next »

[sanjoaquin]

Call me a preacher for the liberal arts experience.  I love the idea of giving students a broad, deep, critical education, in whatever medium they might find most convenient and accessible.  May I make an impassioned plea for valuing diversity here, or are we only willing to acknowledge that with regard to our students' skin color and ethnic background?

Anyone on here want to do some research on the differences in outcomes between online and onground classes?  I'd like to see some data to evaluate these comparisons.  Random sample of institutions, etc....?  That would be fun!  And it would help us respond on the basis of information rather than belief.

San Joaquin
(although not really a saint...okay, not even close)

[zharkov]

Anyone on here want to do some research on the differences in outcomes between online and onground classes?  I'd like to see some data to evaluate these comparisons.  Random sample of institutions, etc....?  That would be fun!  And it would help us respond on the basis of information rather than belief.

I expect that there will eventually be quasi-standardized testing of college grads, as suggested in the Spellings report, and encourged (as in required) by the regional accreditors.  When that happens, discussions about the outcomes of traditional vs. online education will become based on data, not on assumptions about which approach is effective or not.

[twofish]

Anyone on here want to do some research on the differences in outcomes between online and onground classes?  I'd like to see some data to evaluate these comparisons.

The trouble with quantitative studies is that there are too many variables and differences between and within groups to make it easy to do these studies.  At it's best quantitative studies can provide some real insights, but I've also found that there is often the "cult of the number" people keeps people from looking at these studies critically and realizing their limitations.  (Define what constitutes a good outcome for example.)

Random sample of institutions, etc....?  That would be fun!  And it would help us respond on the basis of information rather than belief.

It's not what don't know that kills you.  It's what you think you know that isn't, and one thing that annoys me is how numbers make people shut off their brains sometimes.

Just to give one of fifty problems in designing the study.  A random sample of ten institutions giving online education is already statistically different from a random sample of ten that don't.

One big problem is that people think in terms of "online vs. traditional" as polar opposites and that is a horrible way to think about it.  Another problem is that people mistake "traditional" with "physical."  Another problem is that people use the term traditional, not realizing that the American university in its current form dates only from the 1960's.

[twofish]

I expect that there will eventually be quasi-standardized testing of college grads, as suggested in the Spellings report, and encourged (as in required) by the regional accreditors.  When that happens, discussions about the outcomes of traditional vs. online education will become based on data, not on assumptions about which approach is effective or not.

I don't think so.  The problem with quasi-standardized testing is that they give you the dangerous illusion that you think you know what is happening, but they often do not provide near enough data to understand what is going on at a deep level.  The cult of the number strikes again.

Part of it that I come from a physics background, and I'm shocked sometimes at how numbers are misused in the social sciences.  There is often a scary lack of critical thinking about where the number comes from and what it really means. 

[twofish]

I'll play play devil's advocate and say that people who are criticizing traditional colleges and universities are taking the path of criticizing what they see TODAY TODAY TODAY.

The problem is that at universities there is often a huge resistance to any deep thinking on real change.  The things that people end up talking about are minor fixes, because it is human nature not to want to change things in a big way, unless there is a crisis.

I teach chemistry and I don't see the chemistry lab portion of the general chemistry classes going away for quite some time. Pushing the buttons in a virtual lab is not the same experience as using the equipment and mixing the chemicals together.

Yup.  However, here one has to make a distinction between "traditional" and "physical."  The direction that I'd like to move physics education would be to have people spend most of their time in a lab, and as little time as possible in the classroom.  Also, the labs would be structured so that the student would be doing "real research" not trying to solve toy problems.  It wouldn't be "online" although it would have an online component, but it wouldn't be "traditional" either.

The students need to be in a setting with supervision and other students. they need to learn to fix their mistakes and to help each other.

Yup.  That's the key.

And as for content delivery, the current platforms need serious work. We also need better and cheaper access to broadband.

The big mistake that people make is to focus on the technology.  In truth, the technology is only an enabler.  The key is to create the social structures needed for learning, and there are a lot of subtle ways for this to happen.

For example, one thing that would be really useful is for me to see a remote student in high definition even if they aren't saying anything verbally.  Without that feedback, I don't see the look of confusion or non-confusion.  It's much less important that the student see my facial expression.  Also, current systems are limiting because they don't allow people to move around.  When I'm explaining something on a chalkboard, I need to move, to create hand gestures, to draw large pictures on a wall.  This sort of stuff can be delivered over the internet, it's just a matter of figuring out how.

Here is another example.  After class, student A talks to the random student B sitting next to him, and complains that the lecture is totally awful and the professor is incompetent.  Student B reacts with a set of verbal and facial expressions that conveys very complex bits of information.  Random student C comes in and joins in the conversation.

How do you replicate this social interaction online?  I'm sure it can be done, but we are at the very early stages of figuring out how to do that.

[j_source]

I expect that there will eventually be quasi-standardized testing of college grads, as suggested in the Spellings report, and encourged (as in required) by the regional accreditors.  When that happens, discussions about the outcomes of traditional vs. online education will become based on data, not on assumptions about which approach is effective or not.

What regional accreditation agencies are requiring quasi-standardized testing?  Not mine.

