Micro-Scholarship, What it is, How can it help me.pdf
Research
1. Research Review of Online Learning Studies Barbara Means Yukie Toyama Robert Murphy Marianne Bakia Karla Jones …………….Means et al. (2010), respectively.
2. Means et al. (Sept, 2010). Prepared report for the U.S. Dept. of Educ. Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning Compared Online, Blended, & Face-to-Face Compared Blended & Online
3. Means et al. (Sept, 2010). Found students in online conditions performed modestly better, on average, than those learning the same material through face-to-face instruction. Found blending & purely online environments had similar learning outcomes. Found Online learning favorable when media was interactive and supported with content focused videos.
4. Means et al. (Sept, 2010). Found advantages for asynchronous over synchronous deliveries. Found asynchronous instruction superior to synchronous Found advantages in online assessments and online writing assignments. Found advantages for self-assessments at the end of weekly modules
5. Zhao et al. (2005) Found advantages for Blended learning. Instructor involvement was a strong mediating variable Instructor involvement became dominate and peer-to-peer involvement became minimized
6. Cook et al. (2005) Found that “self-assessment” questions at the end of modules improved student learning.
7. Shen, Lee, and Tsai (2007) Found that students who received instruction on self-regulation (managing study time, goal-setting, and self evaluation) performed better in online environments, but not significantly better.
8. Bixler et al. (2008) Found that promoting self-reflection, self-regulation, and self-monitoring leads to more positive outcomes. Found that question prompts (asking students to reflect on their problem-solving activities) leads to more positive outcomes. Found that asking students to provide explanations for their work leads to positive outcomes.
9. Bernard et al. (2006) Found no significant difference in face-to-face and online study/project groups.
10. Caldwell (2006) Found no significant difference in performances on multiple choice tests in an online vs. blended environment. Instruction for both was web-based The blended course had a face-to-face lab; where as the purely online had an online lab. Assessments were web-based.
11. Scoville and Buskirk (2007) Found no significant difference in learning when: Learning & testing FTF Learning was web-based & testing was FTF Learning was FTF and testing web-based Learning web-based & testing was web-based.
12. McNamara et al. (2008) Found no significant difference in Instruction in a FTF Instruction in both online & FTF Instruction purely online
13. Zhang et al. (2006) Found that student achievement scores were modestly better when interactive videos were implemented into all three environments. VoiceThread doddling Tool Multi-Screen Video with transcript Interactive Video Platform
14. Ryan (2007) Found no significant difference in collaborative tools Online group had interaction with instructor, online collaboration blogs, and social networks FTF group had no interaction with collaboration blogs or social networks
15. Kerfoot (2008) Found no significant difference Online instruction Mobile phone delivery of instruction Email delivery delivery of instruction Blog delivery of instruction
16. Choi et al. (2005) Found improvements in student achievement & student retention when principles of design were applied to online courses. Principles of design
Editor's Notes
Hello & Welcome. This is a presentation of Research that explored Online Learning studies.
Means et al. was a committee group selected by the department of Education to research and report on the current status of online education. More specifically, how online learning compares to the the face-to-face environment was explored.
Means et al. found that student in online conditions performed modestly better, on average, than those learning the same material through face-to-face instruction. Also, means et al found that blended and purely online environments had similar learning outcomes.However, the purely online environment was favorable, over the blended, when interactive media and content focused videos were utilized.
Means et al found advantages for asynchronous deliveries over synchronous.
Zhae et al found advantages for blended learning. However, the student-centered environment seemed to disappear.
Cook et al. found that self assessment questions at the end of modules improved student learning.
Shen, Lee, and Tsai found that students who receive instruction on self-regulation performed better in online environments, but not significantly better.
Bixler et al found that self-reflection, self-regulation, self-monitoring, question prompts, and student explanations lead to positive outcomes in the online and FTF environment.
Bernard et al found no significance in study groups; whether online or FTF.
Caldwell found no significant difference in assessments in both Online and Blended environments.
Scoville & Buskirk found no significant difference in learning when learning and testing was FTF and online.
Found no significance in instruction in all three environments: FTF, Online, & Blended.
Zhang et al found that student achievement scores were modestly better when interactive videos were implemented in all three environments.
Ryan found no significant difference in online collaborative tools.
Kerfoot found no significant difference in the delivery of instruction.
Choi et al found advantages for applying the principles of design to online courses.
