This document summarizes a study that categorized online learners into four segments based on their behaviors: Ambivalent Learners, Adaptive Learners, Rebel/Free-Form Learners, and Time-Sensitive Learners. It describes the characteristics of each segment and how they differ in terms of learning factors, interests, difficulties, demographics, and more. It then discusses implications for supporting different types of learners and areas for further research.

1.  Glenda Morgan, U of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign
 Tracy Hurley, Texas A&M at Antonio
 Shannon Meadows, CourseSmart
 TJ Bliss, OER Policy Fellow, Inacol
 Connie Broughton, Washington State
Board for Community & Technical
Colleges

2. Glenda Morgan
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
WCET Annual Meeting, San Antonio Nov 1 2012

3.  Chuck Dziuban, UCF
 Flora McMartin, Broad Based Knowledge
 Josh Morrill, University of Wisconsin-Madison
 Patsy Moskal, UCF
 Alan Wolf, University of Wisconsin-Madison

4.  Funded by National Science Digital Library
 Looking at learning resources more generally
 Mixed methods study
 Paths through the material
 Qualitative findings pointed us to certain kinds of
behaviors

7. Ambivalent Adaptive Rebel/ Free Time
Learners Learners Form Sensitive
48% of 26% of Learners Learners
Sample Sample 13% of 11% of
This segment addresses This segment exhibits a Sample Sample
learning problems using lot of characteristics of
a plan (at least they “ideal” learners (They This group is not This segment is similar
believe that they have a solve problems with a systematic in their to the adaptive learners
plan). But, mostly, they plan, they are learning, and do not in many ways (use a
do not feel strongly systematic, they set solve problems with plan, are systematic,
about their learning. goals, they ask for help if plans. But they are etc), but they are just not
They are confident in they experience a willing to change what quite as strong in these
their ability to find problem, they enjoy they do when presented skills. Directionally they
information, but do not studying and have a with new information are identical to adaptive
enjoy studying nor do need to learn). A (may speak to an learners. The other key
they have a need to differentiator in this experiential type of difference is that this
learn. This is the largest group is that there is learner). This group also group is the most likely
learner segment from the more variance around feels like they have a to set specific times to
sample. setting specific times to need to learn, but are study, and least likely to
study. For example, this among the least likely to ask for assistance with a
could be a learner who set aside specific time to problem. This is also the
studies in a hallway study. smallest learner
whenever they had some segment.
free time.

8. Learning Factors
Ambivalent Adaptive Rebel/ Free Time Sensitive
Learners Learners Form Learners Learners
LEARNING FACTORS
-Agency 48.7 51.8 49.2 53.6
-Preparedness 45.5 55.5 50.9 60.1
-Organization 47.2 54.9 46.0 59.8
-Engagement 46.5 53.4 51.8 58.6
NOTE: Lowest scores shaded in red, Highest scores shaded in
green.

9. Interest vs. Difficulty
Factors
Ambivalent Adaptive Rebel/ Free Time Sensitive
Learners Learners Form Learners Learners
Interest Factors
-Search, Browse, Ask 49.4 54.7 52.9 56.9
-Friends, Social Network 49.8 53.8 51.8 57.1
-Internet Search 49.5 51.1 51.5 48.2
Difficulty Factors
-Outreach 49.9 53.4 52.6 57.9
-Internet Search 49.5 52.0 51.2 50.4
-Written Material 49.7 54.2 52.8 55.6
-Engagement 50.4 51.2 50.2 53.2
NOTE: Lowest scores shaded in red, Highest scores shaded in
green.

10. Profiles
Green= highest in row; Red= lowest in
row
Ambivalent Adaptive Rebel/ Free Time Sensitive
Learners Learners Form Learners Learners
Profiling Variables
-% full time student 54% 55% 39% 47%
-% part time students 9% 5% 10% 11%
-% former students 30% 33% 44% 33%
School/Institution
-2 year/ community college 13% 15% 21% 28%
-4 year college/ university 72% 57% 51% 55%
Race
-% White/ Caucasian 74% 75% 73% 48%
Is / Was Major
-Business, management, 17% 14% 17% 25%
marketing
-Engineering 10% 13% 7% 10%
-Humanities -&- Fine Arts 8% 11% 20% 8%

11. Profiles
Green= highest in row; Red= lowest in
row
Ambivalent Adaptive Rebel/ Free Time Sensitive
Learners Learners Form Learners Learners
Employment
-% NOT employed (0 hours) 36% 37% 37% 50%
Gender
-% female 38% 51% 40% 50%
Housing
-% Living in on campus 39% 33% 16% 26%
housing
Wikipedia
-% Use Wikipedia (work or 56% 57% 62% 47%
school)
Age
-Average Age 24.0 25.1 26.4 25.7
GPA
-Self Reported Average GPA 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.4

