1 / 38

Evaluating the Impact of a VLE on Learning and Teaching?

Evaluating the Impact of a VLE on Learning and Teaching?. Dr Barbara Newland Learning Design Studio Academic Services Bournemouth University http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/lds/ bnewland@bournemouth.ac.uk. Overview. Aims of evaluation Durham context Methodology Results Conclusions.

zoe
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluating the Impact of a VLE on Learning and Teaching?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating the Impact of a VLE on Learning and Teaching? Dr Barbara Newland Learning Design Studio Academic Services Bournemouth University http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/lds/ bnewland@bournemouth.ac.uk

  2. Overview • Aims of evaluation • Durham context • Methodology • Results • Conclusions

  3. Aims of evaluation • International widespread adoption of VLEs • Longitudinal study of impact of a VLE on learning and teaching • Qualitative and quantitative methods

  4. University of Durham • 670 academic and 280 academic-related staff • 9400 undergraduates and 2400 postgraduates • Founded in 1832 • Split campus • Research led • MIS – outsourced to Unisys • Learning Technologies Team (LTT)

  5. Images of Durham

  6. Learning Technologies Team • aims to encourage, support and develop elearning throughout the University by: • providing advice, information and training • supporting the University's learning environment - duo (Durham University Online) • developing interactive materials • 4 members of staff – Juliette Pavey, Kate Boardman, Malcolm Murray, Victoria Boyd

  7. Duo • Durham University Online • http://duo.dur.ac.uk

  8. Uptake of duo

  9. Implementation • Varied patterns of departmental implementation • All courses • All first year courses • Individual academics • Administration courses • Duo is now embedded into learning and teaching

  10. Methodology for duo surveys • Quantitative and qualitative • Online surveys • Analyse factors such as gender, year of study and faculty • 3 faculties – Arts and Humanities, Science, Social Science and Health • Relate to C&IT skills in learning and teaching • Data collected from students and staff in all faculties and both campuses

  11. Response rate • All students and staff are in duo so hard to know the response rate in relation to active users which has increased over the years • Staff April 01 (n = 91) May 02 (n = 153) May 03 (n = 283, c. 40%) • Students May 01 (n = 793) May 02 (n = 2435) May 03 (n = 3668, c. 37%)

  12. Survey questions • Similar questions for staff and students in all 3 years to enable comparisons : • between years • between staff and students • Software • ease of use • levels of confidence • features used

  13. Survey questions • Frequency of use and access during term time and vacations • Learning and teaching • contribution • effect

  14. Student responses – support, frequency and access • Help documents • 19%, 15%, 10% • Small and decreasing use • Accessed duo at least once a week • 70%, 71%, 71% • Consistent pattern but increasing numbers over time • Accessed duo out of term time • 60%, 61%, 64% • Consistent pattern but increasing numbers over time

  15. Students: Overall, how do you rate the contribution duo has made to your learning?

  16. Staff: Overall, how do you rate the effectiveness of duo as a learning resource?

  17. Staff: Has duo affected your approach to teaching?

  18. Students: If duo is not currently being used for all your modules, would you recommend that it should be?

  19. Staff use of duo features - content • 62%, 49% staff have used more features • 79%, 76% staff have developed content since the previous year • Course information – 74%, 84%, 92% • Course documents – 77%, 89%, 95% • External links – 42%, 56%, 55% • Bibliography – 35%, 53%, 43% (plus 17%, 21%, 21% link to OPAC) • Staff information – 49%, 63%, 72%

  20. Staff use of duo features - communication • Group work –25%, 23%, 26% • Email – 72%, 77%, 80% • Announcements – 75%, 84%, 86% • Discussion board–16%, 32%, 31% • Chat – 10%, 4%, 6%

  21. Staff use of duo features - assessment • Assignments – 53%, 63%, 67% • Quizzes – 11%, 20%, 26% • Surveys - 15%, 13%, 21% • Digital drop box – 10%, 6%, 15%

  22. Reflect current ways of teaching • Context – relevant, flexible (start from where they are at) • Collis also found at the University of Twente that “instructors are most likely to begin by choosing aspects of a system that reflect their current ways of teaching, and then gradually move to new instructional approaches and new features.” (Collis and Messing, 2001)

