One online
instructor (Alley 1996) has described this changing pedagogical consciousness
as an �instructional epiphany�.� Alley
tells of a personal transformation, stimulated by online instruction, marked by
two "milestones". First, he had to totally redesign his course to fit
and leverage the new learning environment. Second, he had to rethink what he
calls his �basic approach�: �As long as I held on to the traditional
�sage-on-stage� style of teaching, I would keep reinventing ways for students
to be a passive audience� (1996:51).�
Similar changes in pedagogical belief and practice have been reported by
other faculty who have taught web-based courses (Brown 1998; Jaffee 1997;
Cremer 1998) as well as researchers who have interviewed online instructors
(Frank 2000).��
There are clearly
some �structural constraints� built into the virtual classroom ecology that
make it difficult to implement traditional modes of delivery and, in this
sense, almost force instructors to entertain active learning strategies. As
Frank (2000) discovered in her study of online instructors, "All of the
participants saw online learning as empowering for students. The most valuable
benefits were the facilitation of active learning, critical thinking,
collaboration, confidence, and lifelong learning habits. A common theme was the
way in which the teacher is forced to give up the control that one has in a
face-to-face environment and re-examine the traditional role of content
deliverer".�
Just as the
physical classroom architecture imposes constraints on, and opportunities for,
particular pedagogical practices, so too does the virtual classroom. John Seely
Brown (2000) has described the environment of the world-wide-web as a �learning
ecology� that is a self-organized evolving collection of cross-pollinating
overlapping communities of interest.�
Asynchronous web-based courses that include a discussion forum possess
many of the same ecological features. All members of the class can receive and
broadcast information at any time. This critical communication feature
distinguishes the virtual classroom from prior forms of instructional
technology.�� While instructors can
mediate and guide, they cannot entirely control the flow of communication.
Thus, instructor and student roles and relations are less hierarchical and more
overlapping and interactive. These greater opportunities for participation can
contribute to a greater diversity of opinion and perspective. It is hard work
to establish these social dynamics in a physical classroom constrained by a
fixed space, a designated time block, and trained inhibitions. The virtual classroom,
in contrast, has the potential to establish new patterns of instructor and
student interaction and, accordingly, different teaching and learning roles and
practices (Girod and Cavanaugh 2001; Becker and Ravitz 1999).
��������� In
making comparisons between the physical and virtual classroom, it is important to
emphasize a cautionary caveat. The pedagogical ecology, be it a physical
classroom or a virtual interface, cannot entirely determine a particular
pedagogical practice or learning outcome. The pedagogical ecology offers
opportunities and constraints that will shape and influence classroom dynamics
and learning outcomes, but much will also depend on the principles informing,
and the actual design of, the teaching and learning process (see Chamberlin
2001). The various practices that are employed in both a physical and a virtual
classroom indicate the range of possibilities. However, if we believe that, for
the purpose of student learning, active student engagement and interaction is
preferable to the passive reception of information, we should consider the
degree to which this principle is advanced or facilitated by the expanding
virtual learning ecology.�
For example, Mel Riddile points out that when one conditions on various measures of poverty, instead of trailing other nations, the U.S. actually comes out on top! He concludes that "when it comes to school improvement, it's poverty not stupid." Poverty causes educational deficiency. Now, I like to actually have data to play around with, in part because people have been known to lie about politically charged issues and in part because I like to have nice graphs (which are not provided by Riddile). Anyway, it turns out that international poverty data is pretty hard to come by and fraught with interpretational difficulties. On the other hand, the National Assessment of Educational Progress provides test data for most of the states in the U.S., and the U.S. Census Bureau provides data on the percentage of people in poverty by state. I took the NAEP data for 8th grade science achievement and regressed on the percentage of people below the poverty line for the measured states. The two are negatively associated: as poverty increases, science achievement scores decrease according to the relationship in the plot below. (Alaska, Kansas, Nebraska, and Vermont did not meet NAEP reporting guidelines and are not included in the plot above.) The association is highly significant (p=9.98*10-6). I also took pilot NAEP data for 8th grade mathematics achievement and regressed on the percentage of people below the poverty line for the measured states. (Evidently, the NAEP has only just started testing for mathematics achievement, and only eleven states were included in their pilot.) Again, the two are negatively associated. The slope of the relation turns out to be almost exactly the same as for science achievement. The association is not as significant, but it is still significant (p=0.0186). (My guess is the association is less significant in this case because fewer states were measured.) Clearly there is an association between poverty and achievement in science and mathem
