Re: [Air-L] Using brick-space measures- Online Education Beats the Classroom
Steve brings up a good point here. During the timespan of the metastudy (1996 to 2008), Internet technology has changed greatly while traditional classroom technology has changed little. In fact, the biggest change in f2f teaching has been the increasing use of PowerPoint which probably diminished classroom interaction thus leading to less student engagement. As Steve pointed out, the new media became less like the old media and developed methods to better engage the student. Leaving out the differences in innovation makes for an unfair comparison. To me, whether online or f2f is better is a false dilemma. Online technology is valuable as a content delivery system but it is the conversations with peers and the teacher that turns information into knowledge. As I read the report, I see it as evidence that a blended learning approach is the most effective (http://thejournal.com/articles/2009/07/01/meta-analysis-is-blended-learning-...). And that fits in with my experience as both a traditional instructor and online instructor. This is an interesting study but I think the debate should be more about how learning itself has changed rather than the learnings tools have changed. Bill Brantley Credentials: http://www.linkedin.com/in/billbrantley --------------------------------------- Original E-mail From: Steve Cavrak <Steve.Cavrak@Uvm.Edu> Date: 08/20/2009 08:00 AM To: tom abeles <tabeles@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [Air-L] Using brick-space measures- Online Education Beats the Classroom On Aug 19, 2009, at 2:56 PM, tom abeles wrote:
Has anyone suggested that the brick and click comparisons may be measuring the wrong variables. with the changing nature of knowledge and knowledge acquisition? In other words are the studies measuring what could be measured using an old lens and the easiest variables to assess, like the drunk looking for keys where the light is rather than in the dark where they were dropped?
From my reading, the (meta) study was of 99 cases of a course that had two sections - an online section and a non-online section. So yes, they were measuring by the old standard, and yes, the new approach did old things better than the old way.
In someway, it addresses faculty's apprehension of "doing worse" rather "doing better." (It also illustrates the first law of "new media" - the first content of new media is old media. Once faculty get comfortable with the newer format, often they get quite innovative. And yes, as iTunes U and YouTube show, often they fossilize their old methods. Steve _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I completely agree with Bill here. The addition of online resources to existing f-t-f courses (sometimes online replacement of some f-t-f experience; usually supplementation) is the way that our Uni has gone for the last five years, and the evidence is beginning to be clear: both students and staff are finding this enriches both student experience and staff satisfaction. We are a research-intensive university with nearly 50,000 students, virtually all of whom are doing campus-based courses. University policy has been strongly supportive of online development; I am part of a well-resourced central unit that services this shift, and there are also some grants available for staff to get teaching or marking relief when they are preparing content. Some examples of things we have been able to do include support for social work and education students doing practicum work away from the campus, preparation and revision activities for field trips in environmental science and practical abattoir experience for Vet students. A lot of staff are taking advantage of the new lecture videoing system, and the videos are then available for revision and can also be edited and embedded in other learning activities in the LMS. (Video downloads are doubling every semester, but lecture attendance hasn¹t dropped significantly.) Smaller projects include online activities for tutorial and lab preparation, and resources to support the development of senior students¹ critical thinking. The pedagogical approach of each project is determined through discussion between our staff and the academic concerned to meet the needs the academic has identified. The academic provides the content; our team provides the educational framing (to match the agreed pedagogical approach) and the technical ability. Training for staff to ensure they can maintain the resource is part of each project. I get very tired of the bricks or clicks¹ discussion. Bricks and clicks are both supposed to support student learning; I¹m never clear why people continue to think of them as in opposition to each other. Here the e-learning team participates in discussions about (and sometimes drives the provision of) all new teaching and learning spaces. Mary-Helen My credentials... -- eLearning Project Manager (Sciences and Technology) Sydney eLearning Office of the DVC (Education) University of Sydney On 20/08/09 11:44 PM, "William Brantley" <wbran001@waldenu.edu> wrote:
Steve brings up a good point here.
During the timespan of the metastudy (1996 to 2008), Internet technology has changed greatly while traditional classroom technology has changed little. In fact, the biggest change in f2f teaching has been the increasing use of PowerPoint which probably diminished classroom interaction thus leading to less student engagement. As Steve pointed out, the new media became less like the old media and developed methods to better engage the student. Leaving out the differences in innovation makes for an unfair comparison.
To me, whether online or f2f is better is a false dilemma. Online technology is valuable as a content delivery system but it is the conversations with peers and the teacher that turns information into knowledge. As I read the report, I see it as evidence that a blended learning approach is the most effective (http://thejournal.com/articles/2009/07/01/meta-analysis-is-blended-learning-... ost-effective.aspx). And that fits in with my experience as both a traditional instructor and online instructor. This is an interesting study but I think the debate should be more about how learning itself has changed rather than the learnings tools have changed.
Bill Brantley Credentials: http://www.linkedin.com/in/billbrantley
---------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
mhward -
William Brantley