Is DL really as good as B&M?

DL can't be as good as BM, because you don't get to do things like THIS with DL schools.

 

Thankfully none of my classes at AMU have ever used group projects. All of my grades have been based solely on my own work which is great.

 

I taught for UoP for 3 years, one of which I was full-time as a campus chair. The group learning sucks, primarily for reasons stated above.

The pedagogical underpinnings of the group learning are that it is done that way in real life. Problems are solved by working together, seldom by working in a vacuum. (Astronauts excluded ) But the reality at UoP is much different. Students and teachers are naturally in an adversarial role. (Another reason why I hate grades.) What happens is that students carry the weak/non-performing one for too long, only delivering him/her to the instructor after it is too late to work things out. Then the instructor is faced with giving a separate grade to the non-performer, but the previous assignments are lost--the non-performer gets carried. This is frustrating because the instructor finds out way too late. But the alternative is to work a "rat on your buddy" system, which is no fun either.

Plus, there's the problem of unequal work receiving equal grades. Plus the fact that the other students have to make up for the missing-in-action, which is worse than working with one less student, by the way.

Oh, and most students resent having this (virtual) classroom management issue shifted from the school to them. And I'd have to agree with them.

Collaboration is fine. But it's my tuition, my learning, my grade, and my degree. UoP has a good idea, but it really sucks in practice.

 

Rich,

Good post. I'm a bit torn on group projects right now because of an experience that I am currently dealing with.

I teach Small Business Management via ITV to three different locations. There are five students in the class. The project is simple - the team writes the business plan. Students submit a business plan in collaboration with an existing business. The past two years, the class has gone great. This year...no one will step up and lead. I give 60 - 90 minutes a week to the team to collaborate. I've recommended agendas, backwards planning, etc., to no avail. The students basically sit there and doodle for a bit, make some small talk, and then leave.

I have the students submit a confidential peer evaluation at the end of the semester which I factor in the grading. I like team projects because for our students at the community college level, they have networking opportunities, the sum is better than the individual parts, etc. But this year, it's just not working well...

Had to get that off my chest.

 

Out of the four I have completed so far at AMU, one class did require a group final project. The good thing is that there were different topics available, and we could pick which ones we wanted in order of preference. So I ended up on a team with others who were interested in the particular subject, and we all put in a good effort and made an A.

Though I probably would get sick of it if every class required group projects.

 

I have never had a good group project experience...really, never. I must have the bad luck to draw lousy partners. I have always busted my hump to get an "A" and inevitably have the grade dragged down to a "B" and one time a "C" just because someone on the team is not a good student. A waste of time, IMO. It always boiled down to the choice between doing their work for them or accepting a lower grade.

 

I had one good group experience as an undergraduate in a traditional classroom. We were assigned a group presentation, but we were graded separately. We coordinated, but your part of the work was clearly identified...nowhere for slackers to hide!

 

I can remember having group sex while at university once, I would say that almost everyone pulled their own weight except for one guy who didn't produce more than 3 minutes worth of effort, how do you grade that?? I must admit, none of my DL courses have produced the same outcome as this B&M experience, chalk one up for the olé campus experience there!

 

This is definitely one solid argument against DL and for B&M programs.

 

Surely you've seen the news stories about disorderly online frats, like this one from Capella.

 

What can be done to make DL as good as B&M?

 

Unfortunately, nothing can make DL as good as B&M, nor can anything make B&M as good as DL. You see, the question itself cannot be answered because it assumes that all B&M is of similar quality and all DL is of similar quality.

If one is doing research to see whether one group of students is doing significantly better than another, one performs an analysis of variance (ANOVA). If the variation of scores within each group is larger than the variation between one group and another, you cannot say that one group is significantly better than the other.

This is the fatal flaw in the DL vs. B&M argument. In order to say that one is better than the other, you must show that the variation in quality within each group is so small that they can be compared to each other. Since there are both great and horrible B&M classes and great and horrible DL classes, how can you compare all of them? The variation within these too groups is greater than the variation between them.

The best that we can do is look at the studies done since 1928 comparing technology-delivered instruction to traditional face-to-face instruction. The results? By and large, most students learn equally well regardless of whether instruction is delivered in a classroom or via technology. There is no body of literature (other than subjective opinion polls) establishing the inferiority of DL.

 

This is exactly the information I was looking for. I know I have never read any research proving that DL is inferior, it's good to know that my original assumption was correct. Thank you.

 

I concur with everything Dr. Tony says, but I want to put a different spin on it.

How to make DL as good as B&M? By playing to the unique advantages of DL, instead of trying to mimic the classroom experience. Some advantages of DL include:

-- Asynchronous learning, which brings greater flexibility in both scheduling and pace; learners can learn when they have time, and can also take the time necessary to ponder what they've learned.

-- Multimedia, which brings rich, dense learning experiences, including linking to just about anything on the internet. Sure, multimedia can be brought into the classroom, but students can't manipulate it easily, link to other objects, etc.

-- Independent learning. Students are free to pursue threads of learning as they see fit. They're not stuck in a lock-step approach typical of the classroom.

-- Learner-centeredness. DL instruction can be customized for each learner's needs and interests; no one else's learning is impacted. (Anyone who's sat through a series of student briefings in a classroom knows exactly what I'm talking about.)

I'm sure there are many more. DL has the potential to be a terrific, different, yet equivalent learning experience. I'd love to see an organization get out in front on it. I thought the USDLA would. I'd love to see DETC do it, instead of accrediting yet another bunch of cookie-cutter schools. That would be cool.

 

One could also approach the problem/phenomenon qualitatively. I would take a grounded theory approach, examining it to see if a theory about DL would emerge, then connect it to existing literature to refine it. Imagine the really rich data that could emerge, far beyond any survey or other quantitative method could create. The diversity you refer to would add strength using this methodology, not weaken it.

 

Alpha
Sigma
Sigma

 

As always, the Onion provides...

 

Agreed. Much of the literature over the years has been taken up with atheoretical media comparison studies. After so many years of "no significant difference," I would hope that we could say "Been there, done that. This question has been answered." Then I see another opinion poll of "faculty suspicious of DL quality" and realize how much ignorance still exists after 80 years of research.

A grounded theory approach would yield some fascinating results. I tend to find qualitative studies to be far more interesting than quantitative (but can yeild huge amounts of data to deal with).

There are some existent theorietical frameworks for DL (e.g. Moore's transactional distance, Anderson's equivalency of interaction) and many others not exclusive to DL (e.g. situated cognition, constructivism, fordism). I am with you that this would produce a much richer understanding than our current: "Well, is it really as good as face-to-face?"

 

If you are interested, this is a good place to start:
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

 

This article sheds some light on how the academic world perceives DL vs. B&M degrees. This was written in 2003, but I think it still holds true.

http://chronicle.com/article/Battling-the-Stigma-of/45160