![\"Figure](\"http:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/29\/2015\/02\/Comparing-modes-2.jpg\")
<\/a> Figure 11.2.1 Which is the best?[\/caption]\n\nMany surveys have found that a majority of teachers and faculty still believe that online learning or distance education is inevitably inferior in quality to classroom teaching (see for instance Allen and Seaman, 2012,<\/a> and Jaschik and Lederman, 2014<\/a>), although over time, as they become more directly exposed to online learning, faculty are slowly becoming more positive about online learning (see for instance, Lederman, 2019<\/a>). In fact, there is no scientifically-based evidence to support the opinion that online learning is inferior in quality to face-to-face teaching. The evidence points in general to no significant differences, and if anything research suggests that blended or hybrid learning has some advantages over face-to-face teaching in terms of learning performance (see, for example, Means et al., 2010<\/a>).\nIn recent experimental and quasi-experimental studies contrasting blends of online and face-to-face\u00a0instruction with conventional face-to-face classes, blended instruction has been more\u00a0effective, providing a rationale for the effort required to design and implement blended\u00a0approaches. When used by itself, online learning appears to be as effective as conventional\u00a0classroom instruction, but not more so.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\nMeans et al. attributed the slightly better performance of blended learning to students spending more time on task. This highlights a common finding, that where differences have been found, they are often attributed to factors other than\u00a0the mode of delivery. Tamim et al. (2011<\/a>)\u00a0identified 'well-conducted' comparative\u00a0studies covering\u00a040 years of research. Tamim et al. found there is a slight tendency for students who study with technology to do better than students who study without technology. However, the measured difference was quite weak, and the\u00a0authors\u00a0state:\n it is arguable that it is aspects of the goals of instruction, pedagogy, teacher effectiveness, subject matter, age level, fidelity of technology implementation, and possibly other factors that may represent more powerful influences on effect sizes than the nature of the technology intervention.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\nResearch into any kind of learning is not easy; there are just so many different variables or conditions that affect learning in any context. Indeed, it is the variables<\/em> we should be examining, not just the technological delivery. In other words, we should be asking a question\u00a0first posed by Wilbur Schramm\u00a0as long ago as 1977<\/a>:\n What kinds of learning can different media best facilitate, and under what conditions?<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\nIn terms of making decisions then about mode of delivery, we should be asking, not which is the best method overall, but:\n What are the most appropriate conditions for using face-to-face, blended or fully online learning respectively?\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p>\nFortunately, there is much\u00a0research and best practice that provides guidance on that question, at least with respect to blended and online learning (see, for instance, Anderson, 2008<\/a>; Picciano et al., 2013<\/a>; Halverson et al., 2012<\/a>; Zawacki-Richter and Anderson, 2014<\/a>). Ironically, what we lack is good research on the unique\u00a0potential of face-to-face teaching<\/em> in a digital age when so much can also be done just as well online.\n what are the unique characteristics of face-to-face teaching that make it pedagogically different from online learning?<\/em><\/p>\nIt is possible of course that there is nothing pedagogically unique about face-to-face teaching, but given the rhetoric around 'the magic of the campus' (Sarma, 2013<\/a>) and the hugely expensive fees associated with elite campus-based teaching, or indeed the high cost of publicly funded campus-based education, it is about time that\u00a0we had some evidence-based theory about what makes face-to-face teaching so special. This will be discussed further in Section 5<\/a> of this chapter.\n\nIn the meantime, a method for determining which mode of delivery (face-to-face, blended or online) will be discussed in the next sections.