1. Escape the Comparison Trap: An Alternative Approach to Evaluating Online Learning John Sener Sener Learning Services Learning & Training Week Conference Washington, DC, May 1, 2003

2. Comparisons: Moving Beyond “NSD,” What’s “Better”  Comparisons = E-L/OL/DL  f2f  No significant difference: DL  f2f + Establishes legitimacy + OK as basic generalization  Not very useful beyond that  Sometimes can be necessary evil in practice, but…

3. Problems with Using Comparisons  (Quasi-) Experimental design is impractical –too many variables –“apples vs. amaroks” –control sometimes detrimental  Based on faulty assumptions –Assumes non-existent uniformity of practice – Education, training are largely craft products, participatory experiences –Classroom/f2f is largely unproven too  Limited utility of results –SD = so what? – due to external, uncontrollable factors –NSD = mediocrity – why aim low?

4. Moving Beyond Comparisons  Evaluating e-learning in its own frame of reference –F2f practice not always applicable –E-learning has its own set of rules  “Proving” e-learning by improving practice  Documenting results is an improvement –E-L/OL/DL held to closer scrutiny, higher standards, often more stringently evaluated –“Trojan Horse” effect??

5. How to Develop Your Own Effective Evaluation Approach  Identify your needs  Find theoretical, practical support  Develop key evaluation questions –based on needs –linked to theory, practice foundations  Design, conduct your evaluation –Ibid.  Show the connections

6. Case Study: Online Bioterrorism Courses  Project Details –Funders: CDC, NYS Dept. of Health –Developer: Monroe County (NY) Health Alert Network (HAN) –Provider: Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT)  Project Courses –Incident Command Response (ICS) –Agents, Treatments, and Protection for Health Care Workers –Management of Public Health Emergencies –What Is Public Health?

7. Identified Needs, Goals  Enhance the skills and workforce competencies of local and state health department staff (“non-traditional responders”) and first responders.  Determine whether instructor-led online learning is effective in meeting the needs of this particular audience.

8. Theoretical Foundation  Characteristics of adult learners (various)  Media attribute theory => contribution of key course attributes to learning (Smith & Dillon 1999)  Focus on student characteristics that facilitate success (Diaz 2000)  Student perceptions of interaction (Fulford and Zhang 1993)  Social presence and learning community (Gunawardena 1995, Swan 2002, et al.)

9. Evaluation Approach  Student success, learning effectiveness- centered (not delivery method-centered)  Key evaluation questions: –Is instructor-led online learning effective? –What elements make it effective? –What improvements would make it more effective?  Linking theory, design, practice

10. Key Course Features  Delivery Format –Instructor-led, online learning => Instructor Role –Course management system (Prometheus)  Student Characteristics –Motivated, busy, time-stressed adults –Voluntary learners –Some students w/low OL comfort level  Learning Outcomes –“Just-in-case” job-related knowledge –Satisfactory OL comfort level –Satisfactory attitudes re preparedness level

11. Instructor Role  Leadership, guidance  Teaching, feedback  Presence  Overall interaction level

12. Course Interactivity and Learning Community  Overt Interaction  Covert Interaction  Digital Interactivity  Perceptions of Interaction  Social Presence

13. Delivery Format and Media Attributes  Learner Support  Accessibility of Learning Resources  Navigability  Cueing Strategies

14. Student Characteristics and Learning Outcomes  Student Characteristics: –Motivation level of voluntary learners –(Dis)Comfort level with online learning –Busy, time-constrained working adults  Learning Outcomes: –Knowledge acquisition –Perceived preparedness –Overall student satisfaction

15. Evaluation Methods  Pilot Course Survey –Conducted by course instructor within course –Findings and recommendations reviewed by project evaluator –Implemented in subsequent course offerings  End-of-Course Online Surveys –Available online for each course –Findings and recommendations reviewed by project team; implemented subsequently  In-Course Feedback  Content Analysis of Course Discussions

16. Student Survey Design  Focused questions related to specific course attribute  Open-ended questions to obtain more qualitative feedback –Principal source of feedback for certain questions (prior motivation level, value of flexibility/convenience)

17. Effective Elements: Survey Results

18. Social Presence Content Analysis  Performed on ICS course  Results: low but not too worrisome –Possible reasons: course length, course content, target audience  Students satisfied with other aspects of course + flexibility, convenience  Tension between maximizing interaction and maximizing flexibility  Planned improvements to optimize interaction opportunities

19. Summary  Identify your needs  Find theoretical, practical support  Develop key evaluation questions –based on needs –linked to theory, practice foundations  Design, conduct your evaluation –Ibid.  Show the connections

20. Contact Info. And Discussion  John Sener, Sener Learning Services jsener@senerlearning.com 301-754-0688  Discussion: –What approach has worked for you? What hasn’t? –What was missing here? –What do you have a differing opinion about?