Monday, June 29, 2009

Evidence handed to chirpy simpletons

"So we don't need teachers anymore. Is that it?"

Want to know the future of higher education? Well, higher ed is definitely going through some big changes, and one of them concerns the role and nature of “online instruction" (OI), a species of "distance ed."

Anyone with even an ounce of conservatism in their soul has to wonder about this shiny new mode of instruction. In some ways, it seems to offer distinct advantages as a way to ensure that students study and learn. In other ways, not so much. Cheating is a big worry.

(Several years ago, I added an "online" component to my traditional philosophy courses, and this has provided ways to increase interaction with students and compel students to study more. For instance, I find that Blackboard assignments have a huge advantage: they are utterly ruthless and unforgiving about due dates. They are the Borg.)

Naturally, a key question is: what does the evidence tell us? Scientifically, anecdotal evidence is nearly worthless. Academics, I find, are as clueless as the general population about this point. Amazing.

But good scientific studies are another matter. Better still are studies of studies, assuming the studies studied aren’t systematically flawed.

In this morning’s Inside Higher Ed (The Evidence), we learn that the U.S. Dept. of Education has just released a study regarding the efficacy of online instruction (OI). According to the study, says IHE, "students who took all or part of their instruction online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through face-to-face instruction."

Hmmm. That factoid in itself doesn't mean much. After all, the set of online students is liable to be different than the set of trad students: maybe the former are more conscentious or observant (after all, they noticed the availability of online courses)?

But it sounds like the DOE got this right. First of all, it pursued a meta-analysis. IHE explains:
A meta-analysis is one that takes all of the existing studies and looks at them for patterns and conclusions that can be drawn from the accumulation of evidence.

And DOE was careful to discriminate between studies:
On the topic of online learning, there is a steady stream of studies, but many of them focus on limited issues or lack control groups. The Education Department report said that it had identified more than 1,000 empirical studies of online learning that were published from 1996 through July 2008. For its conclusions, however, the Education Department considered only a small number (51) of independent studies that met strict criteria. They had to contrast an online teaching experience to a face-to-face situation, measure student learning outcomes, use a "rigorous research design," and provide adequate information to calculate the differences. [My emphases.]

Sounds good.

Previous studies suggested that online instruction is the equal of “face-to-face” instruction in causing students to learn. But the meta-analysis actually gives OI the edge.

The study discriminated between OI modes and found that the “use of video or online quizzes – frequently encouraged for online education – “does not appear to enhance learning,"…. Good to know.

IS IT ALL ABOUT STUDY TIME?

Check this out:
...[T]he report attributes much of the success in learning online (blended or entirely) not to technology but to time. "Studies in which learners in the online condition spent more time on task than students in the face-to-face condition found a greater benefit for online learning," the report says.
...
"Despite what appears to be strong support for online learning applications, the studies in this meta-analysis do not demonstrate that online learning is superior as a medium," the report says. "In many of the studies showing an advantage for online learning, the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages." [My emphases.]

Is this saying that, since these online courses happen (for some reason) to involve more study time (etc.) than the control trad courses, it might just be that difference, and not something intrinsic to OI, that is explaining the superiority of OI?

Not sure. Seems so.

Ed Secretary Arne Duncan is quoted as saying, “This new report reinforces that effective teachers need to incorporate digital content into everyday classes and consider open-source learning management systems, which have proven cost effective in school districts and colleges nationwide”…. Arne sounds like a politician--someone who deletes qualifiers from his/her verbiage. That's not good.

Lawrence N. Gold, director of higher education at the American Federation of Teachers, is quoted as saying something, well, wise:
"This report correctly recognizes that online learning and blended learning are growing components of higher education and, employed properly, can play a significant role in promoting student learning. Further public investment in experimentation and technology is certainly warranted…. [W]e should not take the report as saying it is simply better to move to online learning. These results demonstrate why more research is needed – broadly based research that moves well beyond case studies conducted by distance education practitioners, research focused on student retention in online environments and especially research that looks behind the instructional medium to isolate the characteristics of instruction that produce positive results. Successful education has always been about engaging students whether it is in an online environment, face to face or in a blended setting. And fundamental to that is having faculty who are fully supported and engaged in that process as well." [My emphases.]

That seems exactly right.

It’s beginning to look like we’d do best to embrace this brave new world of OI. But cautiously.

It’s always best to blend innovation ("revolution") with caution ("conservatism"), I think. What I fear is that, in this case as in so many others, we will leave out the conservatism, rapidly moving into the better world, as though we knew exactly what and where that is. And only a fool would stop for directions.

Will we once again be chirpy simpletons with garish banners and snappy slogans?

Of course!

I hate when that happens.

IHE also has an article about the feds pursuing availability of free on-line training courses:

U.S. Push for Free Online Courses
Obama administration may propose "open" classes and create "National Skills College" to coordinate offerings at high schools and community colleges. Other help for 2-year institutions may include $10 billion facilities loan fund

No comments:

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...