Tomorrow's Teaching and Learning
The posting below is the second of a two-part posting that looks at the differences in expectations of quality and assessment in online learning within [E1] the Asian, European and American contexts. The first posting (#1788) looked at the Asian and European contexts and this posting looks at the American context. It is from Chapter 9 – Diversity in Expectations of Quality and Assessment, by Albert Sangra, Stella Porto, and Insung Jung in the book Culture and Online Learning: Global Perspectives and Research, edited by Insung Jung and Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena. Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC 22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, Virginia 20166-2102. https://sty.presswarehouse.com/books/features.aspx Copyright © 2014 by Stylus Publishing, LLC. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
UP NEXT: Theories That Connect Academic Advising, Academic Underpreparedness, and Student Development
Tomorrow’s Teaching and Leaning
----------- 1,651 words ----------
The American Context
Online learning has grown considerably since its inception 20 years ago (Aslanian & Clinefelter, 2012), “to the point that in the fall of 2010, almost one-third of US post-secondary students were taking at least one course online” (Hill, 2012, p. 85). In a survey with over 3,000 online learners enrolled in 31 higher education institutions in the United States, Ralston-Berg (2012) found that the online learners focus on three main areas for overall quality assessment: interaction and facilitation, course materials, and learning activities. The degree of interaction among online learners is a major contributor to students’ satisfaction, motivation, and performance. Students expect clearly stated requirements concerning interaction with the instructor and peers, as well as prompt turnaround time for responses, grades, and feedback. “Learners appreciate faculty who help them think creatively; change opinions and sharpen analyses; and encourage them to take responsibility for their own learning by helping them plan and produce meaningful work” (Moore, 2002, p. 59). In addition, course materials that are current and relevant are absolutely important for the achievement of learning objectives (Palloff & Pratt, 2003). Students expect that knowledge and skills gained through studying well-designed course materials and meaningful learning experiences will be long lasting and preferably applicable in the near future. In particular, students expect learning activities to be meaningful to their own “personal and professional experiences, enhancing the value of prior learning, both formal and informal” (Sherry, 2003, p. 438).
For American students, student services and support is another key area in judging the quality of online learning, given its impact on their motivation and retention (Moore, 2011). Much like customers, American students expect easy and immediate access to “program information and institutional services – including feedback, tutorials, learning resources, advising, mentoring, testing, readiness and career placement, grade and transfer credit and transcript reporting, degree conferrals and technologies” (Moore, 2002, p. 59). For the most part, American students are attempting to balance life, work, and study and thus expect accessible and efficient support toward successful program and course conception and value personalized attention and feedback.
Although faculty members are still somewhat skeptical when it comes to students’ learning outcomes, there is evidence that beliefs are changing as to the potential of technology in providing students with rich learning experiences. Acquired experience with online teaching has had positive influences in changing perceptions of faculty members (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009). Instructors who aspire to have meaningful interactions with students see the benefits of adopting technologies despite increased workload (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009; Moore, 2011). However, large classes, unprepared students, poor course materials, and outdated technology tools often bring challenges to the instructors who wish to offer superior learning experiences online and lead them to develop skepticism toward the quality of online learning.
To ensure the quality of online learning, instructors need to be trained to use new technologies properly and effectively. In addition, they should be made aware of the best pedagogical practices involved in teaching with technologies (Moore, 2011). Because faculty success and satisfaction in online teaching often depends on the quality of the course design, competent instructors should be involved in the online course development and design phases. Whether provided with a template or fully involved in the creation of an online course, the instructors expect to be heard when it comes to feedback about the courses they are teaching. They wish to be able to actively participate in an academic community of practice, be recognized, and possibly be rewarded for excellence in online teaching. They should benefit from opportunities of professional development in their academic fields to enhance their online teaching practices (Moore, 2002).
