Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Learning: A Comparative Investigation of the Effectiveness of Learner Achievement and Fa

1. Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Learning: A Comparative Investigation of the Effectiveness of Learner Achievement and Faculty Time Demands Steven G. Lesh, PhD, PT, SCS, ATC Southwest Baptist University Lary C. Rampp, PhD, EdD, EdS RidgeCrest Learning, Inc.

2. Educational Technology Opportunity or Scourge? Increased feasibility of ALN Increased practicality of ALN 50% of incoming college freshmen regularly use a personal computer Hodgkinson, H. R. (2000, October). Keynote address. Paper presented at 2000 Annual Conference of the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, Las Vegas, NV.

3. Literature & Web-Based Learning Lots of it...but very few good quality ones! Outcomes for student satisfaction The majority of the responses were positive about the asynchronous learning experience, however, students appeared to prefer a face-to-face instruction mode (Shaw and Pieter, 2000) Outcomes for student achievement No Significant Difference Russell (1999) Clark (1983, 1985, 1991)

4. Literature & Web-Based Learning Hold on a minute... Outcomes for cost effectiveness Not as much info to find! -Drexel Univ: no online courses to approximately 140 courses with no face-to-face interaction in 5 years (single case study by Gregory Hislop, 1999) -Cardinal Stritch Univ: faculty time demands would be 3 - 5 times over that of traditional lecture preparation (William Frantz, 1999) -Palloff and Pratt (1999) claim 3x greater faculty time demands for delivery web-based learning

5. Web-Based Cost Effectiveness How will you measure it? Faculty work loads, cost of technology, building costs, recruiting costs, marginal operating costs, and start up costs (Hislop, 1999) Other issues Learning curve for new technologies Technological turn over

6. Purpose of Presentation Multi-Level Evaluation of Effectiveness Compare the time expenditure by the instructor to develop and deliver learning experiences in both synchronous and asynchronous courses Compare achievement levels in same courses

7. Methodology That research stuff! -Upper level collegiate health care administration course -Designed two like courses with same instructional design -Students self selected enrollment -Pre & post course test of knowledge -Track time investment of faculty member

8. Instructional Design Do not confuse the mode of delivery with style of delivery! One course F2F... one course Web-based The following were identical in content Required readings Scaffolding mini-lectures Scaffolding stimulus learning questions Case based inquiry Capstone course project

9. Instructional Design Tried to hold everything constant...but The following were a bit different Course length Communication tools utilized WebCourse-in-a-box for Web-based course Instructor led for F2F course

10. The Results Achievement...no real surprise! No significant difference Pre course test of knowledge Mean = 78.55, sd = 12.36, n = 11 for web-based Mean = 83.76, sd = 9.69, n = 14 for F2F Post course test of knowledge Mean = 159.18, sd = 13.13 Mean = 164.79, sd = 11.32 ANCOVA F = .699, df = 2, p = ns

11. The Results How hard did the faculty member work? All time was catalogued relate to designing, developing and delivering each course EXPERIENCED faculty member Used courseware previously Completed PhD through Web-Based program Earned Certificate in Distance Learning Courses in Online Assessment & Online Instructional Design

12. So how long did it take? Time divided into teaching events Ten Specific Teaching Events <Course administration <Unit development <Syllabus development <Test development <E-mail <In class <Web-posting <Grading <Proctoring exams <Meet with students

13. Major Differences Table in handouts Totals <Web-based 68 events Taking 3760 total minutes to complete Averaging 55.29 minutes per event (sd = 38.43) <Lecture-based (or F2F) 67 events Taking 4395 total minutes to complete Averaging 65.60 minutes per event (sd = 43.38)

14. Web-based Instructor Time Demands In Class (0.00%) Meet with Students (4.39%) Course Administration (8.51%) Proctoring Exams (5.19%) Unit Development (10.90%) Grading (9.31%) Syllabus Development (4.79%) Test Development (6.78%) E-mail (5.59%) Web Posting (44.55%)

15. F2F Instructor Time Demands Course Administration (3.53%) Unit Development (9.33%) Syllabus Development (4.10%) Test Development (5.80%) In Class (40.96%) E-mail (8.53%) Web Posting (0.00%) Meet with Students (0.68%) Grading (22.98%) Proctoring Exams (4.10%)

16. Another way to look at it • 2 Credit hour undergraduate course • web-based • 63.17 hours to design, develop & deliver • F2F • 73.75 hours to design, develop & deliver • Statistical Significance • ANOVA for all instructional events • F = 2.135, df = 1, p = ns

17. Important things to remember This looked at one experienced instructor Best Practices used produced comparable results <Required readings <Scaffolding mini-lectures <Scaffolding stimulus learning questions <Case based inquiry <Capstone Course project Size of Class (web-based or F2F impacts time demands of faculty)

18. Limitations Take the good with the bad... Student Achievement <Quasi experimental design (non randomized) <Sample size is one of convenience <Marginally acceptable power of 50% (0.05 level) Faculty Workload Issues <Single Case Study of an experienced ALN Instructor

19. What do we need more of? What do we need less of??? Research - best practices in ALN Research - content that is best suited for ALN Research - cost effectiveness Web-based is not a cure all, rather one mode of delivery <Do we really need to compare F2F to ALN to prove one is better than the other?

20. More Wisdom... Ben Franklin If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing!

21. Thanks for your Attention! Enjoy your time in DC