LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 54
About This Presentation
Title:

LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS

Description:

LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS means that learners who complete an online program ... Berge (1995) managerial, social, pedagogical, technical ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:36
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 55
Provided by: karen194
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS


1
LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS
  • Karen Swan
  • University at Albany

2
  • LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS means that learners who
    complete an online program receive educations
    that represent the distinctive quality of the
    institution. The goal is that online learning is
    at least equivalent to learning through the
    institutions other delivery modes, in
    particular, through its traditional,
    face-to-face, classroom-based instruction.

(Sloan Consortium, 2002)
3
no significant difference phenomenon
  • Thomas L. Russells (1999) comparison of 355
    research reports on distance education
    http//teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference
    /
  • Barry Runyans (1995) review of distance
    education in the military
  • Hiltz, Zhang Turoffs (2002) survey of 19
    empirical studies

4
  • We know that asynchronous online learning can be
    just as good if not better than face-to-face
    learning.
  • We need to know what makes it good.
  • We need to know we can make it better.

5
beyond no significant differences
  • Clark (1983) vs. Kozma (1991)
  • Carol Twigg (2000) the biggest obstacle to
    innovation in online learning is thinking things
    can and should be done in the old way
  • paradigm change

6
  • LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS means that learners who
    complete an online program receive educations
    that represent the distinctive quality of the
    institution. The goal is that online learning is
    at least equivalent to learning through the
    institutions other delivery modes, in
    particular, through its traditional,
    face-to-face, classroom-based instruction.

. . . Interaction is key.
(Sloan Consortium, 2002)
7
learning
  • the act of gaining knowledge or skill through
    interactions with the environment, mental schema,
    and/or others

computing medium
  • defining characteristic is interactivity (Bolter,
    1991 Landow, 1992 Lanham, 1992 Murray, 1997
    Turkle, 1997)

8
  • interaction with content (Moore, 1989)
  • interaction with instructors (Moore, 1989)
  • interaction with classmates (Moore, 1989)
  • interaction with the interface (Hillman, Willis
    Gunawardena, 1994)
  • vicarious interaction (Sutton, 2002)

9
Rourke, Anderson, Garrison Archer, 2001
10
  • interaction with content

11
  • course design factors to support learner
    interactions with content
  • computer support for learner/content interactions

12
COURSE DESIGN PRINCIPLES (Janicki Liegle, 2001
Chickering Gamson, 1994 Keeton, Scheckley
Griggs, 2002)
  • clear goals and expectations
  • multiple representations of knowledge
  • active learning
  • feedback
  • flexibility / learner control
  • faculty guidance support

13
COURSE DESIGN FACTORS (Romiszowski Cheng, 1991
Eastmond, 1995 Irani, 1998 Swan, Shea,
Frederickson, Pickett, Pelz Maher, 2000
Picciano, 2002)
  • clear structure
  • navigational transparency
  • consistency
  • communication potential
  • active learning

14
PERSONALIZATION (Twigg, 2000)
  • initial assement of learners knowledge
    preferred learning styles
  • an array of high-quality, interactive learning
    materials activities
  • individualized study plans
  • built-in continuous assessment instantaneous
    feedback
  • appropriate varied human interaction when needed

15
  • UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX personal information
  • MICHIGAN STATE -- CAPA
  • UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Chemistry quizzes
  • STANFORD courslets
  • PENN STATE e-portfolios

16
  • interaction with instructors

17
  • survey data linking perceived interactions with
    instructors and perceived learning
  • instructor roles and changing instructor roles

18
SURVEY DATA (Picciano, 1998 Richardson Ting,
1999 Swan, Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, Pelz
Maher, 2000 Jiang Ting Richardson Swan,
2001)
  • strong correlations between learners perceived
    interactions and their perceived learning

19
  • UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY instructor privately
    reponds to all student postings weekly private
    journaling with all students
  • NORTHERN VIRGINIA CC tutorial mode classes
  • DREXEL a variety of course notes formats
    static content notes, dynamic content notes,
    dynamic course process notes

