- Email: [email protected]
Is online instruction perceived as effective as campus instruction by graduate students in education?
Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73 – 86
Is online instruction perceived as effective as campus instruction by graduate students in education? Janna Siegel Robertson*, Michael M. Grant, Lorrie Jackson The University of Memphis, Advanced Learning Center, 413 Ball Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA Accepted 20 December 2004
Abstract At a southern metropolitan university, the researchers examined the students’ perceived quality of the learning experience of the online courses as compared to classroom-based learning for graduate education courses. The researchers used Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) [Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3–7] seven principles of good practice to have students rate the quality of their learning experience. The 92 student responses demonstrated that they perceived their learning experience the same or significantly better online than the classroom-based courses. The principle that demonstrated a significant difference in favor of the online courses was more time on learning materials. Participants also rated the online courses as high on how much they learned in the course as the traditional the on campus classes. The implications were that students perceive the quality of their online learning in graduate education courses similar or even superior to campus courses. D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Online; Graduate; Education
1. Introduction The evolution of the Internet and the Web has seen dramatic changes in recent years. At its inception, the Web was primarily textual. More recently, however, the advent of technologies, such as Shockwave, * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 901 678 5047; fax: +1 901 678 3881. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.S. Robertson). 1096-7516/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.004
74
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
animated GIFs, Javascript, Cascading Style Sheets and dynamic Hypertext Markup Language, coupled with high-bandwidth connections, have transformed the Web into an interactive, multimedia, multimodal system. The availability of these sophisticated features does not, however, guarantee their successful use. Borkowski, Henry, Larsen, and Mateik (1996), Latta (1996), Sugrue (2000) and Wesley and Franks (1995) have suggested that Web-based instruction as an extension of distance education is a viable method of pedagogy to promote authentic learning. However, matching the meaningful interactions evident in face-to-face classrooms is a challenge still unresolved. For the array of technologies available to Web-based instruction, little seems to have changed from the early days of the Web. Palloff and Pratt (1999) assert that many course sites are primarily textdriven, repositories for syllabi, course notes and electronic presentations. The level of Web authoring experience of the course instructor also has an impact on the types of interactions and technologies employed (Petrides, 2002). Limited resources, including expertise and time, may limit the opportunities an instructor can leverage for online interactions with peers, experts, course content and assessments. In turn, this may impact the quality of the Web-based course content or the Webbased learning experience (Hill, 2002).
2. Theoretical framework Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seven principles for good practice have served as a benchmark for effective teaching and learning in the university environment for several decades. Developed for undergraduate education, these guidelines are applicable to graduate education, K-12 schools, adult, informal and corporate learning environments. These guidelines are: (a) encourages contact between students and faculty, (b) develops reciprocity and cooperation among students, (c) encourages active learning, (d) gives prompt feedback, (e) emphasizes time on task, (f) communicates high expectations, and (g) respects diverse talents and ways of learning. These principles precede, complement and corroborate those identified by Marchese (1997) and Merrill (2002). Marchese through the reflective practice of teachers distinguishes (a) learner independence and choice, (b) intrinsic motivators and natural curiosity, (c) rich, timely, usable feedback (d) coupled with occasions for reflection and (e) active involvement in real-world tasks, (f) emphasizing higher-order abilities (g) done with other people (h) in high-challenge, low-threat environments (i) that provide for practice and reinforcement as essential elements of pedadgogy. Similarly, Merrill through an analysis of instructional design principles has discerned five bfirst principlesQ of instruction: (a) Learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems. (b) Learning is promoted when existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge. (c) Learning is promoted when new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner. (d) Learning is promoted when new knowledge is applied by the learner. (e) Learning is promoted when new knowledge is integrated into the learner’s world. Interestingly, the seven principles represent the teacher’s point of view, while Marchese mixes both the teacher’s perspective and student’s perspective. Merrill, however, presents the learner’s perspective. Therefore, the developmental dates of these taxonomies may represent the transition from teacher-centered instruction to more studentcentered learning.
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
75
2.1. Online learning and the seven principles With the phenomenal growth of personal computers, distance learning, and other classroom technologies, the question becomes how to continue good teaching practice while integrating technology, specifically online or Web-based learning? Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) note, bIf the power of the new technologies is to be fully realized, they should be employed in ways consistent with the Seven PrinciplesQ (p. 3). Reeves and Reeves (1997) offer a comprehensive inventory of elements to gauge the framework for technology-supported learning, and specifically, online instruction. They specify (a) pedagogical philosophy (instructivist to constructivist), (b) learning theory (behaviorist to cognitivist), (c) goal orientation (sharply focused to general), (d) task orientation (academic to authentic), (e) source of motivation (extrinsic to intrinsic), (f) teacher role (didactic to facilitator), (g) metacognitive support (unsupported to integrated), (h) collaborative learning strategies (unsupported to integral), and (i) structural flexibility (fixed to open). It is important to note that Reeves and Reeves’ list does not indicate attributes of technology or specific technologies. Bangert (2004) indicates that pedagogical beliefs of the teacher and instructional methods inherent within the seven principles will ultimately determine the success of instruction and not the specific technologies employed. Ehrmann (2003), in an update to the 1996 article on the seven principles and technology, suggests that while there are differences between the traditional and the distance learning classroom, there are similarities and that faculty teaching online should continue to use these seven principles to improve teaching and learning in their courses. A number of studies offer suggestions for faculty wishing to implement the seven principles into their courses, providing concrete ideas for each guideline (e.g., Graham, Cagiltay, Lim, Craner, & Duffy, 2001; Solloway & Harris, 1999). The following sections examine online learning with respect to the seven principles. 2.2. Student perceptions of online learning Do students learn more or at least the same amount as they do in a traditional classroom? A number of studies have been conducted recently attempting to answer this question, often using student perceptions of their success in online classes as their focus. Using the seven principles as a framework, the following overview provides relevant research results that give evidence about the impact of online learning on student perception of effective learning. 2.2.1. Good practice encourages contacts between student and faculty Students need support when concerned or confused, and online learning tools such as e-mail, conferencing and the World Wide Web could improve access to faculty (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). Yet, the lack of personal contact with faculty, or transactional distance (see Moore, 1993), continues to concern students in online courses (e.g., Knipe & Lee, 2002; Peters, 2001; Solloway & Harris, 1999; Valenta, Therriault, Dieter, & Mrtek, 2001). In their survey of 66 graduate level education students enrolled in both traditional and distance learning classes, Knipe and Lee (2002) suggest that without before- and after-class time for casual social conversation, those in distance learning classes feel limited in their time to ask questions and obtain support. Peters (2001) proposes that it is not the limited time, but students’ actual skill and interest level in socializing online that impacts their perception of effective instructor interaction online. If students enjoy
76
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
socializing online, and if they are at a university where casual interaction with a professor teaching a large class is rare, then instructor interaction may even improve online. For some instructors, deliberately withholding support from students online is seen as beneficial to the learning process and can promote self-regulation. Solloway and Harris (1999) tried to bforceQ graduate students in their online education course to discuss issues, offering opinions freely and frequently, without instructor guidance. They found, however, that many students were not ready to manage their own learning. These students reported feeling frustrated and confused by the apparent reticence of the two instructors. But over the semester, student participation in the unmoderated discussions online improved, suggesting to the researchers that student confidence overcame their need for instructor interaction (Solloway & Harris, 1999). Lastly, while Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) suggested that non-native English speakers would prefer the communication delay of a distance learning classroom, allowing them time to carefully formulate questions and thoughts, Peters (2001) found the opposite occurred. These students, along with native speakers with remedial writing skills, may find the print-based media even more daunting than speaking in class, requiring even more advanced understanding of the English language. 2.2.2. Good practice develops reciprocity and cooperation among students Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) suggest, bstudy groups, collaborative learning, group problem solving, and discussion of assignmentsQ are all methods in which reciprocity and cooperating among students can be improved online (p. 2). For example, Knipe and Lee (2002) note that students reported better collaboration online than within a regular classroom. However, other researchers report dissenting perceptions by students. In a survey of 128 business majors, from sophomores to graduate levels, some students felt they actually learned less in online courses, in part due to the challenge in contributing to classroom discussions online (O’Malley & McGraw, 1999). This challenge was exacerbated in the aforementioned study where instructors withheld input into student discussions, and students reported concern over the poor student collaboration until their confidence grew (Solloway & Harris, 1999). Valenta et al. (2001), in a study of 74 undergraduate and graduate students taking an online course for the first time, found that many students felt the lack of a shared experience with other students outweighed the advantages of working from home. So, convenience for geographic isolation may be subordinate to camaraderie and social interactions. Some authors (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Ko & Rossen, 2001) assert that individuals struggle with group formations and task negotiations. In fact, Hill, Han, and Raven (2001) acknowledge specific strategies are necessary to develop and maintain communities online. 2.2.3. Good practice uses active learning techniques Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) propose numerous Web-based tools, such as those that encourage synchronous conversations worldwide, could improve active learning in the university classroom. Evidence within the student perception literature, is very scant, however. In Valenta et al.’s study (2001), those students classified as having a btime and structureQ preference felt the need for active learning to be one of the advantages of online learning. Sanders and Morrison-Shetlar (2001) support Chickering and Ehrmann’s assertions, finding Web-enhanced instruction had a positive effect on problem solving and critical thinking.