Online instructors perceive high-quality support from institutions, including administrative, technological, and instructional services, as an important quality factor for online learning. They also see faculty evolution, which is a common practice in American institutions (Palloff & Pratt, 2008) as a fundamental component of overall course quality. Instructors typically expect to be evaluated by students through standardized instruments. However, given the high stakes associated with assessments and accountability in American higher education, there is still an evident schism between policy makers and faculty with regard to common standards for course evaluation. Instructors often ask for other types of assessments that reach beyond the potentially biased student satisfaction surveys.
When examining institutional views on the quality of online education in the American higher education context, one must consider issues of accreditation, funding, and regulations, which define a stricter set of alternatives when it comes to balancing the demands of cost, access, and quality. In the United States, accreditation is decentralized and self-regulatory, built on “a patchwork quilt, with varying standards” (Bates, 2012, p. 1). The growth of the for-profit providers in online education combined with the lack of official scrutiny has led to a pervasive distrust toward online education from the public. Many of the decisions made within institutions regarding online course offerings are based on requirements from accredited agencies, which in many cases are not suited for, or aligned with, best practices in online education. Such limitations are stifling considering the potential of online learning to widen the spectrum of academic achievers and develop the innovative business models in higher education (Farmer, 2012; Flanagan, 2012; Hill, 2012).
According to the Sloan Consortium (n.d.), learning effectiveness and scale are two main institutional priorities in the United States. It is widely accepted in American higher education that the effectiveness of online learning should remain compatible with that of traditional classroom practices by integrating appropriate interactive and collaborative online technologies, career-focused e-resources, well-prepared and engaging instructors, and authentic assessment methodologies. Scale, on the other hand, relates to cost-effectiveness and institutional commitment such as improving services while keeping costs in check, reasonable tuition and fees, and resource sharing through partnerships (Sloan Consortium, 2003).
Despite the ongoing efforts of institutions and policy makers regarding quality assurance in online education, major challenges still remain central in the higher education discourse. The lack of common standards in the American higher education system has led to a mushrooming of benchmarks and quality models. One such model is the rubric standard created by Quality Matters (QM), a nationally recognized, faculty-centered, peer review process designed to certify the quality of online course and online components in the United States. The rubric has eight general standards: course overview and introduction, learning objectives (competencies), assessment and measurement, instructional materials, learner interaction and engagement, course technology, learner support, and accessibility. Across these eight areas, 41 specific standards are used to evaluate the design of online and blended courses at the higher education level. Even though this kind of model offers useful quality guidelines, the issue of standards becomes more complex with the expanding diversity of online learning providers and formats.
For example, in the area of assessment, technology can provide a wide range of authentic assessments, but they may not be applicable or reliable in all online learning contexts. When scalability is a necessity, assessment will probably require massive arrangements, where online exams and quizzes will play a central role in keeping costs low through the use of high-end technology for marking and preprogrammed feedback. However, in certain cultures such as the United States where issues of academic integrity and avoiding and detecting cheating and plagiarism are serious concerns, institutions are greatly challenged to undertake a multipronged approach, including the use of technology and instructional design practices, to develop policies and procedures that help avoid, detect, and sanction cheating and plagiarism.
Finding viable approaches to provide learning results analogous to those in conventional education while keeping costs down is still the main thread of all the debate concerning quality in online education in the United States, as Power and Morven-Gould (2011) noted.
As expected, perceptions of quality in online learning tend to differ according to the sociocultural context. Nevertheless, flexibility, the need for an appropriate and well-structured instructional design, and the delivery of good course materials are some of the common links that seem to be shared among all students as important for quality online learning experiences. American and European cultures have similar values regarding the work-life-study balance, whereas there are no related statements in the Asian context. The most striking difference emerged when researchers analyzed the learning preferences of the Asian students. Contrary to the current emphasis on interactive and collaborative designs in online learning environments, Asian learners give less value to these characteristics, focusing more on course content organization to enhance independent study. Their preference toward a more instructor-led approach to online learning is quite different from that of American and European students. In the Asian context, examinations are seen as a means to demonstrate virtue and merit. In the American and European contexts, students give more value to alternative and continuous assessment methods compared with traditional examinations. This suggests that different types of online learning assessments are necessary to respond to different teaching and learning methodologies and cultures. It is clear that further developments are needed in this field.
