Online Learning Environments

There is no doubt that online learning has grown in popularity amongst students and teachers alike in recent times.  The global e-learning market has grown by 7.9% per annum from 2012-2016 and is valued at around USD $51.5 billion in 2016 (Rana & Lal, 2014).  Asia (including New Zealand) is the fastest growing market in this respect.

This is hardly surprising when we consider the advantages inherent in online learning over traditional delivery methods.  Less investment in bricks and mortar, increasing flexibility of programmes and delivery platforms, development of technology, the ability to share knowledge, increasing equity of access regardless of age, race, gender or socioeconomic status, the ability to provide education to the masses, economic survival, and being responsive to the changing requirements of society and those within it (Capra, 2011; Blitz, 2013; Rana & Lal, 2014; Nguyen, 2015; Sun & Chen, 2016).

Teaching is an inherently social process.  Most of us are teaching because we enjoy the social contact of the young people we work with.  We would like to think that those we teach and work with in the profession also enjoy the social contact with us.  The exchange of ideas and co-construction of knowledge is valuable to all involved.  We value the face-to-face interaction.   Indeed, the implementation of programmes such a Kia Eke Panuku have socialisation embedded within its philosophy.  Herein lies the tension.  If we assume that teaching is fundamentally a social process, how does this translate to an online environment?  Is online learning as good as traditional delivery methods?

Capra (2011, p.7) in conducting an meta-analysis of research up to that point in time concluded, “the evidence, though not strong, supports many of the claims made for online professional learning” but tempers this in pointing out that there is no, “direct, unequivocal evidence” (p.8).  More recently, Nguyen (2015, p.315) conducted a similar meta-analysis drawing on a greater pool of research and found that, “92% of all distance and online education studies found that distance and online learning is at least as effective, if not better, than traditional education”.  However, the author points out that many of these studies were based on an initial assumption that online learning is better when compared to face-to-face traditional formats.  He concludes his meta-analysis by suggesting that more research is needed as, “the online learning story is still being written” (p.316).

Clearly there are online learning forums that are highly successful and achieve the stated aims of such programmes.  Blitz (2013, p.1) points out that,

“Teachers who collaborate online are engaged with a group, develop a sense of community, improve their knowledge of subject and pedagogical content, and intend to modify their instructional practices accordingly”. 

Yet Capra (2011, p.288) points out an interesting paradox with respect to online learning environments, namely, “there is growing demand and enrolment coupled by higher withdrawal and failure rates”.  Herein lie the negatives of online learning environments: the motivation to engage, the need to contribute regularly, isolation, chatty or frivolous online interactions, lack of specific or personalised feedback in a timely manner, and missing the physical interaction of others (Blitz, 2013; Nguyen, 2015; Sun & Chen, 2016). 

What parameters are required to make a successful online learning environment?  Much of the research in this respect focuses on students at schools and in higher education.  There are others that focus on professionals already in work who are looking to upskill their expertise.  In both cases there seems to be some commonality in what constitutes “good online learning practice”.

Blitz (2013) notes that good online learning communities should be diverse (roles, age, expertise and subject area).  Sun & Chen (2016) point out additionally communities should be diverse by gender, sex, class, ethnicity and socio-economic status.  The benefits of such diversity are immediately obvious.  The range of diversity allows for diversity in online presence.  This can be challenges our thinking and promotes self-reflection on our beliefs, values, ethics and behaviours with respect to our practice.  It becomes easier to find commonality with others online creating sub-communities within a wider community.  Equally, we tend to pay less attention to those with an online presence that does not meet our personal and/or professional needs.  Reflect on how many blog posts and online comments in the G+ Community you have ignored, scoffed at, commented on etc. in your MindLab journey.

Sun & Chen (2016) identify three key features of best practice in online learning forums (Figure 1):

Social presence – participation, collaboration, interactivity

Cognitive presence – the ability to generate reflection, thinking and learn from what is taking place in order to develop our understanding/learning.

Teaching presence – online resources, exemplars, videos, mini-lectures, Q&A sessions, chat sessions etc. that promote the ability to clarify and check understanding.

Figure 1 (Waldner, McDaniel, Esteves & Andersin, 2018)

The foundation feature appears to be the quality of the teaching presence.  Online learning environments needs effective moderators with a clear online presence (Blitz, 2013).  This is reflected in the fact that they should be sharing knowledge in a timely manner, communicating frequently and responding to questions expeditiously.  Equally, they should not be assuming or inferring that their students understand rather they should be explicitly stating requirements (Capra, 2011). 

For many, the social presence is stumbling block to online learning.  From a personal perspective, the inability to listen to and talk with people about their understanding and experiences is challenging.  Many teachers are of an age that was focused on face-to-face communication.  The subtle inflexions that come with clarity, tone and body language in face-to-face communication helps give a message meaning.  That is absent in a virtual world.  This may help explain why a number of older online learners withdraw or fail online courses.  While this is highly assumptive, it may also explain the large take-up of online learning among younger learners – who have been bought up in online environments and inhabit that world comfortably.

Finally, Blitz (2013) proposes a model of Hybrid Professional Learning (HPL) where virtual and physical social interaction form part of the learning environment.  This helps address the issues of a lack of social presence which taps directly into the issue of maintaining motivation when away from a face-to-face environment.  We see this applied in the first half of the MindLab course.

References:

Blitz, C. L. (2013). Can online learning communities achieve the goals of traditional professional learning communities? What the literature says. U. S. Department of Education.

Capra, T. (2011). Online Education: Promise and Problems. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 288–293.

Nguyen, T. (2015). The Effectiveness of Online Learning: Beyond No Significant Difference and Future Horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309–319.

Plus, G. (2015). Learn French for Free. jadorelyon. Retrieved 25 February 2018, from http://jadorelyon.com/learn-french-for-free/

Rana, H., & Lal, M. (2014). E-learning: Issues and Challenges. International Journal of Computer Applications, 97(5), 20–24.

Sun, A., & Chen, X. (2016). Online Education and Its Effective Practice: A Research Review. Journal of Information Technology Education, 1(5), 20-24.

Waldner, T., McDaniel, D., Esteves, T. & Anderson, T. (2018).  The eQuad: A Next-Generation eAdvising Tool to Build Community and Retain Students - The Mentor. (2018). Retrieved 25 February 2018, from https://dus.psu.edu/mentor/2012/10/equad-eadvising-tool-build-community-retain-students/