The Evidence on Online Education: It’s the Design, Not the Medium

As stated by Inside Higher Ed, reporting on a newly released meta-analysis of research by the U. S. Department of Education, “online learning has definite advantages over face-to-face instruction when it comes to teaching and learning.”  Wow—this is what those of us involved in online learning have been arguing for some time in the face of strong biases that face-to-face was clearly superior.  So, this is very good news.

But, we need to delve into the details to get a better understanding of what lies under this conclusion.  And, to acknowledge that the Department researchers express concern about the lack of research comparing face-to-face, blended, and purely online education, especially at the K-12 level.

What the analysts determined is that, while online has advantages over face-to-face instruction, blended learning (a mix of face-to-face and online) has even more statistical advantage over face-to-face than purely online instruction has.  But, let’s not diminish the conclusion that purely online learning results in better learning outcomes than purely face-to-face learning. 

Why is there a difference?  What factors contributed to improved outcomes?  The students in online programs or courses spent more time on task than students in face-to-face programs or courses.  The online learning was made more active.  And, the more that online students were able to control when and how they used course media, the more pronounced the advantage over face-to-face instruction.  While the use of video or more media did not, in itself, make a difference, the use of simulations or other methods that allow the student to control when and how they interact with the media and content, with time for reflection on what they were learning, did make a difference.  The researchers defined “active” learning as that “in which the student has control of what and how he or she learns” and contrast it with “expository learning” where “content is transmitted to the student by lecture, written material, or other mechanisms.”

It is the last sentence of the preceding paragraph that captures the essence of what makes online learning robust and, according to the Department of Education, superior to face-to-face learning.  It is about the design and the delivery of active learning that makes the difference.  It is not about the medium, not about the technology.  All too often face-to-face education is delivered in the expository style, with little design to engage the student in more than being a receptacle for knowledge presented by the combination of course readings and lectures.  Those approaches have been used in online education with dismal results—they are boring and the medium exposes the full extent of just how boring that approach is.  Instead, online education requires extensive planning, design, and development and, in the good programs, that results in active learning that engages students in individual and collaborative work with time to reflect and share their reflections on what they have come to know.  This is simply good educational design.  And it is the reason that online education is now coming into its own and being recognized as valuable.  As the report states on page 40, “the medium is simply a carrier of content and is unlikely to affect learning per se” and that “the way in which a medium is used is more important than simply having access to it.”  Because online learning is delivering active learning, engaging learners who “scaffold” their learning (learning from other students and collaboratively building shared knowledge), and builds in time and expectations for student reflection, it is exceeding the outcomes of face-to-face learning that is basically expository in nature.  There should really be no big surprise that better educational design results in better learning outcomes.

Your thoughts? Please fee free to leave a comment.

Mike