Panel Presentation at the 10th Sakai Conference in Boston, MA
This panel session will present an overview of preliminary data from the Sakai Multi-Institutional Survey Initiative (MISI) including perspectives and lessons learned from individual participating institutions. Initial trends, similarities, and differences between institutions regarding instructor and student responses will be discussed.
Beginners Guide to TikTok for Search - Rachel Pearson - We are Tilt __ Bright...
What Do Users Say? Findings from the Multi-Institutional Survey Initiative (MISI)
1. What Do Users Say?
Findings from the
Multi-Institutional Survey Initiative (MISI)
Steven Lonn & Stephanie D. Teasley, University of
Michigan;
Stephanie Conley & Yitna Firfyiwek, University of
Virginia;
Mary Glackin, Mt. Holyoke College; Keli Amann, Stanford
1
2. Panel Overview
• Organization, Survey Items, and
Logistics
• Preliminary Overall Findings
• Tales from the Trenches:
• Contrasting faculty / student experiences; Using suggested
improvements
• The small college experience with Sakai collaboration
• Major themes found; Follow-up Questionnaire
• International perspective: findings and lessons learned
• Acting on survey results; lessons & modifications
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 2
3. Participating Institutions
• Bradley University • Texas State University
- San Marcos
• Georgia Institute
• Universidad
of Technology Politécnica de
• Marist College Valencia
• Mount Holyoke • University of Michigan
College • University of Virginia
• University of Windsor
• Rice University
• University of Wyoming
• Rutgers University
• Stanford University
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 3
4. Other Participating
• Charles Sturt University
• Columbia University
• Universidade Fernando Pessoa
• University of California, Berkeley
• University of Limerick
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 4
5. Starting the Initiative
• Discussions with other institutions at
Sakai conferences.
• First multi-institutional panel: 2006 in
Vancouver
• Open email invitation sent out Dec.
2008 after Virginia Tech regional
conference
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 5
6. Agreeing on Core Survey
• Conference calls to discuss scope,
logistics, etc.
• Voting on Michigan survey items via
Confluence
• Wording, order, and core vs. optional
discussed in second set of conference
calls
• Individual email questions
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 6
7. Data Collection & Analysis
• Surveys individually administered by each
participating institution
• Some offered incentives, some not
• Average survey availability: 23 days
(min: 12 days; max: 39 days)
• Data uploaded to Michigan's Sakai
implementation
• Michigan volunteered to combine & analyze
quantitative data
• Full combined data set available to all MISI
institutions
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 7
11. Sakai Implementation
Sakai 2.4
3
Some / All Depts. Require Sakai Use
4
Sakai 2.5
11
Sakai Use Optional
10
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 8
12. Sakai Implementation
Sakai 2.4
3 Some / All Depts. Require Sakai Use
4
Sakai Use Optional
Sakai 2.5 10
11
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 8
13. Sakai Implementation
Sakai 2.4
3 Some / All Depts. Require Sakai Use
4
Sakai is Only LMS in Use
6
Sakai Use Optional
Sakai 2.5 10
11
Other LMS in Use
8
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 8
14. Sakai Implementation
Sakai 2.4
3 Some / All Depts. Require Sakai Use
4
Sakai Use Optional
Sakai 2.5 10
11
Sakai is Only LMS in Use
6
Other LMS in Use
8
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 8
15. Sakai Implementation
Sakai 2.4
3 Some / All Depts. Require Sakai Use
4
1-2 Years
< 1 Year 1
Sakai 2.5 6 Sakai Use Optional
10
11
3-4 Years
2
Sakai is Only LMS in Use
6 5+ Years
3
Other LMS in Use
8
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 8
16. Sakai Implementation
Sakai 2.4
3 Some / All Depts. Require Sakai Use
4
Sakai Use Optional
Sakai 2.5 10
11
Sakai is Only LMS in Use
6 1-2 Years
< 1 Year 1
6
3-4 Years
2
Other LMS in Use
8 5+ Years
3
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 8
17. Sample Information
• Majority of courses conducted face-
to-face (80%) or in "blended" (17%)
formats
• Primarily "large" institutions (9)
• Some "medium" institutions (4)
• One "small" institution
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 9
18. Survey Respondents by
Rutgers Stanford
Rice 5% 3%
6% Texas State
8%
Mt. Holyoke
7%
Valencia
8%
Michigan, Dearborn
12% Virginia
6%
Windsor
1%Wyoming
1%
Bradley
5%
Georgia Tech
2%
Marist
7%
Michigan, Ann Arbor
30%
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 10
19. Survey Respondents by Role
• 2,962 Instructors
• 14 Institutions
• Average Response Rate: 20% (Min: 6%, Max:
40%)
• 7,513 Students
• 13 Institutions
• Average Response Rate: 12% (Min: 1%, Max:
29%)
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 11
20. Instructors: Years Teaching
Q: How many years have you been an instructor/faculty in
More than 30education?
higher years year or less
1
8% 12%
21-30 years
14%
2-5 years
25%
11-20 years
21%
6-10 years
19%
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 12
21. Students: Year in Program
Q: What is your year in your program?
Doctoral Student
7% 1st-Year Undergraduate
17%
Masters Student
16%
2nd-Year Undergraduate
18%
4th-Year (or More) Undergraduate
22%
3rd-Year Undergraduate
20%
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 13
22. Use of / Preference for IT in
Q: Which of the following best describes your use / preference
of information technology in your courses?
60% 56%
48%
45%
30% 27%
24%
21%
15%
15%
2% 2% 3%
1%
0%
None Limited Moderate Extensive Exclusive
Instructors Students
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 14
23. How Much is Sakai Being
Q: For how many different courses have you used Sakai?
40% 37%
31%
30%
30% 27%
24%
20%
14%
11% 11%
10%
10%
5%
0%
None 1-2 Courses 3-6 Courses 7-10 Courses 11+ Courses
Instructors Students
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 15
24. Activities Within Sakai
• Different activities can be accomplished a
variety of different ways within Sakai
• 28 different activities rated
• Are these activities "valuable"
• 5-point Likert scale:
Strongly Disagree (1) - Strongly Agree (5)
• In analysis, activities categorized as
"Materials Management" (13 activities) or
"Interactive Teaching / Learning" (15
activities)
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 16
26. Tools Within Sakai
• Activities happen within tools
• Included tools in use for at least
two-thirds (9 out of 14) of the MISI
institutions
• 18 tools total
• In analysis, tools categorized as
"Materials Management" (10 tools)
or "Interactive Teaching /
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 18
28. Carnegie Classifications
Institution Research? Enrollment
Bradley No Very High Undergraduate
Georgia Tech Yes High Undergraduate
Marist No Very High Undergraduate
Michigan, Ann Arbor Yes Majority Undergraduate
Michigan, Dearborn No High Undergraduate
Mount Holyoke No Very High Undergraduate
Rice Yes Majority Undergraduate
Rutgers Yes High Undergraduate
Stanford Yes Majority Undergraduate*
Texas State No High Undergraduate
Valencia Yes High Undergraduate
Virginia Yes Majority Undergraduate
Windsor Yes High Undergraduate
Wyoming Yes High Undergraduate
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 20
29. Carnegie Classifications
Institution Research? Enrollment
Bradley No Very High Undergraduate
Georgia Tech Yes High Undergraduate
Marist No Very High Undergraduate
Michigan, Ann Arbor Yes Majority Undergraduate
Michigan, Dearborn No High Undergraduate
Mount Holyoke No Very High Undergraduate
Rice Yes Majority Undergraduate
Rutgers Yes High Undergraduate
Stanford Yes Majority Undergraduate*
Texas State No High Undergraduate
Valencia Yes High Undergraduate
Virginia Yes Majority Undergraduate
Windsor Yes High Undergraduate
Wyoming Yes High Undergraduate
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 21
30. Non-Research vs. Research Differences
Materials Management Activities
Significa
Instructors Students
nt?
