Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
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.
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.
Steven G. Lesh, PhD, PT, SCS, ATC
Southwest Baptist University
Lary C. Rampp, PhD, EdD, EdS
RidgeCrest Learning, Inc.
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.
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
Clark (1983, 1985, 1991)
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
How will you measure it?
Faculty work loads, cost of technology, building costs, recruiting costs, marginal operating costs, and start up costs (Hislop, 1999)
Learning curve for new technologies
Technological turn over
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
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
Do not confuse the mode of delivery with style of delivery!
One course F2F... one course Web-based
The following were identical in content
Scaffolding stimulus learning questions
Case based inquiry
Capstone course project
Tried to hold everything constant...but
The following were a bit different
Communication tools utilized
WebCourse-in-a-box for Web-based course
Instructor led for F2F course
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
F = .699, df = 2, p = ns
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
Time divided into teaching events
Ten Specific Teaching Events
<Meet with students
Table in handouts
Taking 3760 total minutes to complete
Averaging 55.29 minutes per event (sd = 38.43)
<Lecture-based (or F2F)
Taking 4395 total minutes to complete
Averaging 65.60 minutes per event (sd = 43.38)
In Class (0.00%)
Meet with Students (4.39%)
Course Administration (8.51%)
Proctoring Exams (5.19%)
Unit Development (10.90%)
Syllabus Development (4.79%)
Test Development (6.78%)
Web Posting (44.55%)
Course Administration (3.53%)
Unit Development (9.33%)
Syllabus Development (4.10%)
Test Development (5.80%)
In Class (40.96%)
Web Posting (0.00%)
Meet with Students (0.68%)
Proctoring Exams (4.10%)
This looked at one experienced instructor
Best Practices used produced comparable results
<Scaffolding stimulus learning questions
<Case based inquiry
<Capstone Course project
Size of Class (web-based or F2F impacts
time demands of faculty)
Take the good with the bad...
<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 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?
If you would not be forgotten, as soon
as you are dead and rotten, either write
things worth reading, or do things worth writing!
Enjoy your time in DC