free range learners
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Glenda Morgan, U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Tracy Hurley, Texas A&M at Antonio Shannon Meadows, CourseSmart TJ Bliss, OER Policy Fellow, Inacol Connie Broughton, Washington State
Board for Community & Technical Colleges
Content for Free Range Learners
Free Range Learners: And Other Learning Types
Glenda MorganUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
WCET Annual Meeting, San Antonio Nov 1 2012
Co-Conspirators on This Study
Chuck Dziuban, UCF Flora McMartin, Broad Based Knowledge Josh Morrill, University of Wisconsin-Madison Patsy Moskal, UCF Alan Wolf, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Study of Student Use of Learning Resources Funded by National Science Digital Library
Looking at learning resources more generally
Mixed methods study
Paths through the material
Qualitative findings pointed us to certain kinds of behaviors
Free Range Learning
And then we analyzed the quantitative data
Ambivalent Learners
48% of Sample
This segment addresses learning problems using a plan (at least they believe that they have a plan). But, mostly, they do not feel strongly about their learning. They are confident in their ability to find information, but do not enjoy studying nor do they have a need to learn. This is the largest learner segment from the sample.
Adaptive Learners
26% of Sample
This segment exhibits a lot of characteristics of “ideal” learners (They solve problems with a plan, they are systematic, they set goals, they ask for help if they experience a problem, they enjoy studying and have a need to learn). A differentiator in this group is that there is more variance around setting specific times to study. For example, this could be a learner who studies in a hallway whenever they had some free time.
Rebel/ Free Form
Learners
13% of Sample
This group is not systematic in their learning, and do not solve problems with plans. But they are willing to change what they do when presented with new information (may speak to an experiential type of learner). This group also feels like they have a need to learn, but are among the least likely to set aside specific time to study.
Time Sensitive Learners
11% of Sample
This segment is similar to the adaptive learners in many ways (use a plan, are systematic, etc), but they are just not quite as strong in these skills. Directionally they are identical to adaptive learners. The other key difference is that this group is the most likely to set specific times to study, and least likely to ask for assistance with a problem. This is also the smallest learner segment.
Ambivalent Learners
Adaptive Learners
Rebel/ Free Form Learners
Time Sensitive Learners
LEARNING FACTORS
-Agency 48.7 51.8 49.2 53.6-Preparedness 45.5 55.5 50.9 60.1-Organization 47.2 54.9 46.0 59.8-Engagement 46.5 53.4 51.8 58.6
NOTE: Lowest scores shaded in red, Highest scores shaded in green.
Learning Factors
Ambivalent Learners
Adaptive Learners
Rebel/ Free Form
Learners
Time Sensitive Learners
Interest Factors
-Search, Browse, Ask 49.4 54.7 52.9 56.9-Friends, Social Network 49.8 53.8 51.8 57.1-Internet Search 49.5 51.1 51.5 48.2
Difficulty Factors
-Outreach 49.9 53.4 52.6 57.9-Internet Search 49.5 52.0 51.2 50.4-Written Material 49.7 54.2 52.8 55.6-Engagement 50.4 51.2 50.2 53.2NOTE: Lowest scores shaded in red, Highest scores shaded in green.
Interest vs. Difficulty Factors
Ambivalent Learners
Adaptive Learners
Rebel/ Free Form
Learners
Time Sensitive Learners
Profiling Variables
-% full time student 54% 55% 39% 47%-% part time students 9% 5% 10% 11%-% former students 30% 33% 44% 33%
School/Institution
-2 year/ community college 13% 15% 21% 28%-4 year college/ university 72% 57% 51% 55%
Race
-% White/ Caucasian 74% 75% 73% 48%Is / Was Major
-Business, management, marketing
17% 14% 17% 25%
-Engineering 10% 13% 7% 10%-Humanities -&- Fine Arts 8% 11% 20% 8%
ProfilesGreen= highest in row; Red= lowest in row
Ambivalent Learners
Adaptive Learners
Rebel/ Free Form
Learners
Time Sensitive Learners
Employment
-% NOT employed (0 hours) 36% 37% 37% 50%Gender
-% female 38% 51% 40% 50%Housing
-% Living in on campus housing
39% 33% 16% 26%
Wikipedia
-% Use Wikipedia (work or school)
56% 57% 62% 47%
Age
-Average Age 24.0 25.1 26.4 25.7GPA
-Self Reported Average GPA 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.4
ProfilesGreen= highest in row; Red= lowest in row
Ambivalent Learners
48% of Sample
This segment addresses learning problems using a plan (at least they believe that they have a plan). But, mostly, they do not feel strongly about their learning. They are confident in their ability to find information, but do not enjoy studying nor do they have a need to learn. This is the largest learner segment from the sample.
