A recent article at Raw Story (RS) contained the alarmist headline, “Research shows everyone does worse with online learning.” The article goes on to cite a new study by the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Columbia University that states uncategorically, at least according to RS, “students tended to perform worse academically in online classes — suggesting that students had ‘difficulty adapting’ to online learning. Perhaps even more startling, students of color and men fared the worst.” (Emphases mine.)
Hogwash.
I am a professor in a large state university that is one of the behemoths of high quality online education, I know, both from personal experience teaching there for over a decade and from the large number of studies that have been done, that are being done, and that will be done, that the following is true:
1) Raw Story’s headline is an example of the sort of “journalism” that misrepresents the research of academics both in its “attention grabber” tactics and in the lack of clarity/understanding of the research it reports upon and its implications/applications to populations other than those intended that, sadly, riddles the 4th Estate in these confused times we know as the Information Age;
2) CCRC’s research study focuses on a specific group of students and their experience and success/problems with E-Learning. Any responsible academic (and I have no doubt that a research center associated with Columbia University would be responsible) would offer caveats abounding concerning this research study and its applicability to any population beyond the scope of its research.
Let’s examine the second of these first, since there’s no need to misrepresent CCRC or Columbia more than RS has already done.
CCRC’s self described mission is as follows: “CCRC strategically assesses the problems and performance of community colleges in order to contribute to the development of practice and policy that expands access to higher education and promotes success for all students.” (Again, emphases mine.)
This is a well narrowed and clear vision statement for what CCRC is about: they focus solely on research about community colleges – not 4 year colleges, not universities, not K-12 education either public or private. Further: CCRC focuses on expanded access to higher education (a central mission of the community colleges).
Let’s take a moment for some explanation. The word “access” used in the context of higher education means this: students are allowed to matriculate (enter, for the jargon deficient) a school and attempt to complete a degree in a field of their choice. This does not guarantee that they will complete a degree – that notion of higher education comes from the infiltration of higher ed in the last 30 years or so by “business think”: the commodification of education has misled students into thinking that a degree is like any product: something that is obtained by plunking down one’s money. Somehow, getting educated by simply paying some money and attending some classes has come to be thought of in the same way, say, as one might think of joining a gym. Expecting to look like an aerobics instructor or professional athlete simply because one paid for a gym membership is just as unrealistic. Access means that one gets to come and study and work toward that goal of a degree – if one doesn’t/can’t complete the academic work for a degree, no degree will be forthcoming, just as if one goes to the gym and doesn’t/can’t work out, that aerobics instructor physique will not be forthcoming. All (or nearly all, there may be exceptions) community colleges are “open access” – no one is screened out of the acceptable student pool – filling out an application for admission guarantees admission to study. Columbia University, where CCRC is located, on the other hand, is “very highly selective,” to use more jargon of the higher ed world: student applications are rigorously screened and only students of exceptional ability are allowed admission. As anyone would/should expect, the success rate for course/degree completion for Columbia is astronomically higher than for the typical community college.
All this is to state what should be obvious: CCRC’s examination of online course success at community colleges has to be understood given the parameters of community college student academic abilities. Community colleges accept students who have a range of academic ability and preparation ranging from very good to nearly nonexistent (with the majority, sadly, in or near the latter grouping rather than the former). This factor alone would account for a larger “lack of adaptability to online courses among community college students – many, nay most, of them have had little success in face to face courses. To add a layer of complication (which online learning naturally does: one does, after all, have to possess some technological skills simply to get into an online classroom, much less complete work there) exacerbates student learning problems. For disadvantaged students, this extra layer of complexity in the learning environment would almost certainly make success in online classes more problematic. I suspect CCRC’s researchers would have readily noted this – had they been asked by Raw Story’s reporter.
And therein lies the rub for Raw Story: for their reporter to extrapolate from a single study of a clearly, narrowly defined population to the general population is irresponsible reporting. As an academic (and something of a cynic) I have long since given up hope that journalists would engage in the focused research necessary for them to report on an academic study and explain its context and limitations in any useful way for readers. What RS wants is eyeballs on their web site to make advertisers happy and money for their business. That, in this case, led to reckless exaggeration.
