Both sessions began by reviewing the growth rate in online learning (Sloan Report, 2007). In one, we responded to the question "Is online learning for everyone?" Some answers focused on convenience and flexibility (Who is Best Suited for Online Learning? Online Universities Weblog). Some focused on traits commonly cited such as independence, discipline, self-motivation, liking to read and write, ability to stay on task (Is Online Learning for You?). The group agreed that students with these traits would be successful whether learning online or in the classroom.
As to whether there are differences in learning from online vs. onground delivery, both sessions referred to findings in some studies that online is better, in others that classroom is better, and in many that there are no differences (as reported at WCET No Significant Differences Web site). (In this review of findings, there was no analysis offered of whether course design or instructional activities could be the reason for divergent results more than mode of delivery. However, participants in both sessions brought up the question of the alignment with instructional strategies.)
The focus for each session was whether students with different learning styles may perform better online (Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire by Soloman and Felder). To measure student learning performance in this study, the exam had items explicitly aligned with each level of the "old Bloom" taxonomy - 5 items for each level of learning. The exam creators checked reliability of their classifications of items into each of the learning categories.
The course, taught online and onground, had a common syllabus, common final exam, comparable number of students, and students with comparable GPAs. These were some of the differences:
- there were fewer students whose majors were quantitative (e.g., computer science) vs. qualitative fields (e.g., liberal arts) in the online delivery
- there was one instructor for the online course, and multiple instructors for the onground delivery
- the instructional activities and quizzes during the course were idiosyncratic to the preferences of the TA's, thereby making the instruction different in each section of the course
While there seemed to be no differences in online vs. onground learning except in synthesis outcomes, the structure of the assessment design in this study holds promise for sharper analysis of impact on learning outcomes. The data produced some controversial speculation about whether there will be NSDs at all but the synthesis level; discussion in each session pointed out a couple of possible pitfalls in analysis - namely, if the course has not been designed and delivered with synthesis learning activities in the online as well as onground course sections, then it is not valid to conclude that either mode of delivery has produced better results than the other.
The data showed, after controlling for GPA and differences in qualitative majors, that online students did not perform as well on the synthesis items. But the study did not show the reasons.
The design also omitted the "evaluation" level of learning, so performance on that level was not tested.
The paper on this research should be developed in about a month, and I've requested a copy of the complete report from each of the presenters in each session. One of the presenters expressed interest in finding out more about instructional strategies known to work for different types of learning outcomes, about Webb's curriculum and assessment alignment model, the hierarchy of Gagne and Briggs, and re-examination of what is now defined as the highest level of learning in the "revised Bloom's taxonomy."
I think this was a well designed study and could serve as a good model for future exploration.
Presenter: Milind Shrikhande and Richard Felder Georgia State
University
No comments:
Post a Comment