The summary below is from Inside Higher Ed <newsroom@insidehighered.com> March 13, 2015. For the full report, go to the link embedded in the summary.
The nonprofit research organization Ithaka S+R is back with another look
at the many studies that compare student outcomes from face-to-face and
online or hybrid courses, and once again, the results show "no
significant differences" between the two modes of delivery. Questions
about the studies' methodology also remain. D. Derek Wu, an analyst at
Ithaka, also noted that the "majority of studies still fall short in
their efforts to fill in the gaps left by the prior literature --
particularly those related to the cost implications of online and hybrid
delivery formats." This year, Ithaka looked at 12 studies conducted in 2013 and 2014,
but Wu found that many of them "are vulnerable to methodological
limitations that endanger the robustness of their results." Wu suggested
future research should focus on four areas: cost implications,
individual features' impact on outcomes, online upper-level and
humanities courses, and long-term results such as graduation and
retention rates. Ithaka first began to track studies on student outcomes
by delivery in 2012. 
This is interesting to think about... I would think that there would be many differences, based on the idea (my own personal bias) that students need f2f to engage in deep learning.
ReplyDeleteAn important point that Wu made that we should think about in class:
"What elements of online courses lead to positive or negative student learning outcomes? Online instruction is not monolithic, and further research is needed to understand the characteristics of effective or ineffective modes of course delivery."
That's the rub, Nina. This field is so new we simply don't know enough about what works and what doesn't. And, like the field of composition, I expect we will sometimes end up with different results because we often have different goals in mind. For instance, an instructor interested in critical thinking will look to different theories and pedagogies than an instructor interested in correct grammar.
ReplyDelete