Presented with Dylan Barth During the 2013-14 academic year, the UW-Milwaukee’s Learning Technology Center began the pilot process for curating open educational resources and open textbook authoring using the web-based application, GinkgoTree. Initial results from qualitative and quantitative survey data regarding faculty and student perceptions of the pilot, as well as lessons learned, will be shared during this session.

1. Using Textbook Alternatives to
Decrease Cost and Increase
Student Engagement
August 13th, 2014
Distance Teaching and Learning Conference
Download at slideshare.net/tjoosten

2. Why pilot Ginkgotree?

3. 42 46 44 4927 20 25 2531 34 31 26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Open textbook
authoring
Mobile devices Video sharing eTexts
What are you interested in learning more about?
Very/interested Neutral Very/uninterested
M=2.94M=2.99 M=2.96 M=2.79

4. Solution

5. Why use Ginkgotree in your
class?

6. Enhanced the packaging of content

7. Improved access to content

8. Increased interactivity

9. Using GinkgoTree in
Business Writing

16. What did students think?

17. Easy

18. Agree Neutral Disagree
Ginkgotree 86.7 8.4 4.8
Registering 80.7 9.6 9.6
Features and navigation 78.3 10.8 7.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ease of use

19. Engaged
CC Flickr Vandy CFT

20. Agree Neutral Disagree
Feel like part of the class 50.6 32.5 10.8
Increase participation 51.8 26.5 18.1
Increase interaction with
content
61.4 28.9 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Engagement

21. Learned
CC Flickr katherine.a

22. Agree Neutral Disagree
Understand course material 68.7 30.1 1.2
Benefical to learning 68.7 26.5 4.8
Helped connect ideas 59 32.5 7.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Learning

23. Liked!

24. Agree Neutral Disagree
Another course 61.4 28.9 7.2
Recommend continued use 73.5 18.1 8.4
Overall 71.1 21.7 7.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Satisfaction

25. Agree Neutral Disagree
More portable 73.5 19.3 6
More relevant content 61.4 27.7 9.6
Better than 57.8 24.1 13.3
Prefer over 55.4 25.3 19.3
Learned more 48.2 37.3 14.5
Read more 50.6 27.7 20.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Textbook comparison

26. Learning
Satisfaction
Engagement
(r = .84, p<.001)
(r = .67, p<.001)
(r = .60, p<.001)

27. What surprised us?

28. Flexibility
Agree Neutral Disagree
Greater flexibility to
learn
66.3 24.1 7.2
Better organize and
structure learning
62.7 26.5 10.8
More efficient study
time
59 31.3 8.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

29. Predicts learning
Flexibility
Engagement
Learning
F(2, 144) = 328.60, p<.001
Approximately 82% of the variance
accounted for by flexibility and interactivity
(adjusted R2 = .818)

30. Recommendations
Based on the results of our data
analyses from the student and
instructor surveys

31. Use OER

32. Annotate text
Agree Neutral Disagree
Annotations connected
to instructor
62.9 26.5 10.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

33. Make Active
Annotation Highlighting Commenting Discussions

34. Use Rich Content
Book
Chapters
(2)
Articles Videos
(3)
Images Audio Web
Pages
(1)

35. Check Pricing

36. Connect and Share
CC Flickr bengray

37. Make Time
CC Flickr zamboni.andrea

38. Not just an e-text

39. Questions

40. Thank you!
Tanya Joosten, tjoosten@uwm.edu, @tjoosten
Dylan Barth, djbarth@uwm.edu, @dylanbarth
Nicole Weber, nicolea5@uwm.edu, @nwebs

41. Resources
• Faculty interests survey
• Ginkgotree instructor midterm evaluation
survey
• Ginkgotree end-of-the-semester student
survey
• Ginkgotree end-of-the-semester instructor
survey

42. Not included

43. Agree Neutral Disagree
Improved overall grade 43.4 42.2 9.6
Got better grades 34.9 44.6 18.1
Discussions helped do
better
47 34.9 4.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Performance

44. Agree Neutral Disagree
Ginkgotree introduction 84.2 13.2 2.6
Ginkgotree instructions 88 10.6 1.3
Recommend instructor 79.4 13.2 7.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Satisfaction