Summarizing E-Learning Research and Best Practices for Higher Education

1. Summarizing E-Learning Research and Best Practices for Higher Education Curt Bonk, Indiana University (and CourseShare.com) cjbonk@indiana.edu http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk

2. Ok, What Does the Research Say???

4. Tons of Recent Research Not much of it ...is any good...

5. What’s the Basic DL Finding? Research since 1928 shows that DL students perform as well as their counterparts in a traditional classroom setting. Per: Russell, 1999, The No Significant Difference Phenomenon (5th Edition), NCSU, based on 355 research reports. http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/

6. It is Flawed! • lack of control groups • nonrandom assignment to groups • questionable validity • anecdotal • limited to certain educational environments • Flaws in research designs - Only 36% have objective learning measures - Only 45% have comparison groups • (The Report, 1999; Wisher et al., 1999).

7. More Flaws!!! • Impact of individual not multiple technologies. • Fails to consider learning styles & indiv diffs (e.g., self-efficacy, motivation, gender). • Lack reliable and valid testing instruments. • Does not address higher dropout rates. • Generally lacks theoretical grounding. • (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999; Phipps & Merisotos, 1999; Wisher et al., 1999).

8. Electronic Conferencing: Quantitative Analyses • Usage patterns, # of messages, cases, responses • Length of case, thread, response • Average number of responses • Timing of cases, commenting, responses, etc. • Types of interactions (1:1; 1: many) • Data mining (logins, peak usage, location, session length, paths taken, messages/day/week), Time-Series Analyses (trends)

9. Electronic Conferencing: Qualitative Analyses • General: Observation Logs, Reflective interviews, Retrospective Analyses, Focus Groups • Specific: Semantic Trace Analyses, Talk/Dialogue Categories (Content talk, q’ing, peer fdbk, social acknowledgments, off task) • Emergent: Forms of Learning Assistance, Levels of Questioning, Degree of Perspective Taking, Case Quality, Participant Categories

10. Research on Instructors Online • Constantly shifting roles • (Rice-Lively, 1994) • Host: Connects people on fringes of party • (Rogan & Denton, 1996) • Four Key Acts of Instructors: • pedagogical, managerial, technical, and social • (Ashton, Roberts, & Teles, 1999) • Instructors Tend to Rely on Simple Tools • (Peffers & Bloom, 1999) • Job Varies--Plan, Interaction, Admin, Tchg • (McIsaac, Blocher, Mahes, & Vrasidas, 1999)

11. Instructor as Facilitator • Minor changes moderating = great diff in interaction • (Howell-Richardson & Mellar, 1996) • Informal, exploratory conversation fosters risktaking & knowledge sharing • (Weedman, 1999) • Conversational instructional style produces higher and more complex participation • If teacher-centered, less explore, engage, interact • (Peck, and Laycock, 1992) • Student interaction & instructor monitoring produced most favorable student evals • (Rada, 1998)

12. Network Conferencing Interactivity(Rafaeli and Sudweeks, 1997) 1. > 50 percent of messages were reactive. 2. Only around 10 percent were truly interactive. 3. Most messages factual stmts or opinions 4. Many also contained questions or requests. 5. Frequent participators more reactive than low. 6. Interactive messages more opinions & humor. 7. More self-disclosure, involvement, & belonging. 8. Attracted to fun, open, frank, helpful, supportive environments.

13. Interaction Research Findings • High level of mutual support • including acknowledgments • encouragement • personal information and feelings • Metainteraction: In effect, these online conferences blended both cognitive and interactive acts. • Avoid peer controversy & critical attitudes • Need intersubjectivity online wherein participants agree, disagree, challenge, & negotiate. • Bakardjieva and Harasim (1999)

14. Critical Thinking(Newman, Johnson, Webb, and Cochrane, 1997) Used Garrison’s five-stage critical thinking model • Critical thinking in both CMC and FTF envir. • Depth of critical thinking higher in CMC envir. • More likely to bring in outside information (personal experience, course materials, etc.), • Link ideas and offer interpretations, • Generate important ideas and solutions. • FTF settings were better for generating new ideas and creatively exploring problems. • May be even more evident in case studies, debates, symposia, role play, voting, etc.