\n Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Drysdale, J. S. (2012) An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning<\/a>\u00a0Distance Education<\/i>,\u00a0Vol. 33, No. 3<\/p>\nHarasim, L. (2017)\u00a0Learning Theory and Online Technologies 2nd edition<\/em><\/a>\u00a0New York\/London: Taylor and Francis\n\nHiltz S., and Turoff M.(1978) Network Nation: Human communication via computer<\/a>\u00a0Reading, MA:\u00a0Addison Wesley\n Holmberg, B. (1989)\u00a0Theory and Practice of Distance Education<\/em><\/a> New York: Routledge<\/p>\n Jaschik, S. and Lederman, D. (2014) The 2014 Inside Higher Ed Survey of\u00a0Faculty Attitudes to Technology<\/em><\/a>\u00a0Washington DC: Inside Higher Ed<\/p>\n Keegan, D. (ed.) \u00a0(1990) Theoretical Principles of Distance Education<\/em><\/a> London\/New York: Routledge<\/p>\nLederman, D. (2019) Professors' Slow, Steady Acceptance of Online Learning: A Survey<\/a> Inside Higher Education<\/em>, 30 October\n Means, B. et al. (2010) Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies<\/a><\/em>\u00a0Washington, DC: US Department of Education<\/p>\n Moore, M. and Kearsley, G. (1996) Distance Education: A Systems View<\/em><\/a> Belmont CA: Wadsworth<\/p>\n Ontario (2011) Fact Sheet Summary of Ontario eLearning Surveys of Publicly Assisted PSE Institutions<\/em><\/a> Toronto: Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities<\/p>\n Peters, O. (1983) Distance education and industrial production<\/a>, in Sewart et al. (eds.) Distance Education: International Perspectives<\/em> London: Croom Helm<\/p>\n Peters, O. (2002) Distance Education in Transition: New Trends and Challenges<\/em><\/a> Oldenberg FGR: Biblothecks- und Informationssystem der Universit\u00e4t Oldenberg<\/p>\n Picciano, A., Dziuban, C. and & Graham, C. (eds.) (2013)\u00a0Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, Volume 2<\/i><\/a>. New York: Routledge<\/p>\n Sarma, S. (2013) The Magic Beyond the MOOCs<\/em><\/a> Boston MA: LINC 2013 conference (recorded presentation)<\/p>\n Schramm, W. (1977) Big Media, Little Media<\/em><\/a> Beverley Hills CA\/London: Sage<\/p>\n Sarma, S. (2013) The Magic Beyond the MOOCs<\/em><\/a> Boston MA: LINC 2013 conference (recorded presentation)<\/p>\nTamim, R. et al. (2011) What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on Learning:\u00a0A Second-Order Meta-Analysis and Validation Study<\/a>\u00a0Review of Educational Research<\/em>, Vol. 81, No. 1\n\nWedemeyer, C. (1981) Learning at\u00a0the Back Door: Reflections on Non-traditional Learning in the Lifespan<\/em><\/a> Madison: University of Wisconsin Press\n\nZawacki-Richter, O. and Anderson, T. (eds.) (2014) Online Distance Education: Towards a Research Agenda<\/a><\/em> Athabasca AB: AU\u00a0Press, pp. 508\n <\/p>\n Many surveys have found that a majority of teachers and faculty still believe that online learning or distance education is inevitably inferior in quality to classroom teaching (see for instance Allen and Seaman, 2012,<\/a> and Jaschik and Lederman, 2014<\/a>), although over time, as they become more directly exposed to online learning, faculty are slowly becoming more positive about online learning (see for instance, Lederman, 2019<\/a>). In fact, there is no scientifically-based evidence to support the opinion that online learning is inferior in quality to face-to-face teaching. The evidence points in general to no significant differences, and if anything research suggests that blended or hybrid learning has some advantages over face-to-face teaching in terms of learning performance (see, for example, Means et al., 2010<\/a>).<\/p>\n We can learn a great deal from earlier developments in distance education. Although the technology is different, fully online learning is, after all, just another version of distance education.<\/p>\n Much has been written about distance education (see, for instance, Wedemeyer, 1981<\/a>; Peters, 1983<\/a>; Holmberg, 1989<\/a>; Keegan, 1990<\/a>; Moore and Kearsley, 1996<\/a>; Peters, 2002<\/a>; Bates, 2005<\/a>; Evans et al., 2008<\/a>) but in concept, the idea is quite simple: students study in their own time, at the place of their choice (home, work or learning centre), and without face-to-face contact with a teacher. However, students are ‘connected’, today usually through the Internet, with an instructor, adjunct faculty or tutor who provides learner support and student assessment.