Non-Research
Institutions 4.47 4.20 *
Research
Institutions 4.30 4.17 *
Significant? * NS
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 22
31. Non-Research vs. Research Differences
Interactive Teaching / Learning Activities
Significa
Instructors Students
nt?
Non-Research
Institutions 3.96 3.81 *
Research
Institutions 3.75 3.65 *
Significant? * *
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 23
32. Non-Research vs. Research Differences
Materials Management Tools
Significa
Instructors Students
nt?
Non-Research
Institutions 4.43 4.04 *
Research
Institutions 4.26 4.09 *
Significant? * *
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 24
33. Non-Research vs. Research Differences
Interactive Teaching / Learning Tools
Significa
Instructors Students
nt?
Non-Research
Institutions 4.24 3.84 *
Research
Institutions 3.99 3.79 *
Significant? * *
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 25
34. Non-Research vs. Research Differences
• Participants from Non-Research
institutions more strongly agreed
that activities & tools were valuable
than participants from Research
institutions
• Instructors > Students
• Materials Management > Interactive
Teaching / Learning
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 26
35. Carnegie Classifications
Institution Research? Enrollment
Bradley No Very High Undergraduate
Georgia Tech Yes High Undergraduate
Marist No Very High Undergraduate
Michigan, Ann Arbor Yes Majority Undergraduate
Michigan, Dearborn No High Undergraduate
Mount Holyoke No Very High Undergraduate
Rice Yes Majority Undergraduate
Rutgers Yes High Undergraduate
Stanford Yes Majority Undergraduate*
Texas State No High Undergraduate
Valencia Yes High Undergraduate
Virginia Yes Majority Undergraduate
Windsor Yes High Undergraduate
Wyoming Yes High Undergraduate
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 27
36. Carnegie Classifications
Institution Research? Enrollment
Bradley No Very High Undergraduate
Georgia Tech Yes High Undergraduate
Marist No Very High Undergraduate
Michigan, Ann Arbor Yes Majority Undergraduate
Michigan, Dearborn No High Undergraduate
Mount Holyoke No Very High Undergraduate
Rice Yes Majority Undergraduate
Rutgers Yes High Undergraduate
Stanford Yes Majority Undergraduate*
Texas State No High Undergraduate
Valencia Yes High Undergraduate
Virginia Yes Majority Undergraduate
Windsor Yes High Undergraduate
Wyoming Yes High Undergraduate
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 28
37. Enrollment Level Differences
Materials Management Activities
Significa
Instructors Students
nt?
Very High
Undergraduat
e 4.25 4.16 NS
High
Undergraduat
e 4.42 4.18 *
Majority
Undergraduat
e 4.30 4.19 *
Significant? * NS
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 29
38. Enrollment Level Differences
Interactive Teaching / Learning Activities
Significa
Instructors Students
nt?
Very High
Undergraduat
e 3.86 3.72 NS
High
Undergraduat
e 3.87 3.81 NS
Majority
Undergraduat
e 3.76 3.65 *
Significant? * NS
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 30
39. Enrollment Level Differences
Materials Management Tools
Significa
Instructors Students
nt?
Very High
Undergraduat
e 4.25 3.87 *
High
Undergraduat
e 4.38 4.18 *
Majority
Undergraduat
e 4.26 4.09 *
Significant? * *
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 31
40. Enrollment Level Differences
Interactive Teaching / Learning Tools
Significa
Instructors Students
nt?
Very High
Undergraduat
e 4.01 3.68 *
High
Undergraduat
e 4.10 3.91 *
Majority
Undergraduat
e 4.03 3.82 *
Significant? NS *
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 32
41. Enrollment Level Differences
• Participants from High
Undergraduate institutions more
strongly agreed that activities &
tools were valuable than
participants from other institutions
• Instructors > Students
• Materials Management > Interactive
Teaching / Learning
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 33
42. Tales From the Trenches
University of
Virginia
Stephanie Conley & Yitna Firfyiwek
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 34
43. Contrasting Experiences
• Students view themselves as more
advanced
• Students solve Sakai problems on
their own
• Students believe faculty need more
training
• Students see both problematic and
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 35
44. Something New about Faculty / Students
• What this means to us:
• Faculty comfort in, and “ownership” of,
their Sakai environments is not only a
critical element, but also one that
demands a different sort of support
• Student growing understanding of the
Sakai will impact Sakai support in the
future
• Students can become powerful allies in
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 36
45. Addressing Suggested
• Faculty Support:
• Move from tool oriented training to
pedagogically oriented faculty development
• Augmenting support with course
development opportunities through our
Teaching Resource Center
• Differentiating faculty needs by levels
(minimum, moderate, advanced) and
providing support accordingly
• Prioritizing a dynamic infrastructure:
• Support integration of external applications
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 37
46. Lessons & Benefits from
• Lessons:
• We need to give our community more
incentives to increase response rate
• Challenge of making a general survey
meaningful for our institutional culture
• Benefits:
• Jump starting our survey process
• Facilitating IRB exemption
• Power of collaborating with peer
institutions
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 38
47. Tales From the Trenches
Mount Holyoke
College
Mary Glackin
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 39
48. Mount Holyoke’s comments
• Students - “Every faculty
member should be
FORCED to use Sakai for
every class.”
• Faculty - “Don’t make it
required!”
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 40
49. Mount Holyoke College says
• Collaboration has allowed us to
conduct an extensive survey of our
user community.
• Sharing results with support staff is
promoting a better understanding
of Sakai’s value to our community.
• Beginning conversations with
faculty about sharing their
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 41
50. Tales From the Trenches
Stanford
University
Keli Amann
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 42
52. Stanford University
• Keli Amann, User Experience Specialist
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 43
53. Stanford University
• Keli Amann, User Experience Specialist
• Participants in all 7 schools
•~200/1,600 instructors
•~100/18,000 students
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 43
54. Stanford University
• Keli Amann, User Experience Specialist
• Participants in all 7 schools
•~200/1,600 instructors
•~100/18,000 students
kamann@stanford.edu
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 43
56. Three Major Themes
• Visuals matter
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 44
57. Three Major Themes
• Visuals matter
• Students are sensitive to aesthetics
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 44
58. Three Major Themes
• Visuals matter
• Students are sensitive to aesthetics
• Instructors don’t only care about text
content
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 44
59. Three Major Themes
• Visuals matter
• Students are sensitive to aesthetics
• Instructors don’t only care about text
content
• Don’t make me visit if I don’t have to
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 44
60. Three Major Themes
• Visuals matter
• Students are sensitive to aesthetics
• Instructors don’t only care about text
content
• Don’t make me visit if I don’t have to
• Tools may not correspond to actual needs
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 44
61. Three Major Themes
• Visuals matter
• Students are sensitive to aesthetics
• Instructors don’t only care about text
content
• Don’t make me visit if I don’t have to
• Tools may not correspond to actual needs
• I want to create pages != Wiki tool
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 44
62. Three Major Themes
• Visuals matter
• Students are sensitive to aesthetics
• Instructors don’t only care about text
content
• Don’t make me visit if I don’t have to
• Tools may not correspond to actual needs
• I want to create pages != Wiki tool
• I want students to discuss != Forum, ?=
BlogWow
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 44
63. Follow up Pilot
Questionnaire
1. What were your hopes and expectations for this tool when you
heard about it?
