supplementary material n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Supplementary material PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Supplementary material

Supplementary material

58 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Supplementary material

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Supplementary material

  2. Publisher’s NoteThese are excerpts from a November 2006 presentation at the JISC/CETIS Conference in the U.K. The presentation identified the difficulty in the U.S. to achieve student success for entering students regardless of the barriers. This suggests similar efforts would be required in the U.K. as the government seeks to increase the participation rate from the current 42% to 50%. One of the participants said there is a program in the U.K. that provides additional funding for less-prepared students that may provide the additional resources this presentation suggested.

  3. Blended Learning: Pragmatic Innovation Excerpts Only Jim Farmer As presented at theJISC/CETIS Conference November 15, 2006 | Manchester UK

  4. Types of eLearning defined Sloan Consortium, September 2003

  5. Examples of Innovation

  6. Drill and practice: algebra Gustav Delius, “Serving Mathematics in a distributed e-learning environment, Final Report,” University of York, 24 May 2005

  7. It is the process! Listen to Rachel Edward’s Educause 2006 interview podcast “The Learning Grid: 21st Century Learning,” Planning and Designing Technology-rich Learning Spaces, 17 July 2006

  8. Increasing the participation rate:some unintended consequences

  9. UK commitment “Let me emphasise what is at stake here, because there is an absurd idea around that somehow if we scrapped the 50% target all our problems would vanish. Most of our proposed expansion from 43% to 50% is focused on vocational courses including new foundation degrees, building on HNDs and developed in partnership with employers.” Tony Blair MP, Prime Minister, 14 January 2004

  10. Some US/UK differences Thomas Weko, Higher Education Policy Institute, Oxford, March 2004

  11. College and university graduates “International Comparisons,” U.S. Department of Education, May 2003

  12. The working participant

  13. Barriers to success • Inadequate high school preparation • Limited financial resources • Constrained Time (schedule) • Constrained Location • Diverse learning styles

  14. Participation rate and unit cost

  15. Cost of additional participants

  16. An American Perspective:The Challenges of Student Access and Student Success

  17. The public perception

  18. The student’s perspective “The explosion of knowledge”

  19. The government’s view

  20. The new reality

  21. Since 1972 (1) Then Education is a “public good” and should be financed by the government. Now A student benefits from education and therefore should pay for it Student loan industry was created Student price response: 3.3 to 8.8% fewer students per US$1,000 (1990)

  22. Purpose of higher education • “[In the U.S.] A college education is principally, if not solely, an investment in personal advancement.” • “… universities [in the U.S.] are shaped almost exclusively by the wants of students seeking educational credentials and business and governmental agencies seeking research outcomes.” Zemsky, Wegner, and Massy, 2005

  23. Since 1972 (2) Then Universities should only admit students who are capable of succeeding Now Universities are responsible for the success of any student who has completed high school or its equivalent Although the proportion of high school graduates who go on to college has risen substantially in recent decades, the college completion rate has failed to improve at anywhere near the same pace. Spellings Report September 2006

  24. The Role of Education Technology

  25. eLearning, what we know • From current experience, improved learning especially for the less prepared • Student preferences (in order) • Blended/Hybrid • Totally online • Traditional classroom • “Common course redesign can lead to 40 percent savings in direct instructional costs of those courses—16% of total instructional costs or 8% increase in productivity.” Graves “Order the Change, and Change the Order,” November 2004

  26. Differences in learning rates Sillinger and Suppes, 1999

  27. The future of higher education An assertion: Because of the diverse student population, higher education must develop “mass customization” of teaching and learning appropriate for each individual student.

  28. Marin Dougiamas on technology Martin Dougiamas at the February 2006 MoodleMoot Savannah

  29. Research  “Future implementation” “The Personal Learning and Research Environment (PLRE) Working Group recommended further development of such an environment. The conference participants were aware this is a research project and further development and deployment of learning systems should be continued.” Jim Farmer “Notes from the JISC/CETIS Conference, 15-16 November 2005, Harriot-Watts University, Edinburgh, Scotland,” 21 November 2005

  30. Some JISC/CETIS alternatives

  31. The “model” is broken Government Schools of Education “management” Education Technologists Developers Faculty Students Should JISC or CETIS create the broken links?

