I know just where this is heading. My new Logitech WebcomC600 is ready on my desk, though still in the box, and I have read far enough ahead in the syllabus to know The Day Will Come. As you might have gathered from my previous posting, I tend to be slow to embrace the new and improved until it has been tried and proven, but in this case I concede that well-designed online tutorials are both tried and proven as effective teaching tools. Sometimes they don’t even have to be all that well-designed. Yesterday I chose an iPad case at Amazon.com after watching an online customer video review, not the most elegant of productions, yet informative enough to convince me of the product’s superior qualities. Viewers accustomed to YouTube, on-location news reporting, and AFV are comfortable with homemade video production, and are generally forgiving of form if the function is worth the viewing.
Which is the question Nicole Johnson asks in “Is an Online Learning Module an Effective Way to Develop Information Literacy Skills?” Despite her positive view of the results, her study of 100 students taking a required online course in information literacy did not clearly show that students either preferred the method of instruction, or gained as much or more as they would have from face-to-face instruction. Three quarters of the students did not bother to respond to the evaluation survey at the end of the course, and some of the twenty five who did respond “put in the minimal effort required to complete the task at a high level.” Did some opt out rather than give negative feedback? Did they have no real preference about the method of instruction? Or did students feel they were being given a test instead of a survey, with no incentive to participate? The overall small percentage (31%) of course participants giving positive feedback is not a ringing endorsement for online instruction.
Jerilyn Veldof’s One-Shot Library Workshop is somewhat more convincing in its practical approach to using online tutorials for library instruction. Posting short, informational videos that users can select as needed makes sense for any library facility, especially, as in the case study, when the users are college students, who often do research from their computers wherever they are. As mentioned in Veldof’s introduction to the book, variations of the ADDIE model (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) have been used in educational instruction for years, and its application to online tutorials works just as well in defining the process of analyzing one’s audience, delivering effective content, and monitoring feedback. The last part of this process is the easiest to overlook and the most difficult to carry through, but whether created individually or with a partner or team, online modules must be tested and reviewed. As teacher mentor for Michigan Virtual High School students, I noticed that online modules in the first years were clearly not well reviewed for rigor and accuracy, but have by now improved dramatically in quality. Today some MIVHS courses, I am sure, are competitive with face-to-face classes. Like most teachers I have mixed feelings about the increasing use of online courses in public schools, but there are valid needs that can be met online and whenever it benefits the student, it works.
The weird question implicit in your post is, "Do we know if online learning works, period? Much less works with library skills instruction?" I'm not convinced that we have adequate data that shows that online learning is a universal success. But people are adopting it in huge numbers, and so do libraries follow ... or buck the trend and look outdated? Bit of a nasty dichotomy, eh?
ReplyDeleteI had similar concerns about Johnston's article--it seemed like the evidence was too weak to state that online learning was successful and worthwhile. What bothered me most was the way she used the term information literacy. I don't think that online tutorials, as currently created and used, can "deliver information literacy," as she was so fond of saying. I don't think it is our job to "give" or "deliver" information literacy, but instead to help students develop information literacy skills, behaviors, and dispositions so that they not only know some of the mechanical procedures that an information literate person would use, but also the thought processes that go along with them and the attitude to actually think and behave in an information literate way. Can a set of 2-minute tutorials deliver this? I don't think so! This is what concerns me most about online tutorials. Tutorials should focus on delivering answers to basic procedural questions (e.g. how do you double space a document in Word) and avoid trying to deliver complex skills and dispositions that are best developed over time in an environment that values the process of doing so.
ReplyDeleteI would also consider in regard to the Johnson article, that maybe alot of the participants who neglected to give feedback might have had satisfactory experiences. At least in other things, satisfied customers/participants tend to actually respond less, to my knowledge. It really reminds me of what was talked about in 500, with the computers being all the rage (the PCs) but no one knowing what to do with them until much later. Not that they replaced paperwork, but using them is the norm. I think it's kind of a different thing with online learning because it may not be as useful in several areas as opposed to face-to-face interaction, and so I think there will always be a place for both, either separately or used in conjunction. And by "always" I mean till we get stuff we wear on our wrists that project holograms and thoughts to us directly.
ReplyDeleteI am the same way. I do not try things until they are tried and proven as well; however, in my case, I do not like online tutorials. I prefer face-to-face teaching tools. I agree with Carmen's comment about the actual effectiveness of online tutorials.
ReplyDeleteI'm just not a fan of videos online in general. In fact, I do even go to Youtube like my peers do. I perhaps visit the site half a dozen times a year. I know...I'm weird.