Gary JonesTruman State

University

A Comparison of Student and Faculty Usage and Perceptions

of Blackboard Inc.’s Course Management Software

Introduction 2

Preface

• Truman Internal Grant Program Research Curriculum Teaching

• Student-Faculty research • (Educational technology)

Introduction 3

Presentation Overview

Introduction to Course Management Software

Brief Literature Review

CInfo Study: Faculty Website Review (RQ1)

CInfo Study: Faculty/Student Survey (RQ2)

Conclusions/Discussion

Introduction 4

Intro to Course Management Software

Course Management:

Software teaching aid to give teachers with minimal Web-design or HTML experience the ability to create and maintain advanced Web components for incorporation, organization and dissemination of course-related information, and to encourage student communication and engagement

Introduction 5

Course Mgt Software Functions

• Announcements• Course-related documents• Email communication• Discussion Boards (threaded)• Exams, Quizzes, Surveys• “Digital Dropbox”• Calendar• Student Web page construction

Source: Chronicle of Higher Education 6

The “E-Education” Industry

• $10 billion market by 2003 eCollege:

• 42% increase in 2001 3rd quarter revenue WebCT

• 300% increase in sales to date, FY2002• 50% rise in customer base (to 2,265)

Blackboard• 325% increase in 2001 3rd quarter revenue• > 3,000 institutions; > 5 million users; 140

countries

Introduction 7

Introduction 8

Review of Faculty CInfo Websites 9

Brief Literature Review

Literature Review 10

Selected Academic Studies: Upside*

• Course-interest level improved 5

• Student motivation levels improved 1

• Problem-solving abilities enhanced (qualified) 3

• Perception of teacher/student communication improved 1

• (Electronic) interaction with practicing professionals facilitated 4

• Student skill-set improved 1

• Efficient dissemination of information 2

* See notes for references

Literature Review 12

Selected Academic Studies: Downside*

• Exam performance: Mixed results 2 3 5 6 7

• Requires faculty time & energy 1 4

• Basic skill-set prerequisites 3

• Lack of participation in listserve/online discussions 2 7

• Copyright issues • Potential negative interaction with class

attendance variable… 5

* See notes for references

Literature Review 14

Practical Suggestions from Literature

• Start simply

• Encourage frequent engagement

• Make the information relevant

• Provide communication opportunities

• Encourage cross-disciplinary thinking

Literature Review 15

Conclusions on Course Mgt Software

Studies either too broad Internet generally Distance learning

Or inconclusive Conflicting results Lack tested educational model Lack of information

Review of Faculty CInfo Websites 16

CourseInfo Study

• Truman State University• Spring, 2000• Authors

Gary Jones Andrew Ashbaugh Todd Kuhns

• Purpose Faculty utilization of

features Faculty/Student

perceptions

Review of Faculty CInfo Websites 17

Research Questions

• RQ1: What is the extent and sophistication of faculty use of CourseInfo?

• RQ2: How do faculty and students perceive the utility of CInfo as an educational tool? How do faculty and student perceptions

compare?

Website Review 18

RQ1: Faculty Website Review

• Computer Lab setting• Early April, 2000• 213 Websites examined• 181 determined to be

