Faculty perceive undergraduates to be less proficient with digital literacy skills. One-third think
their students do not find or organize digital information very well. The majority (52%) think
they lack skill in validating digital information. My note: for the SCSU librarians, digital literacy is fancy word for information literacy. Digital literacy, as used in this report is much greater area, which encompasses much broader set of skills
Faculty do not prefer to teach online (57%) or in a hybrid format (where some sessions occur
online, 32%). One-third of faculty reported no experience with these least popular course types
my note: pay attention to the questions asked; questions I am asking Mike Penrod to let me work with faculty for years. Questions, which are snubbed by CETL and a dominance of D2L and MnSCU mandated tools is established.
Table 5. Do you use these in-class technologies for teaching undergraduates? Which are the Top 3 in-class technologies you would like to learn or use more? (n = 442)
usingonline resourcesto find high quality curricular materials
37%
48%
31%
3%
18%
iClickers
24%
23%
16%
9%
52%
otherpresentation tool (Prezi, Google presentation, Slide Carnival, etc.)
23%
14%
21%
15%
51%
whiteboard / blackboard
20%
58%
23%
6%
14%
Powerpoint or Keynote
20%
74%
16%
4%
5%
document camera / overhead projector
15%
28%
20%
14%
38%
Table 6. Do you have undergraduates use these assignment technology tools? Which are your Top 3 assignment technology tools to learn about or use more? (n = 432)
D2Lasa portal to other learning tools (homework websites, videos, simulations, Nota Bene/NB, Voice Thread, etc.)
21%
28%
18%
11%
42%
videos/animationsproducedelsewhere
19%
40%
36%
2%
22%
In both large and small classes, the most common responses faculty make to digital distraction are to discuss why it is a problem and to limit or ban phones in class. my note: which completely defies the BYOD and turns into empty talk / lip service.
Quite a number of other faculty (n = 18) reported putting the onus on themselves to plan engaging and busy class sessions to preclude distraction, for example:
“If my students are more interested in their laptops than my course material, I need to make my curriculum more interesting.”
I have not found this to be a problem. When the teaching and learning are both engaged/engaging, device problems tend to disappear.”
The most common complaint related to students and technology was their lack of common technological skills, including D2L and Google, and needing to take time to teach these skills in class (n = 14). Two commented that digital skills in today’s students were lower than in their students 10 years ago.
Table 9. Which of the following are the most effective types of learning opportunities about teaching, for you? Chose your Top 2-3. (n = 473)
Count Percentage
meeting 1:1 with anexpert
296
63%
hour-longworkshop
240
51%
contact an expert on-call (phone, email, etc)
155
33%
faculty learning community (meeting across asemester,
e.g. ASSETT’s Hybrid/Online Course Design Seminar)
116
25%
expert hands-on support for course redesign (e.g. OIT’s Academic Design Team)
114
24%
opportunityto apply for grant funding with expert support, for a project I design (e.g. ASSETT’s Development Awards)
97
21%
half-dayorday-longworkshop
98
21%
other
40
8%
multi-day retreats/ institutes
30
6%
Faculty indicated that the best times for them to attend teaching professional developments across the year are before and early semester, and summer. They were split among all options for meeting across one week, but preferred afternoon sessions to mornings. Only 8% of respondents (n = 40) indicated they would not likely attend any professional development session (Table 10).
Table T1: Faculty beliefs about using digital technologies in teaching
Count
Column N%
Technology is a significant barrier to teaching and learning.
1
0.2%
Technology can have a place in teaching, but often detracts from teaching and learning.
76
18.3%
Technology has a place in teaching, and usually enhances the teaching learning process.
233
56.0%
Technology greatly enhances the teaching learning process.
