Transcript Directions in E-Learning: Innovations in Curriculum

Does Technology
Contribute to Learning?:
I’d Like to Believe You,
But….
Academy of Distinguished Teachers
Fall Retreat 2007
Billie Wahlstrom, Vice Provost
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
You Say Tomato
“Traditionalists hold face to face as
the gold standard. Innovators hold
that technology-mediated education
can improve learning outcomes”
(p. 1).
Source: “If There Is No Significant Difference, Why Should We Care?”
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
No Significant Difference
Phenomenon
In 1999, Thomas L. Russell wrote "The No
Significant Difference Phenomenon." The
book was a fully indexed, comprehensive
research bibliography of 355 research
reports, summaries and papers that
document no significant differences in
student outcomes between alternate
modes of education delivery.
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
WCET Collects Data
WCET—the Western Cooperative for
Educational Telecommunications—a
“membership-supported organization
open to providers and users of educational
technologies” whose mission is to promote
and advance the effective use of
technology in higher education.”
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
Significant Differences
WCET’s website includes studies which do
document significant differences in
student outcomes based on the mode of
education delivery. Both types of entries
may be searched.
So, what’s the evidence?
Source: <www.nosignificantdifference.org/>
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
Where Are We Now?
•
•
•
TEL courses show great variability in
student learning outcomes.
Looking at studies of e-learning and f-2-f
learning as a whole, we would be hardpressed to see a difference.
Nevertheless, evidence of tremendous
positive effects exists in outcomes in
many studies, and those are the ones we
need to emulate and research.
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
Moving Forward
•
•
First, we need to ask, “ a difference in
what?”
“Whether or not technology makes a
difference depends on how it is used.”
–
–
–
Are we talking about increased opportunities
for students—accessibility?
Are we talking about active learning, trying
by doing?
Are we talking about increased interaction
with others?
Source: “The Myth of No Significant Difference,” pp. 14-15
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
Strategic Questions
•
•
•
•
Do we think of technology as a solution in itself
or as a means to an end?
Do we assume that using technology is an
either/or proposition?
Have we identified those processes and those
activities we want to improve and looked at how
technology can facilitate those actions?
Are doing the same things with technology, or
are we taking advantage of the unique
capabilities of technology and redesigning our
activities?
Source: “The Myth of No Significant Difference,” pp. 14-15.
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
What Works?
•
•
•
•
Systematic instructional design of the
type used in the OT proof of concept
shown yesterday
Active learning with opportunities for
team work, collaboration, and
communication (f-2f and online)—e.g.,
wikis, blogs, the OT café.
Instructor involvement in the delivery of
the course; the presence of a “live”
instructor—e.g., UMConnect, IM, and f-2-f
Hybrid models
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
Maximize World-Class
Technology to Serve & Delight
Studies suggest that outcomes are
getting better because
– Technologies are put in the service of
pedagogy and are better in their own
right
– We’ve had more practice teaching &
learning this way
– Much better metrics (e.g., dentistry)
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
Translating Learning Research
into Practice
• Both assessment and neuroscience tell us
how and to what extent technology can
improve teaching
Question: How can we translate research
into something that faculty can use easily?
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
Works Cited—1
• 2006-2016 Map of Future Forces Affecting Education, prepared for
KnowledgeWorks Foundation by the Institute for the Future.
• “Active Learning and Technology: Designing for Faculty, Students,
and Institutions.” Anne Moore, Shelli Fowler, and C. Edward
Watson, Educause Review, September/October 2007. pp. 43-76.
• ECAR studies for 2004 and 2005. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
Research <http://www.educause.edu/AboutECAR/94>
• “Faculty 2.0.” Joel Hartman, Charles Dziuban, and James BrophyEllison.” Educause Review, September/October 2007. pp. 62-76.
• “If There Is No Significant Difference, Why Should We Care?
Sharmila Basu Conger. The Journal of Educators Online, Volume
2, Number 2, July 2005. p. 1.
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
Works Cited—2
• “Is Technology-Enhanced Learning Effective? Recent Research and
the ‘No Significant Difference’ Hypothesis.” J.D. Walker. DMC.
<dmc.umn.edu/spotlight/tel-effectiveness.shtml>
• “The Myth About No Significant Difference.” Diana Oblinger and
Brian L. Hawkins. Educause Review, November/Dece3mber 2006.
pp. 14-15.
• “Technology in Support of Learning on the Twin Cities Campus,”
Robert B. Kvavik. Prepared for the Academic Health Center.
• “Top-Ten Teaching and Learning Issues, 2007.” Educause
Quarterly, Number 3 2007. pp. 15-21.
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology
Acknowledgements
Janet Shanedling, Ph.D., Director, AHC
Learning Commons, AHC Office of
Education, provided her slides from the
2007 CAHP briefing on the Learning
Platform and the OT student perspective.
Distributed Education & Instructional Technology