20
INSTRUCTOR ROLES
  • Berge (1995) managerial, social, pedagogical,
    technical
  • Paulson (1995) organizational, social,
    intellectual
  • Rossman (1999) teacher responsibility,
    facilitating discussions, course requirements

21
teaching presence
  • the design, facilitation and direction of
    cognitive and social processes for the purpose of
    realizing personally meaningful and educationally
    worthwhile outcomes Anderson, Rourke, Garrison
    Archer (2001)
  • design organization, facilitating discourse,
    direct instruction

22
changing roles of online instructors (Coppola,
Hiltz Rotter, 2001)
  • cognitive, affective, managerial
  • cognitive role shifts to one of deeper complexity
  • affective role requires faculty to find new tools
    to express emotion
  • managerial role requires greater attention to
    detail, more structure, additional student
    monitoring

23
  • UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, PENN STATE, SLN,
    STEVENS intensive training and support for
    online faculty

24
  • interaction with classmates

25
  • The biggest success in this realm the ways
    technology influences practices has been that of
    time-delayed (asynchronous) communication. . . .
    Total communication increases and, for many
    students, the result seems more intimate,
    protected, and convenient than the more
    intimidating demands of face-to-face
    communication.

(Chickering Ehrmann, 2002)
26
  • combinations of observational and survey data
    linking online discussions and perceived learning
  • social presence
  • virtual learning communities

27
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS
  • online discussion is more equitable and more
    democratic (Harasim, 1990 Levin, Kim Riel,
    1990)
  • online discussion is more reflective and mindful
    (Hiltz, 1994 Poole)
  • links between of course grade based on
    discussion and perceived learning (Hawisher
    Pemberton, 1997 Picciano, 1998 Jian Ting,
    2000 Swan, Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, Pelz
    Maher, 2000)

28
  • FERN UNIVERSITAT mutual study rhythm
  • NJIT collaborative online groups
  • UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX learning teams

29
social presence
  • the perceived psychological distance between
    communication participants
  • asynchronous communication is less rich than
    other forms of mediated communication thus
    projects less social presence (Short, Williams
    Christie, 1976 Rice, 1992 Picard, 1997)
  • participants in asynchronous communication
    project their identities into their
    communications and so create social presence
    (Walther, 1992 Gunawardena Zittle Poole,
    2000 Richardson Swan, 2001 Rourke, Anderson,
    Garrison Archer, 2001 Swan, 2001)

30
participants in asynchronous communication use
verbal immediacy behaviors to restore equilibrium
lost with the loss of vocal and non-verbal cues
(Swan, 2002)
Equilibrium
immediacy
immediacy
immediacy
SOCIAL PRESENCE
affective communication channel
affective communication channel
affective communication channel
Danchak, Walther Swan, 2001
31
interaction, presence performance (Picciano,
2002)
  • perceived social presence, perceived
    interactions, perceived learning all correlated
  • but perceived social presence not correlated with
    either actual interactions or actual performance
  • however, students perceiving high social presence
    performed significantly better on written
    assignments
  • as did highly interactive students

32
  • STEVENS faculty model verbal immediacy behaviors

33
virtual learning communities
  • stems from research on face-to-face learning that
    suggests that all learning takes place in
    communities (Lave Wenger, 1990 Wenger, 1997)
  • knowledge building communities (Scaremalia
    Bereiter, 1996 Hunter, 2002 Hoadly Pea)
  • social support for learning (Hawthornthwaite,
    2002)
  • intersection of social organization and learning
    activities particular interactions of
    participants in online communities (Nolan
    Weiss, 2002 Renninger Shumar, 2002)

34
Sense of Classroom Community Index (Rovai, 2002)
  • spirit, trust, interaction, learning
  • no significant differences in overall sense of
    community between traditional and online classes
  • but significant difference in conceptual
    structure of community

35
  • HERKIMER CC ice breaker activities
  • PENN STATE activities and services to support
    the development of community

36
  • interaction with the interface

37
Hillman, Willis Gunawardena, 1994
38
Swan, Bowman, Vargas, Schweig Holmes, 1998/99
39
  • vicarious interaction

40
Sutton, 2001
41
  • summary

42
  • What do we know about learning effectiveness in
    asynchronous online courses?

