Report - Entire Report (PDF) - Introduction - Teaching & Learning - Market / Environment - Augsburg Fit - Recommendations - Conclusion Resources - Development Process for Online Courses - Online Courses Approval Guidelines - Online Teaching Best Practices - References - Annotated Bibliography e-learning sites - eCornell Research Blog - elearnopedia.com - elearnspace - Great Links! - Educause: Teaching and Learning

A - Z Directory Academic Offerings Admissions - Undergraduate Day - Weekend College - Rochester Program - M.B.A. - M.A. Education - M.A. Leadership - M.A. Nursing - M. of Social Work - M.S. Physician Assistant Campus Life - Athletics - Fine Arts - International Programs - Service, Work, Learning - Residence Life - Student Services - Student Organizations - Spiritual Expression Quick Links - Administration - Alumni and Friends - Apply Now - AugNet Services - Campus Map - Employment - Enrollment/Financial Aid - Library - News/Calendar - Registrar's Office - Search - Student Computing Augsburg College

III. Efficacy of E- Learning

Student Learning Perspective

One of the first questions asked concerning e-learning is whether it is effective for student learning. As distance learning via the Internet emerged in the 1990s, hundreds of journal articles were written comparing its efficacy to more traditional modes of instruction. The majority of these were submitted by university instructors from a wide span of disciplines, early adopters reporting on experiments with web-based instruction. By the late 1990s, review articles had begun to question the validity of positive results in student learning and the research structures used (Russell, 1997; Phipps & Merisotis, 1999). For instance, Phipps and Merisotis (1999) reviewed over 300 studies published in the 1990s and concluded that many contained methodological flaws that undermined conclusive statements about the cause of learning outcomes. Other authors (Smith & Dillon, 1999; Lockee, Burton, & Cross, 1999) noted the difficulty in conducting these “media comparison” studies. When comparing two different delivery modes, it makes sense to use teaching methods that work best for each mode. The use of different teaching methods expands the number of uncontrolled variables and renders the conclusions suspect.

These early studies nevertheless provided insights and propelled e-learning practitioners and researchers to correct methodological flaws and improve e-learning techniques. The overwhelming conclusion in recent literature is that e-learning is at least as effective as learning in traditional classroom courses (Dutton, Dutton, & Perry, 2002; Rivera & Rice, 2002; Cooper, 2001; Sankaran, Sankaran, & Bui, 2000; Wang & Newlin, 2000; Hiltz, 1993; Maki & Maki, 2002; Maki & Maki, 2003) and can in some cases be more effective (Lorenzo & Moore, 2002; Maki & Maki, 2002; Dutton, Dutton, & Perry, 2002). In one summary of e-learning studies, Meyer (2003) identified critical thinking and writing as specific skills enhanced in the online environment because “online students were more likely to make important statements and link ideas” and the “opportunity for reflection is especially suited to asynchronous learning environments” (pg. 18).

The most recent studies emphasize that effectiveness in student learning is a direct outcome of good pedagogy and instructional strategies built into the learning materials (Ally, 2004; Maki & Maki, 2003). Clark (2001) and others assert that the technology is merely a tool, the vehicle that provides the processing capability and delivers the instruction to learners (cited in Ally, 2004). The American Federation of Teachers, in its Distance Education guidelines published in 2000, promotes an approach to online course design that maximizes the medium's capabilities rather than trying to replicate the classroom.

The major modern theories of educational psychology provide a basis for understanding how e-learning methods can be made effective. In general, these theories place a higher importance on understanding than on rote memorization (Macdonald, 2004). Social constructivism and pedagogies such as collaborative learning, activity-based learning, resources-based learning, and problem-based learning can be adapted easily to an e-learning format. In fact, all three major learning theories -- behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist -- have been cited in support of e-learning effectiveness and provide implications for course design (Ally, 2004). These theories are described in the following table.

A second question often raised is whether all students can learn in online environments. Maki and Maki (2003) reported that students who had qualities that made them successful in traditional courses – those who were intellectual, had more initial knowledge, preferred working independently – were also successful learners online. Other studies have cited additional qualities that predict student success including

• high self-efficacy or confidence in computer and Internet abilities (Thompson & Lynch, 2003; Hiltz, 1993; Sankaran, Sankaran, & Bui, 2000; Meyer, 2003),
• high need for cognition (tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking),
• an internal locus of control, and
• high motivation (Wang & Newlin, 2000; Meyer, 2003). High motivation is also cited by Thompson & Lynch, 2003 and Qureshi, Morton, & Antosz, 2002.

Best practices for online course design must also include techniques for supporting students without these innate qualities. Support techniques that have been used successfully in e-learning course design include

• explicit course learning outcomes tied to activities,
• firm deadlines,
• point allocation for activities and assignments,
• prompt, continuous feedback to students.
• mandatory training or orientation to increase student self-efficacy and reduce the online course attrition rate (Lynch, 2001; Cooper, 2001), and
• initial face-to-face meetings even for fully online courses to improve retention and learning outcomes (Yilmaz & Tuzun, 2001; Parker & Hankins, 2002).

