In the beginning there was a machine. The history of the computer actually dates back to the mid 1900’s and a man by the name of Charles Babbage. He was one of those individuals we often refer to as ahead of his time. Charles Babbage would more likely have been comfortable in the 20th or even the 21st century. He was the inventor of what are known as the Difference Engine and the Analytical Engine, or the prototypes for the modern computer.
“As the inventor of the first universal digital computer, he can indeed be considered a profound thinker. The use of Jacquard punch cards, of chains and subassemblies, and ultimately the logical structure of the modern computer – all come from Babbage.”
Unfortunately, the computer never became a reality during Babbage’s lifetime. It is, however, a reality in ours. In the 21st century the computer has become an integral aspect of our lives. Companies rely on websites to draw in customers, advertise their services and provide a means to buy products through e-commerce. Even many of the world’s leaders have a website to extrapolate on their political and personal vision. So, it is not unusual that the traditional classroom which began as a one-room schoolhouse has now expanded to the virtual environment. Literally, hundreds of universities and colleges around the world now utilize online learning as part of their academic course offerings. In addition, private companies are discovering the power of online learning. “The rush to distance learning has led to promotions, including cost reductions as universities rush to attract consumers in competition with Kaplan Educational Centers, Phoenix University, and other emerging for-profit educational companies” (van Patten, 2000). This quote provides us with an interesting insight in that students are now consumers — almost like customers in Wal Mart. Some academics are highly critical of this new virtual classroom. One of those critics is Dr. David Noble of York University, Toronto, Canada. “He refers to the colleges and universities who have heralded in this new method of teaching as digital diploma mills” (Quoted by Joffe, 2000, p. 5).
To try and answer the question as to whether or not online learning is effective is to approach a very subjective issue. This technology is continually evolving. New software and hardware options emerge practically every month somewhere in the world. As these new options become available, we see the continual evolution of the possibilities for online learning. Yet, even with this relatively new learning option there have been opinions, reviews and studies made available which are within the scope of this dissertation.
Van Patten (2000) documents that ESL classes first became prevalent in American in the 19th century but the history of foreign language instruction actually goes back as far as the 17th century. The development of online learning came into existence only in the late 20th century. Therefore, foreign language instruction has been a discipline in the United States for over three centuries but online learning has been with us only a few decades. This is one of the contexts in which online learning must be understood. Another is the fact that we live in a ‘wired world’. Computers are everywhere. People are always connected because they have to be. The Internet is no longer an interesting technical oddity. It is connected to us and we to it. As Van Patten notes however, it is also a fragile connection. “Computer glitches, crashes, virus creators, infiltrators, can wipe out hard drive data, even back-up systems in a matter of seconds” (p. 8).
Academia is also intricately bound up with the Internet. “Colleges and universities are going hi-tech with attractive websites to hawk their wares in an increasingly competitive marketplace” (p. 11). To some degree then, online learning has become a reality due to economic needs in the world of academia. Institutes of higher learning want to attract your business. They want and need your dollars and so they are offering anything and everything they can in order to attract a larger number of students. The reality is, the physical space can only hold so many students at a time. Even with the advent of night classes, there is still a limitation with a physical space. The beauty of cyberspace is that it is virtually limitless (no pun intended). However, online learning is not without controversy. “The American Federation of Teachers recently passed a resolution opposing undergraduate degrees online and called for full faculty control of courses on the web” (p. 13).
According to Siekmann (1998), there is a new approach with respect to language studies within the academic community. She suggests that most teachers today would agree with the premise that the reason for learning languages is all about one thing — communication. Historically however, social changes are almost always accompanied by those who support the new directions and ideas and those who oppose them, or maintain at least a healthy skepticism. There is no doubt about the fact that Internet learning provides possibilities for people to take courses who don’t have access to reach a traditional classroom. Access is not the issue here, efficacy is. In order to determine the issue of efficacy, we must define the parameters of what will be considered.
