"Both academic institutions and corporations have invested huge amounts of resources in computer-based training and education. The evidence in support of the effectiveness of computers and instructional technology in the classroom is mixed at best, and much of the practice is based on faith and ongoing trends in education. In this study, we conduct an exploratory experimental investigation into the effectiveness of four computer-based software training methods: traditional, delayed, asynchronous, and synchronous. We do not find any evidence to support the commonly held beliefs that there is an improvement in the computing literacy scores of students if the instructor has access to computers or if the students have access to computers during the software lesson. On the other hand, students find the practice of using computers both by themselves and by the instructors more satisfying than not being able to use them in the classroom. Our results have serious implications for instructors and decision-makers in both education and industry. While our results are directed at the lower levels of the Bloom's taxonomy of learning, we recommend research into higher levels in order to assess the full impact of computer-based education."
The authors begin by citing Alavi & Leidner (2001) for the "dramatic growth in computer-based teaching and learning in the last decade." (!) This article was published four years ago. The one cited was published 10 years ago. A common assumption is that knowledge is doubling in half the time. However, this may be a misstatement of a concept called the "half-life of knowledge" that is attributed to Fritz Machlup (1962). It is defined as "the amount of time that has to elapse before half of the knowledge in a particular area is superseded or shown to be untrue." (from the article "Half-life of Knowledge" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge).
Gonzalez (2004) also refers to this concept, albeit somewhat differently:
"Technology is placing unique requirements on people in the workplace, compelling a sharp focus on training and education. One of the most persuasive factors is the shrinking half-life of knowledge. The “half-life of knowledge” is the time span from when knowledge is gained to when it becomes obsolete. Half of what is known today was not known 10 years ago. The amount of knowledge in the world has doubled in the past 10 years and is doubling every 18 months according to the American Society of Training and Documentation (ASTD). [Note: this is actually the American Society for Training and Development, of which I am a member. The information cited is in Meister and Willyerd (2010) which is drawn from an unnamed study at the University of California at Berkeley.] To combat the shrinking half-life of knowledge, organizations have been forced to develop new methods of deploying instruction."
In his IDOL doctoral dissertation, Dr. Kris Jamsa (2008) notes that in that year, society would "produce an estimated 10 exabytes of information--roughly double the amount of data required to store all the words ever spoken by man. Further, the Web now consists of over 300 exabytes of information (35 times the size of the Library of Congress)." (p. i)
The point of this little rabbit trail is that if computer-based teaching had grown in 2007, it has exploded in 2011. To use a word that has become ubiquitous, the use of computers has become ubiquitous. While there are still as yet unserved populations, e.g. the homeless and those either too rural to have service or to poor to afford it, computers have become a way of life. My cellphone has a 1-GHz, dual-core processor with 16 GB of storage onboard and another 8 GB SD card that I had laying around that I inserted inside. With bluetooth and wi-fi capabilities, it doesn't take much to get online, since even most McDonald's restaurants have free wi-fi connection to the Internet. Indeed, the latest craze is mobile learning via smart phones like mine.
So whatever their results were in 2007, when I began this doctoral excursion, the stakes have changed galactically (exponentially just doesn't cut it any more). Well, that was just the first sentence of the introduction. Let's see if I can wrap this up quickly. Their problem is that despite advances in technology, the effectiveness of computer-based learning remains a mystery. They claim research results are "mixed and conflicting" (p. 479). They recite a litany of studies that report conflicting results on the one hand and results that are contextualized an unable to be generalized on the other. Therefore, the authors decided to investigate "alternative modes of computer-based education and their effectiveness" (p. 480), focusing on the formal training and learning phase of the training/learning process.
They used a matrix to identify four different methods of training, including traditional, delayed, asynchronous, and synchronous. The topic of all four methods was the same: training in the use of MicroSoft (T) Excel (R). The author distinguished this as computing literacy (the skills needed for using computers) as opposed to computer literacy (knowledge about computer fundamentals). The four methods were based on two main variables: whether or not the instructor had access to a computer during the instruction and whether or not the students had access to computers during the instruction. The traditional method referred to the fact that neither the instructor nor the students had access to computers during the instruction. This was identified as traditional instruction with delayed practice. In the delayed method, the instructor taught with a computer but the students did not have access to their own computers. This was characterized as computer-based instruction with delayed practice. The asynchronous method reversed these roles: the instructor taught without a computer but the students had access during the instruction. This was called traditional instruction with concurrent practice. Finally, in the synchronous method, the instructor used a computer to teach and the students also had access. This was labeled computer-based instruction with concurrent practice.
While students showed significant improvement in computing skills in all the methods, there was no significant evidence to support the hypotheses that either the students or the instructor having computers in the classroom improved their computing literacy. However, there was evidence to support both hypotheses on student satisfaction with regard to access to computers in the classroom by the instructor and/or the students.
REFERENCES
Gonzalez, C. (2004). The role of blended learning in technology. Benchmarks Online, 7(9). Retrieved from http://www.unt.edu/benchmarks/archives/2004/september04/eis.htm
Jamsa, K. (2008). Implementing a distributed learning object registry and repository to measure Learning-Object Metadata (LOM) practices and use. (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Machlup, F. (1962). Knowledge production and distribution in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Meister, J., and Willyerd, K. (2010). Looking ahead at social learning: 10 predictions. Learning Circuits. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/LC/2010/0710_meister.htm
Palvia, S.C., and Palvia, P.C. (2007). The effectiveness of using computers for software training: An exploratory study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(4), pp. 479-489.
No comments:
Post a Comment