12. Free Ranger
Learner Zone
Ambivalent Adaptive Rebel/ Free Time
Learners Learners Form Sensitive
48% of 26% of Learners Learners
Sample Sample 13% of 11% of
This segment addresses This segment exhibits a Sample Sample
learning problems using lot of characteristics of
a plan (at least they “ideal” learners (They This group is not This segment is similar
believe that they have a solve problems with a systematic in their to the adaptive learners
plan). But, mostly, they plan, they are learning, and do not in many ways (use a
do not feel strongly systematic, they set solve problems with plan, are systematic,
about their learning. goals, they ask for help if plans. But they are etc), but they are just not
They are confident in they experience a willing to change what quite as strong in these
their ability to find problem, they enjoy they do when presented skills. Directionally they
information, but do not studying and have a with new information are identical to adaptive
enjoy studying nor do need to learn). A (may speak to an learners. The other key
they have a need to differentiator in this experiential type of difference is that this
learn. This is the largest group is that there is learner). This group also group is the most likely
learner segment from the more variance around feels like they have a to set specific times to
sample. setting specific times to need to learn, but are study, and least likely to
study. For example, this among the least likely to ask for assistance with a
could be a learner who set aside specific time to problem. This is also the
studies in a hallway study. smallest learner
whenever they had some segment.
free time.

13.  Flesh out further behaviors according to each
type
 Further implications of each type of learner
for how we support teaching and learning
 More info on what kinds of info they use and
how they learn from it

14. gmorgan@illinois.edu

15. Texas A&M San Antonio
CourseSmart

16.  How well will your booklist translate?
 Addressing academic freedom & faculty choice
 Will the institution bookstore play a role?
 Are you meeting Accessibility requirements?
 Analytics differentiate digital from print
 Executive sponsorship is key to driving change

17.  $300,000 Printing agreements
 40 out of 400 Authorization and
proposals funded implementation of
 2 year program student fees
 Custom e-books Faculty development
 Publisher Instructional designer
agreements Program evaluation

18.  Faculty will most likely not
readily adopt and encourage
e-book use due to
technology resistance
 Administrators will not
receive profit sharing from
bookstore sales
 Students unfamiliar with
product

19. A Case Study:
Texas A&M University- San Antonio
10 Publishers:
 McGraw-Hill/Irwin  WHFreeman
 Pearson/Prentice-Hall  CQ Press
 Cengage  CRC Press
 Wiley  No Starch Press
 Human Kinetics  Jones-Bartlett

20.  Bulk discount
 Up to 70% off hard copy textbook price
 Electronic course material available (MyLabs,
Aplia, Connect, Homework Mgr)
 Custom E-books
 100% sell-through for publishers
 Mandatory electronic course material fee
 E-books available 1st day of class
 Print on demand feature

21.  4600 E-books issued by students in Fall 2010
 6700 e-books issued in Fall 2013
 49% of all classes are e-book classes
 Average course fee* = $64
 9.5% of tuition
 Course fee ranged from $28-$70
 25% of students used Institutional printing option
*Course fee includes, program administration, and
electronic homework manager product (where adopted)

22. #1 problem: Access code distribution
#2 problem: Logistics of Institutional
Printing option
#3 problem: Learning curve from
university, publishers, and
Printing Partner
#4 problem: Resistance to change

23.  Surveys sent to all students using e-books at
the end of the Fall 2010, Spring 2011 & Fall
2011 semesters
 Over 1100 students completed a survey
 Demographics mirror the university
 Majors are consistent with the proportion
enrolled in e-book courses

24.  76% of students reported that they felt that
e-books were a cost effective alternative to
regular textbooks
 58% of the students reported looking forward
to taking additional e-book classes
 69% were very satisfied with the e-book
program while only 14% were not
 59% of the students felt that e-books
provided greater flexibility when compared to
traditional textbooks

25.  25% of e-books issued were also ordered as a
printed version.
 64% of students felt that the institutional
printing option was valuable to their
educational success
 Fifty percent reported that printed e-books
improved their study habits and grades

26. Open Course Library
A collection of openly licensed (CC BY)
educational materials for 82 high-enrollment
college courses
Project Goals:
1. Lower textbook costs for students
2. Improve course completion rates
3. Provide new resources for faculty
Credit: Timothy Valentine & Leo Reynolds CC BY-
NC-SA

27. Open Course Library
Timeline
 Phase 1: 42 courses
◦ http://opencourselibrary.org
◦ http://saylor.org
 Phase 2 : 40 courses
◦ Available Spring 2013

28.  Connie Broughton cbroughton@sbctc.edu
http://opencourselibrary.org