Education Reform – Study: Online Learning Outcomes Similar to Classroom Results
Education Reform: Universities with shrinking budgets could consider online education to save money.
Education Reform: By Ryan Lytle, July 25, 2012
A recent study shows similar outcomes between traditional learning and interactive online learning.
Critics of online learning claim that students are exposed to an inferior education when compared to traditional in-class instruction, but a recent study from Ithaka S+R, a strategic consulting and research nonprofit, questions this notion.
The report, “Interactive Learning Online at Public Universities: Evidence from Randomized Trials,” notes that students who utilize interactive online learning—or hybrid learning—produce equivalent, or better, results than students participating in face-to-face education.
Tom McDonald’s Comments:
There are no learning surprises here
(1) The US Department of Education came up with a similar conclusion in 2010+
(2) The brain based, learning research is solid in that:
[ Where individual, long term critical, must know, learning = Appropriate: understanding, ongoing reinforcement, fluency/mastery, recall, application, stick/behavior change, consistent with strategic, individual and organizational objectives ]
a. The traditional one to many, lecture is poor for learning
b. The traditional one to many, education, elearning platform is poor for learning
c. The traditional one to many learning platform (webinar, word document, video, PPT) is poor for learning
(3) The brain based, learning research is also solid in that the new teacher facilitated, truly personalized learning model, in a teacher facilitated, blended learning environment will advance individual learning, long term, the most effectively and the most efficiently
(4) This leads to this question: Why are we not learning and embracing and implementing what the proven learning research solidly proves that advances, long term, individual learning?
In education, we have a traditional one to many lecture system, with a traditional one to many elearning platform, neither learning research validated to effectively and efficiently advance long term individual learning and we are comparing which one is better.
With all of the advanced learning information readily available we can’t do better than this; than to validate which of the two one to many, ineffective and inefficient learning systems is better, especially knowing that the department of education concluded this same thing in 2010?
How we can be approaching this so incorrectly baffles me, considering the huge investments in technology that have done little or nothing to advance individual learning outcomes. This has to change.
(I) Do we want proven, documented, best practices, learning outcomes like these:
• More Stimulation per Minute of Study
• 300% Improvement in Retained Learning per Hour of Study
• 11% less study time, 22% less test time, and 95% higher test scores
Turnkey eLearning application for California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
Advanced English Learners pass rates up to 78%
Advanced Special Education learners pass rates up to 50%
Advanced Traditional education learners pass rates up to 100%
Customized, annualized, CAHSEE, Return on Investment (ROI), economic validations, have ranged between 800% and 4,000%+
(II) Or traditional ‘advanced’ learning outcomes like these:
- “Reading Program Ineffective for Students With Learning Disabilities”
- “Maybe the most frustrating aspect is we can’t definitively say whether this program did or did not improve student outcomes, which is obviously the primary goal of any education reform.”
- …”Cram says he hasn’t seen any dramatic improvements in learning since incorporating the iPad, but he anticipates that there will be soon”… (after a year’s implementation)
Unfortunately, we seem to opting for option II
For those interested in a free resource (900+unique and varied posts) specific to the new learning model please access:+
To Discuss how these Solutions will add value for you, your organization and/or your clients, Affinity/Resale Opportunities, and/or Collaborative Efforts, Please Contact:
Tom McDonald, [email protected]; 608-788-5144; Skype: tsmw5752