Designed to review over 1,000 empirical studies published from 1996 to 2008, the report focuses on studies that:
(a) contrasted an online to a face-to-face condition,
(b) measured student learning outcomes,
(c) used a rigorous research design, and
(d) provided adequate information to calculate an effect size.
The meta-analysis echoes results reported earlier, namely,
“… on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction.”
The authors of the report explain their findings by noting that:
“The difference between student outcomes for online and face-to-face classes—measured as the difference between treatment and control means, divided by the pooled standard deviation—was larger in those studies contrasting conditions that blended elements of online and face-to-face instruction with conditions taught entirely face-to-face. Analysts noted that these blended conditions often included additional learning time and instructional elements not received by students in control conditions. This finding suggests that the positive effects associated with blended learning should not be attributed to the media, per se.”
A paucity of data for K-12 is noted in the findings, leading the authors to caution readers about generalizing the results to that population.
A copy of the full report in PDF format can be downloaded here.
“We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.”
Now, for the first time, neurological evidence is demonstrating that this is literally true. Data published in the June 23rd issue of Current Biology shows that when we use a tool, even for a short time, it actually modifies the brain’s body schema. That is, the brain enhances the area of its map of our body associated with the tool. As reported in Science Daily:
“‘Since the origin of the concept of body schema, the idea of its functional plasticity has always been taken for granted, even if no direct evidence has been provided until now,’ said Alessandro Farnè of INSERM and the Université Claude Bernard Lyon. ‘Our series of experiments provides the first, definitive demonstration that this century-old intuition is true.’”
A report by the British Psychological Society describes the experiment:
“After several minutes using the grasping tool, the participants subsequent reaching movements with their hand were slower to start and stop, making them longer-lasting overall, compared with before the tool use – as if their own arm was now perceived as longer. Moreover, when the participants were subsequently blindfolded and asked to point to where they’d just been touched by the researchers, on the tip of the middle finger and on the elbow, the places the participants pointed to were further apart, compared with before tool use, again suggesting that they now perceived their arm to be longer.”
Interestingly the feedback loop from man-to-tool and back again is observed. From Science Daily:
“After using a mechanical grabber that extended their reach, people behaved as though their arm really was longer, they found. What’s more, study participants perceived touches delivered on the elbow and middle fingertip of their arm as if they were farther apart after their use of the grabbing tool.
People still went on using their arm successfully following after tool use, but they managed tasks differently. That is, they grasped or pointed to object correctly, but they did not move their hand as quickly and overall took longer to complete the tasks.”
The authors of the study go on to say:
“We believe this ability of our body representation to functionally adapt to incorporate tools is the fundamental basis of skillful tool use. Once the tool is incorporated in the body schema, it can be maneuvered and controlled as if it were a body part itself.”
Further information on this study can be found here:
Cardinali, L., Frassinetti, F., Brozzoli, C., Urquizar, C., Roy, A., & Farnè, A. (2009). Tool-use induces morphological updating of the body schema. Current Biology, 19 (12) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.009
Recent talks and presentations by Google engineers on Google Wave stirred up quite a bit of anxious chatter in training and education circles. Google Wave is a novel and thought-provoking development project that addresses the question “what would email be if it were invented today?” Naturally, the Google answer is a web-based application that (maybe not so naturally) resembles a chat server on caffeinated steroids. Its strengths at threaded media-rich multi-user communication is so impressive that comments on education sites started popping almost immediately on whether the LMS is doomed and if Blackboard and Moodle have finally met their matches.
Frankly, not being a big fan of the LMS, I proffer a view more like that of Godrey Parkin:
“To corporate decision-makers, the treasure map of e-learning has an island in the centre, seductively illuminated by those clever marketing folks of the learning software industry, with a big X over the Learning Management System (LMS) right in the middle. Outside of that island is blank space populated only by ‘here be dragons’ warnings.”
And Parkin continues:
“… an LMS, as available today, is not a universal solution for a corporation’s e-learning problems. In fact, an LMS is often the albatross around the neck of progress in technology-enhanced learning.”
Indeed, the biggest problem confronted by many teachers, instructional designers and trainers is how to work within the confines of the LMS. It’s a classic tale of man serving technology rather than the other way around. Parkin feels the pain as well:
“When your concept of learning is LMS-centric, you look for opportunities to implement ‘a solution’ that conforms to that concept, and ignore or marginalize all else. An LMS is, of course, a relevant tool for certain applications. If you want to track learner activities, you need some kind of system. And if you want to make use of much of the available e-course content, you have no choice but to use an LMS – not because the learning requires it, but because the established architecture of the ‘learning supply chain’ requires it.”
When all you have is a hammer, you treat everything like it’s a nail.
“Learning Management Systems (LMS) are often viewed as being the starting point (or critical component) of any elearning or blended learning program. This perspective is valid from a management and control standpoint, but antithetical to the way in which most people learn today.”
