Ranting & Raving on Instructional Design, Education & Technical Training

Is the Internet Changing the Way We Learn?

I like the infographic (see below) “How the Internet is Revolutionizing Education.” It presents an interesting timeline of developments in educational delivery and provides a handy reminder of some things that I’ve forgotten with regard to trends and current industry buzz. And yes, education in all its forms is an industry and has its buzz.

First, looking at the history of distance learning and non-traditional (i.e., non-lecture/classroom) modes of content delivery, writers rarely admit anything that comes before television. Frankly, I never see radio mentioned. Maybe that’s because to most, television is the first “modern” technology. But, that said, there is a long tradition (Boston, 1728) of correspondence education that rises through the Victorian Era (University of London, 1858) that seems important in laying the groundwork of several notable non-residential K-12 programs and even, I suspect, to the acceptance of modern online universities. Perhaps not surprisingly, the British Open University is the first school on the graphic to enter the fray in the early 1970s using television as its primary mode of disseminating lectures to the masses. Funny how television never really materialized as a great training tool. In retrospect, is that surprising?

This is the first of my jogged memories from the chart:

The UO (as it is known) makes perfect sense to me but when it was tried in the US it failed miserably (not so in the UK). You can read about it here. For those of you wondering, the flip side is also true in my case: Schools like the University of Phoenix (as they currently exist) do not make perfect sense to me and yet they are thriving in the US (scroll down the chart a bit), educational bubble notwithstanding. So much for my role as an industry pundit. In ancient times I would have been stoned to death.

Overall this graphic fosters a meme that I consider somewhat dubious: the Internet is changing the way we learn. I think you have to be careful with this one. First and foremost it is probably not the case that we are learning any differently than our forefathers. It is probably the case that we utilize new and different methods for obtaining information, gathering the rudiments of new skills and assessing our mastery of a subject or topic. But beyond that the need for engagement, practice, recall and synthesis seem to be standard among members of our species. As an example of some old wine in a new bottle masquerading as a new instructional form witness the Khan Academy. Is the actual process of learning  – that is, the embedding of new knowledge or skills – any different here? Does it have to be to be important? This brings me to the second reminder:

Given the explosion in alternate forms of content delivery, I don’t know anyone who would go to a traditional college or classroom as a first choice.

Isn’t that odd? I have to confess, if I had to bone up on linear algebra or differential equations, say, I’d go to the Khan Academy (note mathematics as the example) or the Open Courseware Consortium, not to the local college. What’s that tell you about: a) my prior experience at university, b) the reputation of quality of American higher/continued education, c) the role of technology in my lifestyle, d) my lifestyle, e) the cost and accessibility of higher/continued education in America, f) the fact that too many of us have (had to) become consumer-oriented with regard to our learning (in contrast to our “certification”). Take your pick.

Interestingly, given the apparent rise of e-learning since 1999, you would think that we have a viable alternative to instructor-lead training in online web-based tutorials. On the whole nothing could be farther from the truth. Sadly, even though traditional classroom instruction might be foundering as designers search for compelling new forms to save live presentations, it’s hard to find evidence that e-learning as a genre ever succeeded in a big way. Taken as a whole completion rates for online courses are and have been deplorable, levels of engagement minimal (possibly explaining the previous point), and even when they are completed online courses don’t often meet educational objectives except in the most superficial ways when compared to control groups. E-learning does have some notable traits that distinguish it in the pantheon of educational delivery methods: it is a cost-effective way to broadcast information to a population that might have geographical and temporal constraints; and, it does drive consumers to virtual and brick-and-mortar classrooms when provided as an option.

Frankly, if I were saddled with the task of saving e-learning, I would go to YouTube.

Maybe what that says is that even though Television failed as an educational panacea in the early days of distance learning, Son of Television is back, bigger and better than ever before. But does any of this change what I have to do to learn linear algebra? Enough said.

Via: OnlineEducation.net

According to a study at North Carolina State University, the effectiveness of online training might be enhanced if online educational helpers, or avatars, closely match the student. Researchers Tara S. Behrend and Lori F. Thompson designed instructional avatars using a program called People Putty to match or contradict gender, race and teaching styles of 257 test subjects involved in an online training course. For example, subjects were asked “If you were teaching this course would you give specific directions on what to do or offer general suggestions?” Similarly, “Would you rate an individual’s performance based on how far a participant improved compared to where he or she started or relative to the performance of the entire class?” The avatars where then set in motion on the course, advising, guiding and assisting the learners according to their collected attributes. What the researchers found was a mixed bag of somewhat counter intuitive results.

