Online Learning: The Point/Counterpoint Examination

1. Kaitlyn Hagan Online Learning:The Point/Counterpoint Examination BreannaByington Charles Emory Matt Kautz

2. Any online learners?

3. What is online learning? • Pure online learning • Internet-based education outside the bounds of a normal classroom without a physical teacher present to assist in completion of online assignments. • Blended online learning • Online learning which can take the form of various combinations and degrees of face-to-face and pure online learning.

4. Statistics • In a national survey of school district administrators: • 75% of responding public school districts had one or more students enrolled in a fully online or blended course • 70% had one or more students in a fully online course • 41% had one or more students in a blended course • Percentages have increased approximately 10% since 2005-2006 • Overall number of K-12 students engaged in online courses in 07-08 is estimated at 1,030,000 - a 47% increase from 05-06 Source: http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/k-12online2008

5. Pros of pure Online learning

6. Factors that improve online learning • Incorporating simulations • Individualizing the experience by generating learning content based on student responses • prompting students for reflection (therefore encouraging metacognition) • The addition of media (such as videos) when the student is able to control the media

7. Factors that have little to no effect on online learning • Providing multiple-choice quizzes • Stimulating more active engagement through concept mapping and guiding questions • The addition of media (such as videos) when the content is controlled

8. Cons of pure online learning

9. Social Isolation • Isolation may influence a student’s attitude toward online learning • How to counteract it: • Greater use of synchronous communication • Introduction of a forming stage • Adherence to effective communication guidelines

10. What happens when you add a teacher?

11. DEFINING ONLINE LEARNING

12. Pros of blended online learning

13. Survey says . . . • Easier to read assignments online at own pace • 31 of 42 students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed • Easier to complete assignments online at own pace • 36 of 42 students surveyed strongly agreed or agreed • Tests and quizzes easier online • 30 of 42 students surveyed strongly agreed or agreed • Prefer online courses to regular instruction • 21 of 42 students surveyed strongly agreed or agreed • Feel more productive in an online course • 28 of 42 students surveyed strongly agreed or agreed

14. Research adding to research • “When students perceived that courses were supportive for their learning, they were more likely to be satisfied with the online course. “ • “Immediate communication between the instructor/facilitator and the learner. Teachers’ immediate responses to students' questions and problems influence students' learning outcomes and satisfaction (Küçük, et al., 2010)”

15. More . . . • Expands learning beyond the classroom • Personalizes instruction • Saving money in physical infrastructure • 21st Century literacy • Increased communication Keeping Pace Report 2010

16. Cons of blended online learning

17. The big picture

18. Assessing the effectiveness of online learning is difficult! • Factors a study should control for: • Teacher • amount of years teacher has spent teaching face-to-face versus online • time spent 'in class’ • teachers giving feedback at a particular time • type of media • incoming and projected abilities of students

19. . . . • Department of Education meta-analysis showed that on average, exclusively online learning is no better or worse than face-to-face learning, and that blended learning might be better than face-to-face learning • BUT there are very few studies that look at K-12 online learning (Dept. of Ed. analysis was based on all levels, focusing on post-secondary and professional

20. Blended Online Teaching Cons • Potential threat might involve differences in instructor experience doing in-class v. online programs. • That is, an instructor who is extremely versed in classroom teaching could presumably offer a different quality learning experience than if he had to do the same course online and for which his experience was limited (Anstine and Skidmore, 2005*). • Clardy, Alan. (2009-12). Distant, On-line Education: Effects, Principles and Practices