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
77
Other results differ. For example, Knipe and Lee (2002) report lower order cognitive outcomes common in distance learning. Specifically, students perceived learning memorizing, learning new terms and practicing skills as products prevalent in their online courses. Also significant, 63% of students reported that blearning to be criticalQ was more common in traditional, face-to-face courses. This finding may bolster Palloff and Pratt’s (1999) early assertion that primarily text-driven courses do little to engage students. 2.2.4. Good practice gives prompt feedback Using word processing software’s editing tools or video as a work in progress, in addition to e-mail and other communication tools, allows faculty to provide feedback in an online learning class (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). Frey, Faul, and Yankelov (2003) report that faculty frequently used feedback and assessment strategies that students perceived as valuable, such as bposting gradesQ and bonline feedback regarding assignmentsQ (p. 452). Prior research, however, differs. As the above section on instructor interaction showed, studies into student perceptions of online learning do not suggest as a whole that students are receiving the feedback they need (Peters, 2001; Solloway & Harris, 1999; Knipe & Lee, 2002). In addition, Knipe and Lee (2002) suggest that a professor’s teaching strategies, technology skills and interest level, and preparation impact the amount of feedback and interaction in the distance learning classroom. This concurs with Hill’s (2002) belief that limited instructor expertise can impact course quality. 2.2.5. Good practice emphasizes time on task While Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) emphasize efficient use of time spent learning, students see time online, whether learning or simply navigating/using the technology, as one lump sum. In a study of 657 undergraduate business students, researchers found that students who were accessing a campus-wide online portal more often were the ones reporting that online learning positively impacts their grades (Peh & Foo, 2001). Those spending less time online reported less confidence that the online tool would help them improve their grades. This finding corroborates Sanders and Morrison-Shelar’s (2001) results that students who spent more time online held more positive attitudes toward the course. Valenta et al. (2001) found that students classified as having btime and structureQ or bconvenienceQ viewpoints not surprisingly valued time flexibility. Working from home, saving travel time and costs, and working when and where they wanted were all listed as advantages to learning online by these groups. Moreover, students have reported wanting more online classes but feeling that they learned less in online classes over traditional settings (O’Malley & McGraw, 1999). These students reported online learning as saving time, fitting into their schedule better, and enabling more courses to be taken at once, yet when asked about its effectiveness as a learning tool, students consistently ranked online learning lower than the traditional classroom (O’Malley & McGraw, 1999). Interestingly, while time online is seen as an convenience and flexible so it can fit into one’s schedule, actual time online is also perceived as greater than the time one would spend preparing for a similar class taught within a classroom (Tamashiro, 2004). 2.2.6. Good practice communicates high expectations Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) suggest that with the availability of information and knowledge from the Internet and electronic databases, students have access to a variety of different points of view to analyze, synthesize and evaluate, providing learning challenges for students. Other technology tools,
78
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
such as synchronous and asynchronous communications, also offer motivations for students. However, research into how online learning actually impacts perceptions of high expectations is nominal. The use of the term workload in a number of studies can be seen as complimentary of high expectations: to achieve more one needs to work more. In addition, students report a heavier workload online than in a traditional classroom (Peh & Foo, 2001; Tamashiro, 2004; Valenta et al., 2001). Yet, these terms are not identical, and a need for future research into student perceptions of high expectations is evident. 2.2.7. Good practice respects diverse talents and ways of learning When learners prefer one method of instruction to another, researchers have demonstrated that making allowances for individual differences can improve academic achievement and learning (Dunn & Dunn, 1979; Renninger & Snyder, 1983; Ross, Drysdale, & Schultz, 2001; Samples, 1992; Snyder, 2000). Creating a learning environment that acknowledges and tolerates individual learning differences may enable students to perform better. Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) note, btechnologies can help students learn in ways they find most effective and broaden their repertoires for learningQ (p. 6). Frey et al. (2003) found no differences among different learning styles and their perceptions of valuable Web-based strategies; both singular and multimodal learners held similar perceptions. Similarly, Sanders and Morrison-Shetlar (2001) found no differences in learner preferences when conscious efforts were employed to address these differences. Graff (2003), however, found differing cognitive styles affected performance within a Web-based instructional system. Valenta et al’s. (2001) groupings of learner preferences suggest that at least some students have a learning style that works better in an online environment. Other recent research suggests that online learning is not yet addressing diversity in learners. Computer skills are listed by numerous researchers (e.g., Frey et al., 2003; Peters, 2001; Tamashiro, 2004) as a concern of students in online courses. Those with limited technology skills perceive online learning as less effective or dissatisfying than those with more robust skills. Tamashiro (2004) asserts that online learning benefits the student predisposed to learning electronically and not the entire student population. 2.2.8. Criticisms of the seven principles Criticisms of Chickering’s and Ehrmann’s (1996) principles mainly focus on the lack of alternatives to the precise teaching methodologies they endorse. Heterick (2002) suggests that their emphasis on indepth interaction between full-time faculty and students is not supported by the research. Citing a number of recent studies at higher education institutions, Heterick (2002) argues that increased interaction between students and the course materials themselves and increased interaction between students and persons other than full time faculty lead to increased learning. Moreover, too much time spent between students and full time faculty might even be detrimental, preventing educators from focusing on their primary role as bthe architects and managers of these new learning environments and the ones who ensure that students have a high-quality experienceQ (Heterick, 2002, n.p.). Heterick (2002) also suggests that the small class size required for in-depth interactions between students and full time faculty is simply not cost feasible for most institutions. This lack of practicality is echoed in Michael Coghlan’s opinion piece on Chickering’s and Ehrmann’s (1996) work. Coghlan (2001) argues that the constructivist framework, which allows for these principles, while ideal, is not how teachers teach or, frankly, are taught to teach by colleges of education. He suggests using the principles as a measuring stick and setting smaller goals of achieving many but not all of the principles.
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
79
Fitzsimmons (2001) suggests that the seven principles are only effective for those students with a specific skill set and learning style. Fitzsimmons (2001) offers an overview of successes and challenges with an undergraduate fiction course taught online for the first time. Using Chickering and Ehrmann’s (1996) seven principles, the course was redesigned and implemented with an emphasis on task, not text, and included a number of interactive and online components. Fitzsimmons (2001) found that those students who were independent learners reported more satisfaction and increased learning with the new mode of instruction. However, other students bwho relied on child-like models of learningQ (Fitzsimmons, 2001, n.p.) struggled both with the course content and the online technologies and tasks. He concludes that success with the seven principles requires more scaffolding than Chickering and Ehrmann (1997) maintained, especially in the areas of tech skills and ability to search for and synthesize information. Lastly, it is the opinion of the authors of the current paper that Chickering and Ehrmann (1996), whose work centers on undergraduate students, may not address the unique nature of graduate students and their relationships with faculty. With primarily smaller class sizes, increased face-to-face time with faculty, and more often than not, independent learning styles, the graduate setting lacks many of the challenges Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) attempt to address with undergraduate populations. 2.3. Statement of purpose and research question Though there is significant support that students’ perceive online learning as effective, other results counter these claims. The purpose of this research was to examine from the student perspective the effectiveness of online courses. Specifically, this study sought to answer: Is online or Web-based instruction perceived as effective as face-to-face instruction by graduate students in teacher education?
