The Teaching Professor: Teaching Online vs. F2F: 15 Differences That Affect Learning

Featured Higher Education Presenter: Dr. Ike Shibley

http://www.magnapubs.com/catalog/teaching-online-vs-f2f/

In the 2009 report, Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, the Department of Education reported that "on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction."



While this was welcome validation for proponents of online learning, the report cautioned "that interpretations of this result, however, should take into consideration the fact that online and face-to-face conditions generally differed on multiple dimensions, including the amount of time that learners spent on task."


In some ways, because online learning often carries greater expectations and opportunities for interacting with course material and fellow students, an increase in time on task is a natural benefit.


"It's a tough sell sometimes for teachers to convince students that they need to do more on their own, and I think one of the advantages of online education is that students feel that they have more of an investment [when learning] online and they don't have you as that learning crutch," says Ike Shibley PhD, associate professor of chemistry at Penn State Berks.


In the recent online video seminar, Teaching Online vs. F2F: 15 Differences That Affect Learning, Shibley talked about how the online classroom differs from the traditional face-to-face classroom, and suggested strategies for capitalizing on those differences to improve student learning.


Some of the 15 differences he discussed involve:
The nature of student collaboration
The use of writing
Student interaction with content
The value of structure
The need for immediate feedback
The dependence on other professionals
The ease of assessment
The necessity of learning objects


And yet, despite the differences between online teaching and face-to-face teaching, Shibley says the two have a lot more in common than originally believed because, in the end, effective teaching transcends course format.


"Some of the differences are advantages. Some of the differences are disadvantages. But I think they're differences in degree not in kind," he says.


A great value!
The cost to purchase the CD is just $279. This price includes the right to host multiple viewers from a single location on your campus. We suggest that you maximize the value of your purchase by reserving a conference center or large meeting room to allow for maximum attendance at this training

Who will benefit from this seminar?

Faculty considering teaching an online course
Faculty getting ready to teach an online course
Faculty who are currently teaching an online course
Administrators who want to learn ways to support faculty who teach online

The Teaching Professor: Teaching Online vs. F2F: 15 Differences That Affect Learning

Inside Higher Ed: The State of Global Higher Ed

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/10/05/international

October 5, 2010

Colleges and universities are placing more emphasis on the global student experience despite a decline in funding, the third edition of a worldwide survey on internationalization in higher education found.


The new International Association of Universities report analyzes data collected last year from 745 member institutions in 115 countries, exploring global trends and individual regions to assess where, why and to whom internationalization is important, and what barriers to it exist.


“Internationalization of higher education is not a new phenomenon, but the ways in which it is evolving and the importance it has taken on in recent years are unprecedented,” IAU President Juan Ramon de la Fuente wrote in the report. “Furthermore, the future looks bright, especially as globalization is unlikely to slow down, and technological advances continue to shrink both time and space.”

Not all results were readily comparable to findings in the 2005 Global Survey, which followed the first edition that was published in 2003, because many questions or optional responses changed this time. But the authors did note some significant trends, IAU Program Officer Ross Hudson said:

•More IAU member institutions reported having specific internationalization budgets and monitoring systems.
•The institutional rationale for internationalization is focusing more on students and preparing them for a globalized world than on strengthening research capacity and production, though both are considered important.
•Whereas institutions previously reported lack of faculty interest and involvement as the main obstacles to internationalization, they now say, perhaps unsurprisingly, that it’s a lack of financial resources.
•Joint degree programs and dual/double degree programs with international partners are becoming increasingly widespread.
•English is growing increasingly dominant as the foreign language of most interest to students. (According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Education at a Glance 2010 report, more institutions in non-English-speaking countries are offering courses in English “to overcome their linguistic disadvantage in terms of attracting foreign students.”)


While nearly 18 percent of institutions did not reply or answered "none" to a question about perceived risks, the ones that did respond identified the same top three factors that were of biggest concern in 2005: commodification/commercialization of education programs, brain drain, and an increase in the number of degree mills and low-quality providers.

Most regions identified improved international awareness of students and enhanced cooperation and solidarity as the most important benefits of internationalization. And although many institutions reported that international student mobility policy is a high priority, the actual level of mobility and scholarship incentives for students “remains very low,” the report says.


Citing data from the American Council on Education, the Modern Language Association and the Institute for International Education, the report concludes that despite the historical theme of internationalization in the United States, there is much work to be done.


“Over the past thirty years, there has been a steady stream of reports and commissions exhorting the U.S. education system to ensure that students are prepared for global citizenship and the demands of an interconnected world,” the report reads. “The continued calls for action and the data available suggest that the U.S. educational system has not achieved the goal of producing a globally literate citizenry, nor has it created a sufficient supply of language and area studies experts for the needs of business, government and academe.”
— Allie Grasgreen

Inside Higher Ed: The State of Global Higher Ed