Does anyone know any good research reports or review articles that deal with the effectiveness of online education tools or initiatives? For instance, friend told me the The University of Illinois just invested $20 million in just trying to assess feasibility of its online education program.

So what evidence is out there right now as to whether online education tools/programs are effective or cost effective?

to my knowledge, the evidence is very mixed and still very much in flux. A few years ago when I was working up an article on liberal learning and distance education, there was much excitement over the "no significant differences" phenomenon - http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/ what I could find at the time was that students in distance classes could show greater improvement in terms of basic knowledge, etc. - but that students in seated / traditional classes showed better improvement in terms of skill _application_ and judgment, e.g.: Parker, Drew and Andrew Gemino. (2001) ŒInside Online Learning: Comparing Conceptual and Technique Learning Performance in Place-based and ALN Format¹. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (5: 2 - September 2001). <http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol5_issue2/Parker/ParkerGemino.htm> Anyone got more recent data / approaches, etc.? - c. Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies <http://www.drury.edu/gp21> Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Information Ethics Fellow, 2006-07, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee Co-chair, CATaC conferences <www.catacconference.org> Vice-President, Association of Internet Researchers <www.aoir.org> Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes <http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php> Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23

Reid: I am a producer/director by trade and by graduate school training, but I chose higher education doctorate because I am utilizing convergence as part of my job working on the Internet team for a large federal agency as a producer/podcaster. I realize that in order for me to engage in public education campaigns as I have done for 17 years that I would need a PhD in higher education to understand the nuances of higher education. One of the things that I have quickly discovered is that research universities have created much of communications technology that has created convergence (Internet, numerous software packages etc.) but has resisted until recently using full convergence in the form of interactive games, simulation models, role plays and audio/visual in all disciplines. I think that multi-media and publishing education should be mandatory because I understand and have utilized the power of mass marketing to accomplish stated objectives. I believe that if people are informed and taught about how media impacts their disciplines and their lives they will be fore-armed to resist mindless dribble when it comes from right or the left. What most people fail to realize is that academia is the last defense for civil liberties and corporate control in this nation and the world at large. If research universities do not wake up in a hurry, they will literally become wholly owned subsidiaries of the government or corporate America. The Academy must work for the people first by providing brainpower to the government and corporate America in an ethical fashion. It is clear that old model is outdated and must be changed. We keep blaming these young people for not learning what we want them to learn when it is clear to me that there are elitist individuals who want to keep people ill-informed and tragically igorant. Why else would a democratic nation experience continuously poor voter turnouts? I think open access would be the beginning of the end for many of the Wizards who are hidding behind the curtain with the knowledge. Bravo my friend for your insistence that academia stand for spreading knowledge! -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dr. W. Reid Cornwell Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 2:30 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Open access publishing (was a modest proposal) Chris, Open access with regards to publicly funded research is the "Law." It includes "all" agencies that fund research including the quasi-governmental labs like Sandia etc. (excluding those that are covered under official security restraints) I presume, we can either get aligned with this process or not get funded. Traditions be dammed. I am thrilled that this discussion is taking hold. It is precisely why I started this thread almost a year ago. This law preserves the peer reviewing process. I personally am in favor of scrapping peer review in favor an intellectual community rating system. Peer review has been used for too long as a mechanism of social control and exclusion. I frequently think of Einstein and his travails at recognition until he got a socially accepted champion. Reid -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Heidelberg, Chris Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:06 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; wrc@tcfir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Open access publishing (was a modest proposal) Reid: This letter was outstanding! It will not win praise from the publishing industry that believes that it has a divine right to control publishing in all of its forms (print,video and audio) but it really is a core democratic ideal that this nation should embrace to spur further research and to open up the mysterious world of academia to the masses. I would rather see the public have more access to this, and discuss some of this content, than the latest Paris or Brittany escapade. My research speaks to the importance of open source publishing. Google is doing us a public service on this issue regardless of how some of us may feel about their other policies. Chris Heidelberg -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dr. W. Reid Cornwell Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 12:09 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Open access publishing (was a modest proposal) Provosts Endorse : An Open Letter to the higher education committee http://www.arl.org/info/frn/other/access/FRPAAletterFinal7-24-06.pdf ________________________________ Dr. W. Reid Cornwell The Center For Internet Research P.O. Box 6369 Breckenridge, CO 720.212.0719 (phone) 970.485.5109 (mobile) wrc@tcfir.org http://tcfir.org _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/

