Transcript Assessing the effectiveness of interactive learning tools

Assessing the effectiveness of interactive
learning tools for international students
WORKSHOP
Facilitators:
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
Whitireia Community Polytechnic
Suzan Sariefe
[email protected]
09-3063679
Markus Klose
[email protected]
09-3063677
Workshop Outline
Review of current literature
 Our own experience
 Discussion


Discussion and questions are encouraged
throughout the workshop
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
2
Literature review
Current research in this field
Use of multimedia in the classroom
 Multimedia:
 Are
beneficial for learners who are
weak in linguistic and verbal ability
 Allow instructors to present information
in multiple formats
Enable facilitation and catering for
varied learning styles (Debevec et al 2006;
Karakaya et al 2001)
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
4
Use of multimedia in the classroom cont’d

Help students to process information and
better comprehend (Lambert and McCombs 1998)

Enable deeper learning among students by
presenting material in more inclusive rather
than exclusive ways (Mayer 2003)

Help students take notes and study for
exams (Frey and Birnbaum 2002)
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
5
Use of course Websites

Course Websites …
…
facilitate social interaction and
exchange among students and
instructors (e.g. chat rooms)
 … are effective for storing,
disseminating and retrieving course
relevant information
(Aggarwal and Bento 2002)
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
6
Use of course Websites cont’d

Many researcher have studied the effectiveness
of course Websites (Blackboard™, WebCT, or
alternative solutions)

Often ‘effectiveness’ is measured in terms of
students’ performance in assignments and exams

Other studies measure ‘effectiveness’ in terms of
performance and class attendance
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
7
Use of course Websites cont’d
General research findings:
 Students like accessing a course
Website and feel that all instructors
should develop a course Website (Couch
1997)

Students find a course Website more
useful than a traditional textbook (Goolkasian
et al 2003)
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
8
Use of course Websites cont’d

Many researchers have found a positive
correlation between students’ use of course
Websites and students’ performance

In other words: high use of course Websites is
associated with higher grades/ marks
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
9
Use of course Websites cont’d

Final course grades are positively related to
the number of articles read on a course
Website bulletin board (Stith 2000)

Frequency of student access to Web-based
material correlates positively with grades on
course assignments (Heffner and Cohen 2005)
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
10
Use of course Websites cont’d

Students with highest course grades access
Website twice as often as students with
lowest course grades (Henley 2003)

Final course grades can be predicted by the
number of times students access a course
Website (Wang and Newlin 2000)
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
11
Use of course Websites cont’d
BUT other studies found:

No significant difference in performance
between traditional classroom and technologyassisted classroom (Butler and Mautz 1996)

Mixed results:

Some students performed better with computeraided learning, while others performed better in
traditional classroom settings (Ott et al, 1990)
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
12
Our Speculations
Is interactive learning beneficial?
Depends on the individual student’s learning
style? (see Kolb learning styles diagram)
 Depends on students’ ability to process and
comprehend information (i.e. linguistic and
verbal ability)?
 Depends on students’ motivation?
 Impact of cultural background??

Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
13
Our Speculations cont’d
We have some support from current research:

Debevec and Singh (2006):
Use of technology for learning and traditional
methods are substitutes,


i.e. either method works
Limitation - In this study:


‘use of technology’ and ‘multimedia’ = PowerPoint
download from a course Website
‘traditional learning methods’ = reading textbook;
taking notes in class and from textbook
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
14
Our experience with
international students
Or: Are international students any
different?
Linguistic and verbal ability
Two-Way
Immersion
Developmental
Bilingual
Transition
to
Bilingual
Sheltered
Instruction
ESL
Structured
English
Immersion
Newcomer
Bilingual
Bilingual
Proficiency
in
academic
English
Proficiency
in
academic
English
English
Proficiency
English
Proficiency
English
Proficiency
5-12 years
5-12
years
2-4 years
1-3 years
1-3 years
1 year
1-3 terms
Length of stay in host country
(Adapted from Genesse 1999)
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
16
Linguistic and verbal ability

Anecdotal Evidence:

Our international students (IELTS > 6.x) can be
classified as*
Newcomers (in NZ since 1-3 semesters)
 English proficient (in NZ > 1 year),
 Proficient in academic English (in NZ 1-3 years,
some > 4 years)
 Most of our international students have language
barriers/ difficulties

*depending on length of stay in NZ or another English speaking
country, exposure to NZ culture, and previous learning
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
17
Linguistic and verbal ability

Anecdotal evidence:
Relatively weak linguistic and verbal ability
 Therefore: visual aids and summaries in
teaching might be beneficial


See discussion on ‘multimedia’ (Debevec et al 2006;
and Karakaya et al 2001)
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
18
Use of Blackboard™ in our classes
Blackboard™ features
Use
Don't use
Announcements
Syllabus
Contact
Content
Email
Discussion Board
Virtual Class
Groups
Quiz / Tutorial
Digital Drop Box
Calendar
Grade book
Power Point
Images and Spreadsheets
Movies
Word
Audio
HTML
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
19
Blackboard™ - Students’ perception