2. Did you actually use the tool? If so, please describe the context.
If not, why not?
3. What problems did you, the TAs, or the students encounter?
What workarounds were you forced to use?
4. Despite problems, would you choose to use it again? Why?
5. If you would not use the tool again, a. what must we fix before
you would reconsider it? b. what will you do instead?
6. What would you tell a colleague about this tool?
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 45
64. Tales From the Trenches
Universidad Politécnica de
Valencia
Raúl Mengod López
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 46
65. Introduction: UPV and IMSI
• About UPV
• 40,000 Students, 2,600 Faculty
• Sakai activated by default for all subjects
since 2006
• Faculty are free to use any other tool
• IMSI Data
• Last general survey in 2006
• Survey sent to 6,960 students and 1,200
teachers
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 47
66. Survey Conclusions
• Sakai is the main tool used
• General satisfaction raised to 89%
• Mobile devices not used and not valued
(18%/27%)
• High value to video and multimedia (68%/
68%)
• Collaborative tools not well valued
• Best valued tools are the most used tools
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 48
67. Lessons Learned
• Usability is still the main problem of Sakai
• Sakai has a high learning curve
• From Students
• Demand teachers a more intensive use of the
tool.
• Able to distinguish where is the lack, (platform
or teachers)
• From Teachers
• Don’t appreciate the use of new technologies
like social networks or mobile devices
• Appreciate more Sakai features after use
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 49
68. Tales From the Trenches
Marist
College
Brian Dashew
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 50
69. Marist College survey
• Deployed using Evaluation System
tool
• 5,804 students (FT, PT, residential,
distance, etc.)
• 638 responses (11% return)
• 562 instructors (FT, PT, adjunct,
etc.)
• 79 responses (14% return)
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 51
70. Marist Students and Faculty
• Our second survey in three years
• Significantly higher turnout
• Potential reasons:
• Possible reward
• Careful about messaging/
overwhelming users
• Commitment to Sakai
• MISI
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 52
71. Acting on Results
• Still reviewing data
• Jim Regan and a graduate student
• 2.6 Upgrade Briefing
• Presentations and publications
• General trends of note:
• Overall satisfaction
• Social networking connection desired
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 53
72. Lessons and Modifications
• Altered survey order (seemed to
work!)
• Evaluation system email settings
• Shifting demographics
• Is there a way to shorten the survey?
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 54
73. You Too Can Participate!
• All MISI core survey items &
institution information available to
entire Sakai community:
• http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/x/BoBF
• Additional data welcome
• Human Subjects (IRB) approval
recommended
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 55
74. Next Steps
• What do potential Sakai implementers
want to know from this data?
• What do current Sakai implementers
want to know from this data?
• What other ways can this data be
analyzed?
• Expanding MISI in future iterations
• Others?
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 56
75. Materials Management
DESCRIPTION ROLE % USE MEAN SIG?
Post / Access a syllabus Instructors 96.50% 4.56 0.001
Students 98.30% 4.49
Send / Receive messages or notifications Instructors 94.20% 4.56 0.000
Students 95.70% 4.27
Post / Access online reading & supp materials Instructors 93.50% 4.64 0.000
Students 97.20% 4.5
Provide / Use single access point for materials Instructors 86.00% 4.46 0.000
Students 91.50% 4.19
Publish / Access public course description Instructors 85.00% 4.23 0.000
Students 85.20% 3.74
Post / Access lecture outline AFTER lecture Instructors 78.10% 4.32 0.000
Students 92.40% 4.41
Post / Access grades Instructors 74.40% 4.2 NS
Students 90.10% 4.23
Post / Access lecture outline BEFORE lecture Instructors 73.60% 4.24 NS
Students 87.40% 4.22
Post / Access sample exams & quizzes Instructors 67.10% 4.21 NS
Students 85.20% 4.22
Post / Access multimedia materials Instructors 65.70% 4.12 0.000
Students 77.70% 3.96
Construct / View calendar / schedule of events Instructors 63.30% 3.68 0.008
Students 80.70% 3.76
Provide / Use structure to sequence or scaffold Instructors 55.20% 3.68 NS
activities Students 70.10% 3.65
Post / Access audio/video lecture recording Instructors 41.80% 3.52 0.000
Students 64.30% 3.67
MaterialsJuly 2009
Management Activities - Combined Instructors 75.00%
10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 4.34 0.000 57
Students 85.80% 4.18
76. Interactive Teaching & Learning Activities
DESCRIPTION ROLE % USE MEAN SIG?
Students turn in assignments online Instructors 63.80% 4.11 0.000
Students 88.60% 4.24
Return / Receive assignments w comments & grade Instructors 57.40% 3.76 NS
Students 79.60% 3.8
Students access library resources / research help Instructors 55.10% 3.87 0.023
Students 73.40% 3.8
Monitor / Observe student progress or engagement Instructors 51.50% 3.43 0.001
Students 63.40% 3.31
Give / Take exams & quizzes Instructors 49.20% 3.56 NS
Students 69.70% 3.6
Students provide course / lecture feedback Instructors 48.00% 3.62 NS
Students 70.70% 3.69
Students work together on task / assignment Instructors 47.60% 3.65 0.005
Students 69.20% 3.54
Students ask questions BEFORE lecture Instructors 44.90% 3.53 0.003
Students 70.70% 3.64
Students generate / share instructional materials Instructors 44.70% 3.59 0.033
Students 68.10% 3.68
Support distance learning Instructors 44.10% 3.72 0.031
Students 66.50% 3.64
Students ask questions AFTER lecture Instructors 43.20% 3.62 0.000
Students 66.40% 3.82
Students read / comment on each other's work Instructors 42.10% 3.55 NS
Students 63.30% 3.5
Create / Part of ad-hoc student groups / teams Instructors 41.90% 3.32 NS
Students 55.50% 3.34
Hold / Visit online office hours Instructors 38.50% 3.03 0.000
Students 55.80% 3.29
Students ask questions DURING lecture Instructors 31.40% 2.57 0.000
Students 55.30% 2.97
Interactive Activities - Combined
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, 46.90%
Instructors MA, U.S.A. 3.81 0.000
58
Students 67.70% 3.72
77. Materials Management Tools
DESCRIPTION ROLE % USE MEAN SIG?
