ONLINE or FACE-TO-FACE Learning...Which is Which?

Continuing Education and Knowledge Retention:
A Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face Deliveries
Connie Schardt
Duke University
Julie Garrison
Grand Valley State University

This paper is all about the comparison of online learning and face-to-face learning. In our current situation today it has been said that online learning is more effective than those who still use the old school education which is face-to-face but I hadn’t really found one research that validates the said claim not until I found this research which was posted by my classmate on our discussion thread in research.

Face-to-face discussion also known to us as education 2.0 is a learning style which limits the students learning to the learning of its teachers therefore learning happens in four corners of the classroom. People say that this kind of teaching strategy is obsolete since we are in the age of technology which means sky is the limit. With such claims that stated above I asked myself. If education 2.0 is obsolete then why does almost every teacher that I have known still uses this strategy? Luckily I was able to attend the Philippine youth congress in information technology (y4it 2009) held at the University of the Philippines Diliman campus last September 8-11 2009 and two of the speakers discussed this matters. Mr. Noel Feria discussed the difference of the “obsolete” education 2.0 and education 3.0. He said that education 3.0 is not widely implemented because it has no clear framework yet. He was asked how this education 3.0 works and unfortunately he hasn’t given any clear answer to the question. While the other speaker Prof. Rommel Feria a faculty member of the University of the Philippines Department of Computer Science directly said that “teachers are afraid that their students may surpass them” when asked why education 3.0 is not widely implemented.

Online discussion on the other hand also known as education 3.0 is a learning strategy wherein students are not required to go to school. They are given requirements to be accomplished and given the freedom of how are they going to learn it themselves of course by using the resources that are usually on the net. Teachers do not limit their students to know what they also know. Students may meet their teachers face=to-face only for consultation purposes. Talks about the effectiveness of the online discussion are still on a debate. They said that education 3.0 is more effective than education 2.0 because information nowadays doubles every second and one teacher cannot accommodate all. The main concept of education 3.0 is “search for new knowledge and acquire and share new knowledge in and from your classmates” this may be their way of at list maximizing the knowledge that can be learned. Not limiting the source of knowledge to one person only (the teacher) education 3.0 encourages everyone to search for knowledge and acquire knowledge that their classmate searched in this case everyone is the source of knowledge.

If you try and compare the definitions or overviews given above you’ll most probably say that education 3.0 is more effective over education 2.0 but do you have raw data? Do you have survey result to validate your claims? This study aims to do such thing by comparing the knowledge acquired by those using the education 3.0 and 2.0 or in this paper called DE or distance education and CE for continuing education respectively. The authors have given three assessments namely the Pre-test, Post-test, 6 month Post-test to compare if which of the two educational system is more effective.

This study was designed to determine if there is a difference between learning retention for students taking a continuing education course in the classroom compared to taking the same course through distance education. Students were given three assessments to determine their baseline knowledge of the topic, what they learned immediately after the course, and what they retained six months after the course. Pooled data from those assessments showed that there was no statistical difference in the scores of the two groups of students, leading the authors to conclude that neither delivery method is better than the other.

The result:

Seventy-two professional librarians enrolled in the course during 2004. Fifty-six librarians completed the demographic survey and at least one of the pre- or post-tests. Fourteen librarians completed the course but did not submit any surveys or assessments, despite repeated requests for compliance. Two librarians dropped the course and did not finish the work.

The two groups, continuing education (CE) and distance education (CE), were similar in terms of type of library (academic or hospital) and primary responsibilities (reference or education). The groups differed in terms of age and experience. The CE students were older with more years of experience. All (100%) of the CE students were 36 years old or older, compared to 64% of the distance education students. Eighty two percent of the CE students had 10 years or more of library experience, compared to only 29% of the distance education students. As expected the CE students reported a strong preference (82%) for traditional classroom instruction; while only 61% of distanced education students reported this preference. When asked about reasons for taking an online course, both groups indicated that convenience of not traveling, timeliness of the topic, and working at own pace as the most important factors.

Seventeen students from the traditional face-to-face class and 21 students from the distance education course completed the first post-test. As indicated in Figure 1, there was a significant decline in the number of students completing responses to the subsequent tests. Ultimately, data from all assessments were available for only 10 CE and 11 DE students.

When comparing the scores of only those who completed all assessments, the DE students averaged over 10 points higher than the CE group in each test. Both groups showed a significant improvement from the pre-test to the post-test (CE increased by 57%, DE increased by 21%). As expected, average student scores declined from the first post-test to the second post-test (CE decreased by 14%, DE decreased by 11%.), although they remained higher than pre-test levels. Based on the raw numbers, it appeared that students in the DE group came into the classroom with a greater knowledge of the subject and retained more knowledge six months after the course had ended.