Students seem to like*:






PowerPoint slides uploaded prior to class (for
preparation, note taking, etc.)
Topic summaries (e.g. word documents, images,
spreadsheets) provided after class
Take-home tutorials and quizzes (little exercises;
solutions provided at a later stage)
Digital drop box for assignments (allows e.g. to submit
after hours)
Grade book
Announcements
* based on student evaluations on course and instructors
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
20
Our experience - Conclusions
We believe (many) students benefit from
multimedia and interactive learning tools
 We as instructors have more flexibility:

Blackboard allows us to adopt teaching
strategies aligned to students’ needs
 No course book  easy to alter handouts
and material throughout the semester
 We can link to additional Web-based
learning resources

Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
21
What we could do, but don’t do (yet)
Have online interactions (e.g. chat
rooms)
 Send progress reports/ alerts/ praise via
Email
 Include audio and video material (often
copyright issues)
 Provide material that is not necessarily
course related (e.g. wider reading
material, upcoming events, etc.)

Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
22
Discussion
Feel free to discuss any topic of interest!
 Here are some suggestions:

How do you use interactive learning tools?
 When do you use interactive learning tools?
 What techniques do you use to make
students participate in interactive learning?
 Anecdotal evidence of success/ failure?
 Are international students different in terms
of using interactive learning tools?

Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
23
References:
Aggarwal, A. K., & Bento, R. (2000). Web-based education. In A. K.
Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-based learning and teaching technologies:
Opportunities and challenges (pp. 2-16). Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Publishing.
Butler, J. B., & Mautz, R. D. (1996). Multimedia presentations and
learning: A laboratory experiment. Issues in Accounting Education,
10(3), 259-280.
Couch, J. V. (1997). Using the internet in instruction: A homepage for
statistics. Psychological Reports, 81, 999-1003.
Debevec, K., & Shih, M.Y., Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning strategies and
performance in a technology integrated classroom. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 293-307.
Frey, B., & Birnbaum, D. (2002). Learner's perception on the value of
PowerPoint in lecture. Manuscript available: ERIC Document
Reproduction Service, Nr. ED467192.
Goolkasian, P., Wallandael, L. V., & Gaultney, J. F. (2003). Evaluating a
website in cognitive science. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 216-220.
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
24
References cont’d:
Gaytan, J. A. & Slate, J. R. (2002). Multimedia and the College of Business: A
Literature Review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (2), 9094.
Genesee, F. (1999). Program alternatives for lingusitically diverse students
(Educational Practice Report 1). Santa Cruz, CA, and Washington, DC:
Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.
Heffner, M., & Cohen, S. H. (2005). Evaluating student use of web-based course
material. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(1), 74-81.
Henley, D. C. (2003). Use of web-based formative assessment to support
student learning in a metabolism/ nutrition unit. European Journal of Dental
Education, 7, 116-123.
Karakaya, F., Ainscough, L., & Chopoorian, J. (2001). The effects of class size
and learning styles on student performance in a multimedia-based marketing
course. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(2), 84-90.
Kolb , D. (1984). Experimental learning: Experience as the source of learning
and development. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
25
References cont’d
Lambert, N., & McCombs, B. L. (1998). How students learn.
Wahsington, D.C.: American Psychology Association.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the
same instructional design methods across different media. Learning
and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
Ott, R. L., Mann, M. H., & Moores, C. T. (1990). An empirical
investigation into the interactive effects of personality traits and
method of instruction on student performance in elementary
accounting. Journal of Accounting Education, 8, 17-35.
Stith, B. (2000). Web-enhanced lecture course scores big with students
and faculty. THE Journal, 28, 20-25.
Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2000). Characteristics of students that
enroll and succeed in psychology web-based classes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92, 137-144.
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
26
Appendix
Some definitions:

Multimedia: systems that support several
media types such as text, graphics, audio,
still images, animations, video, and voice.
Typically, such media are ‘digitalised’
before it can be used on computer
applications (Gaytan and Slate 2002)
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
28
Some definitions cont’d

Course Websites: typically include multimedia
applications and allow the instructor to
organize, manage and house Web-based,
interactive learning environments.
Examples of typical applications include (but
are not limited to): lecture notes and
information, bulletin boards, chat rooms,
tutorials and quizzes, links to other Web-based
material, etc. (Gaytan and Slate 2002)
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
29
Example of a course Website Blackboard™
Back
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
30
Kolb learning styles diagram
Concrete
Experience
(CE) (Feeling)
Active
Experimentation
(AE) (Doing)
(Kolb 1984)
Accommodators
Divergers
Convergers
Assimilators
Abstract
Conceptualisation
(AC) (Thinking)
Suzan Sariefe and Markus Klose
Reflective
Observation
(RO) (Watching)
Back
31