  32. JISC Priorities Should JISC change its priorities? Yes, but it will be difficult. James [Dalziel] said the past policy had been to “let a thousand flowers bloom.” But with successful projects and an experienced research base, JISC could now be more selective and more focused. … to achieve the immediate goals of functionality and interoperability selecting key projects and insisting on the use of the e-Learning Framework will be important. Justin E. Tilton “Notes from the ‘E-Learning Tools, Standards, and Systems Conference,’ Oxford, UK, 4-5 November 2004.

  33. Related opportunities • In conjunction with open courseware, develop implement a “cartridge” specification to achieve critical mass. • “Engineer” learning based on feedback from the use of eLearning systems. Assess prescribe deliver

  34. Suggestions • Focus on the relationship between pedagogy and eLearning. (Role for Schools of Education) • For funding foundations and agencies: • Fund development of services or functions unique to higher education. • Shift some funding from development to funding pilot integration and implementation • Document, promote the successful

  35. Suggestions for JISC/CETIS • Involve Schools of Higher Education in the development of priorities. • Require proposals, where possible, to estimate the availability of the proposed technology for broad implementation and the value to the community. • Review prior work for technology that could be extended or integrated for implementation.

  36. Oleg Liber, CETIS • … we should focus on the “immediate future.” JISC/CETIS Conference, 14 November 2006

  37. The endjxf@immagic.comjxf@Georgetown.eduBased on a presentation by Justin E. Tilton, eLearning 2006, 12 February 2006

  38. Permissions The presentation itself can be reproduced and redistributed provided there are no changes made to the content.

  39. Supplementary material

  40. Data from the Zogby Report Rebecca Wittman and Christian Peck, “Survey of College Instructors Regarding the Use of Supplemental Materials in the Classroom,” Zogby International, 5 September 2006 for the Association of American Publishers

  41. The trend on use “College-level instructors are increasingly turning to supplemental materials, including both print and online materials, as concerns about the preparedness and engagement of their students grows. Our survey of 502 college professors finds a seven-point jump in the percentage of college-level instructors that require supplemental materials in their classrooms in just two years’ time.”

  42. Incoming students unprepared • “This comes at the same time that a 55% majority of professors worry that the latest incoming freshmen are unprepared for the rigors of college education, with a large plurality holding the belief that freshmen today are less-prepared than those just four years ago.”

  43. Use of supplementary materials* *Materials provided by a publisher with a textbook

  44. Student Perspectives

  45. Students expectations shaped by... • [In the U.S.] Their experience applying for admissions and financial aid • Their use of financial services portals • Their use of the Internet • Their life in a “real-time, information rich” environment. Be prepared: 94% of Internet-using (78%) youths age 12-17 use the Internet for school research, 71% say it is the major source for their school projects and reports, 58% use a school or class Website, 17% have created a Webpage for school, 74% use Instant Messaging. Pew Internet, August 2002

  46. Students now expect... • Customer service 24 hours a day,7 days a week • Complete information froma single source • Information by Web, e-mail, telephone, facsimile, and wireless devices • response time of 15 seconds for telephone, 10 seconds for Web, and 2 hours for e-mail and facsimile • access to a complete customer history

  47. Students prefer • A portal • Single sign-on even if that means revealing personal logons and passwords [aggregation/credential caching] • Selection of content [portlets] and layout [user profile] • Common portlet navigation and icons [consistent look & feel]

  48. Serving students Gartner/Avaya, CFO Jan 2005

  49. eLearning: some results

  50. Rio Salado College and Plato Math • Using commercially developed Interactive Mathematics Rio Salado offered four courses with one instructor. • The number of students in a section increased from 35 to 100. • A course assistant was added to help with course management, freeing the instructor to focus on student learning. Academic Systems Inc. Profile, October 2002