A U.S. Department of Education study was invoked in another thread as support for the argument that distance learning is a superior method of education. Having worked in Research & Planning in the government sector, and assisted in large research projects with university partners, I tend to take such reports with a grain of salt. Since I needed a mental break from something else, I took a look at the meta-analysis for myself. So what do I think about the report? I’m sure it has some value. To be fair to the researchers, analyzing 55 differently conducted studies is not an easy task. I want to share some concerns about the applicability of their study to the claim that DL is superior for teaching seminarians. To avoid confusion, the numbers cited in parenthesis refer to the pagination of the .pdf file, not the hard copy of the meta-analysis.
I agree that readers should not assume the conclusions of this meta-analysis are gospel. The Department of Education evidently contracted out (or possibly issued a request for proposal for a grant-funded research project) the meta-analysis, which was prepared by five researchers from the Center for Technology in Learning.(3) Their website states, “CTL researchers are focused on achieving change in education, formal and informal.” [italics mine] The USDoE issued the meta-analysis with the qualifier, “no official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.” (4) The meta-analysis admits that “many of the studies suffered from weaknesses such as small sample sizes; failure to report retention rates for students in the conditions being contrasted; and, in many cases, potential bias stemming from the authors’ dual roles as experimenters and instructors.” (19)
I think readers should be very careful about assuming application across the board for this meta-analysis. Many of the studies involved are not exclusively DL, but “blended,” as in traditional educational experiences combined with an online virtual field trip. (53) The researchers caution, “Despite what appears to be strong support for online learning applications, the studies in this meta-analysis do not demonstrate that online learning is superior as a medium.” (19)
Agreed - I think there are significant problems applying the meta-analysis to seminary education. This analysis was compiled from 55 studies, mixing children and adults. All the studies comparing face-to-face to online appear to be on vocational topics, or at least do not indicate otherwise. (41-43) None of the studies comparing face-to-face to online appear to deal with classical education, the humanities, or languages (except for computer programming languages). (41-43) None of the 55 studies appear to include seminaries. (41-47) This perhaps reflects either the majority of DL program types, or possibly the interests of the CTL researchers, whose “backgrounds are in cognitive science, educational research, computer science, human-computer interaction, mathematics and science education, and classroom teaching.”
After the recent fiasco with the whole climate change situation, you're going to have to pardon me for being a wee bit skeptical of \\\\\\"scientific studies\\\\\\" that seemingly indicate that DE is better than traditional education. It simply defies common sense and not only my experience but the experience of every person I know who has dealings with people who engage in DE studies.
I agree that readers should not assume the conclusions of this meta-analysis are gospel. The Department of Education evidently contracted out (or possibly issued a request for proposal for a grant-funded research project) the meta-analysis, which was prepared by five researchers from the Center for Technology in Learning.(3) Their website states, “CTL researchers are focused on achieving change in education, formal and informal.” [italics mine] The USDoE issued the meta-analysis with the qualifier, “no official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.” (4) The meta-analysis admits that “many of the studies suffered from weaknesses such as small sample sizes; failure to report retention rates for students in the conditions being contrasted; and, in many cases, potential bias stemming from the authors’ dual roles as experimenters and instructors.” (19)
I think readers should be very careful about assuming application across the board for this meta-analysis. Many of the studies involved are not exclusively DL, but “blended,” as in traditional educational experiences combined with an online virtual field trip. (53) The researchers caution, “Despite what appears to be strong support for online learning applications, the studies in this meta-analysis do not demonstrate that online learning is superior as a medium.” (19)
I think for the current conversation the above study would be skewed at best, and possibly not even applicable. The reason being is because seminary studies prepare men for ministry.
Agreed - I think there are significant problems applying the meta-analysis to seminary education. This analysis was compiled from 55 studies, mixing children and adults. All the studies comparing face-to-face to online appear to be on vocational topics, or at least do not indicate otherwise. (41-43) None of the studies comparing face-to-face to online appear to deal with classical education, the humanities, or languages (except for computer programming languages). (41-43) None of the 55 studies appear to include seminaries. (41-47) This perhaps reflects either the majority of DL program types, or possibly the interests of the CTL researchers, whose “backgrounds are in cognitive science, educational research, computer science, human-computer interaction, mathematics and science education, and classroom teaching.”