Using the Technology
The first issue in terms of efficacy is the technology itself. One of the problems with online learning is that the lack of equitable levels of ability among students. Some individuals have had a longer exposure to online education and others are merely more ‘techno-savvy’. In terms of using the technology, a primary problem is that the technology itself is constantly changing. “The new information highway is eclipsing the past at a speed that is causing a cultural lag as individuals find it difficult to keep up […]” (van Patten, 2000, p. 22). While distance/online learning can be a wonderful boon to some, many will find it difficult to cope with constantly changing technologies. Therefore, in order to ensure that a program/course is effective, there must be some kind of support in place in order to ensure that all those who enroll can cope with the software and hardware they will need to work with. As van Patten (2000) states, our society has mad a “quantum leap” forward with the advent of the Internet. But students are not only coping with the Internet itself. They must also be knowledgeable in and adept at using the multiplicity of programs and techniques the Internet offers to participate in various types of courses. The Internet is a tool which embodies the concept of multimedia. Many courses will be taking advantage of these tools but not all students will be equally capable in using them.
The ability to be comfortable with the use of technology is a highly personal matter. With e-learning, instructors must be capable in not only delivering the material but somehow ensuring a sense of ‘virtual compentence’ with all their students. If not, many students can get left behind in the rush to learn/teach in cyberspace. Therefore one of the issues that arises with this analysis is whether or not an educational tool can be considered completely effective if not all the users are equally adept at using it? Yet, the question which emanates from this is — whose responsibility is it to ensure the students can use the tools appropriately? Is it the responsibility of the student, or the instructor? In order for online learning to be considered effective, should there be some kind of process in place where students are tested in the use of the technologies prior to enrolment?
The Cultural Connection
In terms of efficacy, one of the issues expressed by Joffe (2000) is that the online classroom has the capability to provide increased quality of learning by reason of the time factor. The traditional classroom is usually restricted to a one or two-hour session (sometimes three). In the virtual environment, time is not so much an issue a students can continue learning together to an almost unlimited degree. Yet, isn’t this also possible in the traditional environment? Students are also capable of forming study groups, meeting in cafeterias, cafes, libraries, dormitory rooms and so forth. They are not forced to cease learning simply because the instructor leaves the classroom.
The second concept she brings up is that of access to resources. Joffe states the “[…] Library of Congress’ entire collection of books can be transmitted in just over five minutes […]” (2000, p. 8). This is certainly an advantage, but does it mark this type of learning as more effective? In fact, access to the Library of Congress is not an aspect of online learning, it is a characteristic of the Internet itself. One does not have to be enrolled in any course in order to contact the Library of Congress, or any other library for that matter. So, while Joffe’s point is valid, it does not prove efficacy of learning but rather access to resources. While this broader access to resources is helpful, in no way does it prove that online learning is actually effective.
Joffe goes on to state that the quality of online learning is also proven by the fact that it provides for more “[…] thought provoking responses; some people do not do well in spontaneous spoken interaction, but turn out to have valuable contributions to make in a conversation when they have time to think about what they have to say” (p. 8). Yet the opposite could also be true. There will be those individuals who will be intimidated by the thought of writing their thoughts down because they are not comfortable doing so. Also, within the traditional classroom, an instructor can at least see the students. There is always the possibility of speaking with a student directly and discussing why they might be uncomfortable speaking in class. In the virtual classroom, these interactions do not take place. The best an instructor can do is to send a student an email. However, there is no obligation on the part of the student to respond. Therefore, this too cannot be considered an issue of efficacy.
Joffe suggests that students with disabilities will be more comfortable within the virtual environment as well. I fail to see the logic of her argument however. The presence of a disability does not equate with shyness. Nor does it lead one to believe that such an individual would be uncomfortable speaking in person but more comfortable communicating in cyberspace. Here, Joffe makes an argumentative leap that does not seem to stand up.
Another argument of Joffe’s is that in the online learning environment, a student can “[…] view the lecture as often as necessary — an impossibility in a traditional classroom” (p. 8). This is another argument of Joffe’s I don’t agree with. An instructor can just as easily provide students with photocopies of a lecture if necessary and in alternative format such as Braille or on tape as needed. There is no reason to assume, as Joffe does, that the online learning environment is actually more effective because a student can re-read the lecture on the screen.
