Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies

A systematic search of the research literature from 1996 through July 2008 identified more than a thousand empirical studies of online learning. Analysts screened these studies to find those that (a) contrasted an online to a face-to-face condition, (b) measured student learning outcomes, (c) used a rigorous research design, and (d) provided adequate information to calculate an effect size. As a result of this screening, 51 independent effects were identified that could be subjected to meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. The difference between student outcomes for online and face-to-face classes—measured as the difference between treatment and control means, divided by the pooled standard deviation—was larger in those studies contrasting conditions that blended elements of online and face-to-face instruction with conditions taught entirely face-to-face. Analysts noted that these blended conditions often included additional learning time and instructional elements not received by students in control conditions. This finding suggests that the positive effects associated with blended learning should not be attributed to the media, per se. An unexpected finding was the small number of rigorous published studies contrasting online and face-to-face learning conditions for K–12 students. In light of this small corpus, caution is required in generalizing to the K–12 population because the results are derived for the most part from studies in other settings (e.g., medical training, higher education)

The New Economic Development Role of the Community College

Community colleges have long been involved in workforce preparation and economic development—in the form of the occupational education of students. But in the last two decades, community colleges have greatly broadened their economic development role to include contract training, small-business incubation and assistance, and local economic planning. Contract training. Over 90 percent of community colleges offer contract training. Unlike traditional occupational education, contract training involves an outside party—a business or a government agency—rather than the individual student as the primary client. The contractor largely determines who receives the training and the content of the training. Even if the content is little different from a college’s traditional vocational offerings, contract training programs are customized to the contractor’s requirements in other regards, such as where, when, and how the training is delivered. Rigorous studies of the impact of contract training on trainees and their employers are scarce. The studies available do show positive effects on both, but the data are too sparse to allow definitive conclusions. However, more definite findings are available about the impact on community colleges themselves. Contract training boosts enrollments and revenues. It enlarges business's external support for, and internal involvement in, the community college. It changes the content of the vocational courses and the liberal arts courses servicing them. It raises the standing of continuing education faculty, but brings them into conflict with traditional vocational faculty. And more speculatively, there is evidence that contract training may erode the commitment of community colleges to traditional liberal arts values, transfer education, and remedial education. Small-business assistance and incubation. Over a third of community colleges offer advice and training to small firms in such things as management, personnel practices, marketing, finance, and work practices, and a few even provide nascent firms with low-cost space and administrative support. Although small-business assistance brings in little money, it apparently brings community colleges some new students and strengthens their base of political support. The effects on the client firms themselves are less clear, however. Local economic planning. This is the newest and least-charted dimension of the colleges’ new economic role. This new activity includes scanning the environment for economic, social, and political developments and passing this information on to employers, government agencies, and the public at large. Also many community colleges have joined local economic planning organizations and even convened meetings of local political and economic leaders to shape economic development policy. Finally, community colleges have even lobbied local, state, and federal government in favor of certain economic policies. Based largely on anecdotal evidence, this new role seems to help community colleges get more contract training requests and solidify their ties to local business and government agencies. However, it also carries the risk of ensnaring the colleges in local political conflicts. Research and policy recommendations. Data on the impact of the new economic role on trainees, firms, and community colleges are relatively scarce. In particular, we need much more research on the impacts of community college efforts in the areas of small business assistance and local economic planning. Moreover, we should more closely investigate the impact of contract training on the colleges’ commitment to transfer and remedial education and on businesses shouldering their proper share of the cost of employee training. On the policy side, as community colleges deepen their role in workforce preparation and economic development, public policies need to be devised to bolster the colleges’ commitment to general education, baccalaureate preparation, and remedial education

Chapter: 'Introducing the U.S. Cyberlearning Community' from book: Adaptive and Adaptable Learning: 11th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2016, Lyon, France, September 13-16, 2016, Proceedings

The term “Cyberlearning” is used in the United States to describe a community of researchers, largely funded by the US National Science Foundation, who are exploring the integration of computer science research with learning sciences research. The Cyberlearning community is parallel to the EC-TEL community and the purpose of this poster is to foster mutual engagement between the communities. The paper describes the origin of the term, the conception of the field, the kinds of research being conducted, and some of the exemplary projects. The paper will also introduce the Center for Innovative Research in Cyberlearning (CIRCL), which is the hub of the knowledge network (research community) for cyberlearning and hosts a useful collection of resources

Evaluation of the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program : Final Report

The purpose of this report is to provide descriptive information about educational technology practices related to the core objectives of the U.S. Department of Education’s Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program. The EETT program is part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and, like other elements of NCLB, targets “high-need school districts.”1 The authorizing legislation specifically states three goals for the program: (a) to improve student academic achievement through the use of educational technology, (b) to ensure that every student is technologically literate by the eighth grade, and (c) to encourage the effective integration of technology in teacher training and curriculum development to establish research-based instructional methods that can be widely implemented as best practices. From the program’s inception in FY 2002 through FY 2008, approximately $3.4 billion was allocated to EETT. In FY 2008, the program was funded at approximately$267 million. This report is structured around the EETT program objectives and specific performance measures developed by the U.S. Department of Education to meet the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, which are aligned with, but not identical to, the goals stated in the legislation. GPRA requirements address each of the following EETT program priorities: teachers’ and students’ access to technology, technology-related professional development, technology integration, and student technology literacy. The report uses data collected from nationally representative samples of states, districts and teachers, including: 52 state educational technology directors who were surveyed about school years 2002–03 and 2006–07, 1,028 district technology directors who were surveyed about school years 2003–04 and 2006–07, 4,934 teachers (drawn from the district sample) who were surveyed about school year 2004–05 and 1,515 teachers (also drawn from the district sample) who were surveyed about school year 2006–07