“We know from existing research on human interaction that we like people who are like us. We wanted to see whether that held true for these training agents.” – Dr. Lori Foster Thompson

Measurements of enjoyment, engagement and effectiveness of the training suggest that each element has a different cause. Subjects reported being more engaged in the program when the avatar matched their race and gender. Learning, on the other hand, was enhanced when the online helper employed feedback and teaching styles more akin to that of the student. Whether this predisposition is strong enough to constitute an outright learning style remains to be seen. According the researcher Thompson:

“We found that people liked the helper more, were more engaged and viewed the program more favorably when they perceived the helper agent as having a feedback style similar to their own – regardless of whether that was actually true.”

Interestingly researchers found no link between enjoyment or overall success of educational outcome based on gender or race. Matching teaching style did, however, have a pronounced effect on performance on quizzes. What might come as the greatest surprise concerns the dominant factor affecting participants’ ratings of overall effectiveness and enjoyment. As it turns out the “perceived” similarity of the avatar is more important than the reality underlying its design.

“We found that people liked the helper more, were more engaged and viewed the program more favorably when they perceived the helper agent as having a feedback style similar to their own – regardless of whether that was actually true.” – Lori F. Thompson

What the study suggests is that perception might be more important than reality where avatar design and success of online training are concerned. In essence, if a learner believes that a particular online helper has been designed “specifically for people like you,” its effects will likely be beneficial to the outcome of the training. Regrettably from the point of view of the instructional designer and developer of the training, one-size-fits-all might be out the window:

“It is important that the people who design online training programs understand that one size does not fit all. Efforts to program helper agents that may be tailored to individuals can yield very positive results for the people taking the training.” – Lori F. Thompson

References.

Tara S. Behrend, Lori Foster Thompson, Similarity effects in online training: Effects with computerized trainer agents, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 27, Issue 3, Group Awareness in CSCL Environments, May 2011, Pages 1201-1206, ISSN 0747-5632, DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.016. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VDC-5230FHR-1/2/0510a5a803281cf536a0b381dcd2052d)

Participation in Pedagogical Agent Design: Effects on Training Outcomes, Tara S. Behrend, A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Psychology, Raleigh, North Carolina, 2009.

Although distance and online learning have become staples in today’s colleges and corporate classrooms, they are not regarded as approaches without problems. Statistics for completion of online courses are typically quoted at around 30%, leading many to conclude that the means and methods of online instruction are unappealing to the learner and less than effective for the teacher. Furthering concerns about the overall effectiveness of online instruction, a 2007 study at the University of Missouri suggests that online learning (or e-learning) may not be a good match for some learners.

“Distance learning was designed to provide learners with more opportunity and flexibility for learning. Distance learning allows the learner to overcome traditional barriers to learning such as location, disabilities, time constraints, and familial obligations. However, not every learner will be successful in a distance learning environment.”

Comparing demographic (age, gender, ethnicity, employment) and affective (personality, motivation) issues that might form barriers to learning, researcher Shawna Strickland looked at what makes some people successful at online learning while others drop out. Strickland cites some common barriers to successful online learning as:

• Lack of institutional support
• Lack of free time
• Family constraints
• Financial limitations
• Poor time management skills
• Isolation
• Anxiety and stress
• Limited prior experience
• Previous academic failure

Although no correlation with learning style was found (p. 35), Strickland notes that individual motivation and the degree to which the student accepts personal responsibility for his/her learning act as a prime factors in distinguishing the successful from the unsuccessful learners.

“…the major difference between the distance and traditional learner is the motivational level of the distance learner. A possible reason for this increased motivational level is that the learner has accepted more responsibility for the educational experience. Although the authors [see Simonson et al.] have provided rationale for this key difference, they further state that, when comparing the individual attributes of the two types of learners, they are ‘not generally different from each other.’ “

Strickland also sees communication as key to a successful outcome:

“The success of distance learning is dependent on communication between the learner, his or her peers and instructor. To encourage success within distance learning, it is necessary to evaluate each individual’s needs on a case-by-case basis. While successful learners tend to display certain traits, any adult learner with the proper motivation and preparedness could be successful in a distance learning program.”

References.

Strickland, Shawna L., “Understanding Successful Characteristics of Adult Learners,” Respiratory Care Education Annual Volume 16, Fall 2007, pp. 31-38.

Furst-Bowe, J., Dittman W., “Identifying needs of adult women in distance learning programs,” Int J Instr Media (2001) 28(4), pp. 405-413.

Mupinga, D. M., Nora, R. T., Yaw, D. C., “The learning styles, expectations and needs of on-line students,” College Teaching (2006) 54(1), pp. 185-189.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education 2nd ed., Merrill Prentice Hall (2003)

Teaching College Courses Online vs Face-to-Face

A recent report by the US Department of Education will no doubt add fuel to an already raging debate over the virtues and deficiencies of online education. Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning – A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies provides an extensive meta-analysis of data that compare the effectiveness of online versus traditional classroom approaches to instruction.

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.