Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning

One of the first things that surprised me was when the study discussed how, "policy-makers reasoned that if online instruction is no worse than traditional instruction, then online education initiatives could be justified on the basis of cost efficiency." This was surprising because we are starting to see a small fragment of this thinking already at the high-school level. Not so much in the replacing of classroom teaching for self-paced online courses, but smaller steps such as finding textbooks online for students instead of purchasing hundreds of copies per year that need to be rebound again and again. Again, this is nowhere near replacing classroom teachers but it is a small step in integrating online tools as a reliable and necessary resource for future students success in certain courses.

The second thing I found surprising was in the literature review of the evidence found. They discovered that there was no experimental studies that compared the learning effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction for K-12 students from 1996 through 2006. I took an online learning course way back in 2004 and I'm sure they were being offered many years before I took one. I also know that this debate between which learning method is better has been going on for sometime now. The fact that a study wasn't conducted prior to 2006 baffles me. I see more pointless studies done by college students on the radio and TV everyday, but none thought this was a worthwhile study?

The third thing I found surprising was in the study that found online learning to be superior to classroom-based instruction in terms of declarative knowledge, however they were equivalent in terms of procedural learning. Declarative knowledge is really just the ability to regurgitate facts. No one needs a computer to do that, you can do the same with your library card, so I'm not so impressed with those findings. I believe they were found to be equivalent in terms of procedural learning (and in the long-run classroom-based is probably better for this anyway) because it is difficult to learn the details of completing a math problem, or finishing an experiment in science when the learner doesn't have their teacher there face-to-face.

Lastly, the one thing I disagree with is that online learning models using asynchronous communication tools are valuable. In my classroom, I have high expectations for my students and I expect them to reach their potential throughout the year. I measure their growth with different assessment tools and so forth. However, online courses that employ asynchronous communication don't hold students to a high standard. Instead it simply encourages them to do the bare minimum possible to receive a grade for their efforts. The idea of having the student learn at their own convenience is a novel one, however students will have difficulty pushing themselves when its much easier to provide the minimum effort possible. I can't see the value in an education model that doesn't inspire students to have a pursuit of knowledge beyond the course requirements.

NetSmartz

I think I would use this website more with my own children as they get older than with my high school students. Don't get me wrong, there are many valuable lessons in this website that my student could learn from, but many of them seem more suitable to be taught in a health class than a math class. We have a "student professional day" this year at our high school, and many of the lessons provided by this website would make for great seminars that students could attend.

Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Comments

This study examined the differences between online courses and fact-to-face instruction. Personally, I prefer face-to-face instruction because I prefer the interaction amongst class members while in the same classroom and not in a discussion room.
Since I'm a math teacher and I teach Statistics at my high school, the things I found most surprising were in the validity of the statistical tools used to measure their conclusion that online instruction was better than face-to face. The study found that students generally have a postitive attitude toward online learning, that it may also increase learning time, and thus have a positive impact on their overall learning outcomes. However at the end of the article, we learn that particpants were surveyed one year after completing the online prep program. How much can a student accurately recall after a year passes to make a sound decision as to which teaching method they prefer?

Another aspect I found surprising was how researchers boasted how online programs are designed to closely integrate coursework and fieldwork. While this may be true, I went through a face-to-face program that also closely integrated coursework and fieldwork, and I found it to be academically sound and helpful.

Lastly, at the end of the article, it states that the specific features of the online program versus the campus-based program could not be determined. They also didn't conduct statistical analyses to explore the significance of their findings, and without such their findings are suspect.

I don't doubt that some aspects of online learning may be better than campus-based programs, but this articles finding aren't statistically sound and they make a lot of generalizations without sound proof.