Interactive Technology and Effective Educational Practicescpr.indiana.edu/uploads/AIR 2010...
25
Interactive Technology and Effective Educational Practices Allison BrckaLorenz, Ph.D. NSSE Research Analyst Amy Garver FSSE Project Associate Scholarly Paper at the AIR Annual Forum, Chicago, IL May 31 st , 2010
Transcript of Interactive Technology and Effective Educational Practicescpr.indiana.edu/uploads/AIR 2010...
Interactive Technology and
Effective Educational
Practices
Allison BrckaLorenz, Ph.D.NSSE Research Analyst
Amy GarverFSSE Project Associate
Scholarly Paper at the AIR Annual Forum, Chicago, IL May 31st , 2010
Overview• Review of literature
• Purpose
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Implications for future research
Technology as an Area of Interest• Accessibility
• Creating and sharing information• Information technology
• Web 2.0 tools
• Course management systems
• Instructional technology
• Impact on the college student experience
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Accessibility – 96% of first-years and seniors own a computer (ECAR, 2005). 18% increase in laptops since 2007. Schools free technology. Contracts with schools. Creating and sharing information – Web 2.0 tools opportunity to not only consuming and broadly sharing information Impact on student learning – Negative or positive effect. Technology is more accessible now to college students than any other time in history. In a nation-wide longitudinal study of college students’ uses of and skills with technology, results indicated that in 2005 over 96% of first-year and senior students owned a computer, and by 2007, the ownerships of laptop computers increased 18% (Kvavik & Caurso, 2005; Salaway, Caruso, & Nelson, 2007). With the additional rise of Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Google Docs, YouTube, Blogs), students have the ability to not only consume information but also create and broadly share information over the Web (Downes 2005; Thompson, 2007). Technology has become engrained in the daily lives of today’s college students (Junco & Cole-Avant, 2008). Often referred to as digital natives or the Net Generation, many students are often simultaneously blogging, playing video games, texting, or checking social network sites while preparing for class or doing homework (Coffman & Klinger, 2007; Prensky, 2001). However, increased dependency on technology has led some to discuss its broad impact on college student learning. For example, Dede (2005) argued technology may have a negative effect by serving as a distraction and lessening the quality of effort that students need to gain deeper levels of understanding. In contrast, others have claimed interactive technologies can be used in ways to harness motivation for learning by personalizing course material so that it becomes more relevant to the lives of students (Coffman & Klinger, 2007; Lee, Magjuka, Liu, & Bonk, 2006). In an effort to better understand technology’s broad impact on student learning, the aim of this study was to determine if frequent use of interactive tools, in relation to academic work, had a positive or negative effect on students’ engagement in effective educational practices. Further, this study examined which interactive tools were more frequently used by students, and if differences existed by various subpopulations. The findings from this exploratory study will help to identify populations of students who are more frequent users of innovative learning technologies as well as provide empirical evidence for its impact on student engagement.
Outcomes linked to Interactive TechnologyCourse-level findings
• Creativity and critical thinking (Fitzpatrick, 2004)
• Comprehension (Shapiro, 2009; Bain and Przybyla, 2009)
• Reflective and integrative learning (Downes, 2004)
• Active and collaborative learning (Klein, 2009)
• Achievement (Bain and Przybyla, 2009)
• Participation and attendance (Fitzpatrick, 2004; Shapiro, 2009)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Classroom assessment Although some studies have explored the effect of students’ general use of technology on educational practices (Nelson Laird & Kuh, 2005; Salaway, Caruso, & Nelson, 2007), most tended to focus on a specific tool, such collaborative editing software, blogs, or student response systems, and its role in producing desirable learning outcomes associated with a particular course. In a study of a general psychology course at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Shapiro (2009) found that the use of clickers (i.e., student response systems) increased attendance when compared to using extra credit as motivation for attendance. Clickers also helped students better comprehend information. In an online course, Klein (2009) hypothesized that the use of student response systems, coupled with other teaching methods, helped to promote active and collaborative learning in the passive online learning environment. Bain and Przybyla (2009) examined student perceptions to better understand the influence student response systems had on in-class and out-of-class behaviors of students. The authors administered surveys and compared the responses of students in one section of a management information systems course that used clickers to the responses of students in a section that did not use clickers. Clickers were found to positively influence enjoyment, motivation, comprehension, and general classroom engagement. Additionally, final grades in the course that used clickers were significantly higher than the final grades in the same course without clickers. In this study, however, clickers were found to have virtually no effect on student attendance. Another relevant study revealed positive effects on reflective and integrative learning skills among students when blogs were appropriately incorporated into courses (Downes, 2004). Specifically, Downes (2004) suggested that blogs can solicit engagement among students that is not only reflective but also critical, inquisitive, and reactive. He further pointed out that in order for blogging to be successful in the classroom, faculty and students must embrace its worth as an educational tool. Yet, despite its potential benefits, according to a national study (Salaway, Caruso, & Nelson, 2007) only a small percentage of students (8.9%) reported using blogs for academic purposes.
