So how well supported does my personal learning theory feel? For the most part, I think that most research will indicate that your learning design is more important than your tool. Of course, a lot may depend on how much research has gone into investigating a misunderstanding of the Clark/Kozma debate. I seem to remembering a few studies that were written by researchers that were convinced that the debate meant that Clark was saying that technology does not effect learning and that Kozma was saying that it does, so if a lot of people went to “prove” their misunderstanding of Kozma’s side, I might run into some extreme resistance to my theory of learning. As far as the social constructivism side, I do feel that there will be significant support for that part of my theory. Of course, there will be the resistance from the behaviorist and empirical side of the research, but that will mostly be due to differing world views of the researcher than actual lack of support (I can say that since I’m a constructivist, right?).

What research could I do to support my theory? I would probably want to look at actual results from instruction. I’m not a huge fan of standardized tests, but for now you really can’t get away from those kinds of tests. I would probably look at finding instructors who would be willing to try a social constructivist instructional design, and then compare the results from several sections of the same class (if I can find a topic with several sections). If some of the sections could be taught with a more traditional behaviorist approach and others with the constructivist approach, I could possibly compare the two sides. Of course, it may be difficult to construct an evaluation method that can equally compare such diverse design methods. Ultimately I would want to collect qualitative data that investigates perceived learning, satisfaction with learning, and other factors along those lines. The quantitative data from pre/post test or assignment scores would have some value, but I really want to know what people are thinking and feeling while learning (well, at least to the best of their ability to communicate that with me).

Lately I have been considering how I would like to change online learning to take full advantage of being online and not just being a digitized version of the F2F class. I wish there was a way to send students out on the web to read blogs and articles and Tweets about the topic of the class and then comment and discuss with people from around the world. If there was a way to collect those conversations and comments and responses and blog posts from around the web into a cohesive, branching document that allows you to follow the application and growth of the student’s thinking over time, that would be an awesome evaluation tool. I know you can copy and paste, but there should be something that collects that and puts it together into a slick, Prezi-like interface. That is my dream, at least.

Given the choice of synchronous or asynchronous tools, I am not really sure if I can say which one is “better.” Since there are effective and ineffective ways to use any tool, I would assume that we are discussing which effective uses of either form of tool is better. However, what one person considers “better at fostering learning” really would come down to what is meant by “better.” Student satisfaction with a course can foster learning, but different learners will be satisfied with different methods. So we can’t really look at learner satisfaction. So maybe we can use higher scores as evidence of “better” learning? Some would say that standardized test grades are not a good way to evaluate learning, while others think they are just fine. So we can’t really know if improved grades are due to “better” methods or just students learning how to fool tests. Philosophically, your basic views on learning would change what is “better.” A social constructivist might see the connections that students make with each other as evidence of “better” learning, where as an empiricist might go back to thinking higher grades on absolute facts proves that certain tools are “better” at fostering learning.

So I guess I would have to define first what I would think “better at foster online learning” means. But there is the problem – I don’t personally believe that one method is always “better” than the other – they both have pros and cons and really just exist as tools that should be used to support the accomplishment of learning goals. If a synchronous tool is better for a specific learning goal (such as students collaborating to formulate a group project idea), then in that instance it is “better”. If an asynchronous tool is better at a specific learning goal (such as students thinking deeply about a question and then posting a response to garner deep reflective comments from other students), then in that instance it is “better.” Ultimately, I don’t believe that one method is always “better” than the other. Maybe my years as an instructional designer have made me feel that way. Maybe it’s a bit of a relativist streak coming out. I believe that the Stodel, Thompson & MacDonald article that we read this week provides some compelling evidence for this stance. In that study, the student responses were often contradictory when examining whether asynchronous or synchronous tools were “better.” Many times, the participants would acknowledge how an asynchronous tool had both advantages and disadvantages at the same time. Stodel, Thompson & MacDonald also quoted many other studies that supported their findings.  I believe this just highlights how there is not really an overall “better” mode in all situations, but spotlights how different modes are needed to meet different specific learning outcomes.

Definition of Distance Learning:

All learning is distributed over some type of distance, whether it is the three feet between tutor and tutee, or thousands of miles between learner and distance education program. When most people think of distance learning, they are probably thinking of learning that happens when a learner is at a large enough distance away from the learning institution that a non-traditional delivery method is required.

Why have we moved so many courses online?

There are many reasons why, including convenience for students, attempts to curb costs, trying to “keep up” with other institutions that are already online, and many other logistical reasons.

As students, do you feel like online courses are as good as face-to-face courses? What are the major differences between online and FTF courses for you as a student?

I feel that there are some areas that online courses are better, and are other ways that face-to-face courses are better. They are both different. Online courses force interaction from all learners, they give you more time to develop thought in interactions, and they allow you to learn on your own time. There are other ways that face-to-face courses are better, including the face-to-face interactions, the immediate feedback, and the encouragement/competition that can come from constant interaction with others.

Whether you have taught one or not, what do you think the differences are for the instructor?

To me, the online courses feel colder and more distant. You can learn some about your students’ personalities, but not as much as in person. On the other hand, there are some students that would normally be so quite in class that you would never learn anything about that you at least get to learn a bit more than usual about. I also see many students trying to copy other’s answers and not think for themselves on projects and discussions, so you have to spend a lot more time looking for people that copy, cheat, or just try to skate by in online learning. A lot of things good and bad can be caught and dealt with easily in face-to-face situations that take a lot more time in online learning.

How do we know if the formats require different skills or result in different learning outcomes? Do we?

There are different studies that have found the possibility that there is a link between certain skills and success in online learning. But correlation does not equal causation. Ultimately, each individual student needs to know their own preferences, strengths, and weaknesses and adjust accordingly. Of course, if more students were good at that, we would not have as many issues in education in general 🙂