Alex, It is my understanding 17 USC 105 was amended to expand the scope. The amendment was attached to another funding bill and I am trying to track that down. I am aware that the "Public Information in Science Act" HR 2613 is stuck in committee. Peer review as I am suggesting would not be limited to a relatively small group. I imagine that all publications could be vetted by use. That is to say in an electronic format one could see precisely how many cites refer to the article and for what points. Another imaginative approach would be to publish everything and then let the entire community of scholars vet it on several dimensions. Accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness, grammar, point made, method etc. Keep in mind I am brainstorming. What would happen if everybody on the listserv were allowed to publish what they select as there best work and then let the entire community rate it. As to Einstein, No doubt, he was often his own enemy. However old world prejudices kept his work out of circulation. It was only when they could no longer ignore him that he got recognition. The history of science is replete with stories like this. It appears that, the more revolutionary the thinking, the greater the resistance. Max Planck was fond of saying, to his colleagues and students "Do your own thinking." He was saying always question scientific and intellectual authority. He was saying that just because many people hold an idea doesn't make it right. Current practices, in my view, give too much up to conventional wisdom (even in intellectual circles). Social customs and structures tend to impede innovation and creativity. Part of my irreverence is that I understand the humanness of scientists and their jealousies and biases. Of course I can make these outstanding proposals because I am at the end of my career. I don't have the same personal concerns. Reid -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Alex Halavais Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 2:10 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; wrc@tcfir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Open access publishing (was a modest proposal) On 9/11/06, Dr. W. Reid Cornwell <wrc@tcfir.org> wrote:

Open access with regards to publicly funded research is the "Law." It includes "all" agencies that fund research including the quasi-governmental labs like Sandia etc. (excluding those that are covered under official security restraints)

Sorry, but that's simply not the case in the US, at least. I think you are thinking of 17 USC 105, which opens up documents produced by the federal government. Among a host of other exceptions, when the federal government contracts with private individuals or companies, the work may be copyrighted, and usually is.

This law preserves the peer reviewing process. I personally am in favor of scrapping peer review in favor an intellectual community rating system.

That's a good definition of peer review. Perhaps you are suggesting a different way of doing peer review. There are lots of ways to provide for such checking.

Peer review has been used for too long as a mechanism of social control and exclusion.

That's its central function. And I don't think anyone can argue that the internet means we have LESS need of filters. On the contrary, now more than ever we need ways of verifying the work of others. Google is also a mechanism of social control and exclusion. That's why we use it.

I frequently think of Einstein and his travails at recognition until he got a socially accepted champion.

That Einstein didn't happen to like peer review doesn't change its relative effectiveness. (Indeed, there have been arguments that he would have made progress more quickly had he more often engaged critical reviewers comments.) At the same time, the ramblings tens of thousands of ill-informed random quacks were filtered out. No one claims that peer review is perfect; on the contrary, I think most recognize it is broken in important respects. But it serves a vital function, and until other social processes can improve on these functions, it will continue to be employed. Unfortunately, I suspect that one of the reasons open access has been retarded so often is that many equate open access with scrapping the social technologies (like peer review) that tend to work pretty well. Note that this doesn't preclude efforts to make peer review better, and I applaud efforts like Nature's to experiment with open review (http://blogs.nature.com/nature/peerreview/trial/). And I think that Wikipedia provides a model of how open peer-review can do pretty OK, most of the time. Though Wikipedians are the first to note that it needs to be done better. More on that shortly :). - Alex -- // // This email is // [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [X] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net // _______________________________________________ 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/