[mustbecrazy]

This whole conversation is really interesting to me, as I am a nontraditional student in the sciences.   As far as I know the only distance oriented school currently offering genuine, on-site intensive labs is Athabasca University, which is located in Canada and has Middle States regional accreditation in addition to Canadian provincial accreditation.  The labs are not research, just a time compressed replication of standard undergraduate labs involving 3 or 4 full days in lab completing 24-32 hours of actual lab experience per class.  This is pretty efficient since in organic chemistry we never sat around waiting for a distillation or reflux, we started the next lab while one ran and overlapped so as to make the best use of time.  Turning in all the lab reports within a month was fairly brutal, especially since I did both semester's labs together to lesson travel costs.  In any case, providing group, physical labs can and is done in at least one distance program already.

The difficulties I see in nontraditional education have to do with managing time and isolation.  For motivated students, however, this can be overcome.  Even more difficult is transitioning to a traditional graduate program.  I am working on doing that for next year, and I'll let you know how it goes then.  Some of the difficulties I see already have to do with getting onto traditional time frames from flexible time frames, validating work done at a large variety of schools, and figuring out whom to ask for recommendations.

[zharkov]

I expect that there will eventually be quasi-standardized testing of college grads, as suggested in the Spellings report, and encourged (as in required) by the regional accreditors.  When that happens, discussions about the outcomes of traditional vs. online education will become based on data, not on assumptions about which approach is effective or not.

What regional accreditation agencies are requiring quasi-standardized testing?  Not mine.

Take a look at the Spellings Report. To the extent that the regional accreditors adopt its recommendations, they'll begin to "suggest" that colleges adopt something like the Collegiate Learning Assessment approach.

It may not happen today, or tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of our lives (as the saying goes).

(About the CLA, see http://www.cae.org/content/pro_collegiate.htm)

[cc_alan]

The big mistake that people make is to focus on the technology.  In truth, the technology is only an enabler.  The key is to create the social structures needed for learning, and there are a lot of subtle ways for this to happen.

For example, one thing that would be really useful is for me to see a remote student in high definition even if they aren't saying anything verbally.  Without that feedback, I don't see the look of confusion or non-confusion.  It's much less important that the student see my facial expression.  Also, current systems are limiting because they don't allow people to move around.  When I'm explaining something on a chalkboard, I need to move, to create hand gestures, to draw large pictures on a wall.  This sort of stuff can be delivered over the internet, it's just a matter of figuring out how.

Here is another example.  After class, student A talks to the random student B sitting next to him, and complains that the lecture is totally awful and the professor is incompetent.  Student B reacts with a set of verbal and facial expressions that conveys very complex bits of information.  Random student C comes in and joins in the conversation.

How do you replicate this social interaction online?  I'm sure it can be done, but we are at the very early stages of figuring out how to do that.

You are contradicting yourself.

We're not yet at the point of being able to do what you want to do reliably. It won't happen until we have inexpensive broadband access for a larger group pf people than currently exists.

And that is a tech limitation.

Alan

[twofish]

We're not yet at the point of being able to do what you want to do reliably. It won't happen until we have inexpensive broadband access for a larger group pf people than currently exists.

And that is a tech limitation.

I'm not sure it is mainly tech limitation, since a lot of what I think is missing could be done through some social conventions.  For example, one convention that has developed in forums is to make a strong distinction between "public posts" and "private messages" and it is considered highly rude to post personal e-mail.  There are a lot of other similar conventions that I think will develop which will facilitate communications.

One big social convention that I've found important to develop in online courses is "what does silence mean?"

[sanjoaquin]

Hm...I didn't intend my suggestion that we use data to evaluate our claims to be a full research design, but thanks for the critique.  Your points were well considered. 

My real point was that we were flinging opinions, which behavior we tend to discourage from our students.

Does anyone have good data?  Much like faculty governance, it may be one of those situations in which it is better to undertake it ourselves rather than have an outside organization in charge of it.  The Spellings group is very interested in getting its program implemented before the incumbent President leaves office.  Those discussions with the accreditors are happening as we type.

What is the most productive approach for higher education?  I'm not an expert.  I'm looking for good options.

San Joaquin

[twofish]

My real point was that we were flinging opinions, which behavior we tend to discourage from our students.

One thing that I try to teach my students is the "question the question."  "Which is better online or traditional education?" is I think a poorly formed question.  There are about four implicit assumptions in that question that I can see off the top of my head.

Does anyone have good data?

I think we all have good data. 

Much like faculty governance, it may be one of those situations in which it is better to undertake it ourselves rather than have an outside organization in charge of it.  The Spellings group is very interested in getting its program implemented before the incumbent President leaves office.  Those discussions with the accreditors are happening as we type.

And with any luck, the Spellings recommendations meet a huge amount of resistance, and be forgotten.  The report was one of the worst things that I've ever seen, and if it's recommendations are adopted, it will kill higher education in the United States.  One of the really nice things about American higher education is its diversity, and imposing an single educational model will be absolutely devastating.  People will deny it, but having standardized testing will impose a single educational model.

What is the most productive approach for higher education?  I'm not an expert.  I'm looking for good options.

Let's question the question.  What do you mean by productive?

[sanjoaquin]

Excellent riposte, Twofish!  If I may quote myself, this is the goal I pursue as productivity:

"...giving students a broad, deep, critical education, in whatever medium they might find most convenient and accessible." 

Now, that's a personal goal, and it may not match the institution's goals all the time.  What would you consider productive? 

I'm also interested in your definition of good data, since I did not quite understand what you meant by your comment in the previous post about us having it already. 

San Joaquin