15. Social Construction of Knowledge(Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson, 1997) • Five Stage Model 1. Share ideas, 2. Discovery of Idea Inconsistencies, 3. Negotiate Meaning and Areas of Agreement, 4. Test and Modify, 5. Phrase Agreements • In global debate, students very task driven. • Dialogue remained at Phase I with the sharing of info, not negotiating, constructing, of knowledge • Replicated in follow-up study of 25 managers • (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998).

16. Collaborative Behaviors(Curtis and Lawson, 1999) • Most common were: (1) Planning, (2) Contributing, and (3) Seeking Input. • Other common events were: (4) Initiating activities, (5) Providing feedback, (6) Sharing knowledge • Few students challenge others or attempt to explain or elaborate • Recommend: using debates and modeling appropriate ways to challenge others

17. The Focus Should Shift from whether it makes a difference to where it makes a difference • Phipps & Merisotis (1999) One common finding—online courses need sensible pedagogical approaches that allow students opportunities to communicate their learning • Sloan Center for Asynchronous Learning Environments (SCALE) at the University of Illinois can be reduced to (Arwan, Ory, Bullock, Burnaska, & Hanson, 1998)

18. Bonk’s Research

19. Asynchronous Possibilities 1. Link to peers and mentors. 2. Expand and link to alternative resources. 3. Involve in case-based reasoning. 4. Connect students in field to the class. 5. Provide e-mail assistance. 6. Bring experts to teach at any time. 7. Provide exam preparation. 8. Foster small group work. 9. Engage in electronic discussions & writing. 10. Structure electronic role play.

20. Pedagogical Actualities • Teacher-Created Cases • Student-Created Cases • Online Mentoring • Starter-Wrapper Discussions • Field Reflections • Reading Reactions • Debates (Teacher and Student Created) • Critical Friend Activities • Web Buddies • Synchronous Group Problem Solving

21. E-Learning Vision and Goals? • Making connections through cases. • Appreciating different perspectives. • Students as teachers. • Greater depth of discussion. • Fostering critical thinking online. • Interactivity online.

23. Quantitative Methods Average results for prior to TITLE (TITLE): • Participants per semester: 130 (>300) • Cases per semester: 230 (624) • Cases per student: 1.75 (same 1.80) • Average responses per case: 4.5 (3.9) • Average words per case: 100-140 (198)

24. Frequent Case Topics

25. Overall Major Findings • COW enhanced student learning • provided a link between classroom and field • encouraged learning about technology • COW extended student learning • students got feedback from outside their immediate community • students saw international perspective • COW transformed student learning • students took ownership for learning • students co-constructed knowledge base

26. Research on Starter-Wrapper Technique Graduate Class

27. Surface Processing making judgments without justification, stating that one shares ideas or opinions already stated, repeating what has been said asking irrelevant questions i.e., fragmented, narrow, and somewhat trite. In-depth Processing linked facts and ideas, offered new elements of information, discussed advantages and disadvantages of a situation, made judgments that were supported by examples and/or justification. i.e., more integrated, weighty, and refreshing. Surface vs. Deep Posts

28. Army Research Project: Blended E-LearningOverall frequency of interactions across chat categories (6,601 chats).

29. Findings from the Qualitative Analysis • U.S. students more action-oriented and pragmatic in seeking results or giving solutions. • Finnish students were more group focused as well as reflective and theoretically driven. • Korean students were more socially and contextually driven.

30. Tasks Overwhelm Confused on Web Too Nice Due to Limited Share History Lack Justification Hard not to preach Too much data Communities not easy to form Train and be clear Structure time/dates due Develop roles and controversies Train to back up claims Students take lead role Use Email Pals; set times and amounts Embed Informal/Social E-LearningProblems and Solutions

31. Shy open up online Minimal off task Delayed collab more rich than real time; discussion extends Students can generate lots of info Minimal disruptions Extensive E-Advice Excited to Publish Use async conferencing Create social tasks Use Async for debates; Sync for help, office hours (use both to reflect) Structure generation and force reflection/comment Foster debates/critique Find Practitioners/Experts Ask Permission E-LearningBenefits and Implications

