(Image credit: ASU presentation)
The research highlighted below the statement "Online is as effective as face to face" was used in a presentation at the ASU Education Innovation Summit to justify students in a k to 12 setting taking online courses.
From the first meta-analysis written by the US Department of Education,
"The meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed modestly better than those receiving face-to-face instruction…"
Sounds promising, let’s read the rest of the abstract, shall we?
"…An unexpected finding was the small number of rigorous published studies contrasting online and face-to-face learning conditions for K–12 students. In light of this small corpus, caution is required in generalizing to the K–12 population because the results are derived for the most part from studies in other settings (e.g., medical training, higher education)."
That sounds a lot like the authors of the meta-study specifically recommended against using this meta-analysis as support for online learning in a k to 12 setting. I wonder why the presenter used this study?
We cannot draw conclusions on the effectiveness of online learning (as opposed to blended learning – wherein a student learns from a mixture of online and classroom activities) for k to 12 students based on the effectiveness of online learning in a post-secondary setting.
- The motivations of k to 12 students and post-secondary students are different.
- Many post-secondary classrooms do not represent the most effective pedagogy, so it may be easier for online learning to be equivalent or superior.
- Access to resources necessary to be successful in an online setting (like a computer) are more prevalent in a post-secondary setting.
Shawn Urban says:
Hi Dave,
It sounds to me like the presenters and the authors both concluded what they set out to conclude despite that interesting paragraph that stated that no such conclusion could be made.
I strongly agree with reason one on why post-secondary experiences in online learning cannot be extrapolated to elementary and secondary education. I probably would go beyond motivation to maturity or ability to cope though. Even strongly motivated students often find distance learning difficult to manage and perhaps comprehend. I have seen this time and again, with paper distance-learning, video conference learning and online learning. The problem, I think, is a lack of immediate navigation. Often times non-face-to-face courses offer no clear and pulling starting point nor path to follow. There is a delay in urgency and feedback, making such courses difficult to stay with.
Don’t get me wrong. Many students in our K-12 systems are very successful in non-face-to-face learning. I was one of them. But one of the schools I worked at just lost a whole course because the students hated the il-logistics and impersonality of video conferencing. Each of the students opted out of the course after two days.
There are advantages to non-face-to-face learning – learning when, where and at a pace one wants (within reason); emphasizing and elaborating topics of high personal interest; deemphasizing and skimming over topics of low interest; et cetera. The key advantage is being able to partially personalize one’s own learning. But this advantage is also non-face-to-face learning’s disadvantage for those not ready to cope with a minimally directed and responsive system of learning, or perhaps one that is highly responsive and so strongly student-directed. For such students, the freedom or openness of non-face-to-face, independent courses (read unguided, unaccounting – at least immediately, untimely tangent teachable moments) might be confusing and disheartening. Students should learn from a course, not manage its navigation. When coping with navigation gets in the way of learning, learning stalls. This is what happened to the video conferencers.
(As I wrote this, I could not help to consider home schoolers. But then these students have their parents to guide and motivate them.)
Shawn
April 25, 2012 — 7:03 pm
David Wees says:
I think your comment here is more reasoned than my post! Excellent and insightful observations Shawn. I hope you don’t mind me quoting you. "When coping with navigation gets in the way of learning, learning stalls."
I cannot tell you the number of times I got stuck with navigating through the various online courses I did during my Master’s degree. In fact, navigating the courses was easily the number one hurdle I faced.
April 25, 2012 — 7:17 pm
Shawn Urban says:
Thank you for the compliment, Dave. I appreciate it. I am glad my comment struck a chord with you.
I find even the most intuitive navigations can be intimidating, even to the expert. Nor does an introductory explanation of where to start and how the navigation works help in most situations. It seems with each additional choice we have opportunity to follow, the more intimidated we are.
Perhaps we are conditioned to be guided and challenged (encouraged). Perhaps this is a consequence of factory-style hidden curriculum. I suspect the conditioning is more fundamental though.
Learning is passing forward of skills, strategies and knowledge (anthropological technology). It involves a giver – a provider or teacher – as well as a receiver – or learner.
What sets face-to-face learning above non-face-to-face learning are that 1) face-to-face interaction can stream, and flow back and forth both ways, and 2) face-to-face interaction provides responsive revision and reiteration of information until we understand. This makes for richer, individualized and more personal learning. It is my favourite part of teaching. Non-face-to-face learning is more “led” and less “alive”. It has the problem that it *must build and maintain* (responsive) interaction for (rich) learning to occur. The interaction does not sustainably feed off of itself and information is often statically replicated, often only in response to totally student-manipulated action. We have no immediate recourse if we do not understand. (I address webinars immediately.)
There is a correlation, I believe, between degree of interaction and ease of learning and even willingness to learn. Look at the different forms of non-face-to-face learning. Compare webinars to paper distance-learning. Compare webinars to face-to-face learning.
Interaction at its base is social. So also is learning. Non-face-to-face navigation asynchronizes interaction and even disconnects it. In addition, part of the interaction is missing, call it body language or subconscious reactions. We often model simply by how we react. (Again, there is a continuum in which webinars are more “face-to-face” than paper distance-learning. But then even video conferencing feels less interactive and directed to the learner (broadcasted rather than narrow-casted) than face-to-face learning. Teachers differ in how they influence students for the same reason. Some teachers connect with their students more deeply and naturally than others. Their teaching is more student than content and class directed.)
Maybe one day we will find a way to make non-face-to-face navigation more organic. I think though we are still staggering through the tangled trees of course details and ways of learning it and missing the great nuances and associations of content and skill that are the richest parts of what we could be learning.
Hmm. That was a bit more theoretical and philosophical than I intended it to be. I am almost tempted to delete it. I find it interesting though how easily I can exchange navigation and teaching here.
Shawn
April 26, 2012 — 3:06 am