<\/p>\n Distance education has been around a very long time. It could be argued that in the Christian religion, St. Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians was an early form of distance education (53-57 AD). The first distance education degree was offered by correspondence by the University of London (UK) in 1858.\u00a0Students were mailed\u00a0a list\u00a0of readings, and took the same examination as the regular on-campus students. If students\u00a0could afford it, they hired a private tutor, but the Victorian novelist Charles Dickens called it the People’s University,\u00a0because it provided access to higher education to students from less affluent backgrounds. The program still continues to this day, but is now called the University of London (Worldwide),<\/a> with more than 50,000 students in 180 countries.<\/p>\n In North America,\u00a0historically many of the initial land-grant universities, such as Penn State University, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of New Mexico in the USA, and Memorial University, University of Saskatchewan and the University of British Columbia in Canada, had\u00a0state- or province-wide responsibilities. As a result these institutions have a long history of offering distance education programs, mainly as continuing education for farmers, teachers, and\u00a0health professionals\u00a0scattered across the whole state or province. These programs have now been expanded to cover undergraduate and professional masters students. Australia is another country with an extensive history of both k-12 and post-secondary distance education.<\/p>\n Qualifications received from most of these universities carry the same recognition as degrees taken on campus. For instance,\u00a0the University of British Columbia, which has been offering distance education programs since 1936, makes no distinction on student transcripts between courses taken at a distance and those taken on campus, as both kinds of students take the same examinations.<\/p>\n Another feature of distance education, pioneered by the British Open University in the 1970s, but later adopted and adapted by North American \u00a0universities that offered distance programs, is a course design process, based on the ADDIE model, but specially adapted to serve students learning at a distance. This places a heavy emphasis on defined learning outcomes, production of high quality multimedia learning materials, planned student activities and engagement, and strong learner support, even at a distance. As a result, campus-based universities that offered distance education programs were well placed for the move into online learning in the 1990s, and for the rapid switch to emergency remote learning during Covid-19 (see for instance Fox, et al., 2020<\/a>). \u00a0These universities have found that in general, students taking the online programs do almost as well as the on-campus students (course completion rates are usually within 5-10 per cent of the on-campus students – see Ontario, 2011<\/a>), which is somewhat\u00a0surprising as the distance students often have full-time jobs and families.<\/p>\n It is important to acknowledge\u00a0the long and distinguished pedigree of distance education from internationally recognised, high quality institutions, because commercial diploma mills, especially in the USA, have given distance education an unjustified reputation of being of lower quality. As with all teaching, distance education can be done well or badly. However, where distance education has been professionally designed and delivered by high quality public institutions, it has proved to be very successful, meeting the needs of\u00a0many working adults, students in remote areas who would otherwise be unable to access education on a full-time\u00a0basis, or on-campus students wanting to fit in an extra course or with part-time jobs whose schedule clashes with their lecture schedule. However, universities, colleges and even schools have\u00a0been able to do this only by meeting high quality design standards.<\/p>\n At the same time, there has also been a small but very influential number of campus-based teachers and instructors who quite independently of distance education have been developing best practices in online or computer-supported learning.