Learning at the Speed of Light: Deep Learning and Accelerated Online Programs

Editor's Notes

• #3: Definitions if needed for clarifications:Accelerated programs: degree program completion takes less time than that of a conventional university program (Wlodkowski, 2003)Accelerated courses: Individual courses of study within an accelerated program, offered within a span of time that is compressed 25% or more when compared to conventional courses (Tatum, 2010; Wlodkowski, 2003)Asynchronous online learning: Any Internet-based system allowing students to access lessons at a different place and time than other students (Appana, 2008)Approach to learning: The ways in which students go about academic tasks. Approaches can be either deep or surface-level. (Biggs, 1987; Biggs & Collis, 1982; Entwistle & Peterson, 2003)Deep learning: When students are able to understand course topics and meanings, and integrate them with other knowledge to create flexibility and abstractions (Biggs & Collis, 1982; Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000)Surface learning: Attainment of task requirement to pass an exam or assignment, but knowledge is not retained or integrated into complex schema (Biggs, 1982; Choy, O’Grady, & Rotgans, 2012)Graduate-level coursework: Any university coursework or program offered beyond the baccalaureate level; higher levels of expertise and critical thinking are assumed as outcomes from such programs (Wier, Hunton, & Stone, 2005)Intended learning outcomes (ILOs): Often used synonymously with the term “learning objective,” ILOs state what learners are expected to accomplish as part of a unit of study (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Biggs & Collis, 1982; Biggs & Tang, 2007)Instructional design characteristics: Outcomes, activities, and assessments prescribed during a course of study and guided by research-based theories and models related to instructional design (Dick, Dick, & Carey, 2001; Merrill, 2002)This study used an embedded single-case study design to explore accelerated online learning at the graduate level and the types of approaches students use toward learning in such environments. The instructional design characteristics, including activities, assessments, and types of interactions present in courses that are accelerated, or considered to be compressed in terms of the time allowed for completion, were also viewed in terms of whether they may promote either surface-level or deeper approaches to learning. The study attempted to address gaps in current understanding of the interplay between learning approach, the acquisition of deep, expert-level learning, and accelerated online programs at the post-baccalaureate levels. The purpose of this investigative case study was to explore student learning approach and instructional design strategies and characteristics of online asynchronous accelerated courses at the graduate level.
• #7: Small sample but many students said many of the same things, contributing to internal validity, credibility, and confirmability. Also, trends in the R-SPQ-2F were relatively strong despite the small sample size.MSED program was from Purdue University Calumet in Hammond, IN – permissions acquired from Capella and from Purdue University IRB. Program coordinator is known to me but the program previously was not.
• #8: How do learners approach their learning in accelerated, asynchronous online graduate courses?How do learners come to select deep learning approaches as opposed to surface learning approaches in accelerated courses?How do learners describe their accelerated learning experiences in terms of encouraging deep or surface learning approaches to within their chosen field of study?Which instructional design characteristics and strategies used in accelerated asynchronous online courses play a role in helping learners reach deeper levels of learning?What design characteristics appear to promote deep learning approaches based on learner reflection and comparison to Merrill’s (2002; 2012) First Principles model and the SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982; Biggs & Tang, 2007)?What design characteristics appear to promote surface learning approaches based on learner reflection and comparison to Merrill’s (2002; 2012) First Principles model and the SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982; Biggs & Tang, 2007)? R-SPQ-2F analyzes responses on a 20-question self-report in Likert-type scale – divides responses into categories or surface and deep motivation and strategy. It provided a baseline for how students in the program tend to approach their learning, and showed strong tendencies that deep approaches tended to be used more often than surface ones. However, Surface strategies in particular were shown to be slightly more common than surface motivation, which was overall very low. Surface strategy response to “I only study seriously what’s given out in class or in the course outlines” was statistically higher than any of the other items, indicating that this was true about half the time. Students did not have time to spend on unnecessary work or extra research. Interviews also supported much of what was found in R-SPQ-2F. Students commented the most on time for learning and consistency of scheduling and course structures. They also overwhelmingly preferred projects and field experiences too quizzes and essays, and enjoyed peer interaction although group work received some mixed reviews. Those who interviewed were not noted to be different than