The Quality of Instruction

It seems we, as advocates for e-learning, are challenged by the research findings put forth by both of our readings this week, that there is little to no difference between the delivery of instruction through e-learning and face to face. I believe this cuts to the heart of the controversy raging in education today. As we examine success in both delivery systems, it is important that we consider the shortcomings of both approaches when viewing these findings. One, and most importantly, is the statement at the very end of the US Department of Education’s Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning (2010) , which states, “readers should be cautioned that the literature on alternative online learning practices has been conducted for the most part by professors and other instructors who are conducting research using their own courses.” This is an admission by the finders that the information currently available for research is far from unbiased. As stated in the last line,“the field lacks a coherent body of linked studies that systematically test theory-based approaches in different contexts.”

We read in E-Learning and the Science of Instruction that there are common barriers to e-learning knowledge transfer, which include “losing sight of the job” and “media abuse”, both of which can be found not only in the virtual classroom, but in the traditional classroom as well. It is very easy for trainers/educators in the traditional classroom setting to veer from instructional goals, regardless of the delivery system. Also, as students, many of us have encountered teachers who have practiced “media abuse” in their classrooms, whether relying too much on video and film to supplement instruction (right now I have students who are on their second or third viewing of Super Size Me, for various health and science classes, poor things), or relying strictly upon the text to deliver instruction. Both of these pitfalls are common in both the virtual and brick and mortar settings, and it is essential that a systematic approach to instruction be used to avoid these common barriers.

Systematic approaches to teaching tend, in both settings, to be the best way to ensure transference. When used for instruction, regardless of the environment, they create a framework upon which success can more easily be attained. The four main considerations laid out by Clark and Mayer include: the goal of your training, the prior knowledge of your learners, the environment in which you will deploy your training and the instructional architectures you use in your e-learning lessons. These four considerations are essential to all types of instruction and when placed at the center of instructional design they lead to a higher level of retention and assimilation by the learner.

So what makes e-learning practices so different from face to face? Why do I consider it superior? When I deliver content in the classroom, it changes from year to year, from day to day, even from class to class. There are a couple of classes I teach twice a day to different groups of students. I have been known to tell the earlier classes, “I apologize, but you are my rough drafts.” While mentioning to my later classes, “You are getting the benefit of the things I learned from the earlier groups.” E-learning is consistent and repeatable. I can honestly say content that I have developed online allows me to make sure that all the best information remains while the weaker elements be replaced with proven practices that guarantee knowledge transfer. I know when I have a student interface with content that I have developed online that they will consistently receive the same instruction from class to class, and from year to year. This assures that I will be able to improve my student performance levels at a consistent pace without falling victim to those previously mentioned common pitfalls.

It is in the words of Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006), as quoted in our text, that we find the essential element of successful instruction in any setting. “Students’ learning in the online environment is affected by the quality of online instruction. Not surprisingly, students in well-designed and well-implemented online courses learned significantly more.” Or, to restate, Students’ learning is affected by the quality of instruction. Not surprisingly, students in well-designed and well-implemented courses learned significantly more. It works both ways, doesn’t it?

References

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U.S Department of Education.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Pfeiffer.