I would add that not only is it “antithetical to the way in which most people learn today” but also antithetical to the way in which most people teach. Neither side of the educational equation is true.
Meanwhile back at the issue, it takes quite a bit of effort to slog your way through the one hour twenty minute presentation on Wave and its features. It is impressive nonetheless. As noted on bavatuesdays:
“In fact, it goes a step further and makes online conference/meeting tools like Eluminate, Adobe Connect, etc. all but irrelevant, for live video and voice can’t be far behind the instantaneous chat, document editing, map embedding, video watching, presentation sharing, and on and on and on.”
Is Google to be the next international online University? Maybe. The problem though is that this is all being orchestrated by an advertising agency. The open web, with it potential for open learning, might very well be the Google version of the open web. Jim Groom at bavatuesdays goes on:
“I still have no doubt that David Wiley’s assessment is right on, especially given the API will soon be unleashed upon an open web full of developers. I know that Google didn’t re-invent the LMS quite as I joked, but what they did is actually make it all but irrelevant by re-imagining email and integrating just about every functionality you could possibly need to communicate and manage a series of course conversations through an application as familiar and intimate as email. Genius, horrifying, but genius.”
A glimmer of hope remains however. Google promises to release the software into the public domain so that anyone will be able to operate their own Wave server. The API will also be published for developers to expand upon. And, hopefully, someone will attend to the matter of content which is where all too often the process breaks down anyway.
I think it was Donald Norman in “The Invisible Computer” who pointed out that as technologies get more and more common, and perhaps accepted, they recede into the background of our lives and become invisible. Witness the electric motor in the 19th century and the microprocessor in the 20th. (How many microprocessors do you have in your life today?)
Are we witnessing a similar “technology blindness” to the web browser? Is Internet connectivity and usage so ubiquitous that average users take it for granted? A recent survey by Google, reported at TheNextWeb.com, suggests that the average American (almost 92%) do not know what a web browser is and cannot contrast it to a search engine (like Yahoo, Bing, Cuil). Whether this has ramifications on Web 2.0 and education remains to be seen.
In case you’re wondering, people are spending more time in front of more screens as sources of information and entertainment. Research conducted at Ball State University used a novel combination of technologies to monitor and measure the media Americans are using and for what purposes.
The data followed 476 participants and resulted in 952 observed days of recorded media usage. The study takes an unbiased look at what technologies Americans are using and does not delve into effects of particular media. The Video Consumer Mapping Study, as it is called, noted some surprising findings:
TV users were exposed to, on average, 72 minutes per day of TV ads and promos—dispelling a commonly held belief that modern consumers are channel-hopping or otherwise avoiding most of the advertising in the programming they view.
Despite the proliferation of computers, video-capable mobile phones, and similar devices, TV in the home still commands the greatest amount of viewing, even among those ages 18-24; thus, in the eyes of the researchers, appearing to dispute a common belief that Internet video and mobile phone video exposure among that group (and the next one up, ages 25-34) were sizeable in 2008.
Rather than young people and retirees, consumers in the 45-54 age group average the most daily screen time, just over 9½ hours. The average for all other age groups is strikingly similar at roughly 8½ hours—although the composition and duration of devices used by the groups during the day varied.
Even in major metropolitan areas where commute times can be long and drive-time radio remains popular, computing has replaced radio as the No. 2 media activity. Radio is now No. 3 and print media fourth.
Contrary to some recent popular media coverage suggesting that more Americans are rediscovering “free TV” via the Internet, computer video tends to be quite small with an average time of just two minutes (a little more than 0.5 percent) a day.
Early DVR owners spent much more time with DVR playback than newer DVR owners. At the same time, DVR playback was even more likely than live TV to be the sole medium.
“Environmental” exposure outside the home, while still relatively small at just 2.8 percent of total video consumption today, could nearly double during the next few years.
A tables of results for “Average Daily Minutes of Media Consumption: Means Including Zero” can be found here.
SAGE is a free open source package designed for symbolic mathematics. It should be useful for instructors and students who need to apply tools and techniques more commonly found in programs like MatLab, MathCAD and Mathematica.
“Sage can be used to study general and advanced, pure and applied mathematics. This includes a huge range of mathematics, including algebra, calculus, elementary to very advanced number theory, cryptography, numerical computation, commutative algebra, group theory, combinatorics, graph theory, exact linear algebra and much more. It combines various software packages and seamlessly integrates their functionality into a common experience. It is well suited for education, studying and research.
The interface is a notebook in a web-browser or the command-line. Using the notebook, Sage connects either locally to your own Sage installation or to a Sage server on the network. Inside the Sage notebook you can create embedded graphics, beautifully typeset mathematical expressions, add and delete input, and share your work across the network.”