any other participant based on R-SPQ-2F scores. Course analysis showed that SOLO levels of objectives covered the spectrum fairly evenly between unistructural, multistructural, relational, and extended abstract. The most common verbs were examine, define, describe, discuss, analyze, apply, collaborate, rationalize, summarize, evaluate, reflect, and design.Common course features included a consistent course interface for every course, divided into weekly modules for each of the 5 weeks of each course. Objectives were provided at the beginning of each unit, in addition to a checklist of things to do and a discussion to allow students to ask open questions about the course topics at the end of each unit.Some courses had more assignments than others, and some courses featured quizzes as opposed to projects more. The course in special education law and the course in curriculum leadership tended to receive the most feedback from students, and it was found that these had a large number of readings and discussions compared to others, and also included some divergent features like “mini-projects” and due dates that were at different points within the week instead of the preferred Sunday due date that most students seemed to appreciate the most. Most courses had follow-up discussions or quizzes after readings, although the special ed law class did not always do this consistently. There were also a number of problems with the special ed law course’s quizzes and how they actually operated, that stuck out in many students’ minds. Worked examples of what finished projects looked like were not common, only being featured in three courses, although two courses used real-world case studies in the form of video. Many others used only text-based cases as examples. Multimedia was in fact not extensive on most of the courses also many provided some measure of narrated PowerPoint at the beginning of most – and sometimes all – weekly modules. These were often kept short and did not always adhere to Merrill’s best practices in multimedia with their extensive text and few images. Although, students in the interviews overwhelmingly preferred the longer presentations offered by a particular instructor based on their content – this person gave them tips for completing assignments that other instructors did not necessarily give. Students were also asked to use a variety of computer-based tools to create and communicate, including Microsoft PowerPoint for presentations and Skype or Google Docs for collaboration. Application was strongly encouraged and many projects were highly problem-based. Students were continually asked to put themselves into the role of an educational leader, performing field experiences, shadowing practicing administrators, interviewing school officials, and analyzing school policies. Coaching and feedback from the instructor and other students were also very important parts of the courses, and although some students in interviews noted that these things were not always consistent, the structures were present to offer coaching and feedback at multiple levels to guide understanding. Most courses built from less complex to more complex in terms of tasks and concepts, and the program itself built in this way, adding more extensive field experiences until students are ready to complete their internship.
• #9: Comparing within and across the three types of data collected for this study was essential to bolstering trustworthiness as well as to being able to find and analyze themes more fully. A better understanding of the data and how they related to the research questions was created through analyzing how interviews, survey responses and course analysis all compared to one another.
• #11: How do learners approach their learning in accelerated, asynchronous online graduate courses?How do learners come to select deep learning approaches as opposed to surface learning approaches in accelerated courses?How do learners describe their accelerated learning experiences in terms of encouraging deep or surface learning approaches to within their chosen field of study?R-SPQ-2F analyzes responses on a 20-question self-report in Likert-type scale – divides responses into categories or surface and deep motivation and strategy. It provided a baseline for how students in the program tend to approach their learning, and showed strong tendencies that deep approaches tended to be used more often than surface ones. However, Surface strategies in particular were shown to be slightly more common than surface motivation, which was overall very low. Surface strategy response to “I only study seriously what’s given out in class or in the course outlines” was statistically higher than any of the other items, indicating that this was true about half the time. Students did not have time to spend on unnecessary work or extra research. Interviews also supported much of what was found in R-SPQ-2F. Students commented the most on time for learning and consistency of scheduling and course structures. They also overwhelmingly preferred projects and field experiences too quizzes and essays, and enjoyed peer interaction although group work received some mixed reviews. Those who interviewed were not noted to be different than any other participant based on R-SPQ-2F scores.Thematic coding of interview transcripts showed only two references to surface-level strategies and three references to surface-level motives, while 11 references were made to deep strategies and 18 references were made to deep motives.
