Technology-Enhanced Learning:
Opportunities and Challenges
Charles D. Dziuban
Patsy D. Moskal
University of Central Florida
The University of Central Florida
Distributed Learning Impact
Evaluation
Students
Faculty
Online programs
Success
Retention
Reactive behavior
patterns
Generational
comparisons
Satisfaction Writing project model
Demographic
Higher order
profiles
evaluation models
Strategies for
Theater
success
Student evaluation of
Information
instruction
fluency
Large online classes
A value-added model of technologyenhanced learning
Fully
Online
WebAugmented
(E)
Blended
Enhancement
(M)
Engagement
Faculty Initiative
(W)
Access and
Transformation
Institutional Initiative
Student Success
Success rates by modality
Spring 01 through Spring 03
F2F
M
W
Total N= 139,444 students
100
97
Percent
95
93
97
91 91
90
94
93
91
89
94
90
92
92
Spring
02
Summer
02
90 91
91
92 92
91 91 91
85
80
75
Spring
01
Summer
01
Fall
01
Fall
02
Spring
03
Success rates by modality for
Health & Public Affairs
F2F
M
W
Percent
Total N= 26,073 students
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
99
96
98
96
94
91
99
98
92
Spring
01
95
94
93
91
Summer
01
98
Fall
01
91
Spring
02
92
Summer
02
95
91
92
Fall
02
91
91
Spring
03
Success rates by modality for
Arts & Sciences
F2F
M
W
Percent
Total N= 49,460 students
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
98
96
93
92
91
90
94
92
92
90
91
90
88
87
Spring
01
92
Summer
01
Fall
01
Spring
02
Summer
02
93
91
91
90
87
87
Fall
02
Spring
03
Success rates by modality for
Education
F2F
M
W
Percent
Total N= 10,822 students
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
97 98 97
Spring
01
99100
97
Summer
01
99
96
99
95
Fall
01
96
97
Spring
02
98 98
98 98
96
Summer
02
98 98
96
Fall
02
95
Spring
03
A segment model for success
Overall
85.9%
n=11,286
Arts & Sciences,
Business Admin.,
Hospitality Mgmt.
85.8%
n=6,460
F2F, E, M
86.5%
n=5,639
females
88.4%
n=3,263
Engineering
Education
72.7%
n=378
91.5%
n=2,079
W
74.8%
n=821
males
84.1%
n=2,376
F2F
94.1%
n=1,036
A&S
78.5%
n=526
E, M, W
89.1%
n=1,043
F2F
64.7%
n=148
BA & Hosp. mgmt
68.9%
n=298
Health
& Pub.
Affairs
86.7%
n=2,369
E, M
79.6%
n=230
Student Satisfaction
Student satisfaction in fully online and
mixed-mode courses
50
45
40
35
39% 41% 38%
44%
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fully online (N = 1,526)
Mixed-mode (N = 485)
9% 11%
9%
3%
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
5%
1%
Very Unsatisfied
Unsatisfied
Student satisfaction with online learning
• Convenience
• Reduced Logistic Demands
• Increased Learning Flexibility
• Technology Enhanced Learning
Reduced Opportunity
Costs for Education
Students’ problems with online learning
• Reduced Face-to-Face Time
• Technology Problems
• Reduced Instructor Assistance
• Overwhelming
• Increased Workload
Increased Opportunity
Costs for Education
Student Generations
Some characteristics of the
generations
• Matures (prior to 1946) • Generation X (1965-1980)
• Dedicated to a job they
• Work to live
take on
• Clear & consistent
• Respectful of authority
expectations
• Place duty before
• Value contributing to the
pleasure
whole
• Baby boomers (19461964)
• Live to work
• Generally optimistic
• Influence on policy &
products
• Millennials (1981-1994)
• Live in the moment
• Expect immediacy of
technology
• Earn money for
immediate consumption
The Digital Generation
Learning Style
Lifestyle
• Twitch Speed
• Special
• Parallel Processing
• Sheltered
• Graphics First
• Confident
• Connected
• Team Oriented
• Active Learning
• Achieving
• Learn by Play
• Pressured
• Learn by Fantasy
• Conventional
• Technology Friendly
The Digital Generation: Challenges
Learning Style
Lifestyle
• Surface Functioning
• Self-focused
• Difficult to Teach
• Artificial Self-esteem
• Research by “Surf”
• Anything is Possible
Orientation
• Weak Critical Thinking Skills
• Naïve Beliefs Regarding
Intellectual Property
• Cynical
• Technology Preferences Have
Little Institutional Context
• “Yeah Right”
Attitude
• Life by Lottery
Students who were satisfied by
generation
60
55%
Percent
50
38%
40
26%
30
20
10
0
Boomer
1946-1964
Generation X
1965-1980
Millennial
1981-1994
n=328
n=815
n=346
Better able to integrate technology
into their learning
80
70
67%
Percent
60
48%
50
34%
40
30
20
10
0
Boomer
1946-1964
Generation X
1965-1980
Millennial
1981-1994
n=328
n=815
n=346
Because of the web I changed my
approach to learning
60
51%
Percent
50
37%
40
30
23%
20
10
0
Boomer
1946-1964
Generation X
1965-1980
Millennial
1981-1994
n=328
n=815
n=346
Success rates by generation and
course level
Baby Boomer
Gen X
Millennial
Percent
100
90
80
93% 91%
83%
96%
94% 95%
90%
81%
75%
70
60
50
Lower
Undergrad
Upper
Undergrad
Graduate
Classroom modality preferred by
generations
Baby Boomer
Gen X
Millennial
p = .000; n=1,149
100