3. Methodology During the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 semesters at a large, urban southern university, several graduate courses in education were taught online while the majority of classes were taught on campus using traditional, face-to-face formats. The faculty members were concerned that students would not feel that the learning experience of the online classes was as effective as the campus learning experience. Though some of the face-to-face courses augmented instruction with online materials, they were taught primarily on campus. The online courses were mostly taught asynchronously, using discussion boards, email, readings and electronic presentations, though some courses included occasional synchronous chat times. These courses did not meet face to face or on campus for class. All courses were developed in the university’s course management system, WebCT. Many of these Internet-only courses were a part of a state wide online degree program, while others were part of a Masters degree in teacher education. The content of the online courses was variable. The online courses were in the areas of curriculum (3 classes), instruction (3 classes), classroom management (1 class), action research (1 class), and using the Internet for instruction (1 class). Students that completed either online or face-to-face courses were asked by their instructors to complete an online survey at the end of the semester on elements that contribute to their learning successes (see Appendix A). The request came by email or in person from their instructors. The
80
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
instrument was adapted from a survey developed by Nguyen, Cripps, and Draude (2002). Their survey was taken from the The Seven Principles of Good Practice developed by Chickering and Gamson (1987) and later adapted for online learning by Chickering and Erhmann (1996). During the Fall 2002 semester there were 90 on campus courses with 1530 graduate students enrolled and 6 online courses with 78 graduate students enrolled. During the Spring 2003 semester there were 85 on campus courses with 1595 graduate students enrolled and 3 online courses with 31 graduate students enrolled. The number of students is a total of all of the students enrolled, so most student are counted more than once for each class in which they are enrolled. The survey had 92 responses, 20 for online courses and 72 for on campus courses. The response rate was 7.44% with a 6.4% rate for on campus students and 18.02% for online students’ responses. No demographic data was collected about the respondents.
4. Results The results were compiled and the sample means and standard deviations computed. Afterwards, an independent t-test was conducted on each question of the survey. The alpha level was set at 0.05 at the 95% confidence level. Since there were multiple t-tests computed (eight total), there was a concern that a type one error may occur where false significant effects would be identified. To correct for the inflation of the alpha score due to the multiple t-tests, the Bonferroni correction/adjustment procedure was used. The adjusted p value was 0.00625. The results are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1 Face-to-face vs. online means, standard deviations, and t-test significance Question How much does the interaction between you and your instructor contribute to your learning success? How much does the collaboration between members of your class contribute to your learning success? How much does your learning success result from active learning? How much does your learning success result from prompt feedback on your performance? How much does your learning success result from the accumulated time you spent on learning materials? How much does your learning success result from the high expectations of the instructor from you? How much does your learning success result from the fact the learning materials as presented match your learning style? How much have you learned in this course?
Face-to-face M (SD), n=72
Online M (SD), n=20
t-test
3.9 (1.27)
3.95 (0.97)
0.8689
3.64 (1.13)
3.25 (1.02)
0.1502
4.15 (1.07)
4 (0.92)
0.5300
3.79 (1.13)
4.25 (0.85)
0.0463
3.58 (0.99)
4.2 (0.62)
0.0013*
3.58 (1.20)
3.7 (1.13)
0.6892
3.49 (1.13)
3.95 (0.76)
0.0367
3.88 (1.31)
4.45 (0.69)
0.0105
1=nothing; 2=some but not much; 3=average; 4=more than average; 5=a lot. pb0.05, adjusted pb0.00625 (adapted from Nguyen et al., 2002).
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
81
Using the adjusted p value, there was only one significant difference for the online class. The online students results had a mean significantly higher than the campus instruction on the principle concerning the amount of time the students perceive they spent on learning materials (online: X¯ =4.2, SD=0.62 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.58, SD=0.99). The p value of 0.0013 was below the adjusted p value of 0.00625. A post hoc analysis was conducted to determine the effect size of this finding using the procedure outlined by Coe (2000). The effect size was 0.67 with a confidence interval of 0.16 to 1.17. This effect size supported the t-test in determining that the difference in the means was statistically significant and of an effect size that supports that the difference was not due to chance. Students who rated the online courses rated their courses in several areas higher than students who rated their campus courses. These areas did not demonstrate significant differences but did give evidence that online instruction may be equivalent to traditional instruction in the areas of interaction between student and instructor (online: X¯ =3.95, SD=0.97 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.9, SD=1.27), prompt feedback from the instructor (online: X¯ =4.25, SD=0.85 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.79, SD=1.13), high expectations from the instructor (online: X¯ =3.7, SD=1.13 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.58, SD=1.20) and having the learning materials match the students’ learning styles (online: X¯ =3.95, SD=0.76 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.49, SD=1.13). The students of online classes also rated the amount they learned in the classes higher (X¯ =4.45, SD=0.69) than students that took face-to-face courses (X¯ =3.88, SD=1.31). Since the scores were not significantly different, the results may be due to chance rather than a meaningful score difference. The direction of the scores in favor of online learning should be viewed with caution. Two areas were rated slightly higher for campus classes than online classes. Those areas were student collaboration (online: X¯ =3.95, SD=0.76 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.49, SD=1.13) and active learning (online: X¯ =3.95, SD=0.76 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.49, SD=1.13). Again since the scores were not significantly different, the results may be due to chance and should not be used as evidence of online or campus classes being perceived as different.
5. Discussion The results give evidence that online learning is perceived as effective or possibly more effective for learners in graduate teacher education courses. Time on task using materials was rated significantly higher for student taking online courses than students enrolled in campus courses. Since there were no audio or video lectures in these online classes, the information was given in a text format. The activities were completed at the student’s discretion so students’ only go online when they have time to read or complete the assignments. This result supports Chickering and Erhmann’s (1996) assertion that the time spent by student in online classes is more efficient. There is possibly more time wasted in class where students may or may not be on task. An element to this dimension left unanswered is whether any of the assignments were completed within groups or teams. Uribe, Klein, and Sullivan (2003) report that collaborative learning–while effective–took significantly more time than individuals. While it is impossible to determine whether collaborations may have impacted this study, it is plausible to consider that the time required for collaborations may have had a negative perception for students.
82
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
Though time on task may be higher for online classes, in this study it appears that students may have perceived this additional time as a contributor to their learning success. The additional time on task is similar to results found by Tamashiro (2004). Additionally, the perception that the additional time contributed to the students’ learning success was also found in the studies by Peh and Foo (2001) and Valenta et. al. (2001). The overall rating for all principles including learning in the classes was quite high for online learning and not significantly inferior to campus learning according to the results. But it is also possible that online learners were not composed of a cross section of the general student population. Online learners may have been dissatisfied with traditional courses, so they rated their learning with online courses higher than students who have not made any changes in their education delivery. The graduate students in education rated that in most cases they learned ba lotQ from their online courses. The positive rating of online learning found in this study supports positive results in other studies (e.g., Huang, 2002; Peh & Foo, 2001; Sanders & Morrison-Shetland, 2001; Valenta et al., 2001). The results do not agree with O’Malley and McGraw (1999) and Knipe and Lee (2002) who found the quality of online learning was not as effective. There were several outside variables of note than may have impacted the results of this study. Fulltime faculty members taught all of the online courses whereas adjunct instructors taught several of the campus courses. Though adjunct instructors may be as effective or more effective in instruction as fulltime faculty members, this factor was not controlled. Though the students who chose to respond to the survey were self-selected and there was a low response rate, it is unlikely that only students who liked online learning and disliked traditional learning would chose to participate. It is, however, possible that because this university was just beginning online instruction, students considered innovators or early adopters (see Rogers, 1995) may have chosen to take these courses before the courses became more mainstream. Additionally, using the seven principles as a basis for interpretation may be perceived as inadequate. The seven principles are abstractions from successful teacher practice and represent an aggregate of teaching strategies and methods. For example, bencourages active learningQ can subsume many constructivist methods and learner-centered strategies, such as project-based learning, problem-based learning, case-based learning, open-ended learning environments, self-regulated learning and selfdirected learning. However, the implementation of these strategies neither guarantees successful teaching and learning nor assures student satisfaction. Bangert (2004) asserts that constructivist models are recommended and employed for online instruction. Therefore, evaluation instruments that do not specifically reflect these learner-centered strategies or methods are suspect. Moreover, there is an assumption that providing for all of the seven principles will ensure successful learning and student satisfaction. This is not the case. Specifically, some online students may be ill equipped to handle the self-direction necessary to succeed (e.g., Bangert, 2004), and some students’ lack of face-to-face contact may prevent student satisfaction or self-efficacy. 5.1. Future research There are several topics of interest that could be explored in future studies. One question could examine student perceptions of online and traditional learning in a variety of fields and different levels of education. It is possible that undergraduate and graduate students would respond
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
83
differently to online instruction, and some fields may lend themselves in various ways to online learning. Hybrid courses (combinations of online and face-to-face meetings) are now becoming more readily available in higher education. Many classes have some sort of online component whether it is minimalsuch as a list of online resources- or extensive- with complete online learning modules. It would be interesting to see the impact of hybrid courses on student perceptions of best practices. Eastmond, Nickel, Plessis, and Smith (2000) and Harmon and Jones (1999) offer two models for examining hybrid or incremental approaches to using online instruction. Both of these models are worthy of research for their impact on student achievement and satisfaction. There are also new technologies available that are making the online experience more similar to the traditional class. Now lectures may be available on audio or video and with live video conferencing available for real-time situations. Course management systems with plug-ins like HorizonLive and Wimba, as well as dedicated systems like Polycom ViaVideo II with MCS Bridge, allow synchronous interactions. Products like Macromedia Breeze, Impactica, Respondus, Wimba and a host of other development tools, such as Macromedia Authorware, Flash, Director and Toolbook, offer asynchronous options as well. The only difference for some classes may be where the students are sitting, with the rest of the experience very similar to traditional instruction. Additional research on the Seven Principles of Good Practice (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) would be useful. Reliability and validity of measures developed from the seven principles would assist the research efforts of those using them to measure the perceived impact of instruction on students. The work of Bangert (2004) represents an effort in this direction. Outside validity would also make this study stronger. For example, student achievement measures could be collected to corroborate the student’s perceptions of the contributions to their learning success.