• #12: You can see in this overall look at participant scores that the surface strategy and motive means were much lower overall than the deep motive and strategy means, indicating that in general, students used deeper approaches to learning. However, some did use higher levels of surface strategies, more so than surface motive, showing that some factors may have influenced student’s approaches when it came to how they completed their work. One example of this is Kate, who was an interview respondent who had a significantly higher surface strategy score than many other participants, in fact the third highest score overall in this subscale. Knowing that Kate was an experienced online learner, it is possible that she had developed strategies for herself to streamline how she approached her studies, allowing her to use her time in more efficient ways or allowing her to skip readings and activities that may have already been somewhat familiar to her. It is also possible that she more often felt crunched for time than other students. Time was a common theme and many interviews noted the lack of time in their lives, needing to keep to strict schedules for coursework to ensure that it was all finished.
• #13: Course analysis showed that SOLO levels of objectives covered the spectrum fairly evenly between unistructural, multistructural, relational, and extended abstract. The most common verbs were examine, define, describe, discuss, analyze, apply, collaborate, rationalize, summarize, evaluate, reflect, and design. This is consistent with Biggs and Tang’s discussion of the SOLO Taxonomy and intended use of it – as learning demands increase in complexity, they should be reflected in SOLO Levels employed.Common course features included a consistent course interface for every course, divided into weekly modules for each of the 5 weeks of each course. Objectives were provided at the beginning of each unit, in addition to a checklist of things to do and a discussion to allow students to ask open questions about the course topics at the end of each unit.Some courses had more assignments than others, and some courses featured quizzes as opposed to projects more. The course in special education law and the course in curriculum leadership tended to receive the most feedback from students, and it was found that these had a large number of readings and discussions compared to others, and also included some divergent features like “mini-projects” and due dates that were at different points within the week instead of the preferred Sunday due date that most students seemed to appreciate the most. Most courses had follow-up discussions or quizzes after readings, although the special ed law class did not always do this consistently. There were also a number of problems with the special ed law course’s quizzes and how they actually operated, that stuck out in many students’ minds. Some participants did note a lack of direction or clear assessment criteria present in some of their individual course assignments, and their comments were substantiated in the review of the course materials. Often, instructions for completing assignments were straightforward and simple, and less than a page in length, although in some cases, the assignment may have warranted more explication in order to provide clear guidance. Worked examples of what finished projects looked like were not common, only being featured in three courses, although two courses used real-world case studies in the form of video. Many others used only text-based cases as examples. Multimedia was in fact not extensive on most of the courses also many provided some measure of narrated PowerPoint at the beginning of most – and sometimes all – weekly modules. These were often kept short and did not always adhere to Merrill’s best practices in multimedia with their extensive text and few images. Although, students in the interviews overwhelmingly preferred the longer presentations offered by a particular instructor based on their content – this person gave them tips for completing assignments that other instructors did not necessarily give. Students were also asked to use a variety of computer-based tools to create and communicate, including Microsoft PowerPoint for presentations and Skype or Google Docs for collaboration. Application was strongly encouraged and many projects were highly problem-based. Students were continually asked to put themselves into the role of an educational leader, performing field experiences, shadowing practicing administrators, interviewing school officials, and analyzing school policies. Coaching and feedback from the instructor and other students were also very important parts of the courses, and although some students in interviews noted that these things were not always consistent, the structures were present to offer coaching and feedback at multiple levels to guide understanding. Most courses built from less complex to more complex in terms of tasks and concepts, and the program itself built in this way, adding more extensive field experiences until students are ready to complete their internship.
• #14: This table shows the First Principles by course as analyzed through Merrill’s adapted rubric. This shows the number of field experiences, problem-centered assignments, worked examples, and other important items deemed necessary by Merrill (2012) and others in instructional design including van Merriënboer and Sweller in promoting complex and deeper learning.
