Teaching with Technology

My inclination was to title this final edition of the knowledge-building assignment, “Dismantle the Classrooms?” Because it is the finding of this article from the most recent edition of JOLT that while online or classroom instruction yields no different outcomes for undergraduate students, in the case of graduate instruction online instruction yields “a significant difference between the groups quality of work” with the higher quality work occurring in the online sections. This finding is consistent with a recent SRI study performed for the U.S. Department of Education that concluded “On average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction.”

In this study the course content was psychology. The authors of this study point out that what is important to realizing educational outcomes is not the media but the instructional methods employed. In the classroom (face to face) setting these included small group discussions, and asynchronous small group discussions in the online section. For example for a short story analysis the classroom group brought their papers to class and viewed a Power Point presentation providing new content, then engaged in 30-45 minute group discussions prior to writing a second in-class analysis in the same class (this was a 3 hour weekly class period). For the online section the assignment was similar with students required to participate each day for three days in facilitated asynchronous discussion groups prior to submitting a second paper.

The OL graduate students scored significantly higher in two of four assignments, one of which occurred at the beginning of the semester and one at the end of the semester. There were no significant differences between the two groups’ score on the two assignments in the middle of the semester. (The foregoing description was one of the assignments for which the online students scored higher than students in the classroom. Is it really so surprising that students spending three days thinking about a topic might then write more insightful essays about it, and are these truly “comparable” instructional approaches?). The authors conclude:

Because of the results of this study, and others like it, online instructors should focus on providing high
quality instruction for online learners. Interaction among the learners and with the instructor is important
in face-to-face and online formats. Active learning, application of knowledge; effective interaction;
facilitation of self-regulation and self-efficacy; and high expectations are all important methods of
instruction.

This article points to one of the framing questions for our course: how we prepare students to learn and succeed in a world that does not yet exist. As educators can we ignore evidence that perhaps the best setting for that learning to occur is somewhere other than within the classrooms we have built (or are in the process of building)? Of one thing we can be certain: the providers of online education will not be silent on this question. What might these findings mean for residential colleges and universities in the long term? And in the digital age, how long might it take for the “long term” in this case to manifest itself?

Dismantle the classrooms? And the parking decks, and the residence halls, and the hotel/conference center? Let’s hope not because we’re in the process of building those at Mason!

Source: Cindy Ann Dell, C. Low, J.F. Wilker, “Comparing Student Achievement in Online and Face-to-Face Class Formats,” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 6, No. 1 (March 2010): 30-42.