32. Survey: 222 College Faculty(Early Adopters of the Web)

33. Any Online Teaching Experiences?

34. Is Teaching Online Time-Consuming?

36. Courseware Features Like with Current Tool • Comprehensive, consistent, customizable • Ease of use, flexible, reliable • Data and course security • Detailed statistics on bulletin board use • Good online help • Internal e-mail systems, drop boxes, chats • Posting of tasks & due dates on Web • Randomized test banks

37. What Percent of Time Teach Online?

38. Any Obstacles to Teaching Online?

39. Administrative: “Lack of admin vision.” “Lack of incentive from admin and the fact that they do not understand the time needed.” “Lack of system support.” “Little recognition that this is valuable.” “Rapacious U intellectual property policy.” “Unclear univ. policies concerning int property.” Pedagogical: “Difficulty in performing lab experiments online.” “Lack of appropriate models for pedagogy.” Time-related: “More ideas than time to implement.” “Not enough time to correct online assign.” “People need sleep; Web spins forever.” Problems Faced

40. What Instructional Activities are Needed?

41. Best of Online Pedagogical Strategies…

42. Online Strategies(Karen Lazenby, University of Pretoria, Nov., 2001) • Limit lecturing online—promote self-directed learning • Set clear rules for posting and interaction • Explain tasks and overlooked info. • Let learners synthesize key points. • Publish best work of students (with permission) • Involve participation from outside experts

43. Changing Role of the TeacherThe Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001) • From oracle to guide and resource provider • From providers of answers to expert questioners • From solitary teacher to member of team • From total control of teaching environment to sharing as a fellow student • From provider of content to designer of learning experiences.

44. Key Skills or Attributes (scale 0-3)The Online Teacher, TAFE, Guy Kemshal-Bell (April, 2001) • Ability to provide effective online fdbk (2.86) • Ability to engage the learner (2.84) • Ability to provide direction and support (2.82) • Skills in online listening (2.76) • Ability to use email effectively (2.70) • Ability to motivate online learners (2.66) • Positive attitude to online teaching (2.66) • Skills in effective online questioning (2.65)

45. Knowledge Sharing & ConstructionE-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, (Gilly Salmon, (1999) Kogan Page) • Be an equal participant in the conference. • Provide sparks or interesting comments. • Avoid directives and right answers. • Acknowledge all contributions. • Weave, summarize, and model discussion. • Support others for e-moderator role. • Reward knowledge construction & accomplishments. • Be tolerant of twists in the discussion.

46. Pedagogical Recommendations(Berge, 1995, The role of the online instructor/facilitator) • Don’t expect too much/thread • Draw attention to conflicting views • Do not lecture (Long, coherent sequence of comments yields silence) • Request responses within set time • Maintain non-authoritarian style • Promote private conversations

47. Little or no feedback given Always authoritative Kept narrow focus of what was relevant Created tangential discussions Only used “ultimate” deadlines Provided regular qual/quant feedback Participated as peer Allowed perspective sharing Tied discussion to grades, other assns. Used incremental deadlines Dennen’s Research on Nine Online Courses (sociology, history, communications, writing, library science, technology, counseling) Poor Instructors Good Instructors

48. Web-Based Resources(Oliver & McLoughlin, 1999) • URL Postings in Dynamic Database (for inquiry) • Electronic Discussions (to see ideas unfold) • Debates (submit arguments in a public space) • Personal Reflections (encourage to rebut/refute) • Concept Maps (see relationships) • Nominal Group Process (to gain consensus) • Survey (can aggregate student responses)

49. Pedagogical Techniques of CMC(Paulsen, 1995, The Online Report on Pedagogical Techniques for Computer-Mediated Communication) • Collective databases • Informal socializing (online cafes) • Seminars (read before going online) • Public tutorials • Peer counseling • Simulations, games, and role plays • Forum • Email interviews • Symposia or speakers on a theme • The notice board (class announcements)

50. Synchronous ConsiderationsJennifer Hoffman, ASTD, Learning Circuits, (2001, March) • Log on early; students come 15 minutes early. • Do tech checks of microphones (sound check). • Check to see if students brought needed items • Welcome to the session/class; explain goals; ask for feedback on goals. • Vary instructional strategies; max interactivity • Make it visual—color, sound, animation • A “Do Not Disturb” sign & be near a restroom; pitcher of water