106
25.5%
Table T2: Faculty beliefs about the impact of technology on courses
Count
Column N%
Makes a more effective course
302
72.6%
Makes no difference in the effectiveness of a course
42
10.1%
Makes a less effective course
7
1.7%
Has an unknown impact
65
15.6%
Table T3: Faculty use of common technologies (most frequently selected categories shaded)
Once a month or less
A few hours a month
A few hours a week
An hour a day
Several hours a day
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Computer
19
4.8%
15
3.8%
46
11.5%
37
9.3%
282
70.7%
Smart Phone
220
60.6%
42
11.6%
32
8.8%
45
12.4%
24
6.6%
Office Software
31
7.8%
19
4.8%
41
10.3%
82
20.6%
226
56.6%
Email
1
0.2%
19
4.6%
53
12.8%
98
23.7%
243
58.7%
Social Networking
243
68.8%
40
11.3%
40
11.3%
23
6.5%
7
2.0%
Video/Sound Media
105
27.6%
96
25.2%
95
24.9%
53
13.9%
32
8.4%
Table T9: One sample t-test for influence of technology on approaches to grading and assessment
Test Value = 50
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper
In class tests and quizzes
-4.369
78
.000
-9.74684
-14.1886
-5.3051
Online tests and quizzes
5.624
69
.000
14.77143
9.5313
20.0115
Ungraded assessments
1.176
66
.244
2.17910
-1.5208
5.8790
Formative assessment
5.534
70
.000
9.56338
6.1169
13.0099
Short essays, papers, lab reports, etc.
2.876
70
.005
5.45070
1.6702
9.2312
Extended essays and major projects or performances
1.931
69
.058
3.67143
-.1219
7.4648
Collaborative learning projects
.000
73
1.000
.00000
-4.9819
4.9819
Table T10: Rate the degree to which your role as a faculty member and teacher has changed as a result of increased as a result of increased use of technology
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
shifting from the role of content expert to one of learning facilitator
12
9.2%
22
16.9%
14
10.8%
37
28.5%
29
22.3%
16
12.3%
your primary role is to provide content for students
14
10.9%
13
10.1%
28
21.7%
29
22.5%
25
19.4%
20
15.5%
your identification with your University is increased
23
18.3%
26
20.6%
42
33.3%
20
15.9%
12
9.5%
3
2.4%
you have less ownership of your course content
26
20.2%
39
30.2%
24
18.6%
21
16.3%
14
10.9%
5
3.9%
your role as a teacher is strengthened
13
10.1%
12
9.3%
26
20.2%
37
28.7%
29
22.5%
12
9.3%
your overall control over your course(s) is diminished
23
17.7%
44
33.8%
30
23.1%
20
15.4%
7
5.4%
6
4.6%
Table T14: One sample t-test for influence of technology on faculty time spent on specific teaching activities
Test Value = 50
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper
Lecturing
-7.381
88
.000
-12.04494
-15.2879
-8.8020
Preparing course materials
9.246
96
.000
16.85567
13.2370
20.4744
Identifying course materials
8.111
85
.000
13.80233
10.4191
17.1856
Grading / assessing
5.221
87
.000
10.48864
6.4959
14.4813
Course design
12.962
94
.000
21.55789
18.2558
24.8600
Increasing access to materials for all types of learners
This year we’d like to involve a wider segment of the teaching and learning community to help us design the survey. Please join us online for one of two 30-minute discussion sessions:
Sept 14 at 12pm ET OR Sept 15 at 2pm ET
To join, just go to https://educause.acms.com/eliweb on the date and time of the session and join as a guest. No registration or login needed.
BLEND-ONLINE] Looking for private, Reddit-style vote up/down discussion tool
From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Sharon Strauss Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 10:46 AM To:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Looking for private, Reddit-style vote up/down discussion tool
Hello,
Thanks for all the online and offline responses. A quick summary of where I am with this project, and the various solutions offered.
Piazza–Piazza will integrate with our LMS via LTI and we do have it. As far as I can tell, after some initial enthusiasm for it a few years ago, nobody here has been using. Thus, I cannot speak to the spam issue that Nina raised. Still, I looked at it and do not see any vote up/down option on it. It is structured more as a Q & A organizer. There is an option for professors to rate an answer as good or bad, but that it is different from a popular vote.