6. Conclusions Despite this study’s limitations, this group of students reported that online learning was as successful a medium to learn graduate level material and even superior for them in the area of time on task when compared to the face-to-face experience. These preservice and inservice teachers felt they learned a significant amount in their online classes. Though online learning may not be appropriate for all students or all classes, this study gives further support for its viability as way to teach graduate teacher education students. With the current teacher shortages and difficulty in recruiting students, online courses may be a way to reach additional potential educators.
Acknowledgements The first author would like to acknowledge the Instruction and Curriculum Leadership Department WebCT committee members, Dr. Fran Clark, Dr. Kate Kelly, Dr. Deborah Moberly and Dr. Dennie Smith, for their contributions to this study. This study was completed with funds from an AT&T Foundation Grant through the Advanced Learning Center at The University of Memphis.
84
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
Appendix A. Contributions to learning success: survey The course I am enrolled in is delivered: on campus online How much does the interaction between you and your instructor contribute to your learning success? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much does the collaboration between members of your class contribute to your learning success? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much does your learning success result from active learning? (Note: active learning means byou think, talk, or write about what you have learned, relate it to past experiences and apply it to your daily lifeQ) nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much does your learning success result from prompt feedback on your performance? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much does your learning success result from the accumulated time you spent on learning materials? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much does your learning success result from the high expectations of the instructor for you? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much does your learning success result from the fact the learning materials as presented match your learning style? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much have you learned in this course? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot Adapted from Nguyen et al. (2002).
References Bangert, A. W. (2004). The seven principles of good practice: A framework for evaluating on-line teaching. Internet and Higher Education, 7(3), 217 – 232. Borkowski, E. Y., Henry, D., Larsen, L. L., & Mateik, D., (1996). Supporting teaching and learning via the web: Transforming hard-copy linear mindsets into web-flexible creative thinking. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 652). Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996, October). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 3–6 (Retrieved July 28, 2004 from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html). Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3 – 7. Coe, R. (2000). What is an beffect sizeQ? A guide for users. Retrieved December 13, 2004 from http://www.cemcentre.org/ ebeuk/research/effectsize/ESguide.htm Coghlan, M. (2001). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. (opinion). Retrieved December 13, 2004 from http://www.users.chariot.net.au/~michaelc/ttt/principles.htm Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they be matched? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 238 – 244. Eastmond, J. N., Nickel, T., Plessis, J. D., & Smith, L. D. (2000). An incremental approach to implementing a web course. TechTrends, 44(3), 40 – 45. Ehrmann, S. C. (2003, October). New ideas, and additional reading. Update to implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 3–6 (Retrieved July 28, 2004 from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html). Fitzsimmons, J. (2001). How to design an effective online unit. Teaching Online in Higher Education Online Conference proceedings. Retrieved December 13, 2004 from http://www.ipfw.edu/as/tohe/2001/Papers/fitzsimmons.htm Frey, A., Faul, A., & Yankelov, P. (2003). Student perceptions of Web-assisted teaching strategies. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(3), 443 – 457.
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
85
Graff, M. (2003). Learning from Web-based instructional systems and cognitive style. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 407 – 418. Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source, March/April. Retrieved July 29, 2004, from http://www.ts.mivu.org/ default.asp?show=article & id=839 Harmon, S. W., & Jones, M. G. (1999). The five levels of web use in education: Factors to consider in planning online courses. Educational Technology, 39(6), 28 – 32. Heterick, R. C. (2002). Higher ed: Rethinking the seven principles. The Learning Marketplace. Retrieved December 13, 2004 from http://www.events.siue.edu/tlt/article.php?op=Print & sid=13 Hill, J. R. (2002). Overcoming obstacles and creating connections: Community building in Web-based learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14(1), 67 – 86. Hill, J. R., Han, S., & Raven, A. (2001, November 8–12). Build it and they will stay: A research-based model for creating community in Web-based learning environments. Paper Presented at the National Convention Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Atlanta, GA. Huang, H. (2002). Student perceptions in an online mediated environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 405 – 422. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN7 Interaction. Knipe, D., & Lee, M. (2002). The quality of teaching and learning via videoconferencing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 301 – 311. Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2001). Teaching online: A practical guide. Boston7 Houghton Mifflin. Latta, G. F. (1996). The virtual university: Creating an emergent reality. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 399 970). Marchese, T. (1997). The new conversations about learning: Insights from neuroscience and anthropology, cognitive science and work-place studies. Assessing impact: Evidence and citation (pp. 79 – 95). Washington, DC7 AAHE. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43 – 59. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22 – 38). New York7 Routledge. Nguyen, N., Cripps, A., & Draude, B. (2002). Application of the AAHE’s seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education to online teaching. The National Social Science Journal, 18(2), 91 – 101. O’Malley, J., & McGraw, H., (1999). Students [sic] perceptions of distance learning, online learning, and the traditional classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, II(IV). Retrieved July 24, 2004, from http:// www.westga.edu/~distance/omalley24.html Pallof, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco7 Jossey-Bass. Peh, W. L., & Foo, S. (2001). Students’ perceptions of online learning: A case study of Singapore Temasek Polytechnic’s Virtual School of Business Project. LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 11(2). (Retrieved July 24, 2004, from http://libres.curtin.edu.au/LIBRE11N2/pehfoo.htm). Peters, L. (2001). Through the looking glass: Student perceptions of online learning. Commentary in The Technology Source, Sept/Oct. Retrieved July 24, 2004, from http://www.ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article & id=907 Petrides, L. A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 69 – 77. Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In B. Kahn (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 59 – 66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Educational Technology Publications. Renninger, K. A., & Snyder, S. S. (1983). Effects of cognitive style on perceived satisfaction and performance among students and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(5), 668 – 676. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York7 The Free Press. Ross, J. L., Drysdale, M. T. B., & Schultz, R. A. (2001). Cognitive learning styles and academic performance in two postsecondary computer application courses. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(4), 400 – 412. Samples, B. (1992). Using learning modalities to celebrate intelligence. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 62 – 66. Sanders, D. W., & Morrison-Shetland, A. I. (2001). Student attitudes toward Web-enhanced instruction in an introductory biology course. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 251 – 262.
86
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
Snyder, R. F. (2000). The relationship between learning styles/multiple intelligences and academic achievement of high school students. The High School Journal, 83, 11 – 20. Solloway, S. G., & Harris, E. L. (1999). Creating community online: Negotiating students’ needs and desires in cyberspace. Educom Review (March/April). Retrieved July 2004, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/erm99021.html Sugrue, B. (2000). Cognitive approaches to web-based instruction. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools volume two: No more walls (pp. 133 – 162). Mahwah, NJ7 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tamashiro, R. (2004). Pros and cons of online learning: Conflicting perceptions among teacher education students. Conference Proceedings from Hawaii International Conference on Education. Retrieved July 28, 2004, from www.hiceducation.org/ Edu_Proceedings/Roy%20Tamashiro.pdf Uribe, D., Klein, J. D., & Sullivan, H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-define problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 5 – 19. Valenta, A., Therriault, D., Dieter, M., & Mrtek, R. (2001). Identifying student attitudes and learning styles in distance education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2)(Retrieved July 28, 2004, from http://www.aln.org/ publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_valenta.asp). Wesley, M. T., & Franks, M. E. (1995). The virtual classroom, authentic assessment, and learning process control in online teacher development to support Internet telecommunications in education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 391 469).
Is online instruction perceived as effective as campus instruction by graduate students in education? Janna Siegel Robertson*, Michael M. Grant, Lorrie Jackson The University of Memphis, Advanced Learning Center, 413 Ball Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA Accepted 20 December 2004
Abstract At a southern metropolitan university, the researchers examined the students’ perceived quality of the learning experience of the online courses as compared to classroom-based learning for graduate education courses. The researchers used Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) [Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3–7] seven principles of good practice to have students rate the quality of their learning experience. The 92 student responses demonstrated that they perceived their learning experience the same or significantly better online than the classroom-based courses. The principle that demonstrated a significant difference in favor of the online courses was more time on learning materials. Participants also rated the online courses as high on how much they learned in the course as the traditional the on campus classes. The implications were that students perceive the quality of their online learning in graduate education courses similar or even superior to campus courses. D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Online; Graduate; Education
1. Introduction The evolution of the Internet and the Web has seen dramatic changes in recent years. At its inception, the Web was primarily textual. More recently, however, the advent of technologies, such as Shockwave, * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 901 678 5047; fax: +1 901 678 3881. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.S. Robertson). 1096-7516/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.004
74
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
animated GIFs, Javascript, Cascading Style Sheets and dynamic Hypertext Markup Language, coupled with high-bandwidth connections, have transformed the Web into an interactive, multimedia, multimodal system. The availability of these sophisticated features does not, however, guarantee their successful use. Borkowski, Henry, Larsen, and Mateik (1996), Latta (1996), Sugrue (2000) and Wesley and Franks (1995) have suggested that Web-based instruction as an extension of distance education is a viable method of pedagogy to promote authentic learning. However, matching the meaningful interactions evident in face-to-face classrooms is a challenge still unresolved. For the array of technologies available to Web-based instruction, little seems to have changed from the early days of the Web. Palloff and Pratt (1999) assert that many course sites are primarily textdriven, repositories for syllabi, course notes and electronic presentations. The level of Web authoring experience of the course instructor also has an impact on the types of interactions and technologies employed (Petrides, 2002). Limited resources, including expertise and time, may limit the opportunities an instructor can leverage for online interactions with peers, experts, course content and assessments. In turn, this may impact the quality of the Web-based course content or the Webbased learning experience (Hill, 2002).
2. Theoretical framework Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seven principles for good practice have served as a benchmark for effective teaching and learning in the university environment for several decades. Developed for undergraduate education, these guidelines are applicable to graduate education, K-12 schools, adult, informal and corporate learning environments. These guidelines are: (a) encourages contact between students and faculty, (b) develops reciprocity and cooperation among students, (c) encourages active learning, (d) gives prompt feedback, (e) emphasizes time on task, (f) communicates high expectations, and (g) respects diverse talents and ways of learning. These principles precede, complement and corroborate those identified by Marchese (1997) and Merrill (2002). Marchese through the reflective practice of teachers distinguishes (a) learner independence and choice, (b) intrinsic motivators and natural curiosity, (c) rich, timely, usable feedback (d) coupled with occasions for reflection and (e) active involvement in real-world tasks, (f) emphasizing higher-order abilities (g) done with other people (h) in high-challenge, low-threat environments (i) that provide for practice and reinforcement as essential elements of pedadgogy. Similarly, Merrill through an analysis of instructional design principles has discerned five bfirst principlesQ of instruction: (a) Learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems. (b) Learning is promoted when existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge. (c) Learning is promoted when new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner. (d) Learning is promoted when new knowledge is applied by the learner. (e) Learning is promoted when new knowledge is integrated into the learner’s world. Interestingly, the seven principles represent the teacher’s point of view, while Marchese mixes both the teacher’s perspective and student’s perspective. Merrill, however, presents the learner’s perspective. Therefore, the developmental dates of these taxonomies may represent the transition from teacher-centered instruction to more studentcentered learning.
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
75
2.1. Online learning and the seven principles With the phenomenal growth of personal computers, distance learning, and other classroom technologies, the question becomes how to continue good teaching practice while integrating technology, specifically online or Web-based learning? Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) note, bIf the power of the new technologies is to be fully realized, they should be employed in ways consistent with the Seven PrinciplesQ (p. 3). Reeves and Reeves (1997) offer a comprehensive inventory of elements to gauge the framework for technology-supported learning, and specifically, online instruction. They specify (a) pedagogical philosophy (instructivist to constructivist), (b) learning theory (behaviorist to cognitivist), (c) goal orientation (sharply focused to general), (d) task orientation (academic to authentic), (e) source of motivation (extrinsic to intrinsic), (f) teacher role (didactic to facilitator), (g) metacognitive support (unsupported to integrated), (h) collaborative learning strategies (unsupported to integral), and (i) structural flexibility (fixed to open). It is important to note that Reeves and Reeves’ list does not indicate attributes of technology or specific technologies. Bangert (2004) indicates that pedagogical beliefs of the teacher and instructional methods inherent within the seven principles will ultimately determine the success of instruction and not the specific technologies employed. Ehrmann (2003), in an update to the 1996 article on the seven principles and technology, suggests that while there are differences between the traditional and the distance learning classroom, there are similarities and that faculty teaching online should continue to use these seven principles to improve teaching and learning in their courses. A number of studies offer suggestions for faculty wishing to implement the seven principles into their courses, providing concrete ideas for each guideline (e.g., Graham, Cagiltay, Lim, Craner, & Duffy, 2001; Solloway & Harris, 1999). The following sections examine online learning with respect to the seven principles. 2.2. Student perceptions of online learning Do students learn more or at least the same amount as they do in a traditional classroom? A number of studies have been conducted recently attempting to answer this question, often using student perceptions of their success in online classes as their focus. Using the seven principles as a framework, the following overview provides relevant research results that give evidence about the impact of online learning on student perception of effective learning. 2.2.1. Good practice encourages contacts between student and faculty Students need support when concerned or confused, and online learning tools such as e-mail, conferencing and the World Wide Web could improve access to faculty (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). Yet, the lack of personal contact with faculty, or transactional distance (see Moore, 1993), continues to concern students in online courses (e.g., Knipe & Lee, 2002; Peters, 2001; Solloway & Harris, 1999; Valenta, Therriault, Dieter, & Mrtek, 2001). In their survey of 66 graduate level education students enrolled in both traditional and distance learning classes, Knipe and Lee (2002) suggest that without before- and after-class time for casual social conversation, those in distance learning classes feel limited in their time to ask questions and obtain support. Peters (2001) proposes that it is not the limited time, but students’ actual skill and interest level in socializing online that impacts their perception of effective instructor interaction online. If students enjoy
76
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
socializing online, and if they are at a university where casual interaction with a professor teaching a large class is rare, then instructor interaction may even improve online. For some instructors, deliberately withholding support from students online is seen as beneficial to the learning process and can promote self-regulation. Solloway and Harris (1999) tried to bforceQ graduate students in their online education course to discuss issues, offering opinions freely and frequently, without instructor guidance. They found, however, that many students were not ready to manage their own learning. These students reported feeling frustrated and confused by the apparent reticence of the two instructors. But over the semester, student participation in the unmoderated discussions online improved, suggesting to the researchers that student confidence overcame their need for instructor interaction (Solloway & Harris, 1999). Lastly, while Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) suggested that non-native English speakers would prefer the communication delay of a distance learning classroom, allowing them time to carefully formulate questions and thoughts, Peters (2001) found the opposite occurred. These students, along with native speakers with remedial writing skills, may find the print-based media even more daunting than speaking in class, requiring even more advanced understanding of the English language. 2.2.2. Good practice develops reciprocity and cooperation among students Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) suggest, bstudy groups, collaborative learning, group problem solving, and discussion of assignmentsQ are all methods in which reciprocity and cooperating among students can be improved online (p. 2). For example, Knipe and Lee (2002) note that students reported better collaboration online than within a regular classroom. However, other researchers report dissenting perceptions by students. In a survey of 128 business majors, from sophomores to graduate levels, some students felt they actually learned less in online courses, in part due to the challenge in contributing to classroom discussions online (O’Malley & McGraw, 1999). This challenge was exacerbated in the aforementioned study where instructors withheld input into student discussions, and students reported concern over the poor student collaboration until their confidence grew (Solloway & Harris, 1999). Valenta et al. (2001), in a study of 74 undergraduate and graduate students taking an online course for the first time, found that many students felt the lack of a shared experience with other students outweighed the advantages of working from home. So, convenience for geographic isolation may be subordinate to camaraderie and social interactions. Some authors (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Ko & Rossen, 2001) assert that individuals struggle with group formations and task negotiations. In fact, Hill, Han, and Raven (2001) acknowledge specific strategies are necessary to develop and maintain communities online. 2.2.3. Good practice uses active learning techniques Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) propose numerous Web-based tools, such as those that encourage synchronous conversations worldwide, could improve active learning in the university classroom. Evidence within the student perception literature, is very scant, however. In Valenta et al.’s study (2001), those students classified as having a btime and structureQ preference felt the need for active learning to be one of the advantages of online learning. Sanders and Morrison-Shetlar (2001) support Chickering and Ehrmann’s assertions, finding Web-enhanced instruction had a positive effect on problem solving and critical thinking.
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
77
Other results differ. For example, Knipe and Lee (2002) report lower order cognitive outcomes common in distance learning. Specifically, students perceived learning memorizing, learning new terms and practicing skills as products prevalent in their online courses. Also significant, 63% of students reported that blearning to be criticalQ was more common in traditional, face-to-face courses. This finding may bolster Palloff and Pratt’s (1999) early assertion that primarily text-driven courses do little to engage students. 2.2.4. Good practice gives prompt feedback Using word processing software’s editing tools or video as a work in progress, in addition to e-mail and other communication tools, allows faculty to provide feedback in an online learning class (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). Frey, Faul, and Yankelov (2003) report that faculty frequently used feedback and assessment strategies that students perceived as valuable, such as bposting gradesQ and bonline feedback regarding assignmentsQ (p. 452). Prior research, however, differs. As the above section on instructor interaction showed, studies into student perceptions of online learning do not suggest as a whole that students are receiving the feedback they need (Peters, 2001; Solloway & Harris, 1999; Knipe & Lee, 2002). In addition, Knipe and Lee (2002) suggest that a professor’s teaching strategies, technology skills and interest level, and preparation impact the amount of feedback and interaction in the distance learning classroom. This concurs with Hill’s (2002) belief that limited instructor expertise can impact course quality. 2.2.5. Good practice emphasizes time on task While Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) emphasize efficient use of time spent learning, students see time online, whether learning or simply navigating/using the technology, as one lump sum. In a study of 657 undergraduate business students, researchers found that students who were accessing a campus-wide online portal more often were the ones reporting that online learning positively impacts their grades (Peh & Foo, 2001). Those spending less time online reported less confidence that the online tool would help them improve their grades. This finding corroborates Sanders and Morrison-Shelar’s (2001) results that students who spent more time online held more positive attitudes toward the course. Valenta et al. (2001) found that students classified as having btime and structureQ or bconvenienceQ viewpoints not surprisingly valued time flexibility. Working from home, saving travel time and costs, and working when and where they wanted were all listed as advantages to learning online by these groups. Moreover, students have reported wanting more online classes but feeling that they learned less in online classes over traditional settings (O’Malley & McGraw, 1999). These students reported online learning as saving time, fitting into their schedule better, and enabling more courses to be taken at once, yet when asked about its effectiveness as a learning tool, students consistently ranked online learning lower than the traditional classroom (O’Malley & McGraw, 1999). Interestingly, while time online is seen as an convenience and flexible so it can fit into one’s schedule, actual time online is also perceived as greater than the time one would spend preparing for a similar class taught within a classroom (Tamashiro, 2004). 2.2.6. Good practice communicates high expectations Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) suggest that with the availability of information and knowledge from the Internet and electronic databases, students have access to a variety of different points of view to analyze, synthesize and evaluate, providing learning challenges for students. Other technology tools,
78
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
such as synchronous and asynchronous communications, also offer motivations for students. However, research into how online learning actually impacts perceptions of high expectations is nominal. The use of the term workload in a number of studies can be seen as complimentary of high expectations: to achieve more one needs to work more. In addition, students report a heavier workload online than in a traditional classroom (Peh & Foo, 2001; Tamashiro, 2004; Valenta et al., 2001). Yet, these terms are not identical, and a need for future research into student perceptions of high expectations is evident. 2.2.7. Good practice respects diverse talents and ways of learning When learners prefer one method of instruction to another, researchers have demonstrated that making allowances for individual differences can improve academic achievement and learning (Dunn & Dunn, 1979; Renninger & Snyder, 1983; Ross, Drysdale, & Schultz, 2001; Samples, 1992; Snyder, 2000). Creating a learning environment that acknowledges and tolerates individual learning differences may enable students to perform better. Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) note, btechnologies can help students learn in ways they find most effective and broaden their repertoires for learningQ (p. 6). Frey et al. (2003) found no differences among different learning styles and their perceptions of valuable Web-based strategies; both singular and multimodal learners held similar perceptions. Similarly, Sanders and Morrison-Shetlar (2001) found no differences in learner preferences when conscious efforts were employed to address these differences. Graff (2003), however, found differing cognitive styles affected performance within a Web-based instructional system. Valenta et al’s. (2001) groupings of learner preferences suggest that at least some students have a learning style that works better in an online environment. Other recent research suggests that online learning is not yet addressing diversity in learners. Computer skills are listed by numerous researchers (e.g., Frey et al., 2003; Peters, 2001; Tamashiro, 2004) as a concern of students in online courses. Those with limited technology skills perceive online learning as less effective or dissatisfying than those with more robust skills. Tamashiro (2004) asserts that online learning benefits the student predisposed to learning electronically and not the entire student population. 2.2.8. Criticisms of the seven principles Criticisms of Chickering’s and Ehrmann’s (1996) principles mainly focus on the lack of alternatives to the precise teaching methodologies they endorse. Heterick (2002) suggests that their emphasis on indepth interaction between full-time faculty and students is not supported by the research. Citing a number of recent studies at higher education institutions, Heterick (2002) argues that increased interaction between students and the course materials themselves and increased interaction between students and persons other than full time faculty lead to increased learning. Moreover, too much time spent between students and full time faculty might even be detrimental, preventing educators from focusing on their primary role as bthe architects and managers of these new learning environments and the ones who ensure that students have a high-quality experienceQ (Heterick, 2002, n.p.). Heterick (2002) also suggests that the small class size required for in-depth interactions between students and full time faculty is simply not cost feasible for most institutions. This lack of practicality is echoed in Michael Coghlan’s opinion piece on Chickering’s and Ehrmann’s (1996) work. Coghlan (2001) argues that the constructivist framework, which allows for these principles, while ideal, is not how teachers teach or, frankly, are taught to teach by colleges of education. He suggests using the principles as a measuring stick and setting smaller goals of achieving many but not all of the principles.
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
79
Fitzsimmons (2001) suggests that the seven principles are only effective for those students with a specific skill set and learning style. Fitzsimmons (2001) offers an overview of successes and challenges with an undergraduate fiction course taught online for the first time. Using Chickering and Ehrmann’s (1996) seven principles, the course was redesigned and implemented with an emphasis on task, not text, and included a number of interactive and online components. Fitzsimmons (2001) found that those students who were independent learners reported more satisfaction and increased learning with the new mode of instruction. However, other students bwho relied on child-like models of learningQ (Fitzsimmons, 2001, n.p.) struggled both with the course content and the online technologies and tasks. He concludes that success with the seven principles requires more scaffolding than Chickering and Ehrmann (1997) maintained, especially in the areas of tech skills and ability to search for and synthesize information. Lastly, it is the opinion of the authors of the current paper that Chickering and Ehrmann (1996), whose work centers on undergraduate students, may not address the unique nature of graduate students and their relationships with faculty. With primarily smaller class sizes, increased face-to-face time with faculty, and more often than not, independent learning styles, the graduate setting lacks many of the challenges Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) attempt to address with undergraduate populations. 2.3. Statement of purpose and research question Though there is significant support that students’ perceive online learning as effective, other results counter these claims. The purpose of this research was to examine from the student perspective the effectiveness of online courses. Specifically, this study sought to answer: Is online or Web-based instruction perceived as effective as face-to-face instruction by graduate students in teacher education?
3. Methodology During the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 semesters at a large, urban southern university, several graduate courses in education were taught online while the majority of classes were taught on campus using traditional, face-to-face formats. The faculty members were concerned that students would not feel that the learning experience of the online classes was as effective as the campus learning experience. Though some of the face-to-face courses augmented instruction with online materials, they were taught primarily on campus. The online courses were mostly taught asynchronously, using discussion boards, email, readings and electronic presentations, though some courses included occasional synchronous chat times. These courses did not meet face to face or on campus for class. All courses were developed in the university’s course management system, WebCT. Many of these Internet-only courses were a part of a state wide online degree program, while others were part of a Masters degree in teacher education. The content of the online courses was variable. The online courses were in the areas of curriculum (3 classes), instruction (3 classes), classroom management (1 class), action research (1 class), and using the Internet for instruction (1 class). Students that completed either online or face-to-face courses were asked by their instructors to complete an online survey at the end of the semester on elements that contribute to their learning successes (see Appendix A). The request came by email or in person from their instructors. The
80
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
instrument was adapted from a survey developed by Nguyen, Cripps, and Draude (2002). Their survey was taken from the The Seven Principles of Good Practice developed by Chickering and Gamson (1987) and later adapted for online learning by Chickering and Erhmann (1996). During the Fall 2002 semester there were 90 on campus courses with 1530 graduate students enrolled and 6 online courses with 78 graduate students enrolled. During the Spring 2003 semester there were 85 on campus courses with 1595 graduate students enrolled and 3 online courses with 31 graduate students enrolled. The number of students is a total of all of the students enrolled, so most student are counted more than once for each class in which they are enrolled. The survey had 92 responses, 20 for online courses and 72 for on campus courses. The response rate was 7.44% with a 6.4% rate for on campus students and 18.02% for online students’ responses. No demographic data was collected about the respondents.
4. Results The results were compiled and the sample means and standard deviations computed. Afterwards, an independent t-test was conducted on each question of the survey. The alpha level was set at 0.05 at the 95% confidence level. Since there were multiple t-tests computed (eight total), there was a concern that a type one error may occur where false significant effects would be identified. To correct for the inflation of the alpha score due to the multiple t-tests, the Bonferroni correction/adjustment procedure was used. The adjusted p value was 0.00625. The results are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1 Face-to-face vs. online means, standard deviations, and t-test significance Question How much does the interaction between you and your instructor contribute to your learning success? How much does the collaboration between members of your class contribute to your learning success? How much does your learning success result from active learning? How much does your learning success result from prompt feedback on your performance? How much does your learning success result from the accumulated time you spent on learning materials? How much does your learning success result from the high expectations of the instructor from you? How much does your learning success result from the fact the learning materials as presented match your learning style? How much have you learned in this course?
Face-to-face M (SD), n=72
Online M (SD), n=20
t-test
3.9 (1.27)
3.95 (0.97)
0.8689
3.64 (1.13)
3.25 (1.02)
0.1502
4.15 (1.07)
4 (0.92)
0.5300
3.79 (1.13)
4.25 (0.85)
0.0463
3.58 (0.99)
4.2 (0.62)
0.0013*
3.58 (1.20)
3.7 (1.13)
0.6892
3.49 (1.13)
3.95 (0.76)
0.0367
3.88 (1.31)
4.45 (0.69)
0.0105
1=nothing; 2=some but not much; 3=average; 4=more than average; 5=a lot. pb0.05, adjusted pb0.00625 (adapted from Nguyen et al., 2002).
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
81
Using the adjusted p value, there was only one significant difference for the online class. The online students results had a mean significantly higher than the campus instruction on the principle concerning the amount of time the students perceive they spent on learning materials (online: X¯ =4.2, SD=0.62 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.58, SD=0.99). The p value of 0.0013 was below the adjusted p value of 0.00625. A post hoc analysis was conducted to determine the effect size of this finding using the procedure outlined by Coe (2000). The effect size was 0.67 with a confidence interval of 0.16 to 1.17. This effect size supported the t-test in determining that the difference in the means was statistically significant and of an effect size that supports that the difference was not due to chance. Students who rated the online courses rated their courses in several areas higher than students who rated their campus courses. These areas did not demonstrate significant differences but did give evidence that online instruction may be equivalent to traditional instruction in the areas of interaction between student and instructor (online: X¯ =3.95, SD=0.97 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.9, SD=1.27), prompt feedback from the instructor (online: X¯ =4.25, SD=0.85 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.79, SD=1.13), high expectations from the instructor (online: X¯ =3.7, SD=1.13 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.58, SD=1.20) and having the learning materials match the students’ learning styles (online: X¯ =3.95, SD=0.76 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.49, SD=1.13). The students of online classes also rated the amount they learned in the classes higher (X¯ =4.45, SD=0.69) than students that took face-to-face courses (X¯ =3.88, SD=1.31). Since the scores were not significantly different, the results may be due to chance rather than a meaningful score difference. The direction of the scores in favor of online learning should be viewed with caution. Two areas were rated slightly higher for campus classes than online classes. Those areas were student collaboration (online: X¯ =3.95, SD=0.76 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.49, SD=1.13) and active learning (online: X¯ =3.95, SD=0.76 as compared to campus: X¯ =3.49, SD=1.13). Again since the scores were not significantly different, the results may be due to chance and should not be used as evidence of online or campus classes being perceived as different.
5. Discussion The results give evidence that online learning is perceived as effective or possibly more effective for learners in graduate teacher education courses. Time on task using materials was rated significantly higher for student taking online courses than students enrolled in campus courses. Since there were no audio or video lectures in these online classes, the information was given in a text format. The activities were completed at the student’s discretion so students’ only go online when they have time to read or complete the assignments. This result supports Chickering and Erhmann’s (1996) assertion that the time spent by student in online classes is more efficient. There is possibly more time wasted in class where students may or may not be on task. An element to this dimension left unanswered is whether any of the assignments were completed within groups or teams. Uribe, Klein, and Sullivan (2003) report that collaborative learning–while effective–took significantly more time than individuals. While it is impossible to determine whether collaborations may have impacted this study, it is plausible to consider that the time required for collaborations may have had a negative perception for students.
82
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
Though time on task may be higher for online classes, in this study it appears that students may have perceived this additional time as a contributor to their learning success. The additional time on task is similar to results found by Tamashiro (2004). Additionally, the perception that the additional time contributed to the students’ learning success was also found in the studies by Peh and Foo (2001) and Valenta et. al. (2001). The overall rating for all principles including learning in the classes was quite high for online learning and not significantly inferior to campus learning according to the results. But it is also possible that online learners were not composed of a cross section of the general student population. Online learners may have been dissatisfied with traditional courses, so they rated their learning with online courses higher than students who have not made any changes in their education delivery. The graduate students in education rated that in most cases they learned ba lotQ from their online courses. The positive rating of online learning found in this study supports positive results in other studies (e.g., Huang, 2002; Peh & Foo, 2001; Sanders & Morrison-Shetland, 2001; Valenta et al., 2001). The results do not agree with O’Malley and McGraw (1999) and Knipe and Lee (2002) who found the quality of online learning was not as effective. There were several outside variables of note than may have impacted the results of this study. Fulltime faculty members taught all of the online courses whereas adjunct instructors taught several of the campus courses. Though adjunct instructors may be as effective or more effective in instruction as fulltime faculty members, this factor was not controlled. Though the students who chose to respond to the survey were self-selected and there was a low response rate, it is unlikely that only students who liked online learning and disliked traditional learning would chose to participate. It is, however, possible that because this university was just beginning online instruction, students considered innovators or early adopters (see Rogers, 1995) may have chosen to take these courses before the courses became more mainstream. Additionally, using the seven principles as a basis for interpretation may be perceived as inadequate. The seven principles are abstractions from successful teacher practice and represent an aggregate of teaching strategies and methods. For example, bencourages active learningQ can subsume many constructivist methods and learner-centered strategies, such as project-based learning, problem-based learning, case-based learning, open-ended learning environments, self-regulated learning and selfdirected learning. However, the implementation of these strategies neither guarantees successful teaching and learning nor assures student satisfaction. Bangert (2004) asserts that constructivist models are recommended and employed for online instruction. Therefore, evaluation instruments that do not specifically reflect these learner-centered strategies or methods are suspect. Moreover, there is an assumption that providing for all of the seven principles will ensure successful learning and student satisfaction. This is not the case. Specifically, some online students may be ill equipped to handle the self-direction necessary to succeed (e.g., Bangert, 2004), and some students’ lack of face-to-face contact may prevent student satisfaction or self-efficacy. 5.1. Future research There are several topics of interest that could be explored in future studies. One question could examine student perceptions of online and traditional learning in a variety of fields and different levels of education. It is possible that undergraduate and graduate students would respond
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
83
differently to online instruction, and some fields may lend themselves in various ways to online learning. Hybrid courses (combinations of online and face-to-face meetings) are now becoming more readily available in higher education. Many classes have some sort of online component whether it is minimalsuch as a list of online resources- or extensive- with complete online learning modules. It would be interesting to see the impact of hybrid courses on student perceptions of best practices. Eastmond, Nickel, Plessis, and Smith (2000) and Harmon and Jones (1999) offer two models for examining hybrid or incremental approaches to using online instruction. Both of these models are worthy of research for their impact on student achievement and satisfaction. There are also new technologies available that are making the online experience more similar to the traditional class. Now lectures may be available on audio or video and with live video conferencing available for real-time situations. Course management systems with plug-ins like HorizonLive and Wimba, as well as dedicated systems like Polycom ViaVideo II with MCS Bridge, allow synchronous interactions. Products like Macromedia Breeze, Impactica, Respondus, Wimba and a host of other development tools, such as Macromedia Authorware, Flash, Director and Toolbook, offer asynchronous options as well. The only difference for some classes may be where the students are sitting, with the rest of the experience very similar to traditional instruction. Additional research on the Seven Principles of Good Practice (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) would be useful. Reliability and validity of measures developed from the seven principles would assist the research efforts of those using them to measure the perceived impact of instruction on students. The work of Bangert (2004) represents an effort in this direction. Outside validity would also make this study stronger. For example, student achievement measures could be collected to corroborate the student’s perceptions of the contributions to their learning success.
6. Conclusions Despite this study’s limitations, this group of students reported that online learning was as successful a medium to learn graduate level material and even superior for them in the area of time on task when compared to the face-to-face experience. These preservice and inservice teachers felt they learned a significant amount in their online classes. Though online learning may not be appropriate for all students or all classes, this study gives further support for its viability as way to teach graduate teacher education students. With the current teacher shortages and difficulty in recruiting students, online courses may be a way to reach additional potential educators.
Acknowledgements The first author would like to acknowledge the Instruction and Curriculum Leadership Department WebCT committee members, Dr. Fran Clark, Dr. Kate Kelly, Dr. Deborah Moberly and Dr. Dennie Smith, for their contributions to this study. This study was completed with funds from an AT&T Foundation Grant through the Advanced Learning Center at The University of Memphis.
84
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
Appendix A. Contributions to learning success: survey The course I am enrolled in is delivered: on campus online How much does the interaction between you and your instructor contribute to your learning success? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much does the collaboration between members of your class contribute to your learning success? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much does your learning success result from active learning? (Note: active learning means byou think, talk, or write about what you have learned, relate it to past experiences and apply it to your daily lifeQ) nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much does your learning success result from prompt feedback on your performance? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much does your learning success result from the accumulated time you spent on learning materials? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much does your learning success result from the high expectations of the instructor for you? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much does your learning success result from the fact the learning materials as presented match your learning style? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot How much have you learned in this course? nothing some but not much average more than average a lot Adapted from Nguyen et al. (2002).
References Bangert, A. W. (2004). The seven principles of good practice: A framework for evaluating on-line teaching. Internet and Higher Education, 7(3), 217 – 232. Borkowski, E. Y., Henry, D., Larsen, L. L., & Mateik, D., (1996). Supporting teaching and learning via the web: Transforming hard-copy linear mindsets into web-flexible creative thinking. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 652). Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996, October). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 3–6 (Retrieved July 28, 2004 from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html). Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3 – 7. Coe, R. (2000). What is an beffect sizeQ? A guide for users. Retrieved December 13, 2004 from http://www.cemcentre.org/ ebeuk/research/effectsize/ESguide.htm Coghlan, M. (2001). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. (opinion). Retrieved December 13, 2004 from http://www.users.chariot.net.au/~michaelc/ttt/principles.htm Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they be matched? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 238 – 244. Eastmond, J. N., Nickel, T., Plessis, J. D., & Smith, L. D. (2000). An incremental approach to implementing a web course. TechTrends, 44(3), 40 – 45. Ehrmann, S. C. (2003, October). New ideas, and additional reading. Update to implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 3–6 (Retrieved July 28, 2004 from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html). Fitzsimmons, J. (2001). How to design an effective online unit. Teaching Online in Higher Education Online Conference proceedings. Retrieved December 13, 2004 from http://www.ipfw.edu/as/tohe/2001/Papers/fitzsimmons.htm Frey, A., Faul, A., & Yankelov, P. (2003). Student perceptions of Web-assisted teaching strategies. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(3), 443 – 457.
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
85
Graff, M. (2003). Learning from Web-based instructional systems and cognitive style. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 407 – 418. Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source, March/April. Retrieved July 29, 2004, from http://www.ts.mivu.org/ default.asp?show=article & id=839 Harmon, S. W., & Jones, M. G. (1999). The five levels of web use in education: Factors to consider in planning online courses. Educational Technology, 39(6), 28 – 32. Heterick, R. C. (2002). Higher ed: Rethinking the seven principles. The Learning Marketplace. Retrieved December 13, 2004 from http://www.events.siue.edu/tlt/article.php?op=Print & sid=13 Hill, J. R. (2002). Overcoming obstacles and creating connections: Community building in Web-based learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14(1), 67 – 86. Hill, J. R., Han, S., & Raven, A. (2001, November 8–12). Build it and they will stay: A research-based model for creating community in Web-based learning environments. Paper Presented at the National Convention Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Atlanta, GA. Huang, H. (2002). Student perceptions in an online mediated environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 405 – 422. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN7 Interaction. Knipe, D., & Lee, M. (2002). The quality of teaching and learning via videoconferencing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 301 – 311. Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2001). Teaching online: A practical guide. Boston7 Houghton Mifflin. Latta, G. F. (1996). The virtual university: Creating an emergent reality. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 399 970). Marchese, T. (1997). The new conversations about learning: Insights from neuroscience and anthropology, cognitive science and work-place studies. Assessing impact: Evidence and citation (pp. 79 – 95). Washington, DC7 AAHE. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43 – 59. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22 – 38). New York7 Routledge. Nguyen, N., Cripps, A., & Draude, B. (2002). Application of the AAHE’s seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education to online teaching. The National Social Science Journal, 18(2), 91 – 101. O’Malley, J., & McGraw, H., (1999). Students [sic] perceptions of distance learning, online learning, and the traditional classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, II(IV). Retrieved July 24, 2004, from http:// www.westga.edu/~distance/omalley24.html Pallof, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco7 Jossey-Bass. Peh, W. L., & Foo, S. (2001). Students’ perceptions of online learning: A case study of Singapore Temasek Polytechnic’s Virtual School of Business Project. LIBRES: Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 11(2). (Retrieved July 24, 2004, from http://libres.curtin.edu.au/LIBRE11N2/pehfoo.htm). Peters, L. (2001). Through the looking glass: Student perceptions of online learning. Commentary in The Technology Source, Sept/Oct. Retrieved July 24, 2004, from http://www.ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article & id=907 Petrides, L. A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 69 – 77. Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In B. Kahn (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 59 – 66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Educational Technology Publications. Renninger, K. A., & Snyder, S. S. (1983). Effects of cognitive style on perceived satisfaction and performance among students and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(5), 668 – 676. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York7 The Free Press. Ross, J. L., Drysdale, M. T. B., & Schultz, R. A. (2001). Cognitive learning styles and academic performance in two postsecondary computer application courses. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(4), 400 – 412. Samples, B. (1992). Using learning modalities to celebrate intelligence. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 62 – 66. Sanders, D. W., & Morrison-Shetland, A. I. (2001). Student attitudes toward Web-enhanced instruction in an introductory biology course. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 251 – 262.
86
J.S. Robertson et al. / Internet and Higher Education 8 (2005) 73–86
Snyder, R. F. (2000). The relationship between learning styles/multiple intelligences and academic achievement of high school students. The High School Journal, 83, 11 – 20. Solloway, S. G., & Harris, E. L. (1999). Creating community online: Negotiating students’ needs and desires in cyberspace. Educom Review (March/April). Retrieved July 2004, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/erm99021.html Sugrue, B. (2000). Cognitive approaches to web-based instruction. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools volume two: No more walls (pp. 133 – 162). Mahwah, NJ7 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tamashiro, R. (2004). Pros and cons of online learning: Conflicting perceptions among teacher education students. Conference Proceedings from Hawaii International Conference on Education. Retrieved July 28, 2004, from www.hiceducation.org/ Edu_Proceedings/Roy%20Tamashiro.pdf Uribe, D., Klein, J. D., & Sullivan, H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-define problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 5 – 19. Valenta, A., Therriault, D., Dieter, M., & Mrtek, R. (2001). Identifying student attitudes and learning styles in distance education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2)(Retrieved July 28, 2004, from http://www.aln.org/ publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_valenta.asp). Wesley, M. T., & Franks, M. E. (1995). The virtual classroom, authentic assessment, and learning process control in online teacher development to support Internet telecommunications in education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 391 469).