Announcements Instructors 93.60% 4.61 0.000
Students 97.40% 4.34
Syllabus Instructors 91.70% 4.5 0.000
Students 96.30% 4.36
Resources Instructors 89.70% 4.67 0.000
Students 91.50% 4.39
My Workspace Instructors 71.20% 4.06 0.000
Students 75.10% 3.79
Gradebook Instructors 64.60% 4.14 NS
Students 85.20% 4.13
Schedule Instructors 64.40% 3.99 0.000
Students 79.10% 3.8
Drop Box Instructors 56.50% 3.81 NS
Students 76.60% 3.8
Web Content Instructors 52.40% 3.99 0.000
Students 57.30% 3.68
News Instructors 38.60% 3.45 0.016
Students 58.00% 3.35
Modules Instructors 38.00% 3.93 0.000
Students 55.50% 3.71
Materials Management Tools - Combined Instructors 66.10% 4.3 0.000
Students 77.20% 4.07
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 59
78. Interactive Teaching &
DESCRIPTION ROLE % USE MEAN SIG?
Assignments Instructors 82.10% 4.41 0.015
Students 96.60% 4.36
Mail Tool Instructors 71.80% 4.37 0.000
Students 64.10% 3.4
Email Archive Instructors 57.40% 3.96 0.000
Students 66.00% 3.73
Tests & Quizzes Instructors 53.60% 3.86 NS
Students 78.30% 3.9
Chat Room Instructors 42.70% 3.08 0.000
Students 68.20% 3.26
Forums Instructors 36.00% 3.39 NS
Students 61.10% 3.44
Polls Instructors 31.40% 3.29 0.000
Students 53.00% 3.11
Wiki Instructors 31.20% 3.23 NS
Students 51.60% 3.3
Interactive Tools - Combined Instructors 50.80% 4.05 0.000
Students 67.40% 3.82
July 2009 10th Sakai Conference - Boston, MA, U.S.A. 60
Hinweis der Redaktion
Trenches go in order:
Virginia
Mt Holyoke
Stanford
Valencia
Marist
Institutions that could not run a survey this past Spring, but did assist with survey item construction & other feedback
There are now a critical mass of institutions with Sakai in production, so the time was finally right for a multi-institutional effort
Michigan has been running an annual survey about general IT use and Sakai since 2005
Thus, MISI items were based on our survey, but wording & order changes were sought from MISI participants
Institutions were encouraged to use all MISI items & add their own, but there were no requirements set.
All institutions were encouraged to obtain IRB approval in order to facilitate publishing of MISI combined data.
Variety of software packages used to administer survey: SurveyMonkey, Sakai Tests & Quizzes tool, Home-grown products, etc.
Took over 2 weeks of Grad Student labor to clean & combine data
Reconciling items, scales, combining, missing data, etc.
Institution-level data (NOT respondent-level)
14 TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
Most institutions were using Sakai 2.5 at time of survey
Most did NOT require instructors to use Sakai - others had SOME units w/in institution requiring use, but not all
Majority of institutions have another LMS in production (e.g., Blackboard)
Half of institutions were in their first school year of Sakai in full production, others ranged from 2-5+ years
Institution-level data (NOT respondent-level)
14 TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
Most institutions were using Sakai 2.5 at time of survey
Most did NOT require instructors to use Sakai - others had SOME units w/in institution requiring use, but not all
Majority of institutions have another LMS in production (e.g., Blackboard)
Half of institutions were in their first school year of Sakai in full production, others ranged from 2-5+ years
Institution-level data (NOT respondent-level)
14 TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
Most institutions were using Sakai 2.5 at time of survey
Most did NOT require instructors to use Sakai - others had SOME units w/in institution requiring use, but not all
Majority of institutions have another LMS in production (e.g., Blackboard)
Half of institutions were in their first school year of Sakai in full production, others ranged from 2-5+ years
Institution-level data (NOT respondent-level)
14 TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
Most institutions were using Sakai 2.5 at time of survey
Most did NOT require instructors to use Sakai - others had SOME units w/in institution requiring use, but not all
Majority of institutions have another LMS in production (e.g., Blackboard)
Half of institutions were in their first school year of Sakai in full production, others ranged from 2-5+ years
Institution-level data (NOT respondent-level)
14 TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
Most institutions were using Sakai 2.5 at time of survey
Most did NOT require instructors to use Sakai - others had SOME units w/in institution requiring use, but not all
Majority of institutions have another LMS in production (e.g., Blackboard)
Half of institutions were in their first school year of Sakai in full production, others ranged from 2-5+ years
Institution-level data (NOT respondent-level)
14 TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
Most institutions were using Sakai 2.5 at time of survey
Most did NOT require instructors to use Sakai - others had SOME units w/in institution requiring use, but not all
Majority of institutions have another LMS in production (e.g., Blackboard)
Half of institutions were in their first school year of Sakai in full production, others ranged from 2-5+ years
Institution-level data (NOT respondent-level)
14 TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
Most institutions were using Sakai 2.5 at time of survey
Most did NOT require instructors to use Sakai - others had SOME units w/in institution requiring use, but not all
Majority of institutions have another LMS in production (e.g., Blackboard)
Half of institutions were in their first school year of Sakai in full production, others ranged from 2-5+ years
Institution-level data (NOT respondent-level)
14 TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
Most institutions were using Sakai 2.5 at time of survey
Most did NOT require instructors to use Sakai - others had SOME units w/in institution requiring use, but not all
Majority of institutions have another LMS in production (e.g., Blackboard)
Half of institutions were in their first school year of Sakai in full production, others ranged from 2-5+ years
Institution-level data (NOT respondent-level)
14 TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
Most institutions were using Sakai 2.5 at time of survey
Most did NOT require instructors to use Sakai - others had SOME units w/in institution requiring use, but not all
Majority of institutions have another LMS in production (e.g., Blackboard)
Half of institutions were in their first school year of Sakai in full production, others ranged from 2-5+ years
Institution-level data (NOT respondent-level)
14 TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
Most institutions were using Sakai 2.5 at time of survey
Most did NOT require instructors to use Sakai - others had SOME units w/in institution requiring use, but not all
Majority of institutions have another LMS in production (e.g., Blackboard)
Half of institutions were in their first school year of Sakai in full production, others ranged from 2-5+ years
Institution-level data (NOT respondent-level)
14 TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
Most institutions were using Sakai 2.5 at time of survey
Most did NOT require instructors to use Sakai - others had SOME units w/in institution requiring use, but not all
Majority of institutions have another LMS in production (e.g., Blackboard)
Half of institutions were in their first school year of Sakai in full production, others ranged from 2-5+ years
Institution-level data (NOT respondent-level)
14 TOTAL INSTITUTIONS
Most institutions were using Sakai 2.5 at time of survey
Most did NOT require instructors to use Sakai - others had SOME units w/in institution requiring use, but not all
Majority of institutions have another LMS in production (e.g., Blackboard)
Half of institutions were in their first school year of Sakai in full production, others ranged from 2-5+ years
97% of all courses were conducted face-to-face or in a blended format
Thus, this data does not represent institutions with predominantly distance education courses (e.g., UNISA)
Carnegie Classifications - large = 10,000+ students
medium = 3,000-10,000 students
small = 1,000-3,000 students
Michigan data dominates -- looking for ways to measure impact and maybe sample our percentage down.
