Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in a recent post
"Learning Outcomes: Face-to-Face vs Online #3" [Hake (2011)]. The
abstract reads:
*************************************
ABSTRACT: In an earlier post "Learning Outcomes: Face-to-Face vs
Online" I responded to a question posed by STLHE-L's Martin
Rosenzweig: "Does anyone know of any published studies comparing
online to face-to-face instruction with regards to learning
outcomes?" I wrote: "As far as I know the answer is 'NO.' The reason
is [as pointed out in 'Can Distance and Classroom Learning Be
Increased?' (Hake, 2008a)] 'scholars of teaching and learning
continue to rely on low-resolution gauges of students' learning.' "
In response, several discussion-list subscribers called attention to
"Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A
Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies" [USDE (2009)] at
<http://bit.ly/e1VXvA>, of which I had been unaware.
In my opinion, the USDE (2009) study is yet another example of
reliance on low-resolution gauges of students' learning. On pages
11-12 it is stated that examples of learning outcome measures
included: (a) scores on standardized tests, (b) scores on
researcher-created assessments, (c) grades/scores on teacher-created
assessments (e.g., assignments, midterm/final exams), and (d) grades
or grade point averages.
But among lessons of the physics education research effort [Hake
(2002)] are that: (1) "c" and "d" are *invalid* measures of students'
*higher-order* learning, and (2) analyses of "a" and "b" are best
carried out in terms of the average *normalized* gain <g>, ignored in
USDE (2009).
Furthermore, on page 18 of <http://bit.ly/e1VXvA> the USDE report
states: "The mean effect size for all 50 contrasts of online vs
face-to-face instruction was +0.20."
Contrast the above with the effect size d = +2.43 for the superiority
of <<g>> for 48 face-to-face "interactive engagement" physics courses
vs 14 face-to-face "traditional" introductory physics courses [Hake
(1998a,b; 2002; 2008b)]. I suspect that similar large effect sizes
would be found for the superiority of online "interactive engagement"
courses vs online "traditional" courses.
In my opinion it makes little sense to meta-analyze online vs
face-to-face instruction without taking into account the relatively
large effects on higher-order learning of "interactive-engagement" vs
"traditional" instruction.
*************************************
"Physics educators have led the way in developing and using objective
tests to compare student learning gains in different types of
courses, and chemists, biologists, and others are now developing
similar instruments. These tests provide convincing evidence that
students assimilate new knowledge more effectively incourses
including active, inquiry-based, and collaborative learning, assisted
by information technology, than in traditional courses."
Wood & Gentile (2003)
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 05 Jan 2010.
Hake, R.R. 2002. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort,"
Ecology and Society 5(2): 28; online at <http://bit.ly/aL87VT>.
Hake, R.R. 2008a. "Can Distance and Classroom Learning Be Increased?"
IJ-SoTL 2(1): January; online at <http://bit.ly/98dL0Y>.
Hake, R.R. 2011. "Learning Outcomes: Face-to-Face vs Online #3"
online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/egC8I3>. Post
of 5 Jan 2011 13:54:14 -0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract
and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various
discussion lists are also online on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at
<http://bit.ly/fsFeeF> with a provision for comments.
Wood, W.B., & J.M. Gentile. 2003. "Teaching in a research context,"
Science 302: 1510; 28 November; online to subscribers at
<http://bit.ly/9izfFz>. A summary is online to all at
<http://bit.ly/9qGR6m>.