Online Teaching and Student
Success and Retention:
Challenges and Opportunities
Clay Walker and Thomas Trimble
Humanities Center
February 17, 2015
Preview
– Context
– The role of standardized course shells
– Early assessment findings
– Next steps
– Discussion
Some Context
• Increasing online instruction at WSU
• Increasing online offerings in Gen. Ed.
composition courses
• Develop course design and professional
development infrastructure
• Standardized course shells
• Professional development teaching circles
Part 1
Standardized Course Shells – Clay Walker
•
•
•
•
General Principles of Online Course Design
Our Goals for ENG1020 & ENG3010
Overview of Our Templates
Summary: Challenges and Opportunities
General Principles of Online Course
Design: Some constraints
• Generating course materials (lots of
scaffolding; lots of writing)
• Predicting and pre-emptively working around
student questions, confusions, etc.
• Developing clear and consistent connections
across learning outcomes, assignment
instructions, and other materials
• Adapting lesson plans/activities for the online
environment
General Principles of Online Course
Design: Two Models
• The silo approach to course design
Instructor/Section
S1
S2
S3
Instructional Designer
LMS (Bb) Technicians
Other Colleagues
General Principles of Online Course
Design: Two Models
• The team approach to course design
Instructor/Section
Course Designer/Master Course Shell
S1
S2
S3
MCS
Instructional Designer
LMS (Bb) Technicians
Other Colleagues
Our Goals for ENG1020 & ENG3010
• Develop a process for effective course design
and revision
– Pilot > Multiple section roll out
– Orientation > Teaching circles
– Revision of online course materials
• Use templates to develop a structured space
for instructors
– Pedagogical agency: What does it mean to be a
creative and independent instructor?
Overview of Templates: Other
Features
•
•
•
•
•
•
Header
Sidebar
Weekly folder
Weekly overview
Learning outcome integration
Video lectures
Overview of Templates: Assignment
Template
• Introduction/Rationale
• Assignment Prompt
• Learning Objectives
– Learning Outcome 1
– Learning Outcome 2
• Minimum Requirements
– Length Requirement
– Research Requirement
– etc.
• Due Date
– Submit via Blackboard before 11:59 pm on Sunday of Week 1
Summary
• Improved quality by distributing workload
– Some teaching circles worked; others did not
– Avoiding problems of requiring PTF to build online course
without sufficient compensation for build time
• Shared ownership > Deeper commitment to quality
instruction (we hope)
• Plug and play course design facilitates transition to
online teaching for those new to the practice
• Strong centralized design limits curricular growth
without a teaching circle
• Some PTF/GTA instructors may view this as an
opportunity to teach without teaching
Part 2
Assessment of Student Outcomes-Thomas
Trimble
• How are students doing?
• How are we doing?
Literature Review
• No clear differences in:
– Student satisfaction outcomes
– Student learning outcomes
– Nosignificantdifference.org
• Possible differences in:
– Grading outcomes/completion rates (Sapp and Simon,
2005; Community College Research Center, 2013)
– Retention Outcomes (Community College Research
Center, 2013)
Sapp and Simon (2005)
Grades in online versus face-to-face writing
courses
“Thrive” (B+ or higher)
(%)
“Survive” (C- to B) (%)
“Dive” (D and below,
incomplete, drop) (%)
n
Face-to Face
83%
Online
38%
Net
-45%
17%
0%
29%
33%
+12%
+33%
71
37
Community College Research Center
(2013)
• 9% jump in failure/withdrawal rate in online
“gatekeeper” English courses
• 13% jump in failure/withdrawal rate in online
“gatekeeper” Math courses
• Students who took an online class in their first
semester were 4 to 5% less likely to be
retained in the following semester.
Research Questions
• Differences in grading outcomes?
• Differences in retention outcomes?
Study Design
• Sample: All 1803 students enrolled in
ENG3010 and 1020 (Fall 2014)
• Calculated pass rates, retention rates, and
grade distributions
• Performed online vs. face-to-face comparisons
ENG 1020 Grade Distributions
“Thrive” (A, A-, B+)
“Survive” (B, B-, C+, C)
“Dive” (C- and below,
incomplete, drop)
n
Overall
48%
31%
21%
1296
Face-toFace
50%
30%
Online
22%
40%
Net
-28%
+10%
20%
38%
1201 (93%) 95 (7%)
+18%
ENG 3010 Grade Distributions
Face-toOverall
Face
“Thrive” (A, A-, B+)
43%
43%
“Survive” (B, B-, C+, C) 36%
37%
“Dive” (C- and below,
incomplete, drop)
21%
20%
n
507
Online
40%
29%
31%
65
442 (87%) (13%)
Net
-3%
-8%
+11%
ENG 1020 Pass Rates and Retention
Rates: Face-to-Face vs. Online
Enrolled
Pass rate
Ret rate
1020 overall
1296
79%
88%
1020 F2F
1201
81%
89%
For students who failed ENG 1020:
•Face-to-face retention rate = 64%
•Online retention rate = 50%
1020 Online
95
62%
78%
Net
-19%
-11%
ENG 3010 Pass Rates and Retention
Rates: Face-to-Face vs. Online
Total
Enrolled
overall pass
rate
overall ret
rate
3010
3010 F2F
3010 Online
507
442
65
79%
80%
69%
-11%
88%
89%
83%
-6%
For students who failed ENG 3010:
•Face-to-face retention rate = 70%
•Online retention rate = 65%
Net
Online Student Survey Data
• 8 respondents (n=160) from both 1020 and
3010 online students (5%)
• 100% of respondents said they expected to
receive a grade of A in the course.
Survey Data: Major Findings
• 88% said they did not get to know their fellow
students
• 63% said they did not get to know their
instructor
• 100% said they would take another online
class at WSU
• 88% said they would recommend their online
writing class to friends
Questions
• Why are students failing at a higher rate?
• What can we do to increase the pass rate?
Suggested Interventions
• Sapp and Simon (2005)
–
–
–
–
–
Expand online orientation activities
Incorporate face-to-face meetings
Incorporate real-time activities
Provide prompt feedback on student work
Insist on institutional support
• CCRC Study (2013)
– Increase instructor presence
– Increase use of interactive technologies
– Increase interpersonal interaction
Possible Course Revisions
• Enhance/revise orientation activities
• Require student meetings early in the
semester
• Increased opportunities for student
collaboration
• Use scaffolded instructor-led interventions
• Call students by phone
Scaffolded Instructor Interventions
•
•
•
•
•
Week One “failure to log-in” email
“Failure to turn in first assignment” email
“Failure to turn in second assignment” email
“Missing work” phone call
“Pre-drop deadline” phone call
Next Steps
• Review Fall 2014 SET scores
• Review Winter 2015 data
• Integrate intervention “schedule” into
instructor training/teaching circles
• Ongoing improvement of course shells
Discussion