43
  • We know that students taking asynchronous online
    courses score just as well if not better than
    students taking traditional courses on measures
    of general performance (Barry Runyan, 1995
    Russell, 1999 Hiltz, Zhang Turoff, 2002). We
    know that the general quality of learning from
    online courses can be equivalent to similar
    traditional courses.

44
  • We know that the structure, clarity,
    consistency, individualization, and communicative
    potential of online course designs support
    learning (Romizowski Cheng, 1992 Eastmond,
    1995 Irani, 1998 Swan, Shea, Fredericksen,
    Pickett, Pelz Mayer, 2000 Twigg, 2000). We
    have good reason to believe that careful
    attention to these features in course design and
    implementation can enhance learning from online
    courses. Course design factors need further
    careful investigation, as does the notion of
    interaction with content.

45
  • We know there is a relationship between
    interactions with instructors and perceived
    learning in online courses (Picciano, 1998 Jiang
    Ting, 2000 Swan, Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett,
    Pelz Mayer, 2000 Anderson, Rourke, Garrison
    Archers, 2001 Coppola, Hiltz Rotter, 2001
    Richardson Swan, 2001). We have good reason to
    believe instructor/learner interactions
    facilitate online learning. Interaction with
    instructors is an area of research that deserves
    rigorous investigation.

46
  • We know that participants in online course
    discussions can use verbal immediacy behaviors to
    create perceptions of presence that may support
    learning (Gunawardena Zittle, 1997 Poole,
    2000, Richardson Swan, 2001 Rourke, Ancerson,
    Garrison Archer, 2001 Swan, 2001 Picciano,
    2002). More work needs to be done to link
    interaction with classmates to actual learning.

47
  • We have some reason to believe that asynchronous
    learning environments might particularly support
    reflection, concept learning, written
    communication, and the development of multiple
    perspectives (Harasim, 1990 Levin Kim Riel,
    1990 Hiltz, 1994 Gunawardena, Lowe and
    Anderson, 1997 Benbunan-Fich Hiltz, 1999
    Poole, 2000 Parker Gemino, 2001 Picciano,
    2002). These clearly deserve further
    investigation.

48
  • Notions of interactions with interfaces, virtual
    interaction and virtual community, while for the
    most part untested, are definitely intriguing and
    also suggest themselves as very interesting areas
    of exploration.

49
  • We can extrapolate from what we know about
    learning in general (Chickering Gamson, 1994
    Keeton, Scheckley Greggs) and learning with
    computers in particular (Janicki Liegle, 2000)
    in particular to make recommendations for the
    design and implementation of online courses, but
    such recommendations are premised on the
    supposition that the same instructional
    principles apply across media formats (Clarke,
    1983). They should be tested.

50
  • Many researchers disagree with such position
    (Kozma, 1990 Gibson, 1996). While many
    instructional design principles may apply to all
    media, some may not. Online learning
    environments in particular may very well have
    unique characteristics that matter or can be made
    to matter in learning (Twigg, 2000). These
    should be investigated.

51
  • Online course discussions Gunawardena Zittle,
    1997 Poole, 2000, Richardson Swan, 2001
    Rourke, Ancerson, Garrison Archer, 2001 Swan,
    2001 Picciano, 2002), multiple representations
    of knowledge (Spiro Jehng, 1990) and the
    personalization of learning (Twigg, 2000) suggest
    themselves as fruitful areas of inquiry. Changes
    in faculty roles and teaching strategies
    (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison Archer Coppola,
    Hiltz Rotter, 2001) also clearly deserve
    further investigation.

52
Digital technologies are for education as iron
and steel girders, reinforced concrete, plate
glass, elevators, central heating and air
conditioning were for architecture. Digital
technologies set in abeyance significant,
long-lasting limits on educational
activity. -- R. O. McClintock
53
  • replacing a culture based on scarcity and
    isolation with one of abundance
  • altering ways of knowing by enlarging the
    repertoire of resources available to serve
    disciplined thought and inquiry
  • lowering the skill levels needed to participate
    fully in wide ranges of cultural activity

54
  • kswan_at_uamail.albany.edu
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com