05.+Case+Study+2+-+Do+No+Harm

=Case Study 2 - Do No Harm=

**Summary**
Schoenfeld-Tacher //et al//. (2001) devised a study to compare the effects of online course delivery with that of traditional course delivery. Their subject area of choice was a tertiary level histology (science) subject. Students were assessed using content pre- and post-tests as a method of gauging the effectiveness of the learning environment for both students enrolled online and on campus. The motivation behind this study stems from numerous arguments as to whether or not online learning can influence student learning (Schoenfeld-Tacher //et al//. 2001, p. 257). The authors of this case study determined that “the media itself does not cause differences in learning, but may facilitate teaching methods that may affect learning” (Schoenfeld-Tacher //et al.// 2001, p. 257).

The students that enrolled in the on campus course were required to attend 3 fifty minute lectures and 1 three hour laboratory session per week. The online students accessed the learning management system WebCT to complete their studies. They participated in online discussions both with each other and the instructor, live chats, readings and formative quizzes. Results of this study showed that online delivery was a more effective method of teaching, as it led to improved academic outcomes (Schoenfeld-Tacher //et al//. 2001, p. 263). Furthermore, observations of the way the students interacted with the course content showed that the online delivery offered more and greater opportunities for learner-content interaction than the on campus course. The study also considered the importance of learner-learner interactions and found that students interacted more during online discussions and during live chats with the instructor. These interactions were found to form a learning community among the students (Schoenfeld-Tacher //et al//. 2001, p. 263). Overall, this case study is particularly important to the issue of online delivery in science courses as there is a growing need for asynchronously delivered science content, as discussed in the literature review.



A sample WebCT home page for a tertiary biology subject. Image from: http://www.aperto-elearning.com/?q=node/17

WebCT used in a human anatomy quiz. Image from: http://www.aw-bc.com/myaandp/img/webct_screenshot.jpg

**Critique**
In analysing the results of the study, the authors are partial to Bloom’s Taxonomy as the framework of choice. Here, they focus on the cognitive areas of the taxonomy, and its classification of questions based on their level of abstraction (Schoenfeld-Tacher //et al//. 2001, p. 258). As such, when examining the students’ interaction with the course content on WebCT, the levels of questioning occurring was considered. The reasoning behind this was such that if the levels of abstraction occurring in the questioning was low, then the online medium could potentially be promoting lower order thinking (Schoenfeld-Tacher //et al//. 2001, p. 258). This is a particularly important design consideration to take on board, both in designing the study, and in designing future asynchronous online learning environments for science education. However, this same analysis was not performed on the levels of questioning occurring in the traditionally taught science class, which makes it difficult to compare the results between the two delivery media. This could raise the question as to which method is the most effective at promoting abstraction.

The online learning environment on WebCT also has elements of constructivism in its design. As it has been designed to support learner-content interaction, the learner is able to “construct their own knowledge by integrating new information into their pre-existing mental structures” (Schoenfeld-Tacher //et al//. 2001, p. 258). Though the authors have not discussed it, this is also a similar environment as the SpeakEasy case study, and as such could benefit from the application of the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration theory. The discussion component of WebCT lends itself to making thinking visible, which is beneficial for the students in that it allows them to model each other’s ideas and gain wider viewpoints of other opinions. Furthermore, in addition to the constructivist view of integrating new information with previously held ideas, this also supports knowledge integration, as discussed by Hoadley (2000, p. 841).

Interestingly, the study also found that students formed their own learning communities, with a student spontaneously assuming the role of moderator (Schoenfeld-Tacher //et al.// 2001 //et al//., p. 258). Here we are seeing an example of collaborative learning, with the work of both Bandura and Vygotsky both coming into play. The formation of learning communities allows students to move outside their zone of proximal development in a collaborative setting and also learn in a social setting. Furthermore, this learning environment could be seen as an example of situated learning, as the students are forming informal communities of practice, in which the learning activity is becoming ingrained in the environment and culture in which it is taking place (Lave and Wenger 1991).

To make this case study more effective and to be able to draw a better comparison between online and face to face learning in science, a more in depth examination of the group who were taught only on campus is necessitated. It would be interesting to observe whether or not these students also formed their own communities of practice – whether they had similar levels of learner-learner interactions and whether or not they modeled the behaviour of other students. It would have also been relevant to examine the method of teaching occurring in the face to face environment. Though the authors label this as “traditional,” this does not shed much light on the situation. As discussed in the literature review, there are a range of frameworks and pedagogical theories currently being applied to face to face, or traditional, science teaching, and the variety between these frameworks could potentially change the outcome of this case study, as well as the conclusions drawn between a face to face and online study group. Furthermore, it is unclear whether or not learning is properly situated in the face to face environment, or whether or not constructivist or knowledge integration frameworks come into play in the face to face environment. As such, it can be determined that though the online learning environment in this case has been well constructed around the theories discussed, a proper comparison with the traditional science learning environment is difficult to make.