 |
| Image courtesy of Blogs.English4Today.com |
Obviously our Inspector Gadget “online teacher” doesn’t actually have legitimate elearning tools in his overstuffed coat, but nonetheless, I do think that one of the main differences between online learning and face-to-face learning, not surprisingly, are the types of technologies used. Technology is becoming ever more common even in the traditional classroom; however, the distance learning environment is obviously more reliant on technology to present and share information/content, to communicate teacher-student and student-student, to work collaboratively, to create a sense of community, to give feedback, etc.
This abundant use of technology can be a blessing and a curse to the online teacher and the distance learner. On the one hand, students who are less likely to speak up in class, or who prefer nontraditional methods of expression (audio, video, visual, etc.), may be more active in participating in distance education classes where there is more flexibility in terms of class participation. Similarly, classes that do not have synchronous components to them attract students who have other obligations, such as family or work (Sorensen & Baylen, 2009, pp. 72-73).
However, students and teachers can also feel isolated in a distance learning environment. As a result, students often seek frequent and immediate feedback (Sorensen & Baylen, 2009, p. 78). With distance learning, students and teachers are also required to learn the application used to present the course content, which is known as the learning management system (LMS). The LMS may be seen as a barrier to learning if the teacher struggles to use it to set up the course site, and/or if students have a difficult time navigating within it and interacting with the course content. Also, some teachers may get so caught up in using the latest technology that they forget to remain focused on the learner. As McLaren states, “E-learning lessons that are jam-packed with all of the latest bells and whistles, but lack sound instructional design principles, will not maximize the effective[ness] of information processing or learning” (2009, p. 232). Online courses, just like any course, should be learner-centered, not content-centered.
Though somewhat outdated, Moore (1998) determined that students’ level of satisfaction is not influenced as much by distance learning technologies, as by “the attention they receive from the teachers and from the system they work in to meet their needs” (as cited by Simonson & Schlosser, 2009, p. 10). I think this is really important to remember. I think there’s a common misconception that teaching a course online is “easier” for teachers because they don’t have to be so “present” in the classroom. Sure, some teachers may check out and do little to maintain communication with students, but just because they do it doesn’t mean it works. There are poor teachers online just like there are in traditional classrooms. We can’t compare the best teachers from one environment to the worst teachers in another environment.
In my own experience as a distance learner, the classes that were most effective had consistent and quality input from the instructor. The instructor maintained a “presence” throughout the semester, even in courses where we never met synchronously or did audio lectures. I do strongly believe that distance learning can be as effective and productive as face-to-face learning; however, I also certainly recognize that the success of any course relies on many factors including but not limited to teacher personality and preferences, student personality and preferences, subject, course content, course format and materials, etc.
Finally, I believe online learning offers great potential for flexibility in providing learning activities that are appropriate to a variety of learners, as well as encouraging the transfer of skills and knowledge learned within a course to a real-world application. I have not had the experience of taking an online course that was designed in such a way that I, as the student, could choose and control to some extent the type of course activities I completed. I have read about such customizable courses (Boyer, 2009), but have not experienced it myself. I wonder, from a teacher perspective, if these are much more labor and/or time intensive. As for the second point of transferring knowledge gained in a course to the real-world, this is one of the things I have enjoyed most about distance learning. Not only do I feel that the instructors make more effort to design assignments that get me to work with actual libraries on relevant problems, but I have also learned a lot by simply interacting with fellow students who, because of the flexibility of online learning, are often already working in libraries and can share their experiences with the class.
[LIBR250 Prompt: In what qualitative ways is online education different than face to face learning?]
References
Boyer, N. R. (2009). The learning contract process: Scaffolds for building social, self-directed learning. In A. Orellana, T. Hudgins & M. Simonson (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching, (pp. 401-422). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
McLaren, A. C. (2009). Designing effective e-learning: Guidelines for practitioners. In Orellana, A., Hudgins, T. L., & Simonson, M. (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching (pp. 229-243). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Simonson, M. & Schlosser, C. (2009). We need a plan: An instructional design approach for distance education courses. In Orellana, A., Hudgins, T. L., & Simonson, M. (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching (pp. 3-21). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Sorensen, C. K. & Baylen, D. M. (2009). Learning online: Adapting the seven principles of good practice to a Web-based instructional environment. In Orellana, A., Hudgins, T. L., & Simonson, M. (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching (pp. 69-86). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