Total N=10,475
Total N=10,475
Decent response rates overall
Before getting into data, want to show that instructors represent a breadth of teaching experience
4% missing (n=118)
Before getting into data, want to show that students represent a breadth of years in program
4.5% missing (n=339)
by in large, students want more technology than instructors are currently using
As a whole, 90% instructors, 95% students responding to survey ARE USING Sakai
Not entirely dependent on how long Sakai has been used.
IS dependent on whether Sakai use is required in some / all units AND if there are other LMS used at institution
STEVE TAKES THE HELM
not a 1:1 relationship between activity & tool
what KINDS of things they value with Sakai, THEN ask about tools
Scale - asked whether respondent's agreed or disagreed that the activity was "valuable"
MM vs INT
MM: 4 means most people rated "4" agree or "5" strongly agree
INTER: Most people rated "3" or "4" -- range has stepped down
Not everyone has the same tools turned on (e.g., not everyone uses "blogger" tool)
Thus, 2/3 rule - 18 total tools analyzed
MM vs INT - same as activities
Less difference between MM & INT overall compared to activities.
Instructors still agree more than students that tools are valuable and BOTH agree that MM-oriented tools are valuable over INT-oriented tools
Based on Fall 2008 enrollment data.
All categories collapsed from Basic Research categories, Enrollment, and Size / Setting classifications available online.
WHY WE CARE:
Research: Faculty interests; Changes campus culture -- not saying one kind is better than one or another, but MAY change people's perceptions of Sakai activity & tool use
Enrollment: similar -- want to see if the makeup of the students changed people's perceptions.
Also may inform those seeking to adopt Sakai & what to expect based on campus culture
Stanford is primarily graduate / professional, but rolled into "mostly undergraduate" for this analysis
Valencia & Windsor are international - no formal Carnegie Classifications - assumed according to statistics & knowledge of institution
Very High Undergraduate: Both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for less than 10 percent of FTE enrollment.
High Undergraduate: Both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for 10&#x2013;24 percent of FTE enrollment.
Mostly Undergraduate: Both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for 25&#x2013;49 percent of FTE enrollment.
Based on Fall 2008 enrollment data.
All categories collapsed from Basic Research categories, Enrollment, and Size / Setting classifications available online.
WHY WE CARE:
Research: Faculty interests; Changes campus culture -- not saying one kind is better than one or another, but MAY change people's perceptions of Sakai activity & tool use
Enrollment: similar -- want to see if the makeup of the students changed people's perceptions.
Also may inform those seeking to adopt Sakai & what to expect based on campus culture
Stanford is primarily graduate / professional, but rolled into "mostly undergraduate" for this analysis
Valencia & Windsor are international - no formal Carnegie Classifications - assumed according to statistics & knowledge of institution
Very High Undergraduate: Both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for less than 10 percent of FTE enrollment.
High Undergraduate: Both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for 10&#x2013;24 percent of FTE enrollment.
Mostly Undergraduate: Both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for 25&#x2013;49 percent of FTE enrollment.
Subtle differences...
Faculty at NON-research institutions agree more that MM are valuable
Students generally agree no matter what kind of institution
Don't want to overstate sig. differences given our large N, but do want to emphasize differences
Same pattern for INT activities, except student differences now significant
and, overall, agreement ratings are lower
Pattern continues for tool items...
Faculty at NON-research institutions agree more that MM-oriented tools are valuable
Relatively large differences for instructors vs students @ NON-research institutions
Really are differences -- interactive T&L tools more valuable for both instructors & students at NON-research institutions
Based on Fall 2008 enrollment data.
All categories collapsed from Basic Research categories, Enrollment, and Size / Setting classifications available online.
WHY WE CARE:
Research: Faculty interests; Changes campus culture -- not saying one kind is better than one or another, but MAY change people's perceptions of Sakai activity & tool use
Enrollment: similar -- want to see if the makeup of the students changed people's perceptions.
Also may inform those seeking to adopt Sakai & what to expect based on campus culture
Stanford is primarily graduate / professional, but rolled into "mostly undergraduate" for this analysis
Valencia & Windsor are international - no formal Carnegie Classifications - assumed according to statistics & knowledge of institution
Very High Undergraduate: Both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for less than 10 percent of FTE enrollment.
High Undergraduate: Both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for 10&#x2013;24 percent of FTE enrollment.
Mostly Undergraduate: Both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for 25&#x2013;49 percent of FTE enrollment.
Based on Fall 2008 enrollment data.
All categories collapsed from Basic Research categories, Enrollment, and Size / Setting classifications available online.
WHY WE CARE:
Research: Faculty interests; Changes campus culture -- not saying one kind is better than one or another, but MAY change people's perceptions of Sakai activity & tool use
Enrollment: similar -- want to see if the makeup of the students changed people's perceptions.
Also may inform those seeking to adopt Sakai & what to expect based on campus culture
Stanford is primarily graduate / professional, but rolled into "mostly undergraduate" for this analysis
Valencia & Windsor are international - no formal Carnegie Classifications - assumed according to statistics & knowledge of institution
Very High Undergraduate: Both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for less than 10 percent of FTE enrollment.
High Undergraduate: Both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for 10&#x2013;24 percent of FTE enrollment.
Mostly Undergraduate: Both undergraduate and graduate/professional students, with the latter group accounting for 25&#x2013;49 percent of FTE enrollment.
No major differences in student opinions for MM activities,
but there is a difference in instructor opinions with those from institutions with 75-90% undergraduate student enrollment the highest.
Similar pattern for INT T&L activities, although differences between instructors & students are not as strong.
For MM-oriented tools, both instructors and students have differences between population types, and "high undergraduate" highest for both
For INT-oriented tools, no major differences between instructors this time, but sig. differences for students, with HU still the highest.
Overall pattern still holds, but there's something possibly telling about non-research institutions and High Undergraduate institutions that leads to higher agreement about the value of activities & tools within Sakai.
As we continue to evaluate and analyze the data, we hope to uncover further differences and also analyze what factors lead to those differences. We'll discuss a bit about next steps for MISI and this data at the end of the talk.
For NOW, we want to let some of the other member institutions of our initiative share their findings & experiences. (CLICK)
Although the quantitative data was interesting, it mostly confirmed what we already knew about what instructors used and did. The qualitative data was more useful in terms of insights into what design changes would respond to but it really raised some questions of how to action that, enough to prompt my talk about how to turn user feedback into something that developers take action on and how we communicate across campuses. So that&#x2019;s a whole &#x2018;nother talk and if you&#x2019;re interested please join me on Thursday.
So instead of talking about specifics for particular tools, I&#x2019;d like to talk about three general themes I got out of the survey. Basically, although some people will be uncomfortable with 3.0, it&#x2019;s going to really help.
Although the quantitative data was interesting, it mostly confirmed what we already knew about what instructors used and did. The qualitative data was more useful in terms of insights into what design changes would respond to but it really raised some questions of how to action that, enough to prompt my talk about how to turn user feedback into something that developers take action on and how we communicate across campuses. So that&#x2019;s a whole &#x2018;nother talk and if you&#x2019;re interested please join me on Thursday.
So instead of talking about specifics for particular tools, I&#x2019;d like to talk about three general themes I got out of the survey. Basically, although some people will be uncomfortable with 3.0, it&#x2019;s going to really help.
