Assessing the Impact of the Interactive Learning Space

Report
Assessing the Impact of the Interactive
Learning Space Initiative on Faculty
Morale and Student Achievement
Ball State University 2015 Spring Assessment Forum
April 22, 2015
Deanna Pucciarelli, Jennifer Young, Kathy Jacobi
PURPOSE – to strengthen learning through pedagogy,
space, and technology
• PEDAGOGY – move from lecture-based to active learning
• SPACE – physical and virtual space to support active
learning
• TECHNOLOGY & FURNISHINGS – supports interaction
and active engagement with content
Learning Spaces
TC 412
Node Classroom
24 node chairs, 3 interactive white
boards, document camera, Apple TV,
huddle boards, small breakout space
TC 414
Media:scape Classroom
4 media:scape tables, 1 interactive white
board, Apple TV, document camera,
huddle boards
Tenets of the ILS Faculty Development Program
Inter-program & Inter-cohort
Research Collaboration
• Faculty within same department, but
different disciplines
• Faculty with experience in ILS (cohort I and
cohort II)
• ILS Administrator (Jacobi) constant
Mixed-Method Design
• Quantitative
• Faculty Survey – collaboration on course redesign and
research during ILS participation
• Course Evaluation Scores – students’ perception of
content delivery
• Qualitative
• Focus Groups – impact on faculty morale and
productivity
Demographics (n=28)
23 cohort 1 (15)
19 cohort 2 (13)
68% participation
Faculty Post Secondary Years of Teaching
n=27
1-5
6-10
11%
11%
26%
11-15
16-20
21-25
25+
11%
19%
22%
54% Female
46% Male
5 Colleges
19 Departments
Faculty i-Clicker Questions
• Did you redesign your course syllabus as a result of
collaboration?
• Did you redesign your course activities as a result of
collaboration?
• Did you redesign your course delivery as a result of
collaboration?
• Did you engage in research projects?
• Did you collaborate on those research projects?
Student Course Evaluation Questions
• My instructor uses effective examples and
illustrations
• This course broadens my perspective
and/or knowledge
Focus Group Methods
• Audio recorded and transcribed
• Independently coded by 3 researchers
• Identified prominent themes
Focus Group Questions
• How has participation in the ILS impacted you?
• Has the ILS Initiative impacted your morale? How?
• Of the various faculty development activities embedded in
the ILS Initiative, which did you find most impactful?
Focus Group Questions
• Describe how you collaborated with others during the ILS
Initiative.
• Can you share if your productivity has changed as a result
of collaborating with faculty across campus?
• Reflecting on your overall experiences with the ILS
Initiative, how has your ‘professional’ sense of purpose
been affected?
Faculty i-clicker Findings
• 78% redesigned course
• 89% redesigned course activities
• 94% redesigned course delivery
• 50% engaged in research/scholarship
Student Course Evaluation
Methods and Findings
• Two-Way Repeated Measures MANOVA
and Two-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA
• No significant difference (pre-post
responses)
Focus Group Findings
“ . . . it did make me a better teacher, and it made me a
better teacher in a traditional classroom.”
“The collaboration with others, just being in conversation
with others was such an important part of this experience.”
“The collaboration was a big, big thing for me. . . it’s nice to
get to know people outside your department and share an
interest in teaching.”
“(Participation in the ILS Initiative has) made me a more
well-rounded person.”
Focus Group – Findings
“. . . I have become set in my ways. . . But this was a whole
turning over the apple cart and doing everything new. It’s
been rejuvenating or reinvigorating in that sense.”
“ . . . the impact is has on me was kind of life-changing . . .
there was a huge impact on the class, but it was also kind
of a life-changing thing for me in my professional role.”
“(My professional sense of purpose is) Off the charts.”
“I think (participating in the ILS) gave me a second life. . .
this (is) probably part of the reason I’m still here.”
Focus Group Themes
Inputs
Facilitating
Factors
Outputs
Outcomes
What resources were
provided?
What helped faculty
achieve outputs?
What was produced as
a result of inputs and
facilitating factors?
What impactful
changes have occurred
as a result of this
process?
Technology
• Multiple projection
screens
• Eno boards
• Huddle boards
• Apple TV
Physical space
• Node chairs
• Media:scape
Pedagogical resources
• Books
• Journal articles
• Research data
• Theory
• Opportunities to
collaborate with faculty
• Support from the Office
of Educational
Excellence, faculty,
mentors
• Opportunities to explore,
experiment with teaching
• Participation in Faculty
Development Week
• Experiencing faculty
research presentations
• Ability to engage in risk
taking
• Receiving weekly emails
• Flipped classroom
instruction
• Research productivity
• Presentations
• Posters
• Spillover/crossover to
other classes
• Traditional space
• Online
• Increased student
engagement
• Accelerated use of new
tool/technology
• Improved interaction with
students
• Impactful classroom
redesign
• Formation of writing
groups
•
•
•
•
•
Increased morale
Feeling hopeful
Open to new ideas
Sense of empowerment
Rejuvenation, reenergized
• Enhanced sense of
purpose
• Connection to campus
community
Focus Group Themes
Environment
Content
Engagement
Interaction
Instructor
Student
Conclusions
• Evidence of improved faculty morale.
• Evidence of increased collaboration among faculty
members.
• Evidence of the ILS Initiative influencing teaching in ILS
and traditional classrooms.
• Evidence of increase in research productivity for some.
Outcomes and Future Research
• Dissemination of Findings: Faculty conference
presentations; Manuscript in-progress
• Continue study to collect data from Cohorts 3 & 4 to build
university database
• Continued data collection of course evaluation scores to
see if differences are revealed with larger sample size.
• Pucciarelli and Young teaching in BB109, F2015
BB109 (opening F2015)

similar documents