Welcome!

I plan to post topics regarding trends in distance education, as well as other information that pertains to enabling learners learn in a "non-traditional" environment!

Monday 28 May 2012

CANADIAN DISTANCE EDUCATION: Style Over Substance or Substance Over Style? PART 2...




PART TWO:  “SUBSTANCE”

So, Canadian educators are using synchronous and asynchronous methods to deliver their programs.  What implications do these methods have on learners?  What did they prefer?  What did the research find?

Referring back to the article “Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers” by Elizabeth Murphy, Maria A. Rodriguez-Manzanares, and Michael Barbour, the researchers interviewed 42 Canadian distance education teachers from all over the country.  I found this number fascinating itself since it is difficult to find research participants for research studies.  If there were 42 participants, how many non-participants were there?  Right away I thought “things have changed from 1997!”  (see post “Canadian Distance Education – Have things changes since the 90s") simply due to the numbers in the study.  Apparently in the late 90s there were only a handful of institutions attempting to employ distance learning.  These numbers, even if there were “only” 42, indicate to me that Canadians are embracing the technology.

What was interesting is that the researchers found that there is a preference for asynchronous online teaching.  The reason given was that students prefer using text for communication purposes.  Using text was not a method I employed in my synchronous distance education course.  I just assumed that students liked the live format because they could ask me questions directly.  I did use email as a means of communication, but never did use message boards.  The authors’ research did indicate, however, that voice was important to helping those learners having problems.

Even though the study focused on perceptions from teachers of both asynchronous and synchronous models, they found that all of the teachers in the study actually relied on variations of both models which can loosely be defined as “blended learning”, another expression that I have not heard coined until recently.

I found the findings of this research interesting.  Applying learning theory to this situation, it appears students like the ability to work at their own pace, spending the time needed on material before moving on (asynchronous).  If a course is designed properly, students could have the ability to “branch” for remedial help or advanced questions on a topic, which is an application of behaviorism (see Driscoll, 2005 p. 62)  As well, hopefully students would be “able to test their own understandings against those of others, notably those of teachers or more advanced peers” (Driscoll, 2005 p. 388) employing a constructivist approach.  Message boards could be used to serve this purpose.

With the ability to post and react at will, watch video or listen to audio on demand, and have the ability to ask questions live, do educators have all bases covered?  This article answered another question I had in a previous blog entry regarding what attracts learners to certain programs.  The authors of the article indicate that educators and designers must focus on pedagogy rather than the media used to deliver the course.  This is the reason we must understand different theories to help us understand HOW learners learn and how we can use the technologies available to best bring out understanding from our students.  If we have solid instruction from a pedagogical point of view, our applications of these skills will be evident in our work-lives (or daily lives), and later in the lives of our learners.

So, style over substance or substance over style?  It appears that both play a role in distance education. As seen in this study, both styles (asynchronous and synchronous) can be employed to meet learning needs. I feel, however, that in order for a program to be effective one cannot overlook substance, in this case meaning learning theory, quality of content, and quality of instruction.  The research supports these findings.

Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed). Boston, MA: Pearson
A&B

Murphy, E., Rodriguez-Manzanares, M., & Barbour, M. (2011). Asynchronous and
synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance
education teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 583-591.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01112.x

 Photo Credit:  http://www.inboundsales.net/Portals/87880/images/2010-Substance-Logo[1].jpg



1 comment:

  1. Here's something I keep tripping over. By the way, I really like your post and how it makes me think. But here's the thing: we respect the learner's responsibility to create meaning, but we have the additional responsibility to provide access to content. We might provide it, but so may a whole host of other sources (people included). When does content, wherever it comes from, take a back seat to the process of helping learners become independent? How do we know where to draw the line? When does process win? When do we trust our learners to make their own learning? These aren't naive questions: the line is drawn every day in our classrooms. Mine and yours.

    I'm really glad to see you reaching to theory to help you position yourself in finding an answer to this very classic conundrum. If you're looking to me to provide the answer, I'll have to disappoint you. But really, it's all about respecting you. Let's try to find the answer together!

    And by the way, I think Elizabeth Murphy is fabulous!

    ReplyDelete