Due to the small number of students who completed all assessments, the data from all the participants was re-analyzed and adjusted for missingness. When the data was recalculated using a mixed model, with fixed effects for time (three levels) and group (classroom and distance) and time/group interaction, the adjusted differences were not statistically significant. Considering all the data, the study showed that the distance education group and face-to-face groups had no difference in level of knowledge retention

Source: http://www.eblip4.unc.edu/papers/Schardt.pdf

Research Work to be Publish

It is never easy for your research to be published in journals specially those top-tier journals. It is like you are auditioning for some kind of a reality show. Yes, it is hard but the benefits would be great. Some of us want our research to be published to prove that we are a worthy researcher, others for pride purposes and others wants their research to be publish because of the money that comes along with it. As to what are real intentions of why we want our researches to be published, it will all go through tough processes or procedures. Of course publications don’t just choose anybodies research and publish it, it may affect their credibility if they are able to publish researches that are not reliable and are not significant at all.

Submitted researches are reviewed by reviewers before it will be published. Reviewers are the real authors of Computing Reviews. The computing community depends on reviewers for authoritative, unbiased critiques of the essential literature in the field. Reviewers are expected to contribute reviews that demonstrate that they have read the material thoroughly and have considered it in depth, from a critical perspective. Reviewers are prominent persons having attained remarkable achievements in the field of research. Each reviewer has their own perspective of what they are finding in a research before they approve in for publication.

Originality of the research is a big factor for your research to be able to pass the screening made by the reviewers. Having an original research and good output would really give you an edge over the others. Your research should also be relevant for it to be able to be accepted. Reviewers have no specific requirements when reviewing someone’s research work they are most probably concern on the quality of your research work. Their most concern is on how you presented your research and if your research is relevant or would fit to their intended audience. The name of the author would be a great factor too. Even in the research publication world influence is also one factor that affects if your research will be published or not. If you have no remarkable record yet it maybe a lot harder for you to have your research published compared to those experienced authors.

Evaluating a Good Research

A researcher has its own way of thinking that is why sometimes researches of the same thing end up with different output. On my own point of view a good research work should be easily understood or else your reader may find it too much complicated and would disregard it. A good research work should be supported by legitimate facts. Researcher doing the research should not be biased especially if the output is not what he/she expects to be or else your research work will not be accurate or reliable. As I search trough the net I found some ways on how you evaluate a research work and this one gives a really short yet easy way to evaluate a research work.

A good contribution to a research area should have most of these qualities:
• address an important problem
• be novel, building on existing good research
• use good scientific methods, and best practices in the research area
• report significant results
• have positive benefits/implications in the research area
• be well communicated in writing and in person

The first two items above talks about the general purpose of the research done. If a research work addresses important problems especially current problems that the society is facing then that would be a good start to know if the research work is of good quality. In short, the research should be timely. The next three items probably talks about how the researcher comes up with the result? What methods or practices that he or she used? Does the practices and methods that he or she used appropriate for the research? This part is really crucial for it is where the results are generated. Even though you have a really good research topic, timely and all, it would all mean useless if your ways of finding solutions to the problems are not right. And the last items talks about the researcher’s way of presenting his or her result. If it is presented in a way that is too complex readers would lose the urge to read your findings. After all who wants to read a research work that you don’t understand. Researchers should present their outputs in a way that readers can easily understand it.

According to Linda Finlay researches can be evaluated in 4 C’s
1) Clarity - Does the research make sense? To what extent is the research systematically worked through, coherent and clearly described?
2) Credibility – To what extent do the findings match the evidence and are they convincing? When the author is arguing evidentially, is the evidence marshaled rigorously and opened up for external audit? Are the researcher’s interpretations plausible and justified? Can readers see what the researcher saw even if they disagree with the conclusions drawn by the researcher?
3) Contribution – To what extent does the research add to knowledge of an issue or aspect of human social life? Does it enrich our understanding of the human condition? Is it empowering and/or growth-enhancing? Does it offer guidance for future action or for changing the social world for the better? Does it offer a interesting basis for future research?
4) Communicative resonance – Are the findings sufficiently vivid or powerful to draw readers in? Do the findings resonate with readers’ own experience/understandings? As meanings are elicited in an interpersonal context, have the knowledge claims been tested and argued in dialogue with others, including participants, research supervisors or the wider academic community?