WordPress Theme or Plugin–I found a couple of vote up/down WordPress solutions. However, as far as I can tell, none are actively maintained. The most recent I saw is a couple of years old.
Google Moderator–This looks like it may have been just what we want, but Google retired the program last year. Currently you just get the message, “We’ve retired Google Moderator. The site is no longer available in any form, but you can get to data from past Moderator series through our “Download your Data” tool.
Brightspace–May work for those that have it, but we do not.
Canvas–Perhaps another area where it beats Moodle. However, we do not have it and I’m not sure we want to get it at this time.
Drupal–This might work! I did not see an up/down vote option with http://skill-tree.org, but it seems there are a few options. I’m looking into this further.
Commercial options–I got suggestions for commercial software such as http://crowdicity.com and https://www.uservoice.com/. Both seem like they could work, but I don’t know if we have a budget for this.
FYI, I got more detail from the professor about the project. I learned he is not looking for a classroom solution. He is looking to lead a potentially sensitive and controversial campus-wise conversation. Thus, this might not be the best place to have posted. Still, maybe someone else on the list will also find this useful.
purpose: draft a document for the provost to plan for charting the future goal 3.12 “develop a comprehensive strategy to increase awareness and development of e-textbooks and open educational resources (OERs)”
\\STCLOUDSTATE\HuskyNet\DeptFiles\LRS\ETextbooks
SCSU goal: to reduce the cost of textbooks as an affordable learning initiative. Amount of reduction is undetermined
According to Bossaler et al (2014), it might be worth considering that SCSU (MnSCU?) must go first through implementing of e-text[books] in courses first by using publisher materials and then by using “in-house” produce. At this point, SCSU does NOT have an aligned policy of integrating e-texts in courses across campus. Lack of such experience might make a strategy for adoption of e-textbooks much more complex and difficult to implement
stats are colored in green for convenience. Stats regarding the increase in textbook costs are re-printed from author to author: e.g. Acker (2011, p. 42). Murey and Perez (2011, p. 49 (bottom) – 50 (up)) reports stats from 2009 and projections for 2013 regarding etexbook adotion. Same authors, p. 50 second paragraph reports good stats regarding texbooks’ price increase : US$1122 per year for textbooks in 2010.
Wimmer at al (2014) presents a lucid graphic of the structure of the publishing process (see bottom of this blog entry for citation and perm link).
Wimmer at al (2014) discusses copyright and permissions, which is of interest for this research (p. 85)
regarding in-house creation of e-textbooks, see (Distance education, e-learning, education and training, 2015). It very much follow the example of SUNY, which Keith was laying out: a team of faculty charged with creation the e-textbook for mass consumption.
Besides the SUNY model Keith is envisioning for MnSCU (comparable), there is the option of clustering OER sources: e.g. NASTA as per Horejsi (2013), CourseSmart. FlatWorld Knowledge (Murrey and Perez, 2011) etc.
Hamedi & Ezaleila (2015) present an entire etextbook program. Article has been ordered through ILL. Same with Joseph (2015).
Open Educational Resources in Acker (2015, p. 44-47). Also in Murey and Perez (2011, p. 51).
Also in ICWL (Conference) (13th : 2014 : Tallinn, E., & Cao, Y. (2014): OpenDSA
Different models of pricing also in Acker (2015, p. 48). Keith touched on that
students learn equally well from etextbooks as from paper ones: Taylor (2011)
my note: there is no good definition about e-textbook in terms of the complexity, which e-textbook on campus might involve.