Student Uses of Interactive Technology Large scale studies
Findings from 2005 and 2007 ECAR studies
• Limited use
• Preference• Gender and age
• Face-to-face interactions with faculty
(Kvavik & Caurso, 2005; Salaway, Caruso, & Nelson, 2007)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Despite technology’s wide accessibility among college students and its potential benefits for learning, descriptive statistics reported in the 2005 and 2007 EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR) nationwide studies (Kvavik & Caurso, 2005; Salaway, Caruso, & Nelson, 2007) offered that very few students claimed using interactive technology tools for academic purposes. This was true even though a majority of students believed it made positive contributions to teaching and learning. In fact, according to results in the 2005 and 2007 reports, students indicated that they preferred only a “moderate” amount of technology as it related to their academics, and suggested the face-to-face interaction with faculty was an important component to their learning (Kvavik & Caurso, 2005; Salaway, Caruso, & Nelson, 2007). Findings such as these raise the question as to who is actually using and benefitting from these interactive technologies. Often literature that examines the demographics of technology users tends to focus on students’ preferences or comfort with the technology. For example, according to the 2007 ECAR study results, female and younger students reported a lesser preference for technology in the classroom (Salaway, Caruso, & Nelson, 2007). This finding was indicative of conclusions made by other studies which implied women were more affected by perceived ease of use than men as well as individuals who espoused more feminine values such as personal relationships (Srite & Karahanna, 2006; Venkatesh & Morris, 2000).
Technology and Student EngagementLarge scale studies
• Computer use (Kuh & Vesper, 1999)
• Information technology (Kuh & Shouping, 2001; NSSE, 2003)
• Distance learners (NSSE, 2006; Chen, Gonyea, & Kuh, 2008)
• Time spent online (Nelson Laird, 2004)
PurposeTo identify subpopulations of students who are
frequent users of interactive learning technologies as well as to determine if frequent use of interactive tools, in relation to academic work, had a positive or negative effect on students’ engagement in effective educational practices.
Research Questions1. What types of interactive technology are used
most and least often by first-year and senior students?
2. How does the use of these technologies vary by subpopulations?
3. How does student use of interactive technology relate to educationally effective student engagement?
Data SourceNational Survey of Student Engagement 2009
• Randomly sampled first-year and senior students
• 640 baccalaureate degree-granting institutions from US and Canada
• Over 375,000 respondents
Technology extra item set
• 58 institutions
• 31,000 respondents
Presenter
Presentation Notes
MORE HERE
During the current school year, about how often did you use…in your courses?
Response set: Very often, Often, Sometimes, Never, I don’t know what this is
1. Student response systems (“clickers”)2. Online portfolios3. Blogs4. Collaborative editing software (Wikis, Google Docs)5. Online student video projects (using YouTube, etc.)6. Video games, simulations, or virtual worlds7. Instant messaging/chat room8. Online survey tools9. Videoconferencing or internet phone chat (Skype, etc.)
Interactive Technology Scale
Presenter
Presentation Notes
During the current school year, about how many of your classes did you take entirely online? None, Some, Most, All
Sample CharacteristicsDemographics
• 65% Women• 75% White• 33% First-gen• Full-time (FY: 94%; SR: 83%)• 23 or younger (FY: 93%; SR: 65%)• Living on campus (FY:73%; SR: 39%)
• Academic Majors13% Arts & Hum20% Business 13% Professional
Class rank• 48% first-years (n=10,163)• 52% seniors (n=11,128)
58 Institutions• Doctoral (FY: 37%; SR: 42%)• 36% Master’s• Private (FY: 56%; SR: 50%)
10% Education12% Social Sciences8% Biological Sciences
5% Engineering4% Physical Sciences17% Other
AnalysesQ 1 . What types of interactive technology are used
most and least often by first-year and senior students?
• Frequencies
Q 2. How does the use of these technologies vary by subpopulations?
• t-tests or ANOVAs
Presenter
Presentation Notes
MORE HERE
AnalysesQ 3. How does student use of interactive technologies
relate to educationally effective student engagement?