A related area of consideration in student online success is learning style. Students with visual learning styles and high multi-media comprehension (ability to comprehend auditory, written, and pictorial material) seem better suited to online environments (Meyer, 2003; Maki & Maki, 2002). Ames (2003) found that students with dominant abstract/sequential learning styles work best online and had high self-efficacy and affinity for computers, while students with a dominant random processing style (whether abstract or concrete thinkers) were less able to adjust and learn online. Since “the majority of college students do not have well-developed independent or abstract thinking learning styles” (Grasha & Yangarber-Hicks, 2000, p. 4), best practices require a variety of activities to appeal to all learning styles and provide opportunities for students to develop or strengthen other styles (Gray & Palmer, 2001). Traditional classrooms have long used a variety of activities as part of effective teaching practice. Variety and choice of activities for different learning styles are often incorporated into learning models built on theories such as Bloom’s taxonomy, Garrison, Anderson, & Archer’s Community of Inquiry model, or McCarthy’s “4MAT Wheel” model (Gray & Palmer, 2001) which incorporates learning style theory and brain modalities. Used as instructional design strategies, these models support the use of a variety of activities as suggested by cognitive and constructivist theories.

Faculty Engagement

Another major variable in the e-learning equation is the faculty member. A challenge noted in the literature is the paradigm shift for faculty from content providers to facilitators of student learning, a shift from teacher-oriented to learner-centered pedagogy (Smith, Ferguson, & Caris, 2003; Scheuermann, Morris, & Biros, 2004). For Augsburg faculty this shift is less of a concern since we deliberately foster student-centered teaching practices. Yet for many faculty members, the prospect of doing student-centered teaching in an online environment may be intimidating. Faculty may be concerned about lack of technical proficiency and the depersonalization of teaching, since instructional style must now be embedded in the content for an online course rather than in themselves as presenters. Faculty reluctance to engage in e-learning creates a high need for commitment and support from the college in the form of training and instructional design support (Arabasz, Pirani, & Fawcett, 2003). A summary of e-learning quality standards in the U.S. produced by Jia Frydenberg (2002) of the Irvine Distance Learning Center at the University of California concludes that “in e-learning it is crucial to separate the two roles” of instructional design and instruction, since the person who designs the course and the one who teaches it may in fact be different. Yet the American Federation of Teachers (2000) guidelines maintain that the “faculty member must retain academic control” to keep course materials up-to-date with current research in the discipline and ongoing teaching experience. In any case, the faculty member must be the subject matter expert and must be supported with training and/or instructional design consulting for development of e-learning materials.

Faculty members generally find that e-learning or online course development requires more time than they have typically dedicated in traditional settings (Smith, Ferguson, & Caris, 2003; American Federation of Teachers, 2001). Best practices for successful e-learning require detailed construction of course outcomes, materials, and assignments. Since e-learning students are usually not able to ask their teachers questions face to face, these materials must be clearer and more specific. The American Federation of Teachers’ Distance Education guidelines (2000) state that teachers have reported from 66% to 500% longer course development time for online courses. While it is agreed that development requires additional effort, there is some conflicting opinion as to the workload for online course teaching as compared to traditional course teaching. Survey results from college faculty teaching online courses reported by Smith, Ferguson, & Caris (2003) showed higher levels of work than in face to face courses, with several hours a day spent online answering student questions and responding to student comments. A number of these online instructors felt that online undergraduate classes required even greater time commitments than traditional graduate-level courses. The American Federation of Teachers 2001 report, “A Virtual Revolution: Trends in the Expansion of Distance Education,” reported similar claims for additional time required for interacting with students in online courses as compared to traditional courses. However, a research project at Penn State University had four experienced online faculty from different disciplines track their time for teaching and administering online courses, and compare it to classroom versions of the same courses. The faculty members reported that they spent no more time teaching in the online format and sometimes spent less time (Thompson, 2004). These results are rare in the current literature, however, and could reflect the lack of prior empirical evidence concerning workload or could be specific to the online environment at Penn State.

Implications of Literature

Several insights and conclusions can be drawn from the literature on e-learning pedagogy and practice:

1. Sound pedagogical practices must drive instructional design and the selection of technology to carry out that design. In addition, best practices for supporting multiple learning styles and providing student motivation must be incorporated into the design.
2. Students, as well as faculty, must have enough training and preparation for e-learning to become confident in their use of technology before engaging in an online learning environment. Best practices suggest that this training should be face to face.
3. Given the workload for designing and teaching in an e-learning environment, faculty commitment is critical. Explicit support and recognition for faculty involved in e-learning is key to gaining such commitment.

While e-learning can be considered a relatively new practice, there are a number of “best practices” published by institutions in the forefront of this environment. We have outlined a number of principles in this section. Appendix C contains more specific details as well as further references to the literature.