Considering Wimmer et al (2014) account on their campus experience in publishing e-textbook, a textbook may involve an LMS (Canvas) and blog (WordPress). Per my proposal during the F2F meeting, and following Rachel’s suggestion about discrimination of the different types of e-textbooks, here is an outline of e-textbook definition:
*******************
working definition for e-textbook for the purposes of SCSU:
e-textbook is a compilation of textual, multimedia and interactive material, which can be viewed on various electronic devices. E-textbook can: 1. be purchased from a publisher; 2. compiled in HTML format on faculty or group web space; 3. compiled on the content module of LMS (BB, D2L, Canvas, Moodle, etc.) 4. compiled on LMS (BB, D2L, Canvas, Moodle, etc.) and including all interactive materials: e.g. hyperlinks to MediaSpace multimedia, quizzes, etc.; 5. compiled on special apps, such as iBook Author, eCub, Sigil.
*******************
e-book
(Electronic-BOOK) The electronic counterpart of a printed book, which can be viewed on a desktop computer, laptop, smartphone, tablet or e-book reader (e-reader). When traveling, a huge number of e-books can be stored in portable units, dramatically eliminating weight and volume compared to paper. Electronic bookmarks make referencing easier, and e-book readers may allow the user to annotate pages.
Although fiction and non-fiction books come in e-book formats, technical material is especially suited for e-book delivery because it can be searched. In addition, programming code examples can be copied, which is why CD-ROMs that contained examples or the entire text were often packaged inside technical paper books.
E-Book Formats
Wimmer, Morrow, & Weber: Collaboration in eTextbook Publishing
There are several e-book formats on the market, including EPUB, Mobipocket (PRC, MOBI), eReader (PDB), Kindle (AZW, KF8) and Apple iBook (EPUB variation). Many e-readers also accept generic formats, including Adobe PDF and plain text (TXT).
According to a United States Government report, textbook prices have increased at over twice the rate of inflation in the last couple of decades. According to another report, the average student spends between $700 and $1,000 per year on textbooks while the cost of e-textbooks can be as much as 50% lower than paper textbooks.
Oxford dictionary, an electronic book or e-book is “an electronic version of a printed book that can be read on a computer or handheld device designed specifically for this purpose.” An e-textbook is defined as an e-book used for instructional or educational purposes and often includes features such as bookmarking, searching, highlighting, and note-taking as well as built-in dictionaries and pronunciation guides, embedded video-clips, embedded hyperlinks, and animated graphics.
E-textbooks have moved from occasional usage to a mainstream technology on college campuses. According to the Association of American Publishers, sales of e-books hit over $90 million; this is up over 200% when compared to the same month the previous year. When the cost of textbooks and the availability of formats are considered, the use of an e-textbook in the classroom may be the reasonable choice.
—————–
A digital textbook is a digital book or e-book intended to serve as the text for a class. Digital textbooks may also be known as e-textbooks or e-texts. Digital textbooks are a major component of technology-based education reform. They may serve as the texts for a traditional face-to-face class, an online course or degree.
The concepts of open access and open source support the idea of open textbooks, digital textbooks that are free (gratis) and easy to distribute, modify and update https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_textbook
—————-
Exploring Students’ E-Textbook Practices in Higher Education
Authors: by Aimee Denoyelles, John Raible and Ryan Seilhamer Published: Monday, July 6, 2015. Instructional Designers, University of Central Florida
According to the United States Government Accountability Office, prices have increased 82 percent from 2002 to 2012.3This cost sometimes drives students to delay or avoid purchasing textbooks. Digital materials such as e-textbooks may offer a more cost-effective alternative.4 Also, the expectation for digital materials is gaining strength in the K–12 sector.5 For example, Florida school districts set a goal to spend at least half of classroom material funding on digital materials by the 2015–2016 school year. Given that 81 percent of first-time-in-college (FTIC) undergraduate students hailed from a Florida public high school during the fall 2014 semester at the University of Central Florida (UCF), it is important to anticipate student expectations of digital materials. Finally, the availability of digital materials has risen exponentially with the incredible popularity of mobile devices.
