Measuring Online Learning Readiness: What is Important for Online Learning Success?

1
Measuring Online Learning Readiness What is
Important for Online Learning Success?

• Marcel S. Kerr, Ph.D.
• Kimberly Rynearson, Ph.D.
• Marcus C. Kerr, M.Ed.

2
Impetus for Project

• Research provides a clear picture of student
  characteristics that lead to successful classroom
  performance.
• These characteristics may be the same or
  different for online students.
• How do we identify students who are ready for
  online learning?
• The researchers proposed three studies to answer
  this question.

3
Presentation Agenda

• Study 1 Goals Findings
• Study 2 Goals Findings
• Study 3 Goals Findings
• Project Contributions
• What does and does not work in the online
  classroom
• Conclusion

4
Study 1 Goals

• The goal of Study I was to develop the initial
  measure, determine its structure, and construct
  validity.
• Internet Search
• Qualitative Analysis
• Test Development
• Initial Measure (TOOLS) Six Subscales
• Literature Search

5
Study 1 Findings

• The goal of establishing construct validity of
  the new measure was accomplished
• Five-factor stable structure
• High internal consistency (alphas .87 - .89)
• The majority of the relationships with the
  convergent validity variables were supported.

6
Study 2 Goals

• The goals of Study II were to determine the
  structure and criterion validity of the revised
  measure.
• Would subscales relate to student outcomes
  appropriately?
• Does TOOLS predict student outcomes?
• Would five subscales emerge again?

7
Study 2 Findings

• The goal of establishing criterion validity of
  the new measure was accomplished, in part
• The predicted relationships were supported.
• Students with higher OLS and more strengths had
  significantly higher end-of-course grades.
• Found a stable five-component structure again.
• High internal consistency (alpha .83)
• Generated Scoring Procedures

8
Study 3 Goals

• The goals of Study III were to determine the
  measures predictive or diagnostic power,
  establish cut-offs for student profiles, and
  determine its reliability over time.

9
Study 3 Findings

• Students experiences significant gains
• Individual Student Profiles
• Test-retest reliability, r(76) .77
• Computer skills, r(75) .54
• Independent, r(75) .61
• Dependent, r(75) .33
• Need for Online, r(75) .68
• Academic Skills, r(75) .74

10
Research Contributions

• TOOLS is a valid and reliable measure of online
  learning readiness
• Predicts outcomes
• Diagnostic use
• Instructor use
• Public Access Measure
• Various Formats
• Online Materials

11
What does and doesnt Work

• Student Characteristics for Online Success
• Instructional Design Issues
• Creating Student-centered Instruction
• Meeting Students Needs

12
Student Characteristics

• Technology Skills
• Adult Learners (Knowles, 1998)
• Motivation
• Need for online learning
• Internal vs. External
• Self-Directedness
• Conscientious
• Responsible
• Non-procrastinator
• Reading Writing Skills

13
Instructional Design

• Match ID Model with Learning Theory
• Design for Diversity
• Deep Learning
• High Engagement
• Accommodate Learning Styles
• Help Students Advance to the Level of
  Self-Directed Learning
• Focus on the Students

14
Student-Centered Instruction

• Students, more so than the instructor, influence
• The time and nature of instruction
• The content of instruction
• The negotiation of meaning through the exchange
  of ideas
• Instructors facilitate the learning process
• Outcomes
• Increased achievement and motivation
• (Hancock, Bray, Nason, 2002)

15
Meeting Student Need

• Needs Assessment
• Universitys Mission
• Student Body
• Student Assessment
• TOOLS
• Remediation Tutorials
• Learning Styles
• Good Instruction
• Who teaches online?

16
Conclusion

• Successes
• Limitations
• TOOLS Next Steps
• Future Research Directions
• Audience Questions

17
Contact Information

• Dr. Marcel S. Kerr
• Assistant Professor of Psychology
• Mskerr_at_txwes.edu
• http//department.txwes.edu/psy/mskerr
• Dr. Kimberly Rynearson
• Director, Center for Instructional Technology
  Distributed Education
• Rynearson_at_tarleton.edu
• Mr. Marcus C. Kerr
• Director, ITDE
• Mkerr_at_txwes.edu

18
References

• Bates, A. W., G. Poole (2003). Effective
  teaching with technology in higher education. San
  Francisco Jossey-Bass.
• Breslow, L. (1996). Lessons learned Findings
  from formative assessments of educational
  technology initiatives at MIT. (report).
• Hancock, D. R., Bray, M., Nason, S. A. (2002).
  Influencing university students achievement and
  motivation in a technology course. The Journal of
  Educational Research,95(6), 365-372.
• Knowles, M. S. (1998). The modern practice of
  adult education From pedagogy to andragogy.
  Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall.