over time
•multiple media
•include reflections on works
•programmatic, across courses
assessment: e-portfolios
assessment: student response systems
self-assessment as well as data collection, engagement,
interactivity
outcomesprocessesinputs
Karen Swan
Kent State University
Research Center for Educational
Technology