Although the quantitative data was interesting, it mostly confirmed what we already knew about what instructors used and did. The qualitative data was more useful in terms of insights into what design changes would respond to but it really raised some questions of how to action that, enough to prompt my talk about how to turn user feedback into something that developers take action on and how we communicate across campuses. So that&#x2019;s a whole &#x2018;nother talk and if you&#x2019;re interested please join me on Thursday.
So instead of talking about specifics for particular tools, I&#x2019;d like to talk about three general themes I got out of the survey. Basically, although some people will be uncomfortable with 3.0, it&#x2019;s going to really help.
Although the quantitative data was interesting, it mostly confirmed what we already knew about what instructors used and did. The qualitative data was more useful in terms of insights into what design changes would respond to but it really raised some questions of how to action that, enough to prompt my talk about how to turn user feedback into something that developers take action on and how we communicate across campuses. So that&#x2019;s a whole &#x2018;nother talk and if you&#x2019;re interested please join me on Thursday.
So instead of talking about specifics for particular tools, I&#x2019;d like to talk about three general themes I got out of the survey. Basically, although some people will be uncomfortable with 3.0, it&#x2019;s going to really help.
Although the quantitative data was interesting, it mostly confirmed what we already knew about what instructors used and did. The qualitative data was more useful in terms of insights into what design changes would respond to but it really raised some questions of how to action that, enough to prompt my talk about how to turn user feedback into something that developers take action on and how we communicate across campuses. So that&#x2019;s a whole &#x2018;nother talk and if you&#x2019;re interested please join me on Thursday.
So instead of talking about specifics for particular tools, I&#x2019;d like to talk about three general themes I got out of the survey. Basically, although some people will be uncomfortable with 3.0, it&#x2019;s going to really help.
First, visuals matter. I mean this in three ways. One, a few students literally said &#x201C;I want a better looking interface&#x201D;--instructors didn&#x2019;t. I think they are just used to newer, slicker interfaces. Granted most of the comments about the interface were general ones about making it more usable or intuitive, but I think they are sensitive to this.
Two, I used to think that the textual content was all that mattered, but several comments were directed at the formatting capabilities of the Announcements--in going from Word to Announcements, or in having announcements generate an email, they want it to deal with formatting, images, links, diacritics. Even though that was just about Announcements, you can bet if they want that there, they&#x2019;ll want it in to page creation, discussion, blogs.
Three, video. When asked to rate the value of technologies used for course activities, the course management system is tops, used and valued by virtually every instructor. But another top choice is video sites. We can link to video, and we have the iTunes tool, but we can&#x2019;t really embed video into pages.
Another theme: don&#x2019;t make me visit a page if I don&#x2019;t have to.Instructors are busy and have to switch between so many applicaitons.--if they don&#x2019;t&#x2019; have to log in, or if they don&#x2019;t have to check multiple things just to know if something is done, great, we&#x2019;ve saved them time. Email a list. Send me a Notification that something is ready for me, like drop box, or maybe summary pages. Students wanted to be able to &#x201C; go to a class site, click on a day, and see what i have to do for that day under subheads like 'hand in' and 'read. the next step would be to integrate those further so that i can go on to the site and click one day and get results for all my classes.&#x201D;
Last theme: We have tools that sound like they might address instructors needs, but context matters
Other than general comments about improvements to existing tools, Wikis were the most frequently cited item as something instructors wanted to see in CW. We had about 200 instructors respond. 6 said wiki was the most important improvement, 3 said it was something they wanted, 5 wanted to learn about the topic. It&#x2019;s about 5%.
However, I don&#x2019;t think they will want the wiki in it&#x2019;s current state. 11 Sakai using instructors who answered are already using external wikis like PbWiki--only two of them expressed an interest in the pilot wiki, so they&#x2019;re pretty happy where they are. There were 37 piloteers who responded and overall, it ranked a 3 or neutral. Those who had used a wiki outside of CW were slightly more positive, but those who had never used other wikis were negative. Almost all of the 16 folks who were interested in piloting the wiki for the first time have also never used a wiki before, so we would tend to believe they might also have a negative experience.
However, we need followup. It may be that for some scenarios wikis work just fine. But I suspect that most are simply looking for a website creation tool with a robust wsywyg, not a wiki with it&#x2019;s own markup language.
Along similar lines, there&#x2019;s a clear need for discussion. We want to retire our current discussion tool, which is an integrated php bulletin board, but the Forums pilot wasn&#x2019;t rated high so we may not be able to move yet. Also we noticed that many have moved to blogs, with comment. Again, the average score is not the whole story--we need follow up and learn more about the context of use. So how do we do that?
First, visuals matter. I mean this in three ways. One, a few students literally said &#x201C;I want a better looking interface&#x201D;--instructors didn&#x2019;t. I think they are just used to newer, slicker interfaces. Granted most of the comments about the interface were general ones about making it more usable or intuitive, but I think they are sensitive to this.
Two, I used to think that the textual content was all that mattered, but several comments were directed at the formatting capabilities of the Announcements--in going from Word to Announcements, or in having announcements generate an email, they want it to deal with formatting, images, links, diacritics. Even though that was just about Announcements, you can bet if they want that there, they&#x2019;ll want it in to page creation, discussion, blogs.
Three, video. When asked to rate the value of technologies used for course activities, the course management system is tops, used and valued by virtually every instructor. But another top choice is video sites. We can link to video, and we have the iTunes tool, but we can&#x2019;t really embed video into pages.
Another theme: don&#x2019;t make me visit a page if I don&#x2019;t have to.Instructors are busy and have to switch between so many applicaitons.--if they don&#x2019;t&#x2019; have to log in, or if they don&#x2019;t have to check multiple things just to know if something is done, great, we&#x2019;ve saved them time. Email a list. Send me a Notification that something is ready for me, like drop box, or maybe summary pages. Students wanted to be able to &#x201C; go to a class site, click on a day, and see what i have to do for that day under subheads like 'hand in' and 'read. the next step would be to integrate those further so that i can go on to the site and click one day and get results for all my classes.&#x201D;
Last theme: We have tools that sound like they might address instructors needs, but context matters
Other than general comments about improvements to existing tools, Wikis were the most frequently cited item as something instructors wanted to see in CW. We had about 200 instructors respond. 6 said wiki was the most important improvement, 3 said it was something they wanted, 5 wanted to learn about the topic. It&#x2019;s about 5%.
However, I don&#x2019;t think they will want the wiki in it&#x2019;s current state. 11 Sakai using instructors who answered are already using external wikis like PbWiki--only two of them expressed an interest in the pilot wiki, so they&#x2019;re pretty happy where they are. There were 37 piloteers who responded and overall, it ranked a 3 or neutral. Those who had used a wiki outside of CW were slightly more positive, but those who had never used other wikis were negative. Almost all of the 16 folks who were interested in piloting the wiki for the first time have also never used a wiki before, so we would tend to believe they might also have a negative experience.
However, we need followup. It may be that for some scenarios wikis work just fine. But I suspect that most are simply looking for a website creation tool with a robust wsywyg, not a wiki with it&#x2019;s own markup language.
