US DOE Report

In a recent conversation with an instructor, I indicated my strong feeling that students in an online environment have greater opportunity to achieve course objectives more completely than traditional face-to-face instruction. Today, the US Department of Education released an analysis of blended and online education as compared to traditional education. At face value, its key findings indicate:

1. "Learning outcomes for students who engaged in online learning exceeded those of students receiving face-to-face instruction, with an average effect size of +0.24 favoring online conditions."



2. "Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction."
   

The press release states "the studies of more recent online instruction included in this meta-analysis found that, on average, online learning, at the post-secondary level, is not just as good as but more effective than conventional face-to-face instruction."

Upon a more thorough analysis, I am certain we will find some concerns with the reported findings. As a community of practitioners it is important for us to evaluate these findings and compare them to our own research and experience.

• What does this mean for you?
• Your school?
• Your students?
• The future of online education?

The significance of the US Department of Education's support of online education is not to be overlooked. In my opinion, it is one more indication of online education's maturation and acceptance.

The full report can be found at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Matters of Perspective

I will be the first to admit my relatively novice status in the realm of educational theory and instructional design. And, of course, the more I learn, the less I know. However, reading the 2007 posts by Bill Kerr and Karl Kapp regarding learning theory was refreshing, comforting, and encouraging.

• Refreshing because their discussion is accessible, well structured, and less academic;
• Comforting because the struggle over the _ism gap is nothing new … we are still talking about it, and likely will be for years. It’s like an MC Escher sketch. From one point of view, the theories are miles apart; from another they support and build upon each other;
• Encouraging because they reinforce my own thoughts about the role of _isms in education.

I find the tension that fills the space between cognitivism and behaviorism buzzing with possibility. And I certainly don’t think behaviorism has been left on the side of an old country road, while the rest of the _isms cruise merrily along our beloved internet super highway. To continue the metaphor, I believe they all belong in a Prius, zipping down the HOV lane. Or, as Karl Kapp writes:

“What we need to is take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners.”
- Out and About: Discussion on Educational Schools of Thought

Now, to answer Bill’s question from the preamble to his post: “What do we do about these _isms?”

We need them.

Most importantly, as Bill writes and like Kuhn’s (1996) thoughts on scientific paradigm shift, we have to discuss where we are, where we have been, and where we need to go in order to create necessary revolution. To do that efficiently, we must symbolize, label, and define. We must stake our tents, raise our flags, and fling our arrows until the dust clears and a new camp has formed.

As Huett, Moller, Foshay, and Coleman write:

"It is incumbent upon all professionals with a commitment to the potential of technology in education and training, no matter what their theoretical or ideological bent, to think outside the box, to collaborate and to advance the common vision"

References
Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The university of Chicago press. (Original work published 1962)
Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Coleman, C (2008) The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web. TechTrends 52(5), 63-67.

This I believe … the learning version …

(Not related or to be confused with the fantastic "This I Believe" essay and radio series.)

As I return to the blog-o-sphere from my hiatus, it seemed appropriate to begin with where I stand (or sit) on learning, theory, and educational technology. In the past year, I have spent time studying Illich, Vygotsky, Bandura, Selman, Skinner, and Siemens. What I find interesting, is the interrelated threads woven throughout the broad spectrum of these theorists. However, before I talk about them, I want to talk about my beliefs. I have neither the years of experience nor the degrees of the aforementioned theorists. I have some experience (about 10 years), a couple of diplomas, and my opinions. So, without further a due, this I believe. I believe …

• People learn best when they are interested in what they study.
  
• People learn best when they have dedicated time to study, to explore, to create, and to share.
  
• People learn best when they share their learning with others who are interested.
  
• People learn best when they leave their egos aside and relish in exposing their ignorance.
  
• People learn best when they can access information in just the way they want to.
  
• People learn best when they have the freedom to express their knowing in many different ways.
  
• People learn best when they leave their comfort zone, and are appropriately challenged.
  
• People learn best when they have someone who cares if they are learning.
  
• People learn best when they can laugh.
  

So … what does that, have to do with the theorists, learning theory, and educational technology (an area of personal exploration and study)? For someone unconcerned with the inner-sanctum of education and learning (otherwise known as academia), a list similar to the one above may be all they need, or likely care about, regarding learning theory. However, for those of us attempting to decipher how to improve the world through researching and implementing a better understanding of how and why people learn, the above list feels nice but is not sufficient. We want and need more.

So, we create detailed learning theories full of "constructs linking observed changes in performance with what is thought to bring about those changes" (Driscoll, 2005, p. 9). The four biggest players on the scene are, of course, behaviorism, constructivism, cognitivism, and connectivism. (I am not going to explore these here, but if you would like to read check out this site, and this one.)

For educational technology use, learning theories still act as a guide for instructors, administrators, and course designers. Driscoll's (2005) three basic components (results, means, and inputs) can all be utilized; however, they inherit a new specificity. The following are built on what she writes in Psychology of Learning for Instruction (p. 9):

• Results: How are the changes in performance explained by the theory related to educational technology?
  
• Means: Does educational technology facilitate the processes through which the results are created?
  
• Inputs: Can educational technology activate the required processes?
  

Correctly adopted, learning theories help steer faculty members and administrators toward the effective use of educational technology for content delivery, assessment, and feedback.

References
Dirscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson. (Original work published 1995)

Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educator and designers [Paper presented to ITFORUM]. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http:/​/​it.coe.uga.edu/​itforum/​Paper105/​Siemens.pdf