by Dr. Karen Swan Dr. Swan will discuss tools and techniques of assessing the impact of technology on learning, beginning with asking the right questions. Good questions, she argues, specify not just outcomes, but also inputs and, most importantly, learning processes. Each of these will be discussed in terms of categories and measures for guiding assessment.

1. Karen Swan Kent State University Research Center for Educational Technology Assessing the Impact of Technology on Learning

2. The Great Media Debate Kozma VS Clark

3. ? What is the question?

4. outcomes processes inputs

5. satisfaction retention success achievement proficiencies performance outcomes processes inputs

6. Understanding By Design , Wiggins & McTighe achievement enduring understandings important to know & do worth being familiar with

7. satisfaction retention success achievement proficiencies performance outcomes processes inputs

8. learner characteristics design learning resources professional development outcomes processes inputs

9. learner characteristics F2F, E, M factors influencing success (Dziuban & Moskal, 2006) 85.9% n=11,286 85.8% n=6,460 91.5% n=2,079 72.7% n=378 86.7% n=2,369 86.5% n=5,639 74.8% n=821 94.1% n=1,036 89.1% n=1,043 64.7% n=148 79.6% n=230 88.4% n=3,263 84.1% n=2,376 68.9% n=298 78.5% n=526 Arts & Sciences, Business Admin., Hospitality Mgmt. Education Engineering Health & Pub. Affairs O females males A&S BA & Hosp. mgmt F2F E, M, O E, M F2F Overall

10. learner characteristics reactive behavior patterns (Long-Dziuban frame) Low energy, concerned with approval, highly sensitive to the feelings of others, compliant and pleasing high energy, action-oriented, concerned with approval, rarely expresses negative feelings, performs at or above ability dependent low energy, not concerned with approval, prefers to work alone, resists pressure from authority, non-communicative high energy, action-oriented, not concerned with approval, speaks out freely, gets into confrontational situations independent passive aggressive

11. learner characteristics design learning resources professional development outcomes processes inputs

12. design http://www.esac.org/fdi/rubric/finalsurvey/demorubric.asp http://www.tltgroup.org/

13. learner characteristics course design learning resources professional development outcomes processes inputs

14. learning ubiquitous technologies learning UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006) outcomes processes inputs use representations conceptualizations

15. multiple representations across a wide range of media UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006)

16. GROUP SIZE UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006) 32.75 47.95 whole class 0.00 7.78 large groups 58.73 31.31 small groups 8.52 12.96 individual SBCAC regular classroom percentage of time spent in:

17. CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING UbiComp Effects (RCET, 2006) 9.3 special needs 8.5 low ability 9.4 medium ability 10 high ability average rating across classes

18. EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE Community of Inquiry Model (Garrison, 2006) TEACHING PRESENCE PRESENCE SOCIAL COGNITIVE PRESENCE outcomes processes inputs

23. pedagogy interactions assessment outcomes processes inputs

24. content analysis– “additional comments:” (Swan, Schenker, Lin, Shea & Aviv, 2006) pedagogy course design course assignments instructor feedback instructor instructor /discussion affect learning

25. SUMMER 2002 (n=1140) SPRING 2003 (n=6088) satisfaction per. learn. per. learn. teaching presence (Shea, et al., 2003, 2004) satisfaction per. learn. pedagogy < .01 .61 < .01 .63 < .01 .61 < .01 .64 direct instruction < .01 .58 < .01 .61 < .01 .58 < .01 .64 facilitating discourse < .01 .60 < .01 .64 < .01 .59 < .01 .64 design & organization p r p r p r p r

26. pedagogy interactions assessment outcomes processes inputs

27. interactions interactivity & generations (Hartman,Moskal & Dziuban, 2005)

28. social software commenting tools (Track Changes, audio/ video feedback) threaded discussion, chat, email whiteboards / application sharing (Elluminate, Wimba, Learnlinc) blogs wikis distributed classification systems (Digg, Plum, Flickr YouTube) interactions

29. pedagogy interactions assessment outcomes processes inputs

30. assessment *significant at p>.05; **significant at p>.01 assessment of online discussion (Schenker, Swan, Arnold & Kuo, 2006) 2.70 1.90 greatest depth 0.98 0.71 thread depth 2.04 1.65 posts/thread 18.80 15.50 total threads 58.30 40.55 total posts criteria ~criteria 23.05 11.83 messages read** 70.12 68.73 response length* 1.96 1.52 responses/stud** 145.40 147.19 initial post length 0.82 0.83 initial posts/stud criteria ~criteria

31. enduring understandings important to know & do worth being familiar with assessment Understanding By Design , Wiggins & McTighe Assessment Types informal checks observation/dialogue quizzes/tests academic prompts performance task/project

32. assessment: rubrics discussion postings rubrics (Pelz, 2004)

33. lesson plan rubrics article critique rubrics assessment: rubrics strong links to module topics &/or own experience weak links to module &/or own experience doesn't link to either module or own experience links to module content, other lit. &/or personal experiences addresses all questions well &/or adds original critique addresses only some questions or some questions superficially doesn't address any of the questions addresses questions posed clear summary of article, addresses all major points covered in article weak summary of article, misses some major points no summary of article article summary 1 point 1/2 point 0 points points excellent activities encouraging active learning, & transfer of learning to other areas of curriculum weak links between activities, lesson and curriculum no activities activities well structured lesson that fits curriculum and grade level and clearly addresses objectives weak lesson that doesn't clearly address objectives. poorly structured lesson inappropriate for grade level, curriculum & objectives scope and sequence rubrics give specific descriptions of skill levels w/in categories and categories match objectives rubrics don't match objectives &/or don't give skill levels w/in categories no rubrics assessment objectives clearly state what students will learn from the lesson and are linked to evaluation weak objectives (don't state what students will learn or don't match rubrics) objectives neither state what students will learn nor match evaluation rubrics objectives 1 point 1/2 point 0 points points

35. assessment: student response systems self-assessment as well as data collection, engagement, interactivity

36. outcomes processes inputs

37. Karen Swan Kent State University [email_address] www.rcet.org Research Center for Educational Technology