active• 78 faculty members• 10% - 20% restricted

access

Website Review 19

CI Feature Usage: Total Postings

CourseInfo Features Sites Using the Feature

Total Number of Postings

Avg Number of Postings

Announcements 148 535 3.6

Course Information 99 216 2.2

Course Documents 91 557 6.1

Assignment Documents 81 470 5.8

External Links 53 428 8.0

Staff Information Docs 34 38 1.1

Website Review 20

Top 3 CInfo Features Used, by Faculty Website

0

20

40

60

80

100

1-3 Uses 4-6 Uses 7+ Uses

AnnouncementsCourse Info

Course Docs

Website Review 21

Other CInfo Features Used,by Faculty Website

0

20

40

60

80

100

1-3 Uses 4-6 Uses 7+ Uses

AssignmentsExternal Links

Staff Info

Website Review 22

CI Features: Usage Summary

CourseInfo Features 1-3 Uses 4-6 Uses 7+ Uses

Sites Using

Feature Announcements 95 31 22 148

Course information 82 14 3 99

Course documents 48 18 25 91

Assignment docs 42 16 23 81

External links 22 9 22 53

Staff information docs 34 0 0 34

Faculty/Student Survey 23

RQ2: Faculty/Student Survey

• Late April, 2000• Faculty

N = 78 Respondents = 44 Response rate = 56%

• Students N = roughly 1200 – 1500 Respondents = 971 Response rate = 65% - 80%

Faculty/Student Survey 24

Description of Survey Questions

• Demographics (gender, class, major)

• Computer literacy• Computer usage• Perceived Web/CInfo educational

utility• CInfo facilitation of communication

Faculty/Student Survey 25

Frequency Count and Percent by Gender

Faculty

Male 21 47.7

Female 23 52.3

Total 44 100.0

Frequency Percent

Students

Male 332 34.2

Female 639 65.8

Total 971 100.0

Faculty/Student Survey 26

Students: Frequency By Class

Class Frequency Percent

Freshman 288 29.7

Sophomore 209 21.5

Junior 244 25.1

Senior 230 23.7

Total 971 100.0

Faculty/Student Survey 27

Student Respondents By Academic Division

0

50

100

150

200

250

BUSINESS & ACCOUNTANCY

LANG & LITERATURE

HUMAN PERFORMANCE

UNDCL

SOCIAL SCIENCE

SCIENCE

MATH

ART EDU

CJS

Survey Date: April, 2000Total Respondents: 971

Faculty/Student Survey 28

Number of Website “Hits” Reported

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Individual Faculty Reporting

Spring Semester, 200033 ResponsesTotal n = 44

Faculty/Student Survey 29

F/S Non-Significant Differences

Mean Std Deviation

COMPUTER LITERATE Student 1.86 .95 Faculty 1.68 .86

WEB-UTILI ZATI ON CONFI DENT Student 1.71 .86 Faculty 1.45 .59

ACTIVE COURSEINFO USER Student 2.38 1.21 Faculty 2.11 1.10

CINFO-UTI LIZATION CONFIDENT Student 1.79 .88 Faculty 1.98 1.07

Faculty/Student Survey 30

F/S Significant Differences

Mean SD

WEB IS BENEFICIAL EDUC TOOL Student 1.63 0.84 Faculty 1.80 0.73

CINFO HAS IMPROVED LEARNING Student 1.99 1.05 Faculty 2.73 0.90

Mean Rank SD

STUDENT-STUDENT COMM Student 3.49 0.93 Faculty 3.25 1.06

PROF-STUDENT COMM Student 2.74 1.18 Faculty 2.14 1.00

Review of Faculty CInfo Websites 31

Conclusions/Discussion

Conclusions/Discussion 32

Summary of Conclusions

• RQ1: Faculty Utilization Faculty sophistication of use is relatively moderate

• RQ2: Faculty / Student perceptions Web is beneficial (Students agree more) CInfo improved learning (Students agree more) Student-Student Communication (Students agree more) Professor-Student Communication (Faculty agree more) Bi-modal distribution of use of course docs, assignment

docs, and external links may suggest need for more training

Conclusions/Discussion 33

Limitations and Key Assumptions

• Guest access denied ~15% of time

• Communication section of sites not accessible

• Non-random samples (faculty and students) with probable pro-technology bias

• Instrument not tested for validity or reliability

• Results reliant upon self-reported perceptions

• Lack of theoretical base

Conclusions/Discussion 34

Future Research

• Does bi-modal distribution of faculty usage suggest need for more and better training?

• Reasons for significant differences in faculty/student perceptions

• Reasons for discrepancy in student perceptions of value of Web vs. CInfo

• Gender differences: Web & Computer confidence vs. actual utilization of CInfo