slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Learning: A Comparative Investigation of the Effectiveness of Learner Achievement and Fa PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Learning: A Comparative Investigation of the Effectiveness of Learner Achievement and Fa

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 21

Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Learning: A Comparative Investigation of the Effectiveness of Learner Achievement and Fa - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 79 Views
  • Uploaded on

Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Learning: A Comparative Investigation of the Effectiveness of Learner Achievement and Faculty Time Demands. Steven G. Lesh, PhD, PT, SCS, ATC Southwest Baptist University Lary C. Rampp, PhD, EdD, EdS RidgeCrest Learning, Inc. Educational Technology.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Learning: A Comparative Investigation of the Effectiveness of Learner Achievement and Fa' - sook


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1
Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Learning: A Comparative Investigation of the Effectiveness of Learner Achievement and Faculty Time Demands

Steven G. Lesh, PhD, PT, SCS, ATC

Southwest Baptist University

Lary C. Rampp, PhD, EdD, EdS

RidgeCrest Learning, Inc.

educational technology
Educational Technology

Opportunity or Scourge?

Increased feasibility of ALN

Increased practicality of ALN

50% of incoming college freshmen

regularly use a personal computer

Hodgkinson, H. R. (2000, October). Keynote address. Paper presented

at 2000 Annual Conference of the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, Las Vegas, NV.

literature web based learning
Literature & Web-Based Learning

Lots of it...but very few good quality ones!

Outcomes for student satisfaction

The majority of the responses were

positive about the asynchronous learning

experience, however, students appeared to

prefer a face-to-face instruction mode (Shaw

and Pieter, 2000)

Outcomes for student achievement

No Significant Difference

Russell (1999)

Clark (1983, 1985, 1991)

literature web based learning4
Literature & Web-Based Learning

Hold on a minute...

Outcomes for cost effectiveness

Not as much info to find!

-Drexel Univ: no online courses to approximately

140 courses with no face-to-face interaction in

5 years (single case study by Gregory Hislop, 1999)

-Cardinal Stritch Univ: faculty time demands would

be 3 - 5 times over that of traditional lecture preparation

(William Frantz, 1999)

-Palloff and Pratt (1999) claim 3x greater faculty time

demands for delivery web-based learning

web based cost effectiveness
Web-Based Cost Effectiveness

How will you measure it?

Faculty work loads, cost of technology, building costs, recruiting costs, marginal operating costs, and start up costs (Hislop, 1999)

Other issues

Learning curve for new technologies

Technological turn over

purpose of presentation
Purpose of Presentation

Multi-Level Evaluation of Effectiveness

Compare the time expenditure by the instructor to develop and deliver learning experiences in both synchronous and asynchronous courses

Compare achievement levels in same

courses

methodology
Methodology

That research stuff!

-Upper level collegiate health care administration course

-Designed two like courses with same instructional design

-Students self selected enrollment

-Pre & post course test of knowledge

-Track time investment of faculty member

instructional design
Instructional Design

Do not confuse the mode of delivery with style of delivery!

One course F2F... one course Web-based

The following were identical in content

Required readings

Scaffolding mini-lectures

Scaffolding stimulus learning questions

Case based inquiry

Capstone course project

instructional design9
Instructional Design

Tried to hold everything constant...but

The following were a bit different

Course length

Communication tools utilized

WebCourse-in-a-box for Web-based course

Instructor led for F2F course

the results
The Results

Achievement...no real surprise!

No significant difference

Pre course test of knowledge

Mean = 78.55, sd = 12.36, n = 11 for web-based

Mean = 83.76, sd = 9.69, n = 14 for F2F

Post course test of knowledge

Mean = 159.18, sd = 13.13

Mean = 164.79, sd = 11.32

ANCOVA

F = .699, df = 2, p = ns

the results11
The Results

How hard did the faculty member work?

All time was catalogued relate to designing, developing and delivering each course

EXPERIENCED faculty member

Used courseware previously

Completed PhD through Web-Based program

Earned Certificate in Distance Learning

Courses in Online Assessment & Online

Instructional Design

so how long did it take
So how long did it take?

Time divided into teaching events

Ten Specific Teaching Events

<Course administration

<Unit development

<Syllabus development

<Test development

<E-mail

<In class

<Web-posting

<Grading

<Proctoring exams

<Meet with students

major differences
Major Differences

Table in handouts

Totals

<Web-based

68 events

Taking 3760 total minutes to complete

Averaging 55.29 minutes per event (sd = 38.43)

<Lecture-based (or F2F)

67 events

Taking 4395 total minutes to complete

Averaging 65.60 minutes per event (sd = 43.38)

slide14

Web-based Instructor Time Demands

In Class (0.00%)

Meet with Students (4.39%)

Course Administration (8.51%)

Proctoring Exams (5.19%)

Unit Development (10.90%)

Grading (9.31%)

Syllabus Development (4.79%)

Test Development (6.78%)

E-mail (5.59%)

Web Posting (44.55%)

slide15

F2F Instructor Time Demands

Course Administration (3.53%)

Unit Development (9.33%)

Syllabus Development (4.10%)

Test Development (5.80%)

In Class (40.96%)

E-mail (8.53%)

Web Posting (0.00%)

Meet with Students (0.68%)

Grading (22.98%)

Proctoring Exams (4.10%)

another way to look at it
Another way to look at it
  • 2 Credit hour undergraduate course
    • web-based
      • 63.17 hours to design, develop & deliver
    • F2F
      • 73.75 hours to design, develop & deliver
  • Statistical Significance
    • ANOVA for all instructional events
      • F = 2.135, df = 1, p = ns
important things to remember
Important things to remember

This looked at one experienced instructor

Best Practices used produced comparable results

<Required readings

<Scaffolding mini-lectures

<Scaffolding stimulus learning questions

<Case based inquiry

<Capstone Course project

Size of Class (web-based or F2F impacts

time demands of faculty)

limitations
Limitations

Take the good with the bad...

Student Achievement

<Quasi experimental design (non randomized)

<Sample size is one of convenience

<Marginally acceptable power of 50% (0.05 level)

Faculty Workload Issues

<Single Case Study of an experienced ALN Instructor

what do we need more of
What do we need more of?

What do we need less of???

Research - best practices in ALN

Research - content that is best suited for ALN

Research - cost effectiveness

Web-based is not a cure all, rather one mode of delivery

<Do we really need to compare F2F to ALN

to prove one is better than the other?

more wisdom
More Wisdom...

Ben Franklin

If you would not be forgotten, as soon

as you are dead and rotten, either write

things worth reading, or do things worth writing!

thanks for your attention

Thanks for your Attention!

Enjoy your time in DC