> Blending Face-to-Face and Distance Learning Methods in Adult and Career-Technical Education
> Practice Application Brief No. 23
> by Michael E. Wonacott
> ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education,
> 2002
>
> Both face-to-face and distance learning methods are used today in
> adult education and career and technical education (CTE), and
> both methods have their individual strengths and limitations.
> With the increase in the use of information and communications
> technology (ICT) for distance learning, adult and CTE programs
> use a blend of both methods in order to maximize the advantages
> and minimize the disadvantages of each. This Brief reviews the
> literature on combining traditional classroom instruction with
> distance learning via ICT and offers suggestions on how the two
> methods can be effectively blended in adult and CTE programs.
>
> Strengths and Limitations of the Two Methods
>
> In theory, the advantages of face-to-face and distance learning
> methods complement each other (Leung and Tran 2000). In classroom
> learning, face-to-face contact both in and out of class can help
> motivate and involve students; active learning can engage
> students in thinking and interaction through questioning,
> discussion, small-group presentation, role play, and case
> studies. In distance learning via ICT, technology makes material
> available anytime and anywhere; multimedia (e.g., video and
> audio) can engage multiple brain channels; graphics can help
> understanding of complex concepts; interactive activities can
> involve students in dynamic learning through a cycle of
> questions/answers/feedback; discussion and work groups allow
> students to evaluate their performance against that of peers. It
> is important to note, however, that those two sets of
> complementary advantages are sometimes only theoretical (Cutshall
> 2002; McKavanagh et al. 2002). In practice, both face-to-face and
> ICT distance programs often rely on transmissionist,
> teacher-centered provision of information rather than on
> interactive, student-centered construction of knowledge; students
> may end up receiving passively both online and in the classroom.
> Nevertheless, two themes clearly emerge as the most frequently
> cited strengths: the personal contact allowed by face-to-face
> classroom learning and the flexibility allowed by distance
> learning.
>
> An interesting wrinkle is that different distance learning
> methods can offer different combinations of personal contact and
> flexibility (Cutshall 2002; McKavanagh et al. 2002; Miller and
> Webster 1997; Perraton 1991; Zirkle 2002). In synchronous
> distance methods (e.g., satellite TV, audioconferencing,
> videoconferencing, live Internet chat), learners and/or
> instructors are all engaged in the activity at the same time,
> restricting flexibility; flexibility is further restricted by
> methods like audioconferencing or videoconferencing in which
> participants must be at a physical location with necessary
> technology and hook-ups. However, asynchronous methods allow
> learners and instructors to participate at different times.
> Learners can listen to audiotapes, view videotapes, check e-mail,
> log on to a threaded discussion, or visit webpages anytime; the
> necessary technology is widely--although not universally--
> available. The ultimate in flexibility is the "anytime anywhere"
> availability of a web-based course or course components.
>
> It may be surprising that studies examining the connection
> between learning style and success among distance learning
> students yield mixed results. Aragon, Johnson, and Shaik (2000)
> found no correlation between learning style preference and course
> grade among online adult students in advanced technology
> education, in spite of differences in learning style preferences>
> between online and face-to-face students enrolled in the program.
> Tucker (2000), on the other hand, compared distance and
> face-to-face students (with the same instructor, content,
> materials, assignment, time frames, and tests) and found
> significant differences in posttest and final exam scores but no
> significant differences in pretest scores or final course grades.
> Both sets of results suggest that neither method is inherently
> more or less effective--regardless of learning style, students
> can be as successful online as face to face. Indeed, those
> studies and others (e.g., Miller and Webster 1997; Misko 2000)
> suggest that, at best, students self-select into face-to-face or
> distance learning methods that suit their individual preferences
> and styles; at worst, individual preferences and style affect
> satisfaction with specific elements of the method (e.g., being
> the only student at a remote videoconferencing site) far more
> than overall level of satisfaction or success.
>
> Guidelines for Blending
>
> Two common themes in discussion of an effective blend of
> face-to-face and distance learning methods are as follows:
>
> Good practice in planning, monitoring, and managing of
> distance learning has much in common with good practice for
> programs delivered through any mode (Hawksley and Owen
> 2002). Critical success factors include (1) integration of
> program planning, monitoring, management, and resources; (2)
> a good understanding of the distance learning operation's
> costs; (3) learner contact with instructors and others; (4)
> student guidance before program entry; (5) well-established
> procedures for selecting learning materials and monitoring
> their use; and (6) procedures to obtain feedback and a
> process to incorporate feedback survey results into future
> program planning.
>
> The pedagogy of online learning must be suited to the
> requirements of the content and needs of the learner and can
> be combined with face-to-face learning in various
> proportions (Mishra 2002). Media should be used to suit
> content (e.g., 3-D models for architectural drawing).
> Interaction can also be achieved by combining different
> technologies: learner-content interaction via webpages with
> graphics, animation, audio, video, interactive quizzes, and
> progress checks; one-to-one learner-teacher or
> learner-learner interaction via e-mail and chat; one-to-many
> learner-teacher or learner-learner interaction via e-mail,
> listserv, group chat, discussion boards; many-to-many
> learner-teacher or learner-learner interaction via group
> chat, discussion.
>
> In addition to those two general principles, a number of more
> specific points appear repeatedly in the literature.
>
> Need for Distance Learner Engagement and Interaction
>
> Concerns about the need for interaction and engagement among
> distance learners must--and can--be addressed by appropriate
> design and use of ICT (Barker 2002). The use of ICT should be
> appropriate for learner engagement and support,
> individualization, meaningful learning (including information
> technology and problem-solving skills, artistic expression, and
> construction of knowledge) and use by students with any
> characteristics, including disabilities, in different
> circumstances; facilities, processes, and practices should allow
> communication and contact, flexible interaction and problem
> solving, and collaboration. Reflecting that concern, Askov and
> Simpson (2001) demonstrated that a collaborative online learning
> environment, based on paired and small-group work, could be
> created for adult distance students, leading to high levels of
> mastery of course objectives, interaction with instructors and>
> other students, and skill in computer and Internet use. Course
> design emphasized instructor guidance and support, as well as
> computer conferencing for interaction, collaboration, and
> development of an online community.
>
> Preparation and Support for Distance Students
>
> Like face-to-face students, distance students need appropriate
> preparation for participation and follow-up support, ranging from
> administration and logistics to the guidance and facilitation of
> learning (Choy et al. 2002). Distance students must rely on
> secure, easily accessible ICT for clear, detailed information
> about enrollment, modules, courses, requirements, assessments,
> expectations, and sources of help; the opportunity to enroll, pay
> fees, and complete all administrative procedures; regular contact
> and timely response and feedback from instructors; a variety of
> methods to communicate with teachers (e-mail, online chat,
> bulletin boards); enrollment information linked to application
> forms; and online assessments. Likewise, distance students often
> need orientation to procedures for self-assessment; writing
> assignments; and the details of learning online--etiquette, code
> of conduct, FAQs, technical assistance, referencing online
> materials, using search engines, accessing databases, and quality
> criteria for Internet information.
>
> Judicious Use of Technology
>
> Balancing the capabilities of ICT and the increased access it can
> provide to learners is a concern about using ICT appropriately.
> On the one hand, ICT can allow access not only to adult and CTE
> programs but also to specific learning experiences that would
> otherwise be difficult to provide. For example, web-based,
> multimedia, virtual site tours can provide contextual
> information, promote insights, and bridge the gap between theory
> and practice just as actual site tours do--without the
> inconvenience of inclement weather, travel costs, scheduling and
> logistics, and safety or security arrangements (Barrett and
> Wilkins 2000). Likewise, a teacher education course website can
> post and store all students' written assignments and video
> teaching demonstrations for review and assessment by teacher
> educators. On the other hand, capabilities come at a price and do
> not necessarily lead to use. Online connection via dial-up modem
> can be a problem with very large graphic or video files; CD-ROM
> may be a better option (Deal 2002). Some practitioners (e.g.,
> Hutton 1999) recommend at least one face-to-face meeting with
> students even in a distance course. And the use of any technology
> should be driven not by the beguiling appeal of ICT functionality
> but rather by learning outcomes and the desirability of providing
> multiple presentations and realistic applications of content;
> multimedia should complement materials rather than distract
> attention (Barker 2002).
>
> The Best of Both Worlds
>
> Although ancient by ICT standards, a comment by Perraton (1991)
> makes an appealing case for blending face-to-face and distance
> learning methods: "If we can use face-to-face study along with
> print or broadcast we can aim for the best of both worlds--the
> economies of mass production achieved through printing or
> broadcasting together with the humanity and individualism of
> personal contact" (p. 1). Perhaps the best of both worlds comes
> from observing the classic precept of sound instructional design
> that the choice of any learning method should be driven by the
> needs of the learner, the nature of the content, and the
> interactions needed for learning.
>
> References
>
> Aragon, S. R.; Johnson, S. D.; and Shaik, N. "The Influence of
> Learning Style Preferences on Student Success in Online vs.
> Face-to-Face Environments." Paper presented at the Academy of
> Human Resource Development Conference, Raleigh-Durham, North>
> Carolina, March 8-12, 2000. (ED 441 128)
>
> Askov, E., and Simpson, M. "Researching Distance Education: Penn
> State's Online Adult Education MEd Program on the World Campus.
> Paper presented at the Australian Vocational Education and
> Training Research Association Conference, Adelaide, Australia,
> March 28-30, 2001. (ED 456 256)
> <http://www.avetra.org.au/2001%20conference%20pages/PAPERS%202001
> /askov.pdf>
>
> Barker, K. Canadian Recommended E-learning Guidelines. Vancouver,
> BC: FutureEd; and Canadian Association for Community Education,
> 2002. <http://www.col.org/newsrelease/CanREGs%20Eng.pdf>
>
> Barrett, J. F., and Wilkins, B. "Establishing a Virtual Building
> and Construction Site for Education and Training." Paper
> presented at the International Vocational Education and Training
> Association Conference, Hong Kong, China, August 6-9, 2000. (ED
> 446 247)
>
> Choy, S.; McNickle, C.; and Clayton, B. Learner Expectations and
> Experiences: An Examination of Student Views of Support in Online
> Learning. Leabrook, Australia: National Centre for Vocational
> Education Research, 2002.
> <http://www.ncver.edu.au/research/proj/nr0F02.pdf>
>
> Cutshall, S. "Going the Distance: When Online Learning Works."
> Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers 77, no. 5 (May
> 2002): 22-23.
>
> Deal, W. F. "Distance Learning: Teaching Technology Online."
> Technology Teacher 61, no. 8 (May-June 2002): 21-26.
>
> Hawksley, R., and Owen, J. Going the Distance: Are There Common
> Factors in High Performing Distance Learning? Research Report.
> London, England: Learning and Skills Development Agency, 2002.
> <http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1225.pdf>
>
> Hutton, S. "Course Design Strategies-Traditional versus On-Line:
> What Transfers? What Doesn't?" Paper presented at the annual
> meeting of the American Association for Adult and Continuing
> Education, Phoenix, Arizona, November 1999. (ED 430 115)
>
> Leung, T. Y., and Tran, S. Y. S. "Integrating the Strengths of
> the Web-Based and Traditional Models of Teaching." Paper
> presented at the International Vocational Education and Training
> Association conference, Hong Kong, China, August 6-9, 2000. (ED
> 446 247)
>
> McKavanagh, C.; Kanes, C.; Beven, F.; Cunningham, A.; and Choy,
> S. Evaluation of Web-Based Flexible Learning. Leabrook,
> Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research,
> 2002. (ED 462 604)
> <http://www.ncver.edu.au/research/proj/nr8007.pdf>
>
> Miller, W. W., and Webster, J. K. "A Comparison of Interaction
> Needs and Performance of Distance Learners in Synchronous and
> Asynchronous Classes." Paper presented at the American Vocational
> Association Convention, Las Vegas, Nevada, December 1997. (ED 415
> 411)
>
> Mishra, S. Designing Online Learning. Knowledge Series: A
> Topical, Start-Up Guide to Distance Education Practice and
> Delivery. Vancouver, BC: Commonwealth of Learning, 2002.
> <http://www.col.org/Knowledge/pdf/KS_online.pdf>
>
> Misko, J. The Effects of Different Modes of Delivery: Student
> Outcomes and Evaluations. Leabrook, Australia: National Centre
> for Vocational Education Research, 2000. (ED 463 457)
> <http://www.ncver.edu.au/research/core/cp9708.pdf>
>
> Perraton, H. Administrative Structures for Distance Education.
> London: Commonwealth Secretariat; and Vancouver, BC: Commonwealth
> of Learning, 1991. (ED 385 703)
>
> Tucker, S. Y. "Assessing the Effectiveness of Distance Education
> versus Traditional On-Campus Education." In AERA Business
> Education and Information Systems Research SIG: 2000 Proceedings,
> pp. 31-44. Washington, DC: American Educational Research
> Association, 2000. (ED 440 271)
>
> Zirkle, C. "Using the Internet to Enhance Teacher Education."
> Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers 77, no. 5 (May
> 2002): 24-25.
>
> This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds
> from the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. ED-99->
> CO-0013. The content of this publication does not necessarily
> reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education
> nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or
> organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Practice
> Application Briefs may be freely reproduced and are available at
> <http://ericacve.org/pab.asp>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 12 2002 - 08:00:42