Along similar lines, there&#x2019;s a clear need for discussion. We want to retire our current discussion tool, which is an integrated php bulletin board, but the Forums pilot wasn&#x2019;t rated high so we may not be able to move yet. Also we noticed that many have moved to blogs, with comment. Again, the average score is not the whole story--we need follow up and learn more about the context of use. So how do we do that?
First, visuals matter. I mean this in three ways. One, a few students literally said &#x201C;I want a better looking interface&#x201D;--instructors didn&#x2019;t. I think they are just used to newer, slicker interfaces. Granted most of the comments about the interface were general ones about making it more usable or intuitive, but I think they are sensitive to this.
Two, I used to think that the textual content was all that mattered, but several comments were directed at the formatting capabilities of the Announcements--in going from Word to Announcements, or in having announcements generate an email, they want it to deal with formatting, images, links, diacritics. Even though that was just about Announcements, you can bet if they want that there, they&#x2019;ll want it in to page creation, discussion, blogs.
Three, video. When asked to rate the value of technologies used for course activities, the course management system is tops, used and valued by virtually every instructor. But another top choice is video sites. We can link to video, and we have the iTunes tool, but we can&#x2019;t really embed video into pages.
Another theme: don&#x2019;t make me visit a page if I don&#x2019;t have to.Instructors are busy and have to switch between so many applicaitons.--if they don&#x2019;t&#x2019; have to log in, or if they don&#x2019;t have to check multiple things just to know if something is done, great, we&#x2019;ve saved them time. Email a list. Send me a Notification that something is ready for me, like drop box, or maybe summary pages. Students wanted to be able to &#x201C; go to a class site, click on a day, and see what i have to do for that day under subheads like 'hand in' and 'read. the next step would be to integrate those further so that i can go on to the site and click one day and get results for all my classes.&#x201D;
Last theme: We have tools that sound like they might address instructors needs, but context matters
Other than general comments about improvements to existing tools, Wikis were the most frequently cited item as something instructors wanted to see in CW. We had about 200 instructors respond. 6 said wiki was the most important improvement, 3 said it was something they wanted, 5 wanted to learn about the topic. It&#x2019;s about 5%.
However, I don&#x2019;t think they will want the wiki in it&#x2019;s current state. 11 Sakai using instructors who answered are already using external wikis like PbWiki--only two of them expressed an interest in the pilot wiki, so they&#x2019;re pretty happy where they are. There were 37 piloteers who responded and overall, it ranked a 3 or neutral. Those who had used a wiki outside of CW were slightly more positive, but those who had never used other wikis were negative. Almost all of the 16 folks who were interested in piloting the wiki for the first time have also never used a wiki before, so we would tend to believe they might also have a negative experience.
However, we need followup. It may be that for some scenarios wikis work just fine. But I suspect that most are simply looking for a website creation tool with a robust wsywyg, not a wiki with it&#x2019;s own markup language.
Along similar lines, there&#x2019;s a clear need for discussion. We want to retire our current discussion tool, which is an integrated php bulletin board, but the Forums pilot wasn&#x2019;t rated high so we may not be able to move yet. Also we noticed that many have moved to blogs, with comment. Again, the average score is not the whole story--we need follow up and learn more about the context of use. So how do we do that?
First, visuals matter. I mean this in three ways. One, a few students literally said &#x201C;I want a better looking interface&#x201D;--instructors didn&#x2019;t. I think they are just used to newer, slicker interfaces. Granted most of the comments about the interface were general ones about making it more usable or intuitive, but I think they are sensitive to this.
Two, I used to think that the textual content was all that mattered, but several comments were directed at the formatting capabilities of the Announcements--in going from Word to Announcements, or in having announcements generate an email, they want it to deal with formatting, images, links, diacritics. Even though that was just about Announcements, you can bet if they want that there, they&#x2019;ll want it in to page creation, discussion, blogs.
Three, video. When asked to rate the value of technologies used for course activities, the course management system is tops, used and valued by virtually every instructor. But another top choice is video sites. We can link to video, and we have the iTunes tool, but we can&#x2019;t really embed video into pages.
Another theme: don&#x2019;t make me visit a page if I don&#x2019;t have to.Instructors are busy and have to switch between so many applicaitons.--if they don&#x2019;t&#x2019; have to log in, or if they don&#x2019;t have to check multiple things just to know if something is done, great, we&#x2019;ve saved them time. Email a list. Send me a Notification that something is ready for me, like drop box, or maybe summary pages. Students wanted to be able to &#x201C; go to a class site, click on a day, and see what i have to do for that day under subheads like 'hand in' and 'read. the next step would be to integrate those further so that i can go on to the site and click one day and get results for all my classes.&#x201D;
Last theme: We have tools that sound like they might address instructors needs, but context matters
Other than general comments about improvements to existing tools, Wikis were the most frequently cited item as something instructors wanted to see in CW. We had about 200 instructors respond. 6 said wiki was the most important improvement, 3 said it was something they wanted, 5 wanted to learn about the topic. It&#x2019;s about 5%.
However, I don&#x2019;t think they will want the wiki in it&#x2019;s current state. 11 Sakai using instructors who answered are already using external wikis like PbWiki--only two of them expressed an interest in the pilot wiki, so they&#x2019;re pretty happy where they are. There were 37 piloteers who responded and overall, it ranked a 3 or neutral. Those who had used a wiki outside of CW were slightly more positive, but those who had never used other wikis were negative. Almost all of the 16 folks who were interested in piloting the wiki for the first time have also never used a wiki before, so we would tend to believe they might also have a negative experience.
However, we need followup. It may be that for some scenarios wikis work just fine. But I suspect that most are simply looking for a website creation tool with a robust wsywyg, not a wiki with it&#x2019;s own markup language.
Along similar lines, there&#x2019;s a clear need for discussion. We want to retire our current discussion tool, which is an integrated php bulletin board, but the Forums pilot wasn&#x2019;t rated high so we may not be able to move yet. Also we noticed that many have moved to blogs, with comment. Again, the average score is not the whole story--we need follow up and learn more about the context of use. So how do we do that?
First, visuals matter. I mean this in three ways. One, a few students literally said &#x201C;I want a better looking interface&#x201D;--instructors didn&#x2019;t. I think they are just used to newer, slicker interfaces. Granted most of the comments about the interface were general ones about making it more usable or intuitive, but I think they are sensitive to this.
Two, I used to think that the textual content was all that mattered, but several comments were directed at the formatting capabilities of the Announcements--in going from Word to Announcements, or in having announcements generate an email, they want it to deal with formatting, images, links, diacritics. Even though that was just about Announcements, you can bet if they want that there, they&#x2019;ll want it in to page creation, discussion, blogs.
Three, video. When asked to rate the value of technologies used for course activities, the course management system is tops, used and valued by virtually every instructor. But another top choice is video sites. We can link to video, and we have the iTunes tool, but we can&#x2019;t really embed video into pages.
Another theme: don&#x2019;t make me visit a page if I don&#x2019;t have to.Instructors are busy and have to switch between so many applicaitons.--if they don&#x2019;t&#x2019; have to log in, or if they don&#x2019;t have to check multiple things just to know if something is done, great, we&#x2019;ve saved them time. Email a list. Send me a Notification that something is ready for me, like drop box, or maybe summary pages. Students wanted to be able to &#x201C; go to a class site, click on a day, and see what i have to do for that day under subheads like 'hand in' and 'read. the next step would be to integrate those further so that i can go on to the site and click one day and get results for all my classes.&#x201D;
Last theme: We have tools that sound like they might address instructors needs, but context matters
Other than general comments about improvements to existing tools, Wikis were the most frequently cited item as something instructors wanted to see in CW. We had about 200 instructors respond. 6 said wiki was the most important improvement, 3 said it was something they wanted, 5 wanted to learn about the topic. It&#x2019;s about 5%.