Skepticism of online teaching and learning is a common point shared by American and European teachers, as they consider a hybrid system blending online and face-to-face communications as a better form of online education. However, we should not disregard the fact that many students may face constraints in attending a traditional classroom setting. Rather than attempting to replicate traditional face-to-face teaching in an online format, online instructors need to be innovative in their methodologies. To help online educators devise appropriate online teaching strategies to meet the diverse needs of learners, training is necessary. Proper training and support for instructors to design effective online courses will increase levels of confidence in online teaching and thus lead to better perceptions of quality. Regardless of cultural and contextual differences, a pedagogical shift toward more interactive online teaching and learning approaches may help improve people’s understanding of the benefits of online learning based on networked learning models and develop common quality standards in online learning.
References for both Parts 1 and 2.
Abdous, M. (2009). E-learning quality assurance: A process-oriented lifecycle model. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3), 281-295.
Aslanian, C.B., & Clinefelter, D. (2012). Online college students 2012: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Learninghouse White Paper. Retrieved from http://www.learninghouse.com/resources/whitepapers/research-study
Bamford, J., & Sergiou, K. (2005). International students and plagiarism: An analysis of the reasons for plagiarism among international foundation students. Investigations in University Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 17-22.
Barbera, E., Guardia, L., & Vall-Ilovera, M., (2009, November). El e-Transfolio: Disefio tecno-pedagogico de un Sistema de evaluacion de las competencias transversales mediante un porta-folio electronico. Paper presented at the Jornadas Internacionales de Docencia, Investigacion e Innovacion en la Universidad: Trabajar con e-portfolio, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Bates, T. (2012, October 31). Does the US accreditation system discriminate against online learning? [blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/10/31/does-the-u-s-accreidtation-system-discriminate-against-online-learning/
Bolliger, D.U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116.
Cabrera, N. (2008). Las repercussions de la Educacion Superior, a distancia y virtual desde la perspective de los graduodos. El caso de la UOC (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Unversitat de Barcelona, Barcelona.
Cashion, J., & Palmieri, P. (2002). The secret is the teacher: The learners’ view of online learning. Leabrook, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Retrieved from http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/research/nr0F03a.pdf
Cleveland-Innes, M. (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1234/2333
Dondi, C., Moretti, M., & Nascimbeni, F. (2006). Quality of e-learning: Negotiating a strategy, implementing a policy. In U. D. Ehlers & J. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on quality and standardization in e-learning (pp. 31-50). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Dryden, L.M (1999). A distant mirror or through the looking glass? Plagiarism and intellectual property in Japanese education. In L. Buranen & A.M. Roy (Eds.), Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world (pp. 75-85). New York: State University of New York Press.
Ehlers, U.D. (2004). Quality in e-learning from a learner’s perspective. European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning, 2004(1). Retrieved from http://www.euroll.org/index.php?article=101.
Eriksen, E.O., & Fossum, J.E. (2000). Democracy in the European Union: Integration through deliberation? London, UK: Routledge.
Farmer, J. (2012, October 11). MOOCs: The new higher education? [blog post]. Retrieved from http://mfeldstein.com/moocs-the-new-higher-education/
Flanagan, C. (2012, November 1). Business model innovation: A blueprint for higher education. Educause Review[E3] . Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/business-model-innovation-blueprint-higher-education
Harvey, L. & Knight, P. (1996). Transforming higher education. Bristol, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Haywood, J., Macleod, H., Haywood, D., Mogey, N., & Alexander, W. (2004). Student views of e-learning: A survey of University of Edinburgh WebCT Users 2004. Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Research into On-Line Learning and Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/jhaywood/papers/surveyresults2004.pdf
Hill, P. (2012). Online educational delivery methods: A descriptive view. Educause Review vol. 47, no. 6 (November/December 2012). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/online-educational-delivery-models-descriptive-view
Joint Information Systems Committee. (2008). Effective practice with e-portfolios: Supporting 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://jisc.ac.uk/eportfolio
Jung, I.S. (2011). The dimensions of e-learning quality: From the learner’s perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 445-464.