Henwood and Pidgeon identified 7 attributes which characterize a good research.

1. The importance of fit – The themes or analytical categories offered by the researcher should fit the data. The researcher demonstrates this by writing clear, explicit accounts of how these categories were evolved.
2. Integration of theory - The researcher needs to discuss the relationship between units of analysis and the degree to which they can be integrated or generalized (for instance, exploring how themes might be combined moving towards a theory).
3. Reflexivity – The role of the researcher needs to be acknowledged and accounted for in the documentation of the research.
4. Documentation – The researcher needs to provide an audit trail: a comprehensive account of what was done and why.
5. Theoretical sampling and negative case analysis – The researcher needs to continuously develop and modify any emerging theory, exploring cases that do not fit as well as those which might generate new knowledge.
6. Sensitivity to negotiated realities – While participant validation may be necessary, the researcher needs to demonstrate awareness of the research context, power differentials and participant reactions to the research. It is particularly important to explain any differences between the researcher’s interpretations and those of the participant(s).
7. Transferability - The researcher should suggest how the research may have applicability beyond the particular research context.
Lincoln and Guba propose four criteria for ‘naturalistic’ research.
1) Credibility – This concept replaces the idea of internal validity, by which researchers seek to establish confidence in the ‘truth’ of their findings. Instead, Lincoln and Guba focus on the degree to which findings make sense. For instance, they recommend that qualitative researchers use ‘member checks’. Here participants are given their interview transcripts and the research reports so they can agree/disagree with the researcher’s findings. In addition, credibility is built up through prolonged engagement in the field and persistent observation and triangulation of data.
2) Transferability – Transferability replaces the concept of external validity. Instead of aiming for random sampling and probabilistic reasoning, qualitative researchers are encouraged to provide a detailed portrait of the setting in which the research is conducted. The aim here is to give readers enough information for them to judge the applicability of the findings to other settings.
3) Dependability – This concept replaces the idea of reliability. It encourages researchers to provide an audit trail (the documentation of data, methods and decisions about the research) which can be laid open to external scrutiny.
4) Confirmability – Confirmability, replacing the concept of objectivity, also invokes auditing as a means to demonstrate quality. For example, the researcher can offer a self-critically reflexive analysis of the methodology used in the research. In addition, techniques such as triangulation (of data, researcher, and context) can be useful tools of confirmability.

To summarize everything, researches can be evaluated trough its importance. How important the research work is? Since research main purpose is to find solutions to problem it is essential that a research work should meet that purpose. As I’ve stated above a research work should timely. Another criterion is that a research work should be reliable and dependable. How will the reader know is the research is dependable? The reader may check how the research was done. What did the researcher do to get the information? Is the source of information reliable? Does the method used fit the research problem? Those are some of the questions needed to be asked if you want to check the reliability and dependability of a research work. And lastly, a research should be reader friendly. The complete documentation should be provided and the research work should be presented in a way that users easily understand it especially the conclusion or output part.
For the researchers, I have found something for you to be guided before proceeding in making your research.

1. What’s the problem?
2. Who cares about the problem?
3. What have others done?
4. What would you like to do?
5. What can you really do?
6. How are you going to do it?
7. What results did/will you get?
8. Who would/will care about your results?
9. Where will you share your results?
10. What are you going to do afterwards?

Those questions should be satisfied for you to produce a good research work.

Another guideline that I found on the net entitled 15 steps to a good research which is addressed to the researchers are as follows:

1. Define and articulate a research question (formulate a research hypothesis).
2. Identify possible sources of information in many types and formats.
3. Judge the scope of the project.
4. Reevaluate the research question based on the nature and extent of information available and the parameters of the research project.
5. Select the most appropriate investigative methods (surveys, interviews, experiments) and research tools (periodical indexes, databases, websites).
6. Plan the research project.
7. Retrieve information using a variety of methods (draw on a repertoire of skills).
8. Refine the search strategy as necessary.
9. Write and organize useful notes and keep track of sources.
10. Evaluate sources using appropriate criteria.
11. Synthesize, analyze and integrate information sources and prior knowledge.
12. Revise hypothesis as necessary.
13. Use information effectively for a specific purpose.
14. Understand such issues as plagiarism, ownership of information (implications of copyright to some extent), and costs of information.
15. Cite properly and give credit for sources of ideas.

The guidelines given above are provided for researchers to provide a good research work. Researchers should also have the determination and perseverance especially in finding resources in supporting their claims. Researching is not easy and the world becomes what is it now because of the researches that was done so I guess it’s all worth the difficulties.