However, I don&#x2019;t think they will want the wiki in it&#x2019;s current state. 11 Sakai using instructors who answered are already using external wikis like PbWiki--only two of them expressed an interest in the pilot wiki, so they&#x2019;re pretty happy where they are. There were 37 piloteers who responded and overall, it ranked a 3 or neutral. Those who had used a wiki outside of CW were slightly more positive, but those who had never used other wikis were negative. Almost all of the 16 folks who were interested in piloting the wiki for the first time have also never used a wiki before, so we would tend to believe they might also have a negative experience.
However, we need followup. It may be that for some scenarios wikis work just fine. But I suspect that most are simply looking for a website creation tool with a robust wsywyg, not a wiki with it&#x2019;s own markup language.
Along similar lines, there&#x2019;s a clear need for discussion. We want to retire our current discussion tool, which is an integrated php bulletin board, but the Forums pilot wasn&#x2019;t rated high so we may not be able to move yet. Also we noticed that many have moved to blogs, with comment. Again, the average score is not the whole story--we need follow up and learn more about the context of use. So how do we do that?
First, visuals matter. I mean this in three ways. One, a few students literally said &#x201C;I want a better looking interface&#x201D;--instructors didn&#x2019;t. I think they are just used to newer, slicker interfaces. Granted most of the comments about the interface were general ones about making it more usable or intuitive, but I think they are sensitive to this.
Two, I used to think that the textual content was all that mattered, but several comments were directed at the formatting capabilities of the Announcements--in going from Word to Announcements, or in having announcements generate an email, they want it to deal with formatting, images, links, diacritics. Even though that was just about Announcements, you can bet if they want that there, they&#x2019;ll want it in to page creation, discussion, blogs.
Three, video. When asked to rate the value of technologies used for course activities, the course management system is tops, used and valued by virtually every instructor. But another top choice is video sites. We can link to video, and we have the iTunes tool, but we can&#x2019;t really embed video into pages.
Another theme: don&#x2019;t make me visit a page if I don&#x2019;t have to.Instructors are busy and have to switch between so many applicaitons.--if they don&#x2019;t&#x2019; have to log in, or if they don&#x2019;t have to check multiple things just to know if something is done, great, we&#x2019;ve saved them time. Email a list. Send me a Notification that something is ready for me, like drop box, or maybe summary pages. Students wanted to be able to &#x201C; go to a class site, click on a day, and see what i have to do for that day under subheads like 'hand in' and 'read. the next step would be to integrate those further so that i can go on to the site and click one day and get results for all my classes.&#x201D;
Last theme: We have tools that sound like they might address instructors needs, but context matters
Other than general comments about improvements to existing tools, Wikis were the most frequently cited item as something instructors wanted to see in CW. We had about 200 instructors respond. 6 said wiki was the most important improvement, 3 said it was something they wanted, 5 wanted to learn about the topic. It&#x2019;s about 5%.
However, I don&#x2019;t think they will want the wiki in it&#x2019;s current state. 11 Sakai using instructors who answered are already using external wikis like PbWiki--only two of them expressed an interest in the pilot wiki, so they&#x2019;re pretty happy where they are. There were 37 piloteers who responded and overall, it ranked a 3 or neutral. Those who had used a wiki outside of CW were slightly more positive, but those who had never used other wikis were negative. Almost all of the 16 folks who were interested in piloting the wiki for the first time have also never used a wiki before, so we would tend to believe they might also have a negative experience.
However, we need followup. It may be that for some scenarios wikis work just fine. But I suspect that most are simply looking for a website creation tool with a robust wsywyg, not a wiki with it&#x2019;s own markup language.
Along similar lines, there&#x2019;s a clear need for discussion. We want to retire our current discussion tool, which is an integrated php bulletin board, but the Forums pilot wasn&#x2019;t rated high so we may not be able to move yet. Also we noticed that many have moved to blogs, with comment. Again, the average score is not the whole story--we need follow up and learn more about the context of use. So how do we do that?
First, visuals matter. I mean this in three ways. One, a few students literally said &#x201C;I want a better looking interface&#x201D;--instructors didn&#x2019;t. I think they are just used to newer, slicker interfaces. Granted most of the comments about the interface were general ones about making it more usable or intuitive, but I think they are sensitive to this.
Two, I used to think that the textual content was all that mattered, but several comments were directed at the formatting capabilities of the Announcements--in going from Word to Announcements, or in having announcements generate an email, they want it to deal with formatting, images, links, diacritics. Even though that was just about Announcements, you can bet if they want that there, they&#x2019;ll want it in to page creation, discussion, blogs.
Three, video. When asked to rate the value of technologies used for course activities, the course management system is tops, used and valued by virtually every instructor. But another top choice is video sites. We can link to video, and we have the iTunes tool, but we can&#x2019;t really embed video into pages.
Another theme: don&#x2019;t make me visit a page if I don&#x2019;t have to.Instructors are busy and have to switch between so many applicaitons.--if they don&#x2019;t&#x2019; have to log in, or if they don&#x2019;t have to check multiple things just to know if something is done, great, we&#x2019;ve saved them time. Email a list. Send me a Notification that something is ready for me, like drop box, or maybe summary pages. Students wanted to be able to &#x201C; go to a class site, click on a day, and see what i have to do for that day under subheads like 'hand in' and 'read. the next step would be to integrate those further so that i can go on to the site and click one day and get results for all my classes.&#x201D;
Last theme: We have tools that sound like they might address instructors needs, but context matters
Other than general comments about improvements to existing tools, Wikis were the most frequently cited item as something instructors wanted to see in CW. We had about 200 instructors respond. 6 said wiki was the most important improvement, 3 said it was something they wanted, 5 wanted to learn about the topic. It&#x2019;s about 5%.
However, I don&#x2019;t think they will want the wiki in it&#x2019;s current state. 11 Sakai using instructors who answered are already using external wikis like PbWiki--only two of them expressed an interest in the pilot wiki, so they&#x2019;re pretty happy where they are. There were 37 piloteers who responded and overall, it ranked a 3 or neutral. Those who had used a wiki outside of CW were slightly more positive, but those who had never used other wikis were negative. Almost all of the 16 folks who were interested in piloting the wiki for the first time have also never used a wiki before, so we would tend to believe they might also have a negative experience.
However, we need followup. It may be that for some scenarios wikis work just fine. But I suspect that most are simply looking for a website creation tool with a robust wsywyg, not a wiki with it&#x2019;s own markup language.
Along similar lines, there&#x2019;s a clear need for discussion. We want to retire our current discussion tool, which is an integrated php bulletin board, but the Forums pilot wasn&#x2019;t rated high so we may not be able to move yet. Also we noticed that many have moved to blogs, with comment. Again, the average score is not the whole story--we need follow up and learn more about the context of use. So how do we do that?