ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the growing popularity of Asynchronous Learning Networks (ALNs) among higher education institutions as a delivery medium for distance education courses. It examines both benefits and problems that are associated with this revolutionary teaching and learning style. Finally, this paper documents some preliminary steps that have been taken to evaluate the effectiveness of existing ALN courses, and provides some guidelines for future evaluators.
The advancement of information technologies within the last twenty years has had a near revolutionary effect on traditional education. The ability of some colleges and universities to reach a larger number of off-campus, non-traditional students has given them a leading edge in an increasingly competitive educational consumer market. Specifically, Internet technologies have enabled distance learning practitioners to offer better quality programs in a more efficient manner. As these early adopted programs are evaluated and revised, potential students can expect a greater selection of credit courses and degree programs offered online, without the restrictions of time or physical location, from an increasing number of higher education institutions. In a sense, the traditional college campus culture may someday become a thing of the past.
The latest innovations in distance education involve the development of online teaching and learning environments, or "virtual classroom" interfaces, that have become possible due to improved multimedia capabilities and user-friendly graphical web browsers. The term "asynchronous learning networks (ALNs)," which has come to identify these environments, was coined by Dr. Frank Mayadas, Program Officer of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. According to Mayadas (1997), ALNs "combine self-study techniques with asynchronous interactivity to create environments in which learners can access remote learning resources asynchronously." Asynchronous interactivity implies that students will not necessarily engage in discussion at the same time. Instead, one student may post a message to an electronic bulletin board, or leave an electronic mail message for the instructor, a fellow student or an expert in their particular field of study. These messages will be responded to by others in the class at a different time. The time elapsed between responses might equal several minutes, hours, or even days. Chatroom technologies and network conference programs are being employed to increase the level of interactivity among classmates and instructors.
The very definition of ALN indicates the main benefits of their use in education. These