III. Methods of Assessment

IV. Results

V. Implications for the Future.

I Introduction

Online instruction at community colleges has grown tremendously over the past several years. At Parkland, for example, 5 courses in 1995 has grown to over 130 sections this year. This growth has been accompanied by increased questions about the effectiveness of online courses. Online instruction has a great deal of promise, but is also subject to criticism. Some feel that it does not live up to its promise of solving teaching learning issues, such as increased flexibility Others are concerned that the technology itself creates a barrier that requires additional understanding for participants (both faculty and students). “Online instruction also threatens to commercialize education, isolate students and faculty, and may reduce standards or even devalue university degrees (Johnson, Aragon, Shaik, and Palma-Rivas, 2000).” More needs to be known about how student experience differs from face-to-face environments and how outcomes are developed and measured.

Problems to be explored:

1. Can an online section and an on campus section be offered synergistically and with similar structure?
2. Are the outcomes between online and on campus sections comparable?
3. Are the attitudes between online and on campus sections comparable?
4. Can assessment be used to improve teaching and learning in online environments?

II Background

   A. Assessment vs. Research

Parkland College's Academic Assessment plan is in the process of being implemented.  

Working Assumptions

Books that are excellent in this area include Classroom Assessment Techniques, Angelo and Cross (1993) and Effective Grading, Walvoord and Anderson (1998).

   B. Issues in Online Education

Research has been done comparing online to face-to-face instruction. Schutte (1997) divided his class in two, one face-to-face the other online, and showed that instruction was “improved” in online environments.  LaRose, Gregg, and Eastin (1998) compared learning outcomes and found no significant difference. In the latter study, however, one section had face-to-face lectures while the other section listened to prerecorded audio and accessed outlines, etc online. In both cases, the methodology was flawed by differences in the structure of the sections these students accessed.

More studies have looked at satisfaction.  While satisfaction is high according to these studies, the reasons vary.  Enockson (1997) found that students were satisfied because of the flexibility and responsiveness available in online courses.  Johanson (1996) found that students satisfactions increases when (1) the technology works and flows well, (2) the course is learner-centered, (3) the instructor acts as “facilitator and coach”, and (4) there is built-in flexibility. Debourgh (1998) found that satisfaction depends on the instructor more than the technology.  

As degrees are offered via nontraditional methods, accountability has become much more important.  Leadership in educational technology will focus on seven areas, which I have adapted from an article by Merisotis and Phipps that focuses on research comparing distance and traditional classrooms (Merisotis and Phipps, 1999)

1.        Research thus far has focused on courses not programs.  Some sort of standardized assessment of outcomes at the programmatic level will need to be developed and used to strengthen programs and courses in an increasingly competitive market.  Currently, students “shop” for online courses.  A strong programmatic approach to distance learning will bring students to online education and keep them here.  Penn State has modeled this approach with their innovative turf science program.

2.        Research hasn’t looked at how different groups of students are learning in alternative delivery courses.  Much has been made of the changing demographic in education, but we still don’t know who we will be serving, what access they have to the technology, and what their specific needs are.  

3.        Research hasn’t explained (or solved) the higher course dropout rates of students in alternative delivery courses.  Ultimately, the health of any distance education program will be dependent on it’s ability not only to recruit students, but to retain them.  

4.        Learner characteristics and learning styles have not been correlated to the use of particular technologies.  Research on this aspect of online course development has shown improvement of student attitudes and satisfaction when online courses are sensitive to learning styles.  I would encourages and enable faculty to consider instructional design and technology choices that take such characteristics into account. 

5.        Research has not focused on the synergistic effects of certain technologies and formats.  I suspect that most successful courses have chosen technologies that integrate in a way that makes them more effective.

6.        The research lacks a theoretical framework.  While Merisotis and Phipps are focusing on the replicability of research, I would argue that a theoretical framework is necessary as a foundation for growth and success in alternative delivery.  

7.        The research hasn’t addressed digital libraries (and other student support services). It is clear that successful online delivery cannot be limited to courses. Student support services, such as online tutors, library services, registration, help-lines, and other services are equally as important as the instruction that takes place in the course.  

   C. Chemistry 104