• #15: Figure shows the triangulation of data, and how different themes related to surface motive and strategy or deep motive and strategy. Note that some themes overlapped between these areas, as they may have contributed to different approaches based on how the student interpreted or used available tools or features within a course. Some themes also did not necessarily only point to one approach, as depending on how a particular participant may have viewed or articulated an item during interviews, or how a strategy was implemented within a given course, it may have stimulated either deep or surface learning approaches. This was particularly true for the theme of participants having prior online experience, as well as the use and presentation of worked examples.Group projects, for example, were well-liked by some students but not by others, and may have allowed some students to “slack off” while others would cover for them by doing more work. Having prior online experience may have contributed to students being able to “streamline” their work habits and use some surface strategies in order to get the job done. Multimedia presentations may have allowed students to do a similar thing by directing their attention too strongly to only specific topics, and worked examples may have also done this, although some student respondents said that the examples encouraged them to try to think outside of the box rather than just mimic what they saw. Examples may have either of two effects: helping students complete the project successfully, or limiting their imagination to only what they have been shown. Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, and Wortham (2000) indicated that such structured guidance can often be effective for basic skills development, but may serve to prevent creative thinking and unique ideas amongst learners at more advanced levels. Finally, multistructural objectives tended to ask less complex performances of students which may have led to some surface approaches although at the same time, other students may have taken those objectives and gone more deeply into the performance because the objective provided them with a baseline for application.Some courses tended to move students into less motivation based on content or on teaching strategy, specifically special education law and curriculum leadership. Also, tests may have generally be less motivational and led to surface strategies more often than not. However, the biggest factor in surface motivation and strategy were Time and Responsibilities to work and family. Deep motivation was stimulated by an overall desire for lifelong learning and comparing their positive experiences to the negative experiences of colleagues in other programs. Also, working with students from a wide range of backgrounds and regions was noted as a positive thing according to many respondents, and they also appreciated strong and consistent communication from instructors, as well as the challenge of projects and the opportunity to explore topics deeply. Results were supported by research in online accelerated learners and their preferences (Driessnack et al., 2011, C. Johnson, 2009), deep learning and learning approach (Biggs & Collis, 1982; Bransford et al., 2000), and the first principles of instruction (Merrill, 2012).
• #16: Based on this research, the program that served as the unit of analysis for this embedded, single-case study had a number of features that appeared to invoke deeper approaches to learning in its students. These included the frequent use of hands-on and real-world projects and field experiences, a user-friendly online interface, consistent expectations with regard to due dates and time spent on assignments throughout a program, responsive and caring instructors, and inclusion of frequent opportunities for students to learn from one another in discussions and other collaborative mediums. While individual students did not always welcome group activities, on the whole, it appeared that learners at the graduate level benefitted a great deal from learning from one another through extensive discussion and working together toward shared goals. All projects, exams, readings, and discussions in the educational administration program were also focused directly on key objectives and expected learning outcomes, leaving no room for things that might be considered “extra” or “just for fun.” This also assisted in promoting deeper learning strategies, as little was seen as extraneous or not valuable, and thus, students felt like they learned a great deal. In some cases, students even reported exploring some additional areas of topics on their own because of their personal interest levels, but they were free to do this at will and when they had time, making doing extra research enjoyable rather than something to be seen as drudgery.Another strong implication from this research is that learners in online courses do not feel that they learn as much from exams and essays as they do from hands-on projects and collaborative experiences.When learners in accelerated courses are given vague or incomplete directions, or are otherwise not supported in deeper learning endeavors, they may have trouble moving forward and engaging with tasks fully (Biggs & Collis, 1982; Biggs & Tang, 2007; McCune & Entwistle, 2011; Mitchell & Carbone, 2011). In turn, they may adopt surface learning approaches simply to get the task accomplished because it is not as meaningful as something that is well-explained and focused.