A brief bit of simple Google research yielded the following for me as I prepared for writing this piece: a meta-study of 12 years worth of studies (over 50 of them!) of the various areas of online teaching and learning that concludes that overall, students do better in online classes than in f2f courses; a long list of scholarly journals researching and assessing online educational practices in nearly every field imaginable whose goal is simple:to improve the online learning and teaching experience and help students and faculty be ever more successful; an article (in of all places, Forbes) debunking negative myths about online learning; finally, a study by the US Department of Education on the advantages and disadvantages of developing online learning for K-12 students.
What these studies would have allowed Raw Story to do was present a thoughtful, nuanced report on the benefits and problems of online education for different populations that would have given readers a sense of what the landscape of E-Learning is, who the players are (and what their motives might be), and how online education might impact their lives and the lives of their families, friends, and colleagues. In that the 4th Estate would be doing its job: creating a knowledgeable, informed citizenry capable of making wise decisions about the incredibly important institution we call education.
Instead, we got a nearly useless piece of alarmist fluff that creates more Yahoos instead of developing more Houyhnhnms.
Yahoos? Houyhnhnms? You don’t know what those are?
Perhaps you should sign up for a course at my university – we can teach you all about them.
Online….
Categories: American Culture, Economy, Education
Progressive Culture | Scholars & Rogues 
Jim, have you ever done any digging into meta-studies? They’re not all created equal, of course, but more often than not, when I’ve read the methodology on meta-studies, I’ve been disappointed. Hey, even the very idea of knitting together disparate populations at different times using different research methods with different levels of quality control … well, I’m always very skeptical (not cynical) when I hear the results of a “meta-study.”
As for e-learning, I’m open to the possibility that it can be as effective as learning in a classroom, but I’m betting that, when the GOOD research is all in, we’ll find that it’s as effective in some cases when compared to some classrooms. For instance, I can’t imagine what one can do in an on-site lecture class in an auditorium of 500 with multiple-choice tests that can’t be accomplished by e-learning. I’ve always thought those lecture classes were ripoffs, anyway, since one could accomplish the same thing by handing out a reading list and videos of lectures at the beginning of the term.
On the other hand, I have serious doubts about whether e-learning can produce the same results as those Plato wrote of in Socrates’ classes. In other words, to use your gymnasium analogy, I think e-learning might teach you how to build big muscles, but it won’t teach you how to consistently hit a 22-foot jump shot, dribble with your off hand, recognize a pattern of screens you can exploit, or learn to jump a passing lane the split-second a pass is made. It also might not teach you how to put together an effective strategy, given your personnel and their skills, for beating another basketball team, given their personnel and their skills.
As for the Yahoos and Houyhnhnms, well, I wish you had used a different example. I can learn to identify those things simply by reading the book, the Cliff Notes, or hearing them mentioned in a lecture and dutifully writing them down in a notebook and memorizing them for the test. But that won’t mean that I actually understand the book, or the author, on any level … whatsoever.
JS – just offering some simple, simple things the reporter could have done in terms of trying to learn more and writing a better informed story…the merits/issues of meta-studies get into another whole area…there are all sorts of ways of defining and grouping studies…some work well, some not so much….and any of those individual studies could be looked into to assess its merit….just noting that there’s lots of research going on and much of it refutes the reporter’s (not CCRC’s) claims….
You want to define “GOOD” research? All of the journals mentioned in my link are peer reviewed and well respected. If you’re waiting for the Ivies to weigh in, let’s look at oh, about 2030…took them 20 years to join the writing process instruction movement….The schools like public unis faced with increasingly problematic students and trends in population behavior much sooner than those sheltered enclaves tend to lead the way in this kind of research.
Another point: note that I mentioned that it would have been good for the reporter to have done some research to see who the players were and what their motives were….
Yahoos and Houyhnhmns – well, if one takes a course in 18th century BritLit with a competent professor and gets lots of discussion and instruction about Swift – whether f2f or online – one should be better educated – your quibbles seems to be with student behavior – and maybe what you mistake as lack of oversight in online classes (and there’s lack aplenty in the “for profit” sector where many instructors teach 8 or more courses per semester). In real university online courses – not so much – and curriculum, pedagogical practice, even details such as assignment design – all are under continuous review and revision to try to improve delivery – and to implement new technologies that give us more of the f2f experience. If someone wants to know Swift’s work, they can certainly learn about it in an online course as easily (and well) as in a f2f.
Students cheat and take short cuts and don;t learn what they are paying to and get away with it sometimes – in f2f and online courses. That’s a cultural behavior, not a result of the method of instruction.
Plato and Socrates? Phys ed? The first is going to get conquered by technology – give it 20- or 15- or 10- or 5 years.
The second? Not every course CAN be online – yet…. 😉
I probably didn’t respond to everything..we didn’t talk about MOOC’s either. They’re something else altogether….
Jim,
Clearly, this is a major hot button for you. I’m not sure if you just misread what I wrote, or chose to misrepresent it. I hope it was the former.
JS – Look, wasn’t meaning to come across as defensive, just trying to give you some feedback based on your concerns. Let’s face it, the whole meta-studies issue was going to lead us way away from what I’m trying to point out – that we need better reporting on important issues like education and research.
Of course, the online thing is important to me – I like to eat. 😉
My issue isn’t with you at all – it’s with this shoddy reporting using alarmist headlines simply to create buzz (and traffic)….all the while misinforming the public on an important issue….
And my title is a hint about the changing landscape of education (and I’m not talking strictly high ed). For instance, I’d like your opinion of MOOC’s – truly – I think they’re a gimmick – “200K people sign up for a course” will eventually go the joke – how many finish is not a joke, it’s a problem I’m not sure Harvard and MIT are taking seriously….
I ain’t mad at a fellow Houyhnhnm…I do get perturbed at Yahoo makers, occasionally…..
All other issues notwithstanding, Jim is dead right about the headline. RS was trying to drive readership with it instead of using that space to accurately reflect the nut of the study. I’m not sure to what extent they even understand the study. Even the “best” media outlets these days do a terrible job of reporting on studies. Reporters come out of school not understanding scientific method or stats, let alone deeper critical issues like the biases baked into many research programs.
I wasn’t two grafs into that story before it occurred to me that the headline had misled me….
Jim,
I guess I misread what you wrote. It did start out criticizing the publication in question, but then I interpreted it to be a defense of online learning. So, my response was to that, not to the state of journalism.
Hey, I couldn’t agree more that journalists are innumerate and scientifically illiterate. I once put together a training module that was short, simple, and aimed merely at helping journalists not to be fooled by spurious research. I. Couldn’t. Sell. It.
Journalistic outlets simply weren’t interested.
When’s the last time — if ever — Raw Story offered a “thoughtful, nuanced report on the benefits and problems” of anything reported and written by its own staff?
In an era of hits = revenue – low salaries = profit, your take on No. 2 certainly rings true.
I particularly like the tirade any prof would offer: “‘business think’: the commodification of education has misled students into thinking that a degree is like any product: something that is obtained by plunking down one’s money” … At my institution, where the average undergraduate GPA has inched above 3.0, the student stance is often this: “I’m here occupying space in your course. Where’s my fucking B?”
Nice work, Jim. And thanks for doing it.
Thanks for the post! As an online student I couldn’t believe it when I read the Raw Story article. Each of my classes has a required discussion forum aspect. Everyone is required to participate and graded on their involvement. If anything I think the discussion board makes it easier for those to participate than if in a classroom setting. It is also is nice to have instant access to other class members when I have a question or am confused by the material. Learning is what you put in to it, whether in a classroom or online.
Thanks, Tina, your last sentence sort of sums up what I wish we could get every student to understand – what you get out of your education is what you put into it. Many thanks. 🙂
But Jim, if what we get out of education is what we put into it, why do we need schools? And educators? Couldn’t we do just as well in a good, public library? 😉
Jim Booth: I appreciate your defense of online learning, but it will never be able to adequately compare to classroom learning. As a non-traditional student who has been taking college courses for the past 20 years and as a former technical writer who has been writing computer-based training (CBT) courses for co-workers for over 10 years, online learning may be appropriate for some studies — but certainly not all.
In addition, I resent paying top tuition rates for an online course that doesn’t give me benefit of the instructor’s experience in combination with the information I already read in a textbook. My tution is suppose to provide me access to the “inside scoop” that simply reading a book could never provide. I don’t even want to go into the issues with buggy software that misscores the answers or can only ask questions that the software can process.
Money is a primary factor for universities — they only provide online learning as a way to maximize profit. Even those universities who permit me to challenge courses, will still charge me a substantial fee for someone to evaluate my work or score my test. Then, they limit the number of courses I can challenge without having taken their classes and, therefore, paid more for the opportunity to read the book. If I were able to simply challenge courses, pay my tution, fees, taxes and other student charges, I would already have multiple degrees in multiple areas of study. It is about the money.
Addtionally, as a former high-technology worker who has been involved in the computer industry since 1978, I already spent 8-10 hours of my day working with a computer and its related software. I took college courses for a chance to read a hard-bound book, listen to the lecture from a qualified individual and interact with fellow students — the last thing I wanted was to be placed back into a chair facing another computer screen to be stepped-through a question/answer session using sequential procedures while multi-tasking with software applications and slow networks. It just took all the fun out of learning.
Hi, Marlene,
Your issues seem to be with the larger educational system (I have my own – my post clearly states a major one – the expectation of students, created by administrators, that pretty much all one needs to do to deserve a degree is pay the tuition and show up occasionally). Your view from the student side is equally enlightening for our readers, I hope. I am not sure where you studied. Believe me when I say that the experience is very different from school to school. I am sorry to hear that yours was bad. Given your experience, I see where you are coming from.
But the system of E-Learning is working at improvement all the time and is making real strides. And there are many schools working hard to bring all the interactivity of f2f to the online experience. Given our changing demographics, I suspect online ed will continue to grow dramatically.
As I mentioned to another commenter, online is here to stay. Our responsibility as academicians is to work to make the online learning experience as fruitful and rewarding to both faculty and students as possible.
But, as the point of my post states, my concern is that poor reporting and misinformation will make the sort of dialogue we need about online education – and education in general – more of the same ideological-bordering-on-idiosyncratic blathering that we all find so difficult to face in our discussions of politics, our environment, our health care system, etc.
I’ve never taken an online class, but i imagine that i’d rather like them. Outside of grad seminars with a handful of intelligent, driven students a great deal of the culture of the classroom is just pointless and annoying. If you have a good prof (and to be fair, a good TA/GA in a discussion class can be every bit as good as decent prof) in a small enough class to have a discussion with a group of students that engages in and is capable of having a discussion, then there are great rewards in the classroom.
Sitting through a lecture with 100+ other students? There’s no way that online can be a significant down grade. The prof can even video tape a semester’s worth of lectures for the students to use. Just give me the book, syllabus, whatever supplemental reading you’ve got, and the assignments. That way, i can finish the class in a few weeks and be done with it.
All bets are off if you’re blessed with a prof who is also a fantastic lecturer. Maybe at the Ivies, and there’s always a few at any university, but in general that’s not going to be the regular experience of students.
Tina’s comment about experiencing lively, and perhaps better discussion in online classes is an angle i’d never considered but makes a lot of sense.
You make an terrific point here, Lex. I thought immediately of a lecture hall class I had in “Classical Studies” – 100+ students in a cavernous lecture hall watching the “sage on the stage” – how that’s “better” than a lively discussion in an online classroom escapes me….
Synchronous online instruction needs to be part of the discussion as well. We oversimplify a discussion of online learning by addressing blended and asynchronous only. Synchronous online instruction allows for critical discourse in the moment. Asynchronous emphasizes reflection and synchronous emphasizes expression — both are necessary for academic success and growth.
Agreed, Laura – but synchronous instruction, while the best possible enhancement of online classes, often suffers from student complaints over scheduling complications across time zones. Once students understand the benefit of the synchronous component, they like it – but getting that initial buy-in can be problematic at times….Still, your observation is spot on….