eLearning Courses Should (Not?) be Comparable to Pure F2F Courses
In the early days of distance learning (correspondence, traveling faculty, telecourses, etc.) the question was always, "Distance learning can't possibly be as good as face-to-face campus learning, can it?"
However, the evidence began to pile up that, measured by faculty member's own exams, distance learning courses were usually just as good (bad?) as their campus equivalents. There was 'no significant difference' in exam scores when faculty taught two version of the same course, on at a distance and another on campus, concluded hundreds of studies.
Today, that word, "comparable" is the typical goal for faculty teaching online. But is that an appropriate ideal? That's the topic explored in this paper on our web site, a version of an essay originally published in EDUCOM Review: "Access and/or Quality." The original paper was written almost a decade ago, but the argument still seems sound. In that article, I suggested that, when using technology to change teaching and learning, the results are rarely simple. Instead, it's likely that:
1. Some people will find it more difficult to take the new course while (potentially) other (and larger numbers of) people could gain access; so enrollment could go down, or up, depending on how just how the course is designed; and
2. Some elements of quality will almost always be worse, while (potentially) even more important improvements in quality can be made. Again, depending on the design, the new course might be preferable, or the new old course might be preferable.
That four-way tradeoff occurred -- some people losing access while more gained; some aspects of quality deteriorating while other facets of quality improved -- when people started using lecture halls and when they started using textbooks, too.
So, if you're going to offer a course that is substantially online, it's important to figure out ways to make that elearning experience substantially better than a form could have been offered in a traditional campus-bound format. One reason for raising your sights: there will certainly be ways in which your online course won't be as good as the 'comparable' version on campus.
The article suggests several strategies for using online media to set new standards for quality, including bringing in new people (who can be resources), new materials, new kinds of experiences, a slower and more thoughtful pace for conversation.... [In an earlier article, "New Technology, Old Trap," I was even more straightforward, arguing that lecture halls and textbooks (two older
distance learning technologies) and the emerging online technologies, all share similar weaknesses. de-emphasizing interaction. Faculty teaching at a distance and online ought to work together, I argued, to develop scalable models of interactive, effective learning that could work whether students were on campus or not)
What do you think? Is this argument sound? Are these ideas reflected in current teaching, mini-grants, faculty development, and quality assurance at your institution? Could they be?
However, the evidence began to pile up that, measured by faculty member's own exams, distance learning courses were usually just as good (bad?) as their campus equivalents. There was 'no significant difference' in exam scores when faculty taught two version of the same course, on at a distance and another on campus, concluded hundreds of studies.
Today, that word, "comparable" is the typical goal for faculty teaching online. But is that an appropriate ideal? That's the topic explored in this paper on our web site, a version of an essay originally published in EDUCOM Review: "Access and/or Quality." The original paper was written almost a decade ago, but the argument still seems sound. In that article, I suggested that, when using technology to change teaching and learning, the results are rarely simple. Instead, it's likely that:
1. Some people will find it more difficult to take the new course while (potentially) other (and larger numbers of) people could gain access; so enrollment could go down, or up, depending on how just how the course is designed; and
2. Some elements of quality will almost always be worse, while (potentially) even more important improvements in quality can be made. Again, depending on the design, the new course might be preferable, or the new old course might be preferable.
That four-way tradeoff occurred -- some people losing access while more gained; some aspects of quality deteriorating while other facets of quality improved -- when people started using lecture halls and when they started using textbooks, too.
So, if you're going to offer a course that is substantially online, it's important to figure out ways to make that elearning experience substantially better than a form could have been offered in a traditional campus-bound format. One reason for raising your sights: there will certainly be ways in which your online course won't be as good as the 'comparable' version on campus.
The article suggests several strategies for using online media to set new standards for quality, including bringing in new people (who can be resources), new materials, new kinds of experiences, a slower and more thoughtful pace for conversation.... [In an earlier article, "New Technology, Old Trap," I was even more straightforward, arguing that lecture halls and textbooks (two older
distance learning technologies) and the emerging online technologies, all share similar weaknesses. de-emphasizing interaction. Faculty teaching at a distance and online ought to work together, I argued, to develop scalable models of interactive, effective learning that could work whether students were on campus or not)
What do you think? Is this argument sound? Are these ideas reflected in current teaching, mini-grants, faculty development, and quality assurance at your institution? Could they be?
Add a Comment
© 2009 Created by Lisa Star on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
You need to be a member of TLT Group to add comments!
Join this social network