Implementing a Large On-Campus ALN: Faculty
Perspective
Edwin Kashy, Michael Thoennessen, Guy
Albertelli II, Yihjia Tsai 1
Michigan State University
1 Permanent
Address: Department of Computer Science, Tamkang University, Taiwan
Abstract
This case study describes the implementation and
continued operation of a large on-campus ALN for a 500-student course in
introductory physics. The ALN was used to modify and complement the
original course and thus represents an evolution rather than a
revolution. A highly positive impact on student success rates was
achieved and continues. Factors that increased faculty satisfaction and
instances of dissatisfaction are presented. The potential increase in
the latter with technology is of some concern.
I. INTRODUCTION
Approximately 500 science and engineering
students enter the calculus-based Introductory Physics two-semester
course, PHY183-184. For most of the students in the class, this course
is a requirement each semester. The course is part of the established
curriculum. Its goals and standards are well defined by the textbooks
commonly used across various institutions. In its present form, it is an
attempt to combine the best features of the face-to-face interactions
and lectures with the use of network tools for anytime/anywhere
interaction. The goal has been to establish and maintain high standards
while providing students with the means and opportunity to succeed. This
ALN was initiated in fall 1995 and has been continued since that time
[1].
II. RATIONALE
In fall 1995, we implemented our
first ALN with support of the Sloan Foundation. This was in large part
as a consequence of discussion with colleagues at UIUC who had embraced
the ALN concept and already had encouraging initial results [2]. Our ALN
followed three years of computerized assignments in introductory physics
and chemistry courses using the Internet. This showed the added
dimension that networked technology could add to a course. The prospect
of improved student performance and satisfaction was also a driving
factor, especially as we had observed that students were spending
considerably more time in the course. For the first time, we were seeing
student effort at a level that justified our own instructing efforts.
This was indeed a source of satisfaction!
Other members of the department taught this course during the past two
years (Table 1). While using the ALN was not required, they were
encouraged to do so to take advantage of the savings that were generated
by the reduced teaching staff used in the ALN, i.e., about two-thirds of
that in the traditional course (The reduction of teaching staff results
from the automated grading with CAPA. Teaching assistants (TA) for
grading are not needed anymore. Instead a smaller number of TAs is used
for face-to-face and ALN help. The savings are proportional to the class
size). The comments of these instructors are included in this case
study.
ID
|
Rank
|
Years
Teaching
|
Teaching
Awards
|
IT Technology
Experience
|
EK
|
Prof.
|
40
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
MT
|
Prof.
|
8
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
WL
|
Prof.
|
14
|
No
|
Some
|
BP
|
Prof.
|
22
|
No
|
Some
|
Table 1. Information About
the Four Faculty Members of this Study
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE COURSE
This course was the first to use
essentially all the features of an on-campus ALN. Being a required
course for a large number of students, planned and actual enrollment was
the same, 480 students.
A coordinator provided the technological support for the 15-20
instructors using the CAPA system each semester at Michigan State
University (MSU). This included obtaining class lists electronically and
providing them to the instructor in the proper format for immediate use,
setting up the class directories, and testing that the system was
operational for student login via the Web and/or Telnet. The coordinator
also set up the Internet discussion forum for students, initially with
commercial software and later as part of CAPA, and assisted in
responding to students who encountered difficulties related to the
technology.
Instructor training was a key part of the technological support. At MSU,
supported by our Sloan Foundation grant, we have opted for one-on-one
training and it has worked very well so far. The coordinator introduces
the instructor to the system and works with the instructor on the
technical aspects of content preparation and operation. The learning
curve is thus very steep and de-facto adapted to the instructor's
technological skill levels. Time to become proficient enough to run a
course has varied from less than three hours to three days. For most of
that time, however, the instructor and coordinator are working on their
own in the same office, with any difficulty encountered being addressed
immediately. While this may appear to be less efficient than training in
a class or workshop, our success rate is total; once proficient, most
instructors continue to use the technology.
Note that E. Kashy and M. Thoennessen are part of the development team
of CAPA as an ALN tool. They had relatively small technology support
requirements for ongoing course tasks, but had support in testing and
implementing new or upgraded features.
A. Technology and Infrastructure
The principal ALN tool used was CAPA, a computer system
developed at MSU over the past seven years. In the initial experience
with its use, a 90-student science class, student reaction was very
positive and has since been replicated in numerous other disciplines and
at other institutions [3-9]. This integrated software system has been
used to
- Prepare, deliver, and grade
personalized homework, quizzes and examinations.
- Provide feedback to students and
instructors.
- Communicate with students in a
class and provide a discussion forum for students.
- Provide links for student help
via the Internet.
- Facilitate course management -
Table 2 summarizes some of the CAPA features for the instructor.
- The system was originally
developed for Physics and Chemistry courses [3,5] and was used to
develop a broad variety of conceptual questions adapted to the
technology. Students are given several tries to get correct
solutions and are given full credit when they succeed before the due
date.
1. QUIZZER
Multifaceted
editing tool for preparing homework, quizzes, and examinations
|
Prepares materials in
three formats: ASCII,
HTML, LATEX
|
Each student
receives unique questions and problems
|
Over 170
pre-coded templates to facilitate creation of questions
|
Allows printing
of text and graphics in a compact, efficient manner
|
Due dates can
be set for individual sections independently
|
Includes a
timed entry option for use with take-home quizzes and exams
|
A simple
transformation allows conversion from homework style to exam
style
|
Provides the
range of answers for a question across all students in a class
|
Efficient
assembly of existing problems from problem libraries
|
2.
MANAGER
Course management and statistical analysis
tools.
|
Provides
distribution of grades for an assignment
|
Instructor can
examine number of attempts made by students for each problem
|
Can analyze
answer patterns to detect misconceptions:
1. Correlations
between items
2. Degree of
discrimination
3. Degree of
difficulty
|
Course
summaries for individual students can be generated for advising
|
Grades scantron
forms when the pattern of correct responses varies
|
Can send
semi-personalized E-mail to students based on performance
|
3.
GRADER
An additional grading tool that supplements
self-grading by students
|
Allows
instructor to grade subjective answers such as essays
|
Provides
answers for individual student's assignments for hand-grading
|
Allows a
problem to be excused for an individual student, section, or
class
|
Table 2. The Three CAPA
Modules Available for the Instructor
While hints are available when an
incorrect answer is given, the system does not attempt to give the
students feedback on the particular error made (other than a formatting
error). We believe that a key aspect of problem solving lies in the
ability to both detect and correct one's mistake.
The strong emphasis on conceptual problems within CAPA makes it is a
useful tool for many fields [7,9,10]. Figure 1 shows an example of a
conceptual problem. It clearly goes beyond a traditional one-out-of-five
multiple-choice question. To solve this problem, students need a
reasonable understanding of Archimede's Principle.
[1pt] A fisherman and his young daughter
are in a boat on a small pond. Both are wearing life jackets.
The daughter is holding a large floating helium filled balloon
by a string.
Consider each action below
independently, and indicate whether the level of the water in
the pond R-Rises, F-Falls, S-Stays the Same, C-Can't tell. (If
in the first the level Rises, and in the second it Falls, and
for the rest One Cannot Tell, enter RFCCC.)
|
A) The
daughter pops the balloon.
B) The fisherman knocks the tackle box overboard and it sinks to
the bottom.
C) The fisherman lowers himself in the water and floats on his
back.
D) The fisherman fills a glass with water from the pond and
drinks it.
E) The daughter gets in the water, looses her grip on the
string, letting the balloon escape upwards. |
Figure 1. Example of a
Conceptual Question in CAPAThe hint will read: "Think Archimede's
Principle. How does the volume of fluid displaced by a body that
`floats' differ from that for a body that sinks?"
An additional strength of CAPA is
the variations of a problem among students. A simple example is shown in
Figure 2. Two versions of the same problem are shown for different
students. This encourages collaboration without simply copying the
solutions. Again, each individual student has to understand his own
problem. It is also possible to give the students different selections;
however, one should be careful that all the same concepts are presented
to all students.
2. [1pt] John is listening to a horn. He
knows the frequency of the horn is 300 Hz when both he and the
horn are at rest. If he hears a pitch of 270 Hz, there are clearly
several possibilities.
(Give ALL
correct answers, i.e., B, AC, BCD...)
|
2. [1pt] Paul is listening to a horn. He
knows the frequency of the horn is 300 Hz when both he and the
horn are at rest. If he hears a pitch of 330 Hz, there are clearly
several possibilities.
(Give ALL correct answers, i.e., B, AC, BCD...)
|
A)
Both can be moving and have the same speed.
B)
Both can be moving, in opposite directions.
C)
The distance between John and the horn is decreasing with time.
D)
John is moving away from the horn at rest.
E)
Both can be moving and have different speeds.
F)
Both cannot be moving in the same direction.
|
A)
Both can be moving, in opposite directions.
B)
Both can be moving and have the same speed.
C)
Both can be moving and have different speeds.
D)
Paul is moving towards the horn at rest.
E)
The distance between Paul and the horn is increasing with time.
F)
Both cannot be moving in the same direction.
|
Figure 2. Two
Different Versions of the Same Problem
The selections are automatically randomized.
Conceptual problems are
an important part for understanding. There is a large correlation between
understanding the concepts and the ability to solve numerical questions as
shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Correlation Between Conceptual and Numerical
Problems
The most recent addition is a direct link to a discussion
forum implemented in CAPA when accessing from the Web. This allows each
student to participate directly in a discussion with other students and/or
the teaching assistant (TA) while working on a specific problem. This
feature simplifies the use of discussion groups significantly because the
additional log-in and password required for an external discussion forum
is not necessary. In this moderated discussion forum, the TAs make sure
that the postings are hints and not just the posting of formulas. This
control mechanism does not exist for Websites initiated by students that
have recently appeared. On these sites solutions are posted and even
problems having typical randomized variables can have their solutions
posted. Fortunately, these student endeavors can be overcome. Figure 4
shows an example we have used. As can be seen it is virtually impossible
to communicate the solution of this problem over the Web without
discussing the physics involved (Kirchoff's Rules). That is exactly the
purpose of collaboration¾explaining and understanding the problems. It
becomes easier to learn how to do the problem than to subvert the system.
Figure 4. Additional Randomization of Labels with CAPA
B. Content Delivery
Table 3 shows the various components of the course. As in
most physics courses, demonstrations are a large component of lecture
time. Traditional lecture time is, however, significantly reduced,
allowing for large segments of time on interactive lecture exercises and
unannounced short quizzes. These quizzes have had a positive impact in
improving class attendance even though they serve to assign only a small
proportion of the student's grade (5%). The quizzes are also useful in
identifying misconceptions very early.
Homework assignments are personalized. The conceptual problems are
designed to encourage collaboration among students as they can benefit
from the additional practice of working on somewhat different versions of the same problems. Numerical story problems have variables that inhibit
rote copying among students. Recently we have added new techniques that
have strongly inhibited the sharing of formulas where one can just plug in
one's variables and get the correct answer without really understanding
the problems. Each weekly assignment has a firm due date. This insures
students do not fall behind. Students are given full credit if they get
the correct answers before the due date. If a solution entered is
incorrect, the student may work to find the errors. A number of attempts
are allowed to obtain the solution. Thus, most students are able to
receive very good grades on the assignments, and this has proved to be
highly motivating. Note that these high grades do not lead to grade
inflation, as a higher absolute scale is used to assign the course grade.
Activity
|
Before
(%)
|
Current
(%)
|
In-class Time:
|
|
|
Lecturing
|
70
|
40
|
Quizzes
|
5
|
15
|
Exercises
|
5
|
25
|
Demonstrations
|
20
|
20
|
|
|
|
Recitation Time
|
100
|
0
|
Learning Center (Face-to-face)
|
0
|
100
|
Discussion Forum
|
0
|
100
|
Feedback
|
20
|
80
|
Exam Corrections
|
0
|
100
|
Table 3. Time (%) Spent on Various Aspects of the Course
Collaboration is also encouraged by a small component of teamwork in
assignments. For example, groups of up to five students working together
can submit a subjective essay discussing the observation of an experiment
shown by video during class. This also has a big efficiency factor for the
instructor grading these essays.
Assignments have a significant component of challenging problems. Students
can obtain help at any time via the discussion forum established for the
class. Posted questions are sure to be addressed within 24 hours or less
by TAs or other students. In addition, help is available at scheduled
periods throughout the week in a Physics Learning Center. There teaching
assistants, who are assigned to the class and who have themselves solved
their own personalized assignments, use the Socratic method in helping
students with any difficulties. Students needing help can be there several
hours while those who do not feel such a need are not required to be there
at all. This face-to-face help is an important part of the class,
especially for less prepared students. It is also helpful to the
instructor as it provides complimentary feedback to the detailed on-line
feedback available from the student performance as recorded by the system.
The Learning Center is also the way we have countered the impersonal
nature of instruction in this large course. It provides many opportunities
for one-on-one interactions between students and teaching staff.
A concept test given during the first week and again near the end of the
class helps compare the class to others at similar institutions and
represents one of the measures of learning. Mid-term and final exams are
the main assessment tools. In the case of the mid-terms, we allow students
to earn partial credit by correcting any part of the exams on which they
have not done well.
Following the proctored examinations, students can pick up a copy of a
different version of the same exam. They then can solve the problems in
that version within the next three days and enter answers via the
Internet. They can consult with fellow students, the teaching staff, etc.
to get help. By this process, the mid-term grade is the original grade
plus 30% of the difference between the corrections and original exams,
i.e., they recover "30 cents on the dollar" of every missed
point. More than 99% of students avail themselves of this correction
opportunity. It is a very popular option! For the instructor, it
represents an effective and efficient way to encourage students to review
all the material on the exam and improve their understanding. (A common
comment by students finding out how to solve a problem missed on the exam
is, "I should have gotten it! It wasn't that hard.")
The 99% of the students who work on the corrections actually solve all
exam questions. In contrast, in traditional exams the students typically
do not even look at their wrong answers and do not try to understand what
they did wrong. This extra effort on the students' part comes at almost no
extra effort by the instructor.
III. RESULTS
A. Effectiveness
Before we discuss faculty satisfaction, we need to mention briefly the
effectiveness results obtained from our on-campus ALN approach. These can
be found in the Journal of Engineering Education [1], where we
demonstrated a strong, positive impact on student success in large classes
while maintaining high standards. In retrospect, the improvement in
student achievement observed should not have been surprising as our
approach has been to retain the best established practices of more
traditional teaching and to use ALN to fix the weak areas where it clearly
can have a major impact.
The important aspects of using the technology which appear to have a
significant positive impact on student achievement include
-
Interaction between the students and the computer using materials and
problems well adapted to the technology enables students to receive
instant feedback [11,12] on their understanding of concepts and ability to
carry out calculations properly. Concurrently, it provides access to
specific help provided by an instructor or provided via links.
-
Interaction between the instructor and the computer provides the
instructor with on-line feedback on student misconceptions and
misunderstanding so that they can be addressed in a timely manner, usually
before the work is due. It provides early, comprehensive information about
individual students who are having difficulties. This information is
essential to properly advising these students.
-
Asynchronous interactions among students and between students and
instructors via the network provide the opportunity for questions,
answers, discussions, and elucidation of difficult concepts within the
context of anytime/anywhere.
In addition, the efficiencies generated by the use of technology allow us
to devote increased teaching staff time to Socratic one-on-one
interactions with students.
B. Saving Paper
One issue in implementing the technology for large on-campus ALN course
involves the printing of personalized assignments. Since the assigned work
is on the Web, should students be given printed copies? Our reason
for printing and handing out assignments has been to promote an
environment where students collaborate and discuss their work. Such
collaboration has been shown to have positive impact on performance [13].
Would such collaborations be less likely if they had to work at individual
computers? We have recently collected some data on the printing issue. In
fall 1998, assignments for a large student course (not using CAPA) were
provided on the Web. When polled, most of those students said they printed
assignments from the Web all or most of the time.
We then polled the students in PHY183 (480 students using CAPA) during the
fourth week of the semester to see if they would agree to have the
following week's assignment not printed. The vote was overwhelmingly
against, 420 to 6. In addition, 89 students commented by E-mail¾one was
willing, 88 were not. The reasons given in those 88 E-mails are shown in
Table 4.
Why
students want printed assignments
|
Harder
to work in front of screen
|
56%
|
Printed
HW more accessible
|
43%
|
Trouble
printing from the Web, and excellent quality of LaTeX printout
|
27%
|
Web
access required
|
18%
|
Work
on-line too long
|
11%
|
Other
reasons
|
18%
|
Table 4. E-mail Responses of 88 Students
We believe that in our situation, the small effort by the instructor to
prepare printed worksheets is well repaid by the large saving in student
time and increased student interaction level. Note that because of a
highly efficient format, our printing of the assignments prepared with
Latex requires from four to nine times less paper than when students print
from the Web.
C. Faculty Satisfaction
To put the faculty satisfaction issues in perspective, we have interviewed
faculty, including some who have not used ALN in their disciplines and
looked at previous studies of issues that affect faculty satisfaction
[14-19]. Faculty satisfaction is complex. The principal factors, which
emerge from the literature, from interviews with our colleagues in this
study, and from our own experience, include collegiality, workload, and
autonomy. An interesting observation concerns the role conflict that
occurs at the intersection between faculty and administrative domains of
responsibility. While it does not appear to affect general faculty
satisfaction, it can be a source of disaffection and dissatisfaction.
Our experience has been that the implementation of ALN technology on a
large scale in teaching has greatly increased the domain where
administrative and academic responsibility and control intersect. Thus, it
is not surprising that we have experienced numerous situations that
engendered faculty dissatisfaction, ranging from not so important to
instances that, in our perception, are critical factors in how we want to
do our task. In this area of collective decision-making and
responsibility, we have encountered a spectrum of administrative attitudes
across the administrative ladder. In the four situations briefly described
below, we should keep in mind that the descriptions are from the faculty
and that the perception of the administrator(s) involved may be
considerably at odds. The following paraphrase professors either using or
using and developing ALN:
-
Case A - While teaching a large (700 students) introductory physics
course, I came across a software program that displayed physics
demonstrations. This software was priced around $150. I had already been
displaying demonstrations on a screen and thought this software would fit
nicely with the existing format of the class. In response to my E-mail
requesting authorization to purchase that software, the department chair
responded that I should E-mail the person in charge of the academic
affairs committee, which I did. This person responded that I should first
get a demonstration version of the program, which I did. I received the
demonstration version of that program but that version was inadequate. By
this time, it was near the end of the term. I was frustrated with the
process and discontinued my attempt to incorporate this program into my
class.
-
Case B - In implementing the large ALN on campus, I decided there was a
need to provide students an opportunity for a face-to-face interaction and
help with teaching staff above and beyond what was provided through the
network. A learning center was established with furnishings consisting of
tables and chairs and computers obtained from salvage. The computer needs
in this spartan environment were quite modest, vt100 terminal emulation,
as our ALN predated the use of the sophisticated Web browsers that are
ubiquitously in use today.
As the use of the ALN concept spread to a greater number of students, this
initial setup soon became insufficient for the large demand and new
capabilities. Requests that the area be upgraded and improved in several
aspects eventually received administrative approval, at which time I
informed my students to bear with us for a bit as significant changes were
soon forthcoming in improving that component of the learning environment.
These changes were then canceled and not implemented until more that a
year later. I felt angry and frustrated.
-
Case C - Discussion with the Dean and Chair established the need for
centralized support for faculty using the technology. The yearly
combination of contributions from the two most highly involved departments
and the College with miscellaneous funds (education research grant, etc.)
has provided a salary for a coordinator to support faculty across campus
in the use of the CAPA as ALN tool. Administration has clearly expressed
support of a more permanent arrangement, which would eliminate my task to
see that the support for the position is there each year. In spite of the
6000+ students involved each semester, such an arrangement is still not in
place five years after the position was first filled.
-
Case D - When a key developer of the CAPA system left the University, I
made repeated requests for support to continue development and essentially
met no action, either positive or negative. I then addressed the request
directly to the highest administrative level. This action triggered a
significant dissatisfaction at lower administrative levels. Still, the
outcome was that the request was fulfilled, with the University continuing
to support the system development.
For the present survey we explicitly interviewed six physics professor who
taught with CAPA recently. We also have close contact with most of the
instructors using CAPA for about 20 courses in several disciplines on
campus. The four cases above represent the major conflicts brought to our
attention. Note that they are one-sided views in areas of shared
responsibility and could be described in quite different terms from an
administrative perspective. In the implementation of ALN technology, such
areas have grown significantly, and thus, increase potential conflicts as
faculty and administrators carry out their tasks.
With the increased use of technology in education, administrators have an
increasing and important role in an area where they have limited knowledge
and in which faculty also are not often experts. A quote (with a large
dose of sarcasm) from a colleague asked to comment on sources of
dissatisfaction in his work, "... too much administrative
interference, decisions based on ignorance." We do not want to
leave the impression that conflicts dominate our interaction with
administrators. On balance, they have been facilitators and helped to
establish the conditions in which we have obtained highly positive and
encouraging results [1].
The level of satisfaction with the on-campus ALN implementation is high
across many disciplines and faculty who have implemented all or part of
its functionality. This satisfaction comes in spite of the universal
agreement among faculty that work is increased, especially initially.
Technical support is rated good to "… wonderful." Positive
interactions with satisfied students, by far the majority, is a big
factor, as is the interactions with colleagues doing ALN with whom one can
share a remarkable variety of wonderful stories. The on-campus aspect has
strong appeal. One faculty who volunteered that he is now ".. a
convert to this technology" added that he liked that he was
"still teaching the normal way." Another commented,
"This was the first time I had the ability to really see how students
were doing in such a large course and could review that information before
meeting with them."
There has been a redistribution of responsibility in the large courses.
There is some loss of faculty control as courses depend more on the
support of system administrators and on the proper functioning of the
technology infrastructure. More of the course administration and
management has become part of the lecturer's work. Instructors now have
detailed knowledge of student performance, and so do the students. There
is far greater interaction with students, via E-mail in particular, which
is yet another factor increasing the time spent on a course. Those
students who are having a difficult time, or who believe that getting some
work excused is equivalent to having done the work, take up a far greater
proportion of the instructor's time. Some students seek assistance when it
is clear that very little studying has occurred. This additional work is a
source of dissatisfaction for many faculty. Others who perceive the added
work are not interested in adopting the new technology.
For faculty excited by the new opportunities, there have been many
rewards. These include
-
Increased collegiality with colleagues in other departments and
disciplines.
-
A perception that they can influence outcome.
-
Improved relations with students who are benefiting and who view the
instructor as mentor rather than judge.
-
Positive feedback from graduate assistants whose work has been moved
from grading and record keeping to Socratic interactions with students.
IV. SUMMARY
We believe that at MSU, ALN can and soon will be a significant part of the
educational experience for a majority of students. This will be helped
considerably if, as the number and variety of more sophisticated technical
tools become available, faculty are assisted in becoming skilled in their
use and the increased workload is kept in check. Broad implementation will
also be assisted if faculty and administrators develop means to deal with
the increasing number of conflict situations where their functions
overlap.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Professors W. Lynch, B. Pope, T. Glasmacher and B.
Sherrill for the participation and/or comments related to faculty
satisfaction. We also appreciate the help of N. Davis during this project.
Last but not least, support from the Sloan Foundation has played a key
role: it represented an external evaluation of quality and provided
resources that allowed us to quickly and broadly implement and experiment
with the new network tools.
REFERENCES
-
Kashy, E., Thoennessen, M., Tsai, Y., Davis, N. E., and Wolfe, S. L.
Using networked tools to promote student success in large classes. Journal
of Engineering Education, ASEE, Vol. 87, No. 4, pp. 385-390, 1998.
-
Oakley, B. II. A virtual classroom approach to teaching circuit
analysis. IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 287-296,
1996.
-
Kashy, E., Sherrill, B. M., Tsai, Y., Thaler, D., Weinshank, D.,
Engelmann, M., and Morrissey, D. J. CAPA, an integrated computer assisted
personalized assignment system. American Journal of Physics, Vol. 61, No.
12, pp. 1124-1130, 1993.
-
Tsai, C. Computer assisted personal assignment system. Third Conference
on the Teaching of Calculus, Ann Arbor, MI, June 24, 1994.
-
Morrissey, D. J., Kashy, E., and Tsai, Y. Using computer-assisted
personalized assignments for freshman chemistry. Journal of Chemical
Education, Vol. 72, pp. 141-146, 1995.
-
Thoennessen, M., and Harrison, M. Computer-assisted assignments in a
large physics class. Computers and Education, Vol. 27, No.2, pp. 141-147,
1996.
-
Artus, N. N., and Nadler, K. D. A computer-assisted personalized
approach in an undergraduate physiology class. Journal of Plant
Physiology, Vol. 119, pp. 1177-1186, 1999.
-
Mader, K., and Peaslee, G. CAPA 4.6 and Hope College. CAPA as ALN
Teaching Tool Workshop, Michigan State University, February, 1999.
-
Sherrill, B. Use of CAPA in a general astronomy course. CAPA as ALN
Teaching Tool Workshop, Michigan State University, February, 1999.
-
Golzynski, D. Food services 2000: On-campus and off-campus. CAPA as
ALN Teaching Tool Workshop, Michigan State University, February, 1999.
-
Sassenrath, J. M. and Garevich, C. M. Effect of differential feedback
from examinations on retention and transfer. Reprinted from Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1965, in Current Research on Instruction, R.C.
Anderson et al., Prentice Hall, pp. 211-215, 1969.
-
Sansone, C. A question of competence: The effect of competence and
task feedback on intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 918-931, 1986.
-
Treisman, U. Studying students studying calculus. The College
Mathematics Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 362, 1992.
-
Near, J. P., and Sorcinelli, M. D. Work and life away from work:
Predictors of faculty satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 25,
No. 4, pp. 377-394, 1986.
-
Copur H. Academic professionals: A study of conflict and satisfaction
in professorate. Human Relations, Vol.43, No. 2, pp. 113-127, 1990.
-
Blackburn, R. T., and Lawrence, J. H. Faculty at Work: Motivation,
Expectation, Satisfaction, John Hopkins University Press, 1995.
-
Pollicino, E. B. Faculty Satisfaction with Institutional Support as a
Complex Concept: Collegiality, Workload, Autonomy, Eric fiche ED 394428,
1995.
-
Seiler, R. E., and Pearson, D. A. Dysfunctional stress among
university faculty. Educational Research Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.
15-26, 1984.
-
Perry, R. P., Menec, V. H., Struthers, C. W., Hechter, F. J.,
Schonwetter, D. J., and Menges, R. J. Faculty in transition: A
longitudinal analysis of the role for perceived control and type of
institution in adjustment to post-secondary institutions. Research in
Higher Education, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 519-556, 1997.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Edwin Kashy is a University Distinguished Professor at Michigan State
University in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. He earned his Ph.D.
in Nuclear Physics from Rice University in 1959. He was an NSF
post-doctoral fellow at MIT, and then served there as an instructor until
1962. He then joined the faculty as an assistant professor at Princeton
University before joining the faculty at MSU as associate professor in
1964. His research areas have been in spectroscopy, Coulomb effects and
temperature in atomic nuclei. Since 1992, he has been using technology in
his classes and has led the teams at MSU who have developed the networked
CAPA (Computer Assisted Personalized Approach) system. He has been
assessing the impact of technology in teaching, currently with support
from the Alfred P. Sloan and Andrew W. Mellon foundations. Dr Kashy's
honors include the John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, the Distinguished
Faculty Award at MSU and the Excellence in Physics Teaching Award; he is
also a past CASE Professor of the Year nominee. The work he has done with
his colleague on the impact of technology in teaching has been recognized
by the ASEE Benjamin J. Dasher Award (98) and the William Elgin Wickenden
Award (99).
Contact: Department of Physics and Astronomy, College of Natural Science,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824; Telephone:
517-333-6318; Fax: 517-353-5967; E-mail: kashy@nscl.msu.edu.
Michael Thoennessen is a Professor of Physics at Michigan State University
in the Dept. of Physics and Astronomy with an appointment at the National
Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory. He earned his Ph.D. in Experimental
Nuclear Physics in 1988 at the State University of New York at Stony
Brook. His main research is in nuclear physics where he studies nuclei far
from stability. He has been using technology in teaching his classes since
1994, and has been a member of the CAPA development team. His honors
include the Outstanding Mentor Award ('94), the T.H. Osgood Award for
Teaching Excellence ('95), the Teacher Scholar Award for the College of
Natural Science ('96), and the Physics department Outreach Award for his
leadership of the Research Experience for Undergraduates program. He is
also co-awardee of the ASEE Benjamin J. Dasher Award ('98) and the William
Elgin Wickenden Award ('99). His research also include assessment of
learning with technology with support from the Alfred P. Sloan and Andrew
W. Mellon foundations.
Contact: Department of Physics and Astronomy, College of Natural Science,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824; Telephone:
517-333-6323, Fax: 517-353-5967; E-mail: thoennessen@nscl.msu.edu.
Guy Albertelli is currently a Specialist in Educational Technology at
Michigan State University. He received his B.A. in Computer Science at
Michigan State University in 1996 and his M.S. in Computer Science from
Ohio State University in 1997. He first joined the CAPA development team
while an undergraduate student at MSU, contributing the first
computer-scored software for optically scanned individualized
examinations. Since 1998, He has been the lead programmer and developer
for CAPA and his work has resulted in a much more user-friendly system.
His current project is the Development of a new ALN tool: LON-CAPA
(Learning OnLine Network with a Computer Assisted Personalized Approach).
His research also includes assessment of learning with technology with
support Andrew W. Mellon foundations.
Contact: College of Natural Science, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan 48824; Telephone: 517-432-5652, Fax: 517-353-5967;
E-mail: albertel@pilot.msu.edu.
Yihjia Tsai is currently an Assistant Professor of Computer Science and
Information Engineering at Tamkang University in Taiwan, and has been a
visiting scholar at MSU for several periods from 1998-2000. He received a
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Taiwan National University in
1985. Following a period of work in industry, he earned a M.S. (1995) and
Ph.D. (1997) from Michigan State University. He was a member of the
initial CAPA development team, was the principal programmer from its
inception until 1998, and is actively participating in its current
development. His research interests include fundamental aspects of
communications in computers, as well as the use of computer technology in
education. He is also co-awardee of the ASEE Benjamin J. Dasher Award
('98) and the William Elgin Wickenden Award ('99).
Contact: Computer Science and Information Engineering, Tamkang University,
Taiwan; E-mail: tsai@cs.tku.edu.tw.
|