Adaptive Learners
26% of Sample
This segment exhibits a lot of characteristics of “ideal” learners (They solve problems with a plan, they are systematic, they set goals, they ask for help if they experience a problem, they enjoy studying and have a need to learn). A differentiator in this group is that there is more variance around setting specific times to study. For example, this could be a learner who studies in a hallway whenever they had some free time.
Rebel/ Free Form
Learners
13% of Sample
This group is not systematic in their learning, and do not solve problems with plans. But they are willing to change what they do when presented with new information (may speak to an experiential type of learner). This group also feels like they have a need to learn, but are among the least likely to set aside specific time to study.
Time Sensitive Learners
11% of Sample
This segment is similar to the adaptive learners in many ways (use a plan, are systematic, etc), but they are just not quite as strong in these skills. Directionally they are identical to adaptive learners. The other key difference is that this group is the most likely to set specific times to study, and least likely to ask for assistance with a problem. This is also the smallest learner segment.
Free Ranger Learner Zone
Next Steps
Flesh out further behaviors according to each type
Further implications of each type of learner for how we support teaching and learning
More info on what kinds of info they use and how they learn from it
Case Study: Converting to Digital
Content Texas A&M San Antonio
CourseSmart
How well will your booklist translate? Addressing academic freedom & faculty
choice Will the institution bookstore play a role? Are you meeting Accessibility requirements? Analytics differentiate digital from print Executive sponsorship is key to driving
change
Converting from Print to Digital
$300,000 40 out of 400
proposals funded 2 year program Custom e-books Publisher
agreements
FIPSE E-book Rental ProgramDetails of Grant Program:
Printing agreementsAuthorization and
implementation of student fees
Faculty developmentInstructional
designerProgram evaluation
Faculty will most likely not readily adopt and encourage e-book use due to technology resistance
Administrators will not receive profit sharing from bookstore sales
Students unfamiliar with product
Resistance to Change
A Case Study: Texas A&M University- San Antonio
Institutional Agreement
10 Publishers:
McGraw-Hill/IrwinPearson/Prentice-HallCengageWileyHuman Kinetics
WHFreemanCQ PressCRC PressNo Starch
PressJones-Bartlett
Bulk discount
Up to 70% off hard copy textbook price
Electronic course material available (MyLabs,
Aplia, Connect, Homework Mgr)
Custom E-books
100% sell-through for publishers
Mandatory electronic course material fee
E-books available 1st day of class
Print on demand feature
Key Ingredients
*Course fee includes, program administration, and electronic homework manager product (where adopted)
Program Stats4600 E-books issued by students in Fall 2010
6700 e-books issued in Fall 2013
49% of all classes are e-book classes
Average course fee* = $64
9.5% of tuition
Course fee ranged from $28-$70
25% of students used Institutional printing
option
#1 problem: Access code distribution
#2 problem: Logistics of Institutional
Printing option
#3 problem: Learning curve from
university, publishers, and
Printing Partner
#4 problem: Resistance to change
Problems & Lessons Learned
Surveys sent to all students using e-books at the end of the Fall 2010, Spring 2011 & Fall 2011 semesters
Over 1100 students completed a survey Demographics mirror the university Majors are consistent with the proportion
enrolled in e-book courses
Results of Student Evaluation Surveys
76% of students reported that they felt that e-books were a cost effective alternative to regular textbooks
58% of the students reported looking forward to taking additional e-book classes
69% were very satisfied with the e-book program while only 14% were not
59% of the students felt that e-books provided greater flexibility when compared to traditional textbooks
Results of Student Evaluation Surveys (continued)
25% of e-books issued were also ordered as a printed version.
64% of students felt that the institutional printing option was valuable to their educational success
Fifty percent reported that printed e-books improved their study habits and grades
Print on-Demand Option
Open Course LibraryA collection of openly licensed (CC BY)
educational materials for 82 high-enrollment college courses
Project Goals:1. Lower textbook costs for students2. Improve course completion rates3. Provide new resources for faculty
Credit: Timothy Valentine & Leo Reynolds CC BY-NC-SA
Phase 1: 42 courses◦ http://opencourselibrary.org◦ http://saylor.org
Phase 2 : 40 courses◦ Available Spring 2013
Open Course Library Timeline