\u00a0These include Roxanne Hiltz and Murray Turoff (1978<\/a>) who were experimenting with online or blended\u00a0learning as early as the late 1970s at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, and Linda Harasim\u00a0(2017<\/a>) at Simon Fraser University, who all focused particularly on online collaborative learning and knowledge construction within a campus or school environment.<\/p>\n There is also plenty of evidence that teachers and instructors in many schools, colleges and universities new to online learning have not adopted these best practices, instead merely transferring lecture-based classroom practice to blended and online learning, often with poor or even disastrous results. This too became apparent during Covid 19 (see, for instance, Fayed and Cummings, 2021, <\/a>and Barbour et. al, 2021<\/a>, pp.-12-17)).<\/p>\n There have been thousands of studies comparing face-to-face teaching to teaching with a wide range of different technologies, such as televised lectures, computer-based learning, and online learning, or comparing face-to-face teaching with distance education. With regard to online learning there have been several meta-studies.\u00a0A meta-study\u00a0combines the results of many ‘well-conducted\u00a0scientific’ studies, usually studies that use the matched comparisons or quasi-experimental method\u00a0(Means et al., 2010<\/a>; Barnard et al., 2014<\/a>). Nearly all such ‘well-conducted’ meta-studies find no or little significant difference between the modes of delivery, in terms of the effect on student learning or performance.\u00a0For instance, Means et al. (2010<\/a>), in a major meta-analysis of research on blended and online learning for the U.S. Department of Education, reported:<\/p>\n In recent experimental and quasi-experimental studies contrasting blends of online and face-to-face\u00a0instruction with conventional face-to-face classes, blended instruction has been more\u00a0effective, providing a rationale for the effort required to design and implement blended\u00a0approaches. When used by itself, online learning appears to be as effective as conventional\u00a0classroom instruction, but not more so.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Means et al. attributed the slightly better performance of blended learning to students spending more time on task. This highlights a common finding, that where differences have been found, they are often attributed to factors other than\u00a0the mode of delivery. Tamim et al. (2011<\/a>)\u00a0identified ‘well-conducted’ comparative\u00a0studies covering\u00a040 years of research. Tamim et al. found there is a slight tendency for students who study with technology to do better than students who study without technology. However, the measured difference was quite weak, and the\u00a0authors\u00a0state:<\/p>\n it is arguable that it is aspects of the goals of instruction, pedagogy, teacher effectiveness, subject matter, age level, fidelity of technology implementation, and possibly other factors that may represent more powerful influences on effect sizes than the nature of the technology intervention.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Research into any kind of learning is not easy; there are just so many different variables or conditions that affect learning in any context. Indeed, it is the variables<\/em> we should be examining, not just the technological delivery. In other words, we should be asking a question\u00a0first posed by Wilbur Schramm\u00a0as long ago as 1977<\/a>:<\/p>\n What kinds of learning can different media best facilitate, and under what conditions?<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In terms of making decisions then about mode of delivery, we should be asking, not which is the best method overall, but:<\/p>\n What are the most appropriate conditions for using face-to-face, blended or fully online learning respectively?\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Fortunately, there is much\u00a0research and best practice that provides guidance on that question, at least with respect to blended and online learning (see, for instance, Anderson, 2008<\/a>; Picciano et al., 2013<\/a>; Halverson et al., 2012<\/a>; Zawacki-Richter and Anderson, 2014<\/a>). Ironically, what we lack is good research on the unique\u00a0potential of face-to-face teaching<\/em> in a digital age when so much can also be done just as well online.