Key Issues
Despite the advantages that e-textbooks pose, such as interactive features and accessibility on mobile devices, several barriers exist regarding implementation in higher education, namely non-standardization of the platform, limited use by students, and the unclear role of the instructor in adoption.
a survey questionnaire in 2012 that explored basic usage and attitudes regarding e-textbooks.
—————————–
Bossaller, J., & Kammer, J. (2014). Faculty Views on eTextbooks: A Narrative Study. College Teaching, 62(2), 68-75. doi:10.1080/87567555.2014.885877
This qualitative study gives insight into the experiences instructors have when working with publishers to integrate electronic content and technology into their courses.
Baek, E., & Monaghan, J. (2013). Journey to Textbook Affordability: An Investigation of Students’ Use of eTextbooks at Multiple Campuses. International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 14(3), 1-26.
the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (2007) reported that textbook prices represent a significant barrier to students’ accessibility to textbooks. The report concluded that textbooks cost between $700-$1000 per year; textbook prices have risen much faster than other commodities; and that college aid fails to cover textbook expenses. Textbook costs are equivalent to 26% of tuition costs for an average four-year public university student and 72% of tuition costs for an average community college student. In fact, the California State Auditor (2008) reported that textbook costs grew more rapidly than student fees in academic year 2007–08.
the creation of an interactive e-book called “Practical Clinical Chemistry: core concepts” was accomplished using the
Apple Macintosh platform and the iBooks Author software. Digital content, including videos, was developed for the
project and embedded within the final package. In order to limit the size of the final files, some content was uploaded
onto Youtube so that the user could access these via the internet.
The e-book, 200MB in size, was uploaded onto the Apple ITunes site and made available in 51 countries via the
iBooks store. This prototype is the first interactive digital textbook available in clinical chemistry and contains “4-
dimensional” content including digital images, videos, interactive presentations, real-time data generation as well as
review questions with instant feedback and assessment.
Hamedi, M., & Ezaleila, S. (2015). Digital Textbook Program in Malaysia: Lessons from South Korea. Publishing Research Quarterly, 31(4), 244-257. doi:10.1007/s12109-015-9425-4
Joseph, R. (2015). Higher Education Book Publishing-from Print to Digital: A Review of the Literature. Publishing Research Quarterly, 31(4), 264-274. doi:10.1007/s12109-015-9429-0
Taylor, A. K. (2011). Students Learn Equally Well From Digital as From Paperbound Texts. Teaching Of Psychology, 38(4), 278-281. doi:10.1177/0098628311421330
Much of the research related to digital texts has focused ontechnical aspects of readability (see Dillon, 1992, for a review) and limitations of digital media for note-taking, underlining, or highlighting text (Brown, 2001). However, the important—and unanswered—question from a teaching perspective is, ‘‘Can students learn as well from digital texts as from paperbound textbooks?’’ Few published studies have addressed this ques-tion directly, and even fewer studies have examined this ques-tion among college students.
Murray, M. C., & Pérez, J. (2011). E-Textbooks Are Coming: Are We Ready?. Issues In Informing Science & Information Technology, 849-60.
Pilot projects that can help build institutional expertise
Address how and where insights gained from pilot projects will be collected and
made available
People resources (e.g., instructional designers) that will be needed to assist
instructors to use this technology
ICWL (Conference) (13th : 2014 : Tallinn, E., & Cao, Y. (2014). New horizons in web based learning: ICWL 2014 international workshops, SPeL, PRASAE, IWMPL, OBIE, and KMEL, FET, Tallinn, Estonia, August 14-17, 2014, revised selected papers. Cham: Springer.
++++++++++++++++++++
MnSCU will by as Content Authoring Tool – SoftChalk. Here is a promo from Softchalk (my bold):
NEW SoftChalk Create 10 and SoftChalk Cloud eBook publishing features will arrive on April 25th! Come check out the latest enhancements at our upcoming webinars!
Sleek Designer Headers and Callout Boxes – Add some new pizazz to your SoftChalk lessons!
