LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS

1
LEARNING 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)
3
no 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.

5
beyond 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)
7
learning

• 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)

9
Rourke, Anderson, Garrison Archer, 2001
10

• interaction with content

11

• course design factors to support learner
  interactions with content
• computer support for learner/content interactions

12
COURSE 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

13
COURSE 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

14
PERSONALIZATION (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

18
SURVEY 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

20
INSTRUCTOR ROLES

• Berge (1995) managerial, social, pedagogical,
  technical
• Paulson (1995) organizational, social,
  intellectual
• Rossman (1999) teacher responsibility,
  facilitating discussions, course requirements

21
teaching 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

22
changing 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

27
STUDENT 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

29
social 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)

30
participants 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
31
interaction, 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

33
virtual 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)

34
Sense 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

37
Hillman, Willis Gunawardena, 1994
38
Swan, Bowman, Vargas, Schweig Holmes, 1998/99
39

• vicarious interaction

40
Sutton, 2001
41

• summary

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.

52
Digital 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