  23. Lecture notes - staff • Is it good practice to put lecture notes online? • Depends on what the lecturer does with them • 2/3 put lecture summaries, handouts, full notes and/or Powerpoint slides after the lecture

  24. Lecture notes - students • Depends how students use them • 73% listen more • 81% clarify information • 72% improve lectures • 93% study for exams • 2/3 (64%, 64%) students note-taking had stayed the same but for ¼ (27%, 26%) it had decreased • Only 1%, 1% stated no longer attended lectures

  25. Gender • No statistical significance between gender and • Staff with effectiveness as learning resource • Students with contribution to learning • Both with levels of confidence • Higher percentage of females think duo helps them to manage their learning

  26. Staff by faculty – skills • More Science faculty found it very easy/easy to use compared to Arts • Some Arts staff took longer to gain confidence (6-10 visits) • Fewer Science staff chose to have training • Reflects the levels of staff confidence in C&IT skills found in Audit June 2000

  27. Staff by faculty – teaching • 2002 - no significant difference • 2003 • Basic approach is changing • Science and social science 12% compared to 3% arts • Basic approach has not changed but duo helps me do certain things better • Science 79%, social science 76% compared to 98% arts

  28. Students by faculty • Contribution that duo has made to their learning overall • 2002 - no significant difference • 2003 – higher percentage of science (69%) and social science (52%) rate “good” or “excellent” compared to 42% arts students • Higher percentage of social science students think duo helps them to manage their learning “greatly” or “quite a lot” compared to science students

  29. Students by year group • Contribution that duo has made to their learning overall • 2001 and 2002 - 2nd and 3rd year students rates more higher than 1st years (1st years have always had duo) • 2003 – 1st year students rate slightly higher than 2nd and 3rd years

  30. C&IT skills survey of new undergraduates – 2002 • n = 2656 • 82% of students perceive themselves to be confident/very confident computer users • 60% have brought a computer with them to University • 69% have been using a computer for 5+ years (including 21% for over 10 years) and only 2% have been using a computer for <2 years

  31. C&IT skills survey of new undergraduates - 2002 • 79% perceive themselves to have good/advanced email skills • 65% perceive themselves to have good/advanced web browser skills • 70% stated a preference for a combination of web and paper based for learning support materials

  32. C&IT skills survey of new undergraduates - 2002 • 95% own a mobile phone • 5% have a PDA • 38% take part in online discussions • 59% take part in online chat • 49% have a qualification in IT • 54% regularly switch between several applications when using a computer

  33. C&IT skills survey of academic staff - 2000 • n = 576 (53%) • 90% perceive themselves to have good/advanced email skills • 67% perceive themselves to have good/advanced web browser skills • only 17% of staff had taken part in online discussions • only 12% of staff had taken part in online chat

  34. Catalyst • Introduction encouraged continual reflection on teaching • Postgraduate Certificate in HE compulsory for new academics from Jan 2001 • Academics working together within courses

  35. Factors influencing enhancement • How used • How integrated into curriculum • Quality of the parts eg content, assessment, communication (earlier research) • Enhance learning if the parts enhance learning • Flexibility allows lecturers to choose parts

  36. Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? • But is a VLE more than the pieces put together?

  37. Evaluating the impact of a VLE on learning and teaching • Incredible uptake of duo which has become embedded into the University • Staff and students believe duo has enhanced teaching and learning • Academics are gradually using more features so this may result in more interactive and innovative teaching • Students expectations are increasing as the basic use of a VLE is assumed • Further analysis is being undertaken

  38. References • Collis, B. and Messing, J. (2001) Usage, attitudes and workload implications for a web-based learning environment, Association of Learning Technology Journal 9 (1) • Collis, B. and Moonen, J. (2001) Flexible Learning in a Digital World, London, Kogan Page • Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: a Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. London: Routledge. • Richardson, J., & Turner, A. (2000). A large-scale ‘local’ evaluation of students’ learning experiences using virtual learning environments. Educational Technology and Society, 3 (4). • Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: the Key to Teaching and Learning Online. London: Kogan Page.

More Related