Teaching Mathematics with Online TutorialsB.D. Mestel, G.R. Williams, T.W. Lowe, G.J. Arrowsmith

Open University Mathematics Online (MOL) Project/ COLMSCT

EATING Seminar 15 July 2010

The Open UniversityBritain’s distance learning university

• 15,000 mathematics students• 550 part-time Associate

Lecturers (ALs) aka Tutors• Courses from Opening to BSc

to Masters• Modus Operandi: high quality

course notes, supplemented by tutor-marked assignments, correspondence tuition and face-to-face tutorials

Mathematics Online (MOL)• Consider and develop tools and techniques needed to

teach mathematics in a blended environment• Display of mathematical notation• Input of mathematics, diagrams and graphs• Computer algebra based assessment systems• eAssessment, eTutorials, eTMAs• Learning objects, integration in course materials

Mathematics Online (MOL)• Consider and develop tools and techniques needed to

teach mathematics in a blended environment• Display of mathematical notation• Input of mathematics, diagrams and graphs• Computer algebra based assessment systems• eAssessment, eTutorials, eTMAs• Learning objects, integration in course materials

MOL eTutorial Trial Feb – Sep 08• Using MOL Elluminate Live! room• About 30 ALs involved covering

Mathematics, Computer Science,Science and Technology

• Courses: M150, M208, M225, M248, M255, M256, M257, M336, M338, M363, M364, M450, M821, ME625, MS221, MST121, MST365, MU120, S342, T175, T211, T324

• Level 1 through to Masters

Elluminate Live! features and demo• Whiteboard• Chat box• Emoticons, ticks/crosses• Polling• Breakout rooms• Webtours

• Application and desktop sharing

• File exchange• Webcam• Recording

DEMO: Gareth Williams’ Topology Tutorial

Purpose of MOL trial• i) How good is Elluminate Live! to teach mathematics?• ii) How can we make best use of the tools?• iii) How can the tools be improved?

Two stage evaluation via surveys

• During the trial after each session:• Concentrating on technical performance and pedagogical effectiveness of the Elluminate Live! tools

• October 2008 more extensive survey:• Overall experience and pedagogical issues• Social and privacy issues• Accessibility• eTutorials vs Face to Face

Survey 1: End of trial results

• 485 student survey responses– 49.7% first time 22.7% second time– 11.5% third time 14.2% 3 – 6 times previously– 1.6% more than 6 times previously

• 147 staff survey responses for – 18.4% first time 15.6% second time as tutor– 16.3% third time 31.3% 3 – 6 times previously– 17.7% more than 6 times previously

Notes on the results• No doubt that students and tutors like the medium.

Reflected in the high scores• No attempt at serious statistical analysis• Used 5-point Likert Scale, 3 neutral

Staff Technical Evaluations

Student Technical Evaluations

Technical evaluation comparison

Student Learning Evaluations

Staff Learning Evaluations

Learning evaluation comparison

Student +ve Comments

Student –ve Comments

Interaction – student commentsPositive

• The interaction between tutor and students had the right balance between a lecture and a talk.

• Everyone was able to contribute.

• Great break from the loneliness of the long-distance learner.

• Managed to chat to five people.

• It was great to hear other students as well.

Negative

• [it] would be improved with more interactivity

• In this particular instance the inability of participants to ask questions/ make comments at the relevant time was a problem.

• It is still difficult to have interactive conversations.

• Had to talk singly - could not talk in a group

• Not enough commentary via audio from students involved.

Survey 2: Post trial survey

• 170 student survey responses– 38.2% not participated– 12.4% used once 14.7% used twice– 15.3% used thrice 18.2% used 4 – 7 times– 1.2% used more than 7 times

• 29 staff survey responses for – 0.0% used once 3.4% used twice– 3.4 % used thrice 65.5% used 4 – 6 times– 27.6% used more than 6 times

Reasons for non-participation

Survey 2 results• Learning experience, social interaction, convenience,

comparison with Face to Face (F2F)• Optimal tutorial time• Staff preparation time• Disabilities/special needs• Future use

Staff and Student Opinion

Optimal tutorial time (hours)

Staff Student

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

< 0.5 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 > 20

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

< 0.5 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 > 2

Staff preparation timeInitial: compared to F2F Repeat: compare to F2F

Disabilities – two perspectivesPhysical and psychiatric disabilities

• I suffer from severe chronic clinical depression and have never attended a tutorial because of problems related to confidence, etc. The online tutorial was excellent for me…

• Yes I am disabled and without the Elluminate sessions I would not have had any tutorials.

Visual and aural impairment, dyslexia

• I have a hearing impairment and need to lipread - this was not possible …so I feel disadvantaged

• Partially sighted. Had difficulty following what was going on, mainly because there were so many different activities simultaneously, and screen reader can only focus on one at a time.

Future use - staff

Future use - students

Participated Not participated

Conclusions

• Students and tutors like the medium, in particular– Interaction– Convenience

• But we need to improve audio, connectivity, whiteboard.• And to address disability issues and staff preparation

time

Elluminate in the Maths MSc programme• eColloquia• Course team meetings• eTutorials• Student self-help sessions (in addition to the Moodle

forum)• ALs equipped with Tablet PCs (for eMarking and

Elluminate)

MSc Mathematics eTutorials• M820 Calculus of Variations and Advanced Calculus

A

B

Entry course for the Maths MSc programme with approx. 180 students p.a.

eTutorial two weeks before each TMA and one revision eTutorial

My Golden Rules

• 1.5 hours is the maximum for a session• Focus on assessment• Record your session (but not students)• Manage questions ruthlessly• Go slowly and expect to cover less than you would like• Prepare everything in advance• Prepare materials for upload in advance