21. *Further fascinating facts unpacked from the Anstine and Skidmore report: • However, because ρ^sub 1μ^ and ρ^sub 2μ^ are not significantly different from zero, the equations were simplified: the simulation sets ρ^sub 1μ^ and ρ^sub 2μ^ equal to zero to predict learning outcomes. 21 The predictions are presented in Table 5. Using the average characteristics for the entire sample, all students taking the online course would have produced an average test score of 78.13 percent on the exams, whereas if they had taken the traditional class, they would have produced an average score of 96.74 percent, a difference of 18.6 percentage points. The difference in performance, according to these estimates, was generated from the substantially higher coefficients on the GMAT score and GPA variables in the traditional class. That is, GMAT score and GPA were substantially more important determinants of performance in the traditional class than they were in the online class. The fact that the coefficient on the pretest score was positive in the online regression and negative in the traditional regression made up for some but not all of this difference. Using average observed characteristics for the online students showed that they would have also performed substantially less effectively in the online environment than in the traditional environment (a 16.56 percentage point difference). Finally, had the average traditional student taken the online course and behaved as they did in the traditional course,22 their average score would have been more than 19.83 percentage points lower. These results suggested that there are substantial differences in the factors that determine learning outcomes and allowing the slope coefficients to differ across equations showed that the online environment is inferior.

22. 3rd and Final Qualitative Take Away • “It is assumed that implementation of BL requires quite a few times, a considerable effort, and a serious thought. Good online educator training is required to make educators feel confident to deliver effective online training, and at the same time they should know that when online education is appropriate, and equally important, when it is not likely to be effective.” • Sethy, SatyaSundar. (2008). Distance Education in the Age of Globalization: An Overwhelming Desire towards Blended LearningOnline,Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education v9 n3 p29-44.

23. The Traditional School & Teaching Experience

24. Morning Assembly – Kilibo, Benin

25. La Salle de class et les sixièmes

26. What does this mean for the future?

27. References Anstine, J., & M. Skidmore. (2005). A Small Sample Study of Traditional and Online Courses with Sample Selection Adjustment. Journal of Economic Education,36(2): 107-127. Castaneda, R. 2008. The impact of computer-based simulation within an instructional sequence on learner performance in a Web-based environment. PhD diss., Arizona State University, Tempe. Clardy, Alan. (2009-12). Distant, On-line Education: Effects, Principles and Practices Doering, A., C. Miller, and G. Veletsianos. Adventure learning: educational, social, and technological affordances for collaborative hybrid distance education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(3). 249-269. Evergreen Education Group. 2010. Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: an annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group, Evergreen, Colorado.Grant, L.K., and M. Courtoreille. 2007. Comparison of fixed-item and response-sensitive versions of an online tutorial. Psychological Record 57(2): 265-72.Hilbelink, A.J. 2007. The effectiveness and user perception of 3-dimensional digital human anatomy in an online undergraduate anatomy laboratory. PhD diss., University of South Florida, Orlando.Lee, S., S. Srinivasan, T. Trail, D. Lewis, and S. Lopez. 2011. Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. Internet and Higher Education, 14, 158-163. Long, M., and H. Jennings, 2005. “Does it work?”: The impact of technology and professional development on student achievement. Calverton, Md.: Macro International.

28. REFERENCES McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. 2004. Online Learning: Social Interaction and the Creation of a Sense of Community. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 73-81.Neuhauser, C. 2002. Learning Style and Effectiveness of Online and Face-to-Face Instruction, American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99-113.Nguyen, F. 2007. The effect of an electronic performance support system and training as performance interventions. PhD diss., Arizona State University, Tempe.Picciano, A.G., and J. Seaman. 2009. K-12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up of the survey of U.S. school district administrators. Boston: Sloan Consortium. http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/k-12online2008 Accessed 10-7-2011 Sethy, SatyaSundar. (2008). Distance Education in the Age of Globalization: An Overwhelming Desire towards Blended Learning Online, Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 9(3):29-44. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Washington, D.C., 2010.Zhang, D. 2005. Interactive multimedia-based e-learning: A study of effectiveness. American Journal of Distance Education 19(3): 149-62.Zhang, D., L. Zhou, R. O. Briggs, and J.F. Nunamaker, Jr. 2006. Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information and Management 43(1): 15-27.