By Kevin Cheung, Associate Professor, School of Mathematics and Statistics
It has been asserted (see, for example, Tony Bates’ e-book, Teaching in a digital age) that a properly designed online course covering a topic that can be taught online can work as well as a face-to-face course. Such an assertion is backed by the anecdotes of some professors at Carleton who have taught online. Yet, it has been observed that the DFW rate of an online course tends to be higher than its face-to-face counterpart, if one exists. Is there something inherently wrong with online courses that lead to higher DFW rates? Is it simply that weaker students tend to sign up for online courses more often? Is a sage on the stage better than a $30,000 video production?
In the Professor Profile of the March 2016 CUOL Newsletter, Canadian Studies professor Richard Nimijean, who teaches CDNS 1001 online, was quoted saying, “I can lay it all out for you and I think that works well for a lot of students, but in the end of the day, you as a student need to be motivated to do the work.”
It is conceivable that academically strong students should have little trouble motivating themselves to log on and do the work. I would say that in a typical first-year core math course, students in the top 30 per cent of the class are able to self-motivate and keep a regular study schedule. At the other end of the spectrum, we have 10-20 per cent of the students who exert zero or nearly zero effort. Whether the course is online or not, the kind of help that such students need to succeed in the course is probably not something that an instructor can offer.
Having identified two groups of students (likely making up 50 per cent of the class) for which an online course can do no more harm than a face-to-face one, we need to look at the remaining students whose motivation is probably sensitive to factors in the learning environment. I would say that these students are the truly at-risk students because the outcome of their learning can be tipped one way or another by small disturbances.
In his book How to teach mathematics (3rd ed.), Steven Krantz noted the following reasons for the importance of the traditional physical classroom:
- going to class gets students out of their normal daily routine
- being physically present in a classroom separates students from their regular responsibilities
- the classroom brings people together who likely would not otherwise meet
- the classroom promotes bonding and networking among the students
One can infer from the above that having a scheduled time slot for being in a certain place at a certain time specifically for a course could be a deciding factor for student engagement. Another important factor is the physical environment. Interior designers take great pains to design spaces conducive to the activities for which the spaces are intended. Imagine yourself having a three-course French dinner. How would your appetite be affected if you were to have it in a brightly lit high school cafeteria with walls painted blinding white? Perhaps many students learn better in a room that screams “this space is for learning” than their own bedroom.
It is great that at Carleton we have the CUOL Student Centre to provide an environment for students taking CUOL courses to focus. The library study spaces also serve the same function. Other solutions to the learning environment problem include physical meet-up groups, synchronized discussion sessions, private tutors, etc.
As online learning becomes more and more popular, the move away from the traditional physical learning space will require development of suitable alternatives. It won’t be long before we have to deal with the issue of learning spaces for online students at a large scale to help the at-risk students.