• OLS regressions for first-years and seniors
• Standardized before entry in models
• Controlled for student and institutional characteristics
• IV: Interactive Technology scale, DV: NSSE benchmarks
Presenter
Presentation Notes
MORE HERE
Dependent Variables
NSSE benchmarks of effective educational practice• Academic Challenge (FY=.73; SR=.76)
• Active & Collaborative Learning (FY=.66; SR=.66)
• Student-Faculty Interaction (FY=.71; SR=.74)
• Supportive Campus Environment (FY=.79; SR=.80)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
MORE HERE
Independent Variables
• Interactive Technology scale (FY=.85; SR=.84)
• Student-level and institution-level controls: • Gender, first-generation status, age, citizenship, transfer status,
enrollment status, fraternity/sorority, living situation, race/ethnicity, primary major field, grades
• Private/public control, Carnegie classification
Presenter
Presentation Notes
MORE HERE
Interactive Technologies• Student response systems (“clickers”)
• Online portfolios
• Blogs
• Collaborative editing software (Wikis, Google Docs)
• Online student video projects (using YouTube, etc.)
• Video games, simulations, or virtual worlds
• Instant messaging/chat room
• Online survey tools
• Videoconferencing or internet phone chat (Skype, etc.)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
During the current school year, about how many of your classes did you take entirely online? None, Some, Most, All
Most Often Used
First-Year Senior
Collaborative editing software 28% 22%
Student response systems 26% 16%
Online student video projects 19% 15%
Instant messaging/chat room 12% 13%
Online portfolios 12% 12%
• Generally more use by first-year students
• Collaborative editing software most often used by both classes
• Largest difference between classes--student response systems
Percent of students’ frequent use (“often” or “very often”)
Least Often Used
First-Year Senior
Video games, simulations, or virtual worlds 5% 5%
Videoconferencing or internet phone chat 6% 4%
Blogs 9% 7%
Online survey tools 9% 8%
• Video games, simulations, or virtual worlds are the least often used technology
• Very little difference between classes
Percent of students’ frequent use (“often” or “very often”)
Subpopulation Differences:No Significance Or Trivial Effect
Student-level
• Age
• Enrollment status
• Fraternity/sorority
• Transfer status
• First-generation status
• Campus-living situation
Institution-level
• Private/public control
Student-level
• Age
• Enrollment status
• Fraternity/sorority
• Transfer status
• Gender
• Student-athlete status
Institution-level
• Private/public control
First-Years Seniors
Subpopulation Differences:More Frequent Use
Small effect sizes
Student-level
• Males
• Student-athletes
Medium effect sizes
Student-level
• At least some classes online
• International or foreign national
Small effect sizes
Student-level
• First-generation
• Living in driving distance
Medium effect sizes
Student-level
• At least some classes online
• International or foreign national
First-Years Seniors
Subpopulation DifferencesStudents with more frequent use:
• Lower grades (mostly B’s or C’s)
• Racial/ethnic minority, particularly Asian
• Professional, Business, or Education• Arts & Humanities, Physical Science, and Engineering had
least use
• At doctoral-granting institutions
Technology and Engagement
First-Year Senior
Supportive Campus Environment + + + +
Level of Academic Challenge + + + +
Active and Collaborative Learning + + + + +
Student-Faculty Interaction + + + + + +
• Relationships are slightly stronger for first-year students
• Strongest relationship between Interactive Technology use and Student-Faculty Interaction
Relationships Between Interactive Technology and NSSE Engagement
Models used all student-level and institution-level controls. All variables were standardized before entry into models. Key: ++ p < .001 and unstandardized B > .2; +++ p < .001 and unstandardized B > .3.
What Did We Learn?
• These technologies are relatively unused• Continue surveying to look for increased use
• Some surprising demographic differences• No difference by age• Noticeable difference for international/foreign national students• More use by Business or Professional students, less use by Engineering
or Physical Science students
• Strongest relationship between interactive technology use and Student-Faculty Interaction, particularly for first-years
Future Research
• Look at individual technologies within the Interactive Technology scale
• After establishing frequency of use, focus on best pedagogical practices• Consider starting with collaborative editing software
• Examine how a student’s propensity to adopt a technology affects relationships with engagement
Questions?
• Email: [email protected]@indiana.edu
• Phone: (812) 856-5824
• NSSE Web site: www.nsse.iub.edu
• Paper: http://nsse.iub.edu/html/pubs.cfm