Percent
80
59%
60
40
65%
40%
39%
26% 24%
15%
20
22%
11%
0
Face-to-Face
Equal Mix
Web
Student Behavior Types
Research on reactive behavior
patterns
• Theory of William A. Long, University of
Mississippi
• Ambivalence brings out behavior patterns
• Provides a lens for how “types” react to
different teaching styles
Resources
•
•
•
•
•
•
Personality
Emotional maturity
Sophistication level
Level of intellect
Educational level
Character development
A description of Long behavior
types
• Aggressive Independent
• Aggressive Dependent
• high energy
• high energy
• action-oriented
• action-oriented
• not concerned with approval
• concerned with approval
• speaks out freely
• rarely expresses negative
feelings
• gets into confrontational
situations
• performs at or above ability
• Passive Independent
• Passive Dependent
• low energy
• low energy
• not concerned with approval
• concerned with approval
• prefers to work alone
• highly sensitive to the
feelings of others
• resists pressure from
authority
• very compliant
A description of Long behavior
traits
• Phobic
• exaggerated fears of things
• often feels anxious
• often sees the negative side
• doesn’t take risks
• Impulsive
• explosive
• quick-tempered
• acts without thinking
• frank
• short attention span
• Compulsive
• Hysteric
• highly organized
• dramatic and emotional
• neat, methodical worker
• more social than academic
• perfectionist
• artistic or creative
• strongly motivated to finish tasks • tends to overreact
Students who were very satisfied with
blended learning Long type
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
39%
32%
33%
24%
Aggressive
Independent
(N = 168)
Passive
Independent
(N = 204)
Aggressive
Dependent
(N = 458)
Passive
Dependent
(N = 122)
Changed Approach to Learning in
Online Class by Long Type
45
40
40%
34%
35
37%
30
25%
25
20
15
10
5
0
Aggressive
Passive
Independent Independent
n=120
n=83
Aggressive
Dependent
Passive
Dependent
n=285
n=28
Withdrawing Students Who Indicated That They
Would Take Another Online Course (by Long type)
80
70
60
50
67%
50%
40
32%
30
20
10
0
0%
Aggressive
Passive
Aggressive Passive
Independent Independent Dependent Dependent
N=55
Faculty Results
Time to develop course as compared with a
comparable face-to-face section
More
work
52%
77%
About the same
A little less time
A lot less time
43%
21%
Equal
to or
less than
A lot more time
A little more time
5%
2%
W
n=56
M
N=43
Modality
Time in weekly course administration activities as
compared with a comparable face-to-face section
More
work
Equal
to or
less than
43%
A lot more time
A little more time
20%
38%
About the same
A little less time
A lot less time
15%
2%
4%
19%
60%
W
n=55
M
N=42
Modality
Amount of interaction in Web classes
compared to comparable F2F sections
More
interaction
45%
62%
30%
16%
Equal
to or
less than
13%
2%
7%
Increased
Somewhat
increased
About the same
Somewhat
decreased
Decreased
W
n=55
15%
8%
3%
Modality
M
N=40
Quality of interaction in Web classes
compared to comparable F2F sections
Better
interaction
Equal
to or
less than
35%
30%
33%
37%
22%
9%
2%
19%
14%
W
n=55
Increased
Somewhat
increased
About the same
Somewhat
decreased
Decreased
M
N=43
Modality
Faculty satisfaction compared with a comparable
face-to-face section
38%
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Unsatisfied
44%
49%
Positive
58%
Neutral
or
negative
38%
44%
6%
7%
7%
5%
W
n=55
Very unsatisfied
5%
M
N=43
Modality
F2F
N=64
Relationships of faculty satisfaction with
class interaction and workload (TAU-b)
W
(n=53)
M
(n=38)
Amount of interaction
.39**
.34*
Quality of interaction
.43**
.51**
Time to develop
.16
.09
Time to administer
.10
.01
Time to deliver
.06
.10
*p<.05; ** p<.01
Student Ratings
A decision rule based on student evaluation responses
and the probability of faculty receiving an overall
rating of Excellent
If...
Excellent Very Good Good
Fair
Facilitation of learning
Communication of ideas
Then...
The probability of an overall rating of Excellent = .93
The probability of an overall rating of Fair or Poor =.00
&
Poor
A comparison of excellent ratings by college unadjusted
and adjusted for instructors satisfying Rule 1
Overall
If Rule 1
College
% Excellent % Excellent
Arts & Sciences
41.6
92.4
Business
34.9
90.9
Education
56.8
94.8
Engineering
36.2
91.3
H&PA
46.1
93.9
(N=441,758) (N=147,544)
A comparison of excellent ratings by course
modality--unadjusted and adjusted for instructors
satisfying Rule 1
Course
Modality
F2F
E
M
W
ITV
Overall
% Excellent
42.0
44.0
40.6
55.4
20.9
N=709,285
If Rule 1
% Excellent
92.2
92.3
92.0
92.7
86.7
N=235,745
Research Initiative for Teaching
Effectiveness
For more information contact:
Dr. Chuck Dziuban
(407) 823-5478
dziuban@mail.ucf.edu
Dr. Patsy Moskal
(407) 823-0283
pdmoskal@mail.ucf.edu
http://rite.ucf.edu
http://www.if.ucf.edu/