Gender Aspects for E-Learning Gender Aspects for E-Learning E-learning Experience in Applying the Moodle Platform and the Gendering Aspect Prof. Dr.-Ing

Gender Aspects for E-Learning


E-learning Experience in Applying the Moodle

Platform and the Gendering Aspect

Prof. Dr.-Ing. R. Herpers

Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences

Department of Computer Science, Sankt Augustin, Germany

and

York University, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Toronto, Canada


Motivation of the Talk

• Present and discuss some ideas and findings while revising and restructuring the content of a CS course under a „gendering aspect“.

• Adds more complexity (cultural, educational, ...)• Discuss possible impacts for e-learning/blended

learning applications• Tendency in e-learning/blended learning:

Adaptation of the content more to the individual knowledge/background of the student/recipient

• Looking for „better“ means to deliver/pass over academic knowledge


Outline

• Motivation• Background

– Teaching methodologies / gendering a course

– Format and content of the course– Material/Statistical issues

• Evaluation• Conclusions


Background and Motivation• < 10% females in CS programmes

(down from 17-19% in the 80th-90th)• High drop out rates in engineering, science (natural)

and techology programmes (unisex)• Request from industry of more mixed teams• „Do not scare away those

few females!“ • Initiative builds upon output

oriented university funding scheme (NRW)– Increase the output of female

graduates in MINT progs.


Gender Issues in University Teaching

• New discipline– No really clear recipes available– Use successful sample projects

made by females– However, some „No-No‘s“

• No sexist images• All issues of racist/religious

and sexual offending matters

• But where is the borderline?


Some Findings from Brain / Learning and Teaching Research

• Reverse the classical teaching concept:- Introduce the theoretical concept first and apply it at the end.- „Movement to a more problem oriented teaching“

• Tendency to understand theoretical concepts better when an intuitive example / application is given before and theoretical concepts are explained on these examples

• How to apply?


How to apply?

• Use the degrees of freedom instructors do have while selecting examples and organising teaching material

• Hire two experienced female grad students– Revise/restructure the course material– Improve media / examples– Design and organise the teaching labs– Discuss structure, design (colours), etc.


Sample Slide of a Lecture (before)

Internet und WWW Internet

– dezentrales weltweites Computernetz, Client-Server Architektur, redundante Verbindungen

– Protokolle: TCP/IP – Identifier: DNS, IP-Adressen– Dienste: e-mail/news/etc, chat, telnet, ftp, gopher, WWW

WWW– Multimedia-Dienst im Internet– URL: <protocol>://<host>[.subdomain].<domain>[:port]/[path/]<file>.html

– HTTP z.B. http://www.inf.fh-bonn-rhein-sieg.de– HTML, VRML, JavaScript, Java, XML, ...

– Browser und Plugins


Sample Slide of a Lecture (after)

• Texte• Bilder• Links• Formulare

– Eingabefelder, Buttons etc.

• weiteres– Animationen,

Videos, Applets

Texte

Bilder

Links

Formulare

Woraus besteht eine Webseite?


Background of the Students

• ~ 200 first year students (first term) (lecture)– 7 groups x 30 students (labs)

(TA supported)• Knowledge in using a computer / software

tools is very heterogeneous• Objective: Hands on experience, all students

should have at least on basic common knowledge in applying some basic IT tools.


Content of the Course„Introduction into Media Sciences“

• Introduction into different media types(text, audio, images, image sequences, video)

• Introduction into the Internet• Design and set-up of a web page (XHTML)• Simple image manipulation tools• Design and set-up of a slide show (PPT, etc.)• 3D-Modelling (build a simple 3D object

out of geometrical primitives)• others

B

V


Format of the Course

• First year students (first term)• 3 contact hours per week

– 1h frontal lecture– 2h teaching lab

Emphasis on hands on experience• Attendance not required (but highly

recommended) (except for the presentations)• Students have to present their project results

in class (lab groups)


Why E-Learning Platform (Moodle)?• Blended learning application• Easy communication with a huge number of students

Individual feedback almost after every assigment (# 6)

• Supports marking assignments • Easy integration of self tests• Use of the Wiki (FAQ)• One comprehensive platform

for all MM-Material of the course• Widely used in the department


How to Evaluate?