However, Joffe makes an argument that this researcher does agree with — the factors of independence and motivation. Students who attend the traditional classroom may be present in physical form but intellectually they may be elsewhere. Online learning demands the learner’s presence otherwise their participation is moot. Thus, students must demonstrate a high degree of personal motivation and independence in order to pursue online learning. Yet, we must ask whether or not this makes online learning more effective? Certainly the development of these characteristics are intrinsically positive. They also enhance the person’s learning process. A motivated learner is one who will seek the opportunities and resources they need to acquire new knowledge. We might say (as Joffe) does that these are beneficial to online learning but they are also beneficial to traditional classroom learning.
Joffe does point out the key areas where online learning proves to be highly effective especially in the area of teaching English as a foreign language – TESOL (in countries where English is not the native language). In this field there is an assumption that the various course units will “enhance the teachers’ geographical and anthropological literacy and respect for other countries and communities, their cultures, their educational systems, and their conditions and ethics of work, including those that provide the sociocultural flexibility to cope with unfamiliar living and working conditions” (p. 12). Here too may be one of the key aspects of online efficacy in education. The online learning process is infinitely more open-minded. The very structure of virtual education is that it embraces all interested (and capable) learners. It allows for a sense of fluidity across cultural, geographical and socioeconomic boundaries as no other educational process can. Inherently then, there is an effective quality to online education.
Ford-Guerrera (1997) suggests that online learning may actually be more stimulating. She points to the use of CD-Rom programs which are highly creative and interactive as being far more stimulating than sitting in a classroom or language lab. In terms of efficacy, she agrees with Joffe (2000) that the possibilities for cultural interactions alone mark online learning as an effective tool for foreign language instruction. She describes the use of games such as MayaQuest “[…] an interactive journey throughout Central America with the purpose of learning about the Maya civilization. There are also Chat areas where teachers and students can communicate in real time with people from around the nation using the target language” (p. 7). Contrary to the opinions of some, this type of program does facilitate the development of productive skills (speaking) and not just receptive skills.
One of the other strategies or advantages of online learning is that it connects instructors from around the world. Teachers in the traditional classroom situation may, or may not have colleagues who they can rely on for support and assistance. But, instructors who work in the virtual classroom can access multiple numbers of native speaking instructors of the language they are teaching all at the same time. This is an unprecedented type of support that makes online teaching extremely effective. It is a means to reaching a multiplicity of resources, ideas, opinions and strategies that were previously unavailable to instructors. In terms of efficacy then, they can receive online support from these teachers who are available to support them with new strategies and resources for teaching that language.
Using the Internet, students can also access native speakers of the language they are studying. In a way, they can access ‘online penpals’. This gives them an unlimited access to resources for practicing the language they are learning in a way previously unavailable to them.
Another effective technique for using the Internet is satellite technology. Ford-Guerrera explains: “In this manner students can view foreign news and information in the target language … Computers connected to the satellite could also provides tools such as quizzes, vocabulary, discussion topics such as English translations of the broadcasts. These items could be printed out and then integrated into the foreign language lessons […]” (p. 9). Thus, both teachers and students are provided with the kinds of tools and strategies for foreign language and practice they never had access to before. In a very real way, this tool brings the language alive. It is not simply a dry subject that students read out of a book any longer. The language is studied and understood within the context of the culture which created and uses it.
The opinions and information offered by Ford-Guerrera create a foundation for understanding and analyzing the true efficacy of online learning for foreign language instruction. The array of tools and strategies available are certainly an advantage. However, the true nature of efficacy is that the program enhances the learning process of the student and is valuable to them. The true value of these strategies is the notion of being connected to other cultures in an unprecedented manner. Students and instructors now have an opportunity to teach and understand the context of language not merely the vocabulary and the syntax of it. In this way, the language is also truly connected — to the source(s) where it was created and where it is used for people to communicate in their native manner. The online tool thus opens the minds of the students and allows them to ‘experience’ the language as never before. They are learning ‘the living language’, not merely the tools of using and understanding it in the intellectual way. As such, they are constructing their own knowledge and their experience of acquiring it.
