Cette étude compare la performance et les apprentissages des élèves en ligne et ceux en face-à-face (contexte postsecondaire), tout en définissant des caractéristqies et des variables de chaque groupe. Ces différences doivent être considérées lors du « design » d’un cours en ligne.
« As the demand for online learning increases, teacher preparation programs must offer a variety of courses utilizing E-learning formats. These formats must model effective teaching practices, curriculum design, and adaptations for the online learning environment. In addition, teacher preparation programs—following the Dewey philosophy as well as the psychological aspects of cognition outlined by Piaget—must integrate collaboration and interaction along with project-based learning. Following a qualitative design, this study examined effective practices and curriculum design in order to provide insight into effective practices within the online learning environment. Data was collected from graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in a variety of teacher preparation courses in order to examine: a) adaptations in curriculum design for the online environment, b) interactions and collaborations, c) depth of application of concepts and skills, and d) preferences and differences with regard to learning styles. »
Des conclusions qu’ils ont faites :
« – Online student overall project and lesson designs were more in-depth, creative, and student-centered than the onsite students.
– Online students utilized technological skills to a greater degree when designing lessons and completing assignments.
– As the semester progressed and data was collected, it was clear that the products and assignments submitted by the online students were clearly at a different level academically.
– Onsite student postings were more superficial and “low-level” in terms of application of terms, skills, content, and content processing. On ground students rarely plan or prepare well for a discussion. They were less likely to adhere to the guidelines. Online student postings, however, illustrate content processing, application, and construction, elaboration, and explanation of knowledge and ideas.
– The online students interacted individually with the instructor at a higher rate than the onsite students.
– With relation to active involvement, the online students were actively engaged to a high degree.(…) The majority of students enrolled in the onsite sections remained silent and passive during class sessions as opposed to the daily interaction and communication between and among students and teachers within the online course sections.
– While most online students engaged actively—working ahead on units and adhering to deadlines, onsite students were less timely with regard to slack completion and submission of assignments. »
Et ils terminent en disant que :
« For those who are about to embark on the journey of online teaching, there are challenges that must be realized. First, the course designer and instructor must acknowledge that curriculum changes and adaptations must be made in order for the online student to acquire and apply new information. Second, multiple opportunities for interaction and multiple configurations for collaboration must be integrated into the course. For those instructors and course developers who continue to teach onsite, traditional courses, much can be learned from the online environment. Onsite students must be encouraged to interact and to become active learners in acquiring and constructing knowledge. Second, onsite students need additional motivation and opportunities to take part in real-world simulation and application of meaningful content acquisition. Last, both onsite and online students must be empowered to take responsibility for their own learning so that they too become the coaches and scaffolds to others. Perhaps the most important information gleaned from this study may be that university professors continue to model effective practices in order to encourage and foster the construction of knowledge and the development of lifelong learners. »