<\/p>\n Although there has been a great deal of mainly inconclusive research comparing online learning with face-to-face teaching in terms of student learning, there is very little evidence or even theory to guide decisions about what is best done online and what is best done face-to-face in a blended learning context, or about the circumstances or conditions when fully online learning is in fact a better option than classroom teaching. Generally the assumption appears to have been that face-to-face teaching is the default option by virtue of its superiority, and online learning is used only when circumstances prevent the use of face-to-face teaching, such as when students cannot get to the campus due to bad weather, when classes are so large that interaction with students is at a minimum, or schools and campuses are closed during a pandemic.<\/p>\n However, online learning has now become so prevalent and effective in so many contexts that it is time to ask:<\/p>\n what are the unique characteristics of face-to-face teaching that make it pedagogically different from online learning?<\/em><\/p>\n It is possible of course that there is nothing pedagogically unique about face-to-face teaching, but given the rhetoric around ‘the magic of the campus’ (Sarma, 2013<\/a>) and the hugely expensive fees associated with elite campus-based teaching, or indeed the high cost of publicly funded campus-based education, it is about time that\u00a0we had some evidence-based theory about what makes face-to-face teaching so special. This will be discussed further in Section 5<\/a> of this chapter.<\/p>\n In the meantime, a method for determining which mode of delivery (face-to-face, blended or online) will be discussed in the next sections.<\/p>\n Allen, I, and Seaman, J. (2012) Conflicted: Faculty and Online Education<\/em><\/a>, Babson Survey Research Group<\/p>\n Anderson, T. (ed.) (2008) The Theory and Practice of Online Learning<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>Athabasca AB: Athabasca University Press<\/p>\n Barbour, M., LaBonte, R. and Nagle, J. (2021) State of the Nation: K-12 e-Learning in Canada, 2021 edition<\/em><\/a> Halfmoon Bay, BC: The Canadian eLearning Network<\/p>\n Bates, A.W. (2005) Technology, e-Learning and Distance Education<\/em> <\/a>London\/New York: Routledge<\/p>\n Bernard, R. et al. (2014) Detecting bias in meta-analyses of distance education research: big pictures we can rely on<\/a> Distance Education<\/em> Vol. 35, No. 3<\/p>\n Evans, T., Haughey, M. and Murphy, D. (2008) International Handbook of Distance Education<\/em><\/a>\u00a0Bingley UK: Emerald Publishing<\/p>\n Fayed, I. and Cummings, J. (2021)\u00a0Teaching in the Post Covid 19 Era<\/em><\/a>\u00a0Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 764 pp<\/p>\n Fox, K., Bryant, G., Lin, N., Srinivasan, N. (2020).\u00a0Time for Class \u2013 COVID-19 Edition Part 1: A National Survey of Faculty during COVID-19<\/a>. Tyton Partners and Every Learner Everywhere<\/em><\/span>, July 8, 32 pp.<\/p>\n Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Drysdale, J. S. (2012) An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning<\/a>\u00a0Distance Education<\/i>,\u00a0Vol. 33, No. 3<\/p>\n Harasim, L. (2017)\u00a0Learning Theory and Online Technologies 2nd edition<\/em><\/a>\u00a0New York\/London: Taylor and Francis<\/p>\n Hiltz S., and Turoff M.(1978) Network Nation: Human communication via computer<\/a>\u00a0Reading, MA:\u00a0Addison Wesley<\/p>\n Holmberg, B. (1989)\u00a0Theory and Practice of Distance Education<\/em><\/a> New York: Routledge<\/p>\n Jaschik, S. and Lederman, D. (2014) The 2014 Inside Higher Ed Survey of\u00a0Faculty Attitudes to Technology<\/em><\/a>\u00a0Washington DC: Inside Higher Ed<\/p>\n Keegan, D. (ed.) \u00a0(1990) Theoretical Principles of Distance Education<\/em><\/a> London\/New York: Routledge<\/p>\n Lederman, D. (2019) Professors’ Slow, Steady Acceptance of Online Learning: A Survey<\/a> Inside Higher Education<\/em>, 30 October<\/p>\n Means, B. et al. (2010) Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies<\/a><\/em>\u00a0Washington, DC: US Department of Education<\/p>\n Moore, M. and Kearsley, G. (1996) Distance Education: A Systems View<\/em><\/a> Belmont CA: Wadsworth<\/p>\n Ontario (2011) Fact Sheet Summary of Ontario eLearning Surveys of Publicly Assisted PSE Institutions<\/em><\/a> Toronto: Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities<\/p>\n Peters, O. (1983) Distance education and industrial production<\/a>, in Sewart et al. (eds.) Distance Education: International