• How do you evaluate a gendering effect?– Performance of femals/males?– Drop out rate / attendance ?– Comparison of student‘s course

evaluations


Student‘s Course Evaluations10 questions (online questionnaire)

1. Coherent presentation of the content 2. Motivation to collaborate and to critically discuss the

content3. Instructor’s availability during (non) contact hours4. Level of the instructor’s preparation 5. Opportunities to get actively involved 6. Supporting media/means7. Level of difficulty 8. Attendance (how frequent)9. Weekly hours spent 10.Overall judgement

No gender information available (so far)


Statistical Data AnalysisFrage

Mittel-

wert gesamt

Varianzanalyse T-Test

Mittelwerte nach Jahren

Signifikanz MW-

Vergleich

Post hoc-TestsMittelwerte nach

Dozenten

Signifikanz MW-

VergleichNr. Inhalt2004

(Herpers)2006

(Heiden)2007

(Herpers)Differenz 2004-2006

Differenz 2004-2007

Differenz 2006-2007

Herpers (2004 / 2007)

Heiden (2006)

1 Inhalte verständlich dargestellt 2,03 2,27 1,96 1,880,001

(**)0,31

5(*)

0,395

(*)0,08

0(n.s.)

2,06 1,960,301

(n.s.)

2 Motivation zu Mitarbeit + Kritik 2,4 2,61 2,38 2,230,013

(*)0,23

8(n.s.)

0,382

(*)0,14

5(n.s.)

2,41 2,380,763

(n.s.)

3 Gesprächsbereitschaft Dozent 1,86 2,36 1,62 1,600,000

(**)0,74

1(*)

0,757

(*)0,00

2(n.s.)

1,96 1,620,012

(*)

4 Vorbereitung Dozent 1,87 2,20 1,54 1,820,000

(**)0,66

6(*)

0,381

(*)-

0,285

(*) 2,00 1,540,000

(*)

5 aktive Beteiligung ermöglicht 2,12 2,16 2,01 2,160,439

(n.s.)

0,151

(n.s.)

-0,00

4

(n.s.)

-0,15

5

(n.s.)

2,16 2,010,199

(n.s.)

6 eingesetzte Hilfsmittel 2,08 2,42 1,86 1,960,000

(**)0,55

3(*)

0,457

(*)-

0,096

(n.s.)

2,18 1,860,005

(**)

7 Schwierigkeitsgrad 2,36 2,35 2,33 2,390,832

(n.s.)

0,015

(n.s.)

-0,04

6

(n.s.)

-0,06

1

(n.s.)

2,37 2,330,679

(n.s.)

8 Veranstaltungsbesuch 1,51 1,30 1,44 1,750,000

(**)-

0,133

(n.s.)

-0,44

5(*)

-0,31

2(*) 1,54 1,44

0,308

(n.s.)

9 Vor- und Nachbereitung 1,68 1,71 1,660,669

(n.s.)

1,66 1,710,669

(n.s.)

10 Bewertung insgesamt 2 2,48 1,78 1,740,000

(**)0,69

9(*)

0,736

(*)0,03

6(n.s.)

2,09 1,780,007

(**)


Course Evaluation Results

• Significant improvement of the four main criteria: 1. Coherent presentation of the content 2. Motivation to collaborate and to critically discuss

the content3. Instructor’s availability during (non) contact hours4. Level of the instructor’s preparation 6. Supporting media/means10. Overall judgement

• No change in:5. Opportunities to get actively involved 7. Level of difficulty

• Decrease in 8. Attendance


Lessions Learned

• Content is easier to understand (unisex)• Students are more motivated (unisex)• Supporting media have been acknowledged• Side effect:

Overall judgement about the instructor/course increased

• change/increase of female performance unclear so far (needs gender specific evaluation with past years)


Conclusions from the E-learning Perspective

• Gender differences in access and usage of E-learning tools

• Psychological barrier seems to be present (still) • Cultural, educational and gender diversity can be

supported/handled (=> different learning velocities, etc.)outlook: different content streams (Hypermedia Novel, W. Heiden)

• Key of success:Individual feedback

• E-learning platform necessary, otherwise management of individual feedback impossible

• Higher costs: Individual feedback very time consuming (TA support necessary)


Overall Conclusions

• Improved didactics helps (a lot) • New teaching methodologies proved

successful• Student‘s satisfaction increased

– in particular of female • More research on gender

aspects in university/academicteaching necessary


Acknowledgements

• contributions of the following persons are

gratefully acknowledged:

B. Göbel, B. Kraus,

D. Kasapoglu,

E. Kühlwetter,

M. Kutz, M. Vieth


Thank you for your Attention!

Contact information:

Rainer [email protected]. ++49-2241-865-217Fax. ++49-2241-8658217Computer Vision Lab web pages http://www.cv-lab.inf.fh-brs.de

Documents

Gender Aspects for E-Learning Gender Aspects for E-Learning E-learning Experience in Applying the Moodle Platform and the Gendering Aspect Prof. Dr.-Ing