next »

[ghillbilly]

http://www.theother85percent.com/

[mad_doctor]

http://nosignificantdifference.org/

We had a VPAA use this to justify his decision to devote the university's full attention to developing online programs.  We didn't think it was a great idea, and even had on our side a few faculty who had done research on the subject.  He made us read this so we could see for ourselves that he was right (sigghhh...).  So, we gave it a fair reading...  My honest appraisal is that although Russell handles the literature well, the literature he's working with is generally very poorly done.  Why would we expect to find anything in a study of online v f2f learning?  In fact, I can think of at least one theory with a lot of empirical support that would lead me to expect inferior learning outcomes in online learning.  IMO, the two biggest problems with the research on online learning are a near total lack of theory guiding the research and deeply flawed methodology - a toxic brew of scholarly ineptitude.  It is so bad that a competent scholar could argue that the entire field is based on nothing more than publication bias favoring the studies where random chance produced either positive or "no significant difference" results.  But then again, learning outcomes really aren't the reason everyone's interested in online learning, are they?

[temporaryname]

http://nosignificantdifference.org/

Online education is not synonymous with for profit online education.

[der_gadfly]

IMO, the two biggest problems with the research on online learning are a near total lack of theory guiding the research and deeply flawed methodology - a toxic brew of scholarly ineptitude.  

The study of the modality is young, and definitely not mature. There are few legitimate theories. This makes the research naturally flawed, especially when compared to the more mature fields of inquiry. But this in and of itself does not mean that the study of online learning is a waste of time, as some of the more cantankerous elder states-persons of education seem to say.

It is so bad that a competent scholar could argue that the entire field is based on nothing more than publication bias favoring the studies where random chance produced either positive or "no significant difference" results.  But then again, learning outcomes really aren't the reason everyone's interested in online learning, are they?

we rarely hear about the small advances, only the huge flops and incredible successes. The anecdotal evidence is of course not suitable as a jump-off point, since it hasn't been published in some internationally-recognized publication, double-blind-peer-reviewed of course. This is probably due to the comments I noted above.

A vicious circle to say the least.

But then again, learning outcomes really aren't the reason everyone's interested in online learning, are they?

Quite right. I suspect that most institutions go towards online as a way to 'cut costs', or worse yet, 'to keep up with the Joneses': Fear of losing out on a potential opportunity is a powerful driver. When online learning is driven and designed by the instructors, the outcomes are more likely to be valid because the instructor has a much higher stake in the outcome, and will be more likely to make adjustments quickly when something is not working. When an institution shovels it through the academic alimentary canal, it will likely be digested as is, then when it produces something undesirable, the persons involved will say "See, I told you so!". Vicious circle yet again.

[aandsdean]

http://nosignificantdifference.org/

This is about delivery, rather than institution, however.  I'm more than willing to be that there's a tremendously significant (statistically and in every other way) difference between the outcomes at Phoenix and those of a real university using alternative delivery methods.  However, to get at that difference, you'd also have to correct for student ability, etc., which would make for a very complex research design.

[mad_doctor]

Quite right. I suspect that most institutions go towards online as a way to 'cut costs', or worse yet, 'to keep up with the Joneses': Fear of losing out on a potential opportunity is a powerful driver. When online learning is driven and designed by the instructors, the outcomes are more likely to be valid because the instructor has a much higher stake in the outcome, and will be more likely to make adjustments quickly when something is not working. When an institution shovels it through the academic alimentary canal, it will likely be digested as is, then when it produces something undesirable, the persons involved will say "See, I told you so!". Vicious circle yet again.

Yep.  The faculty will say, "I told you so", but the admins will just blame the uncooperative, disloyal faculty for sabotaging the initiative because they never believed in it anyway.  This will elicit even more heavy-handed attacks on the faculty to keep them from thwarting the will of the all-knowing admins.

[mad_doctor]

http://nosignificantdifference.org/

This is about delivery, rather than institution, however.  I'm more than willing to be that there's a tremendously significant (statistically and in every other way) difference between the outcomes at Phoenix and those of a real university using alternative delivery methods.  However, to get at that difference, you'd also have to correct for student ability, etc., which would make for a very complex research design.

These kind of problems were characteristic of the research Russell was working with.  In general, a systematic lack of control significant enough that it casts doubt on the findings.