Jung, I.S. (2012). Asian learners’ perception of quality in distance education and gender differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1159/2128
Jung, I.S., Kudo, M., & Choi, S. (2012). Stress in Japanese learners engaged in online collaborative learning in English. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 1016-1029. Doi:10.1111/j.467-8535.2011.01271.x
Jung, I.S. & Suzuki, Y. (2014). Scaffolding wiki-based collaboration in a multicultural language learning context. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kim, H.W., Cho, S.Y., & Kim, M. (2010). Study and success on life satisfaction among adolescents, and the moderating effect of parent-adolescent communication. Journal of Korea Home Economics, 48(5), 49-60.
Lao, T., & Gonzales, C. (2005). Understanding online learning through a qualitative description of professors and students’ experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 133, 459-474.
Latchem, C., & Jung, I.S. (2009). Distance and blended learning in Asia. New York, NY, and London, UK: Routledge.
Moore, J. (2002). Elements of quality: The Sloan-C Framework. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Moore, J. (2011). A synthesis of Sloan-C effective practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2008). Assessing of the online learner: Resources and strategies for faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Park, J.S. (2010). Effects of significance of study, pressure for the relationship among school adolescents’ rights guarantee, self-esteem and subjective happiness. Studies on Youth Welfare, 21(1), 35-59.
Power, T., & Morven-Gould, A. (2011). Head of gold, feet of clay: The online learning paradox. The International Review of Research of Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 19-39. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/916/1739
Ralston-Berg, P. (2012, March). Student perspectives: Quality in online courses. Paper presented at the UPCEA Annual Conference, Portland, OR. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1497931/UPCEA_-_Student_Perspecgives_of_Quality_PDF_
Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2005). Borrowing words and ideas: Insights from Japanese L1 writers. Journal of Asian Pacific Communications, 15(1), 31-56.
Sangra, A. (2001). The consolidation of a virtual university. LLINE-Lifelong Learning in Europe, 2, 76-84.
Sangra, A., Guardia, L., & Gonzalez-Sanmamed, M. (2007). Educational design as a key issue in planning for quality improvement. In M. Bullen & D. Janes (Eds.), Making the transition to e-learning: Strategies and issues (pp. 284-299). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Sangra, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. (2012). Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: An approach to the conceptual framework. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 145-159. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1161/2185
Sharpe, R., & Benfield, G. (2005). The student experience of e-learning in higher education. Journal of Learning and Technology, 1(3), 1-7.
Sherry, A.C. (2003). Quality and its measurement in distance education. In M. G. Moore & W.G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 435-459). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence-Eribaum.
Sloan Consortium. (n.d.). The 5 pillars: The Sloan-C quality framework. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/5pillars
Sloan Consortium. (2003). Quality framework for online education. Retrieved from http://www.adec.educ/earmyu/SLOANC-41.html
Twigg, C.A. (2001). Quality assurance for whom? Providers and consumers in today’s distributed learning environment. Troy, NY: Center for the Academic Transformation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Voce, J. (2007a). E-learning at UCL: A staff perspective. Report on a survey. London, UK: UCL. Retrieved from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/isd/staff/e-learning/tools/webct/migration/Staff-survey-report.pdf
Voce, J. (2007b). E-learning at UCL: A student perspective. Report on a survey. London, UK: UCL. Retrieved from http://ww.ucl.ac.uk/isd/staff/e-learning/tools/webct/migration/Student-survey-report.pdf