Title: LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS
1LEARNING 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)
3no 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.
5beyond 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)
7learning
- 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)
9Rourke, Anderson, Garrison Archer, 2001
10 11- course design factors to support learner
interactions with content - computer support for learner/content interactions
12COURSE 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
13COURSE 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
14PERSONALIZATION (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
18SURVEY 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
20INSTRUCTOR ROLES
- Berge (1995) managerial, social, pedagogical,
technical - Paulson (1995) organizational, social,
intellectual - Rossman (1999) teacher responsibility,
facilitating discussions, course requirements
21teaching 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
22changing 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
27STUDENT 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
29social 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)
30participants 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
31interaction, 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
33virtual 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)
34Sense 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
37Hillman, Willis Gunawardena, 1994
38Swan, Bowman, Vargas, Schweig Holmes, 1998/99
39 40Sutton, 2001
41 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.
52Digital 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