Adaptivity
According to Pralong (2001), one of the great features of online foreign language instruction is the ability of these programs to adapt to a broad range of learners. It is his opinion that even though the cultural connection with students in other languages is valuable, the true efficacy of online instruction is that students have more than one instructor. Native speakers of the language a student is learning becomes a ‘peer or virtual tutor’. Individuals who are the student’s age can explain concepts within its proper cultural context, they can encourage the student to continue learning and practicing and they can provide a level of educational support students would not have access to in the traditional classroom or language lab.
Online learning has often been criticized as ‘cold and impersonal’. This type of personal connection adds the personal touch students need. “The new generation of language learning courses with a personal tutor allows the introduction of a human element to motivate the students and supervise their aims. Thanks to the balance of pedagogical resources, the pupil and tutor will be able to build a program together with stimulating, personalized, and varied resources” (Pralong, 2001, p. 4).
McNeil (2000) also believes that online learning is highly adaptive to a broad range of students. “As a foreign language teacher, I believe we can use technology especially software programs and the Internet to provide the less advanced students with plenty of grammar practice and review, and at the same time, keep the more advanced students interested. She goes on to say that the Internet offers such a broad range of interactive possibilities that students literally become immersed in the language and culture they are studying (p.12).
Ammerlaan (2002) writes that in actuality, there is good information on online learning for adults but few studies on its effectiveness for primary and secondary learners. In his meta-analysis of the efficacy of online learning for K-12 students he concluded the following: “Consequently, distance education can be expected to result in achievement at least comparable to traditional instruction in most academic circumstances” (p. 18). However, he notes that at the time of his study (only four years ago), only nineteen studies were relevant to his own. Thus, the idea of studying the effectiveness of online instruction for foreign language learners is indeed a new and important area for ongoing research. In this area, Ammerlaan states specifically that early results in this area are not as positive as he would have hoped for. “The three foreign language studies in this meta-analysis reported that students learning with distance education systems performed demonstrably lower than students learning in traditional classrooms.” (p. 19).
Another important element to this analysis is the fact that this technology is relatively new. With any advances in education, there must be time for it to be developed before it can become truly effective. In the case of online learning, there is an inherent difficulty. The Internet belongs to no one. Thus, technologies can be developed and introduced at an unbelievable pace. There is literally no way to keep pace with or track of all the technologies that will be developed and ultimately utilized for online learning. In addition, they can be developed in any language and any culture, all simultaneously. To determine the efficacy of such a broad range of technologies and strategies will be/is literally impossible. Thus, the efficacy of the Internet as a learning tool will always be an ongoing investigation.
Siekmann (1998) acknowledges one of the prime difficulties with using another language — speaking in front of native speakers or people who are well versed in the language. She states that online learning is a tool that provides language learners with an opportunity to practice these skills in a non-threatening way by using email, chat rooms and bulletin boards. Finally, those students who honestly want to learn to speak the language can do so without fear of embarrassing themselves in front of others in a classroom. She also suggests that several of these tools support not only strong skill development but cooperative learning among students. In particular, she heralds the use of the bulletin board for the development of cooperative endeavors. “Discussions that might otherwise have to be cut short can be continued in the bulletin board and every comment can be communicated…This kind of group work also allows the instructor to get a feeling for the level of cooperative learning in the groups” (p. 5).
Students have an opportunity to truly construct their own knowledge when they set up online chats with other students. Yet these students need not only be fellow learners in the program, they can also be native speakers. For the first time, this provides language students with an opportunity to practice in a non-threatening, supportive way in real time and with native speakers of a language. The students can also chat with the professor in real time and not just fellow students. Here, online learning provides students with a multiplicity of avenues for actually speaking and learning the language at the same time.
Where is the reference list?