Three New Quiz Types – Test your students’ understanding with Sentence Completion, Multiple Blanks and Feedback Questions.
Polished New QuizPopper and Activity displays – With an enhanced interface for instructors and students.
Accessibility enhancements – Make your lessons available to everyone with even more accessibility enhancements.
NEW SoftChalk Cloud eBook creation and publishing – Includes a totally re-vamped, easier eBook creation and management. New SoftChalk eReader apps available for free download in the iOS, Android, Chromebook and Windows app stores. (Cloud Only)
are any faculty really going digital? Which content distributors will thrive? What are the implementation concerns? And when will going digital really happen?
ACRL e-Learning webcast series: Learning Analytics – Strategies for Optimizing Student Data on Your Campus
This three-part webinar series, co-sponsored by the ACRL Value of Academic Libraries Committee, the Student Learning and Information Committee, and the ACRL Instruction Section, will explore the advantages and opportunities of learning analytics as a tool which uses student data to demonstrate library impact and to identify learning weaknesses. How can librarians initiate learning analytics initiatives on their campuses and contribute to existing collaborations? The first webinar will provide an introduction to learning analytics and an overview of important issues. The second will focus on privacy issues and other ethical considerations as well as responsible practice, and the third will include a panel of librarians who are successfully using learning analytics on their campuses.
Webcast One: Learning Analytics and the Academic Library: The State of the Art and the Art of Connecting the Library with Campus Initiatives
March 29, 2016
Learning analytics are used nationwide to augment student success initiatives as well as bolster other institutional priorities. As a key aspect of educational reform and institutional improvement, learning analytics are essential to defining the value of higher education, and academic librarians can be both of great service to and well served by institutional learning analytics teams. In addition, librarians who seek to demonstrate, articulate, and grow the value of academic libraries should become more aware of how they can dovetail their efforts with institutional learning analytics projects. However, all too often, academic librarians are not asked to be part of initial learning analytics teams on their campuses, despite the benefits of library inclusion in these efforts. Librarians can counteract this trend by being conversant in learning analytics goals, advantages/disadvantages, and challenges as well as aware of existing examples of library successes in learning analytics projects.
Learn about the state of the art in learning analytics in higher education with an emphasis on 1) current models, 2) best practices, 3) ethics, privacy, and other difficult issues. The webcast will also focus on current academic library projects and successes in gaining access to and inclusion in learning analytics initiatives on their campus. Benefit from the inclusion of a “short list” of must-read resources as well as a clearly defined list of ways in which librarians can leverage their skills to be both contributing members of learning analytics teams, suitable for use in advocating on their campuses.
student’s opinion of this process
benefits: self-assessment, personal learning, empwerment
analytics and data privacy – students are OK with harvesting the data (only 6% not happy)
8 in 10 are interested in personal dashboard, which will help them perform
Big Mother vs Big Brother: creepy vs helpful. tracking classes, helpful, out of class (where on campus, social media etc) is creepy. 87% see that having access to their data is positive
librarians:
recognize metrics, assessment, analytics, data. visualization, data literacy, data science, interpretation
INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT – N.B.
determine who is the key leader: director of institutional research, president, CIO
who does analyics services: institutional research, information technology, dedicated center
analytic maturity: data drivin, decision making culture; senior leadership commitment,; policy supporting (data ollection, accsess, use): data efficacy; investment and resourcefs; staffing; technical infrastrcture; information technology interaction
student success maturity: senior leader commited; fudning of student success efforts; mechanism for making student success decisions; interdepart collaboration; undrestanding of students success goals; advising and student support ability; policies; information systems
developing learning analytics strategy
understand institutional challenges; identify stakeholders; identify inhibitors/challenges; consider tools; scan the environment and see what other done; develop a plan; communicate the plan to stakeholders; start small and build
ways librarians can help
idenfify institu partners; be the partners; hone relevant learning analytics; participate in institutional analytics; identify questions and problems; access and work to improve institu culture; volunteer to be early adopters;
questions to ask: environmental scanning
do we have a learning analytics system? does our culture support? leaders present? stakeholders need to know?
questions to ask: Data
questions to ask: Library role
learning analytics & the academic library: the state of the art of connecting the library with campus initiatives
questions:
literature
7 Things You Should Know About First-Generation Learning Analytics. Published:
Barneveld, A., Arnold, K., & Campbell, J. (2012). Analytics in Higher Education: Establishing a Common Language. Educause Learning Initiative. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3026.pdf
causation versus correlation studies. speakers claims that it is difficult to establish causation argument. institutions try to predict as accurately as possible via correlation, versus “if you do that it will happen what.”
Actual adoption by professors, however, has been a different, slower story. Just over half of students reported using an LMS in most or all of their courses as recently as two years ago, two decades after the creation of modern learning-management software. In short, professors aren’t as sold on using an LMS as administrators are.
Flipped classroom is an instructional strategy and a type of blended learning that reverses the traditional educational arrangement by delivering instructional content, often online, outside of the classroom.
In essence, “flipping the classroom” means that students gain first exposure to new material outside of class, usually via reading or lecture videos, and then use class time to do the harder work of assimilating that knowledge, perhaps through problem-solving, discussion, or debates.
I have a long way to go in my skill set in making the videos interesting (they, to me anyway, are really boring to watch).
I’m not sure how much they (the videos) are being utilized. There are just certain items that are learned better through direct one on one contact.
I know as I’m teaching, I get direct feedback from my students by looking at their faces and gauging comprehension. I, as a teacher, don’t get that feedback as I’m designing and creating my videos.”
although learning styletheories serve as a justification for different learning activities it does not provide the necessarytheoretical framework as to how the activities need to be structured (Bishop and Verleger, 2013). p. 99
One observation from the literature is there is a lack of consistency of models of the FCM (Davieset al.,2013, p. 565) in addition to a lack of research into student performance, (Findlay-Thompson andMombourquette, 2014, p. 65; Euniceet al., 2013) broader impacts on taking up too much of thestudents’time and studies of broader student demographics. In another literature review of the FCM,Bishop and Verleger concur with the observation that there is a lack of consensus as to the definitionof the method and the theoretical frameworks (Bishop and Verleger, 2013). p. 99
The FCM isheavily reliant on technology and this is an important consideration for all who consideremploying the FCM. p. 101
Gross, B., Marinari, M., Hoffman, M., DeSimone, K., & Burke, P. (2015). Flipped @ SBU: Student Satisfaction and the College Classroom. Educational Research Quarterly, 39(2), 36-52.
we found that high levels of student engagement and course satisfaction characterised the students in the flipped courses, without any observable reduction in academic performance.
Hotle, S. L., & Garrow, L. A. (2016). Effects of the Traditional and Flipped Classrooms on Undergraduate Student Opinions and Success. Journal Of Professional Issues In Engineering Education & Practice, 142(1), 1-11. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000259
It was found that student performance on quizzes was not significantly different across the traditional and flipped classrooms. A key shortcoming noted with the flipped classroom was students’ inability to ask questions during lectures. Students in flipped classrooms were more likely to attend office hours compared to traditional classroom students, but the difference was not statistically significant.
Heyborne, W. H., & Perrett, J. J. (2016). To Flip or Not to Flip? Analysis of a Flipped Classroom Pedagogy in a General Biology Course. Journal Of College Science Teaching, 45(4), 31-37.
Although the outcomes were mixed, regarding the superiority of either pedagogical approach, there does seem to be a trend toward performance gains using the flipped pedagogy. We strongly advocate for a larger multiclass study to further clarify this important pedagogical question.
Tomory, A., & Watson, S. (2015). Flipped Classrooms for Advanced Science Courses. Journal Of Science Education & Technology, 24(6), 875-887. doi:10.1007/s10956-015-9570-8