Perspectives<\/em> London: Croom Helm<\/p>\n Peters, O. (2002) Distance Education in Transition: New Trends and Challenges<\/em><\/a> Oldenberg FGR: Biblothecks- und Informationssystem der Universit\u00e4t Oldenberg<\/p>\n Picciano, A., Dziuban, C. and & Graham, C. (eds.) (2013)\u00a0Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, Volume 2<\/i><\/a>. New York: Routledge<\/p>\n Sarma, S. (2013) The Magic Beyond the MOOCs<\/em><\/a> Boston MA: LINC 2013 conference (recorded presentation)<\/p>\n Schramm, W. (1977) Big Media, Little Media<\/em><\/a> Beverley Hills CA\/London: Sage<\/p>\n Sarma, S. (2013) The Magic Beyond the MOOCs<\/em><\/a> Boston MA: LINC 2013 conference (recorded presentation)<\/p>\n Tamim, R. et al. (2011) What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on Learning:\u00a0A Second-Order Meta-Analysis and Validation Study<\/a>\u00a0Review of Educational Research<\/em>, Vol. 81, No. 1<\/p>\n Wedemeyer, C. (1981) Learning at\u00a0the Back Door: Reflections on Non-traditional Learning in the Lifespan<\/em><\/a> Madison: University of Wisconsin Press<\/p>\n11.2.3 Challenging the supremacy of face-to-face teaching<\/h2>\nAlthough there has been a great deal of mainly inconclusive research comparing online learning with face-to-face teaching in terms of student learning, there is very little evidence or even theory to guide decisions about what is best done online and what is best done face-to-face in a blended learning context, or about the circumstances or conditions when fully online learning is in fact a better option than classroom teaching. Generally the assumption appears to have been that face-to-face teaching is the default option by virtue of its superiority, and online learning is used only when circumstances prevent the use of face-to-face teaching, such as when students cannot get to the campus due to bad weather, when classes are so large that interaction with students is at a minimum, or schools and campuses are closed during a pandemic.\n\nHowever, online learning has now become so prevalent and effective in so many contexts that it is time to ask:\n
References<\/strong><\/h1>\nAllen, I, and Seaman, J. (2012) Conflicted: Faculty and Online Education<\/em><\/a>, Babson Survey Research Group\n\nAnderson, T. (ed.) (2008) The Theory and Practice of Online Learning<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>Athabasca AB: Athabasca University Press\n\nBarbour, M., LaBonte, R. and Nagle, J. (2021) State of the Nation: K-12 e-Learning in Canada, 2021 edition<\/em><\/a> Halfmoon Bay, BC: The Canadian eLearning Network\n\nBates, A.W. (2005) Technology, e-Learning and Distance Education<\/em> <\/a>London\/New York: Routledge\n\nBernard, R. et al. (2014) Detecting bias in meta-analyses of distance education research: big pictures we can rely on<\/a> Distance Education<\/em> Vol. 35, No. 3\n\nEvans, T., Haughey, M. and Murphy, D. (2008) International Handbook of Distance Education<\/em><\/a>\u00a0Bingley UK: Emerald Publishing\n\nFayed, I. and Cummings, J. (2021)\u00a0Teaching in the Post Covid 19 Era<\/em><\/a>\u00a0Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 764 pp\n\nFox, K., Bryant, G., Lin, N., Srinivasan, N. (2020).\u00a0Time for Class \u2013 COVID-19 Edition Part 1: A National Survey of Faculty during COVID-19<\/a>. Tyton Partners and Every Learner Everywhere<\/em><\/span>, July 8, 32 pp.\n
\nActivity 11.2 Defining the magic of the campus<\/h3>\n1. Can you define the 'magic of the campus'? What is it about face-to-face teaching that makes it special, compared with teaching online? Write down the three things you think are the most important.\n\n2. Could you do the same for teaching online? If not, what are the things that make the campus\u00a0special?\n\nClick on the podcast below for some feedback on these questions\n\n[audio mp3=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/teachinginadigitalagev2\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/677\/2015\/02\/Magic-of-campus-2019-09-23-10.44-AM.mp3\"][\/audio]\n\n<\/div>\n ","rendered":"
![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/openstudio.pub\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/22\/2015\/02\/Comparing-modes-2.jpg\")
<\/a>11.2.1 The influence of distance education on online learning<\/h2>\n
11.2.2 What the research tells us<\/h2>\n
11.2.3 Challenging the supremacy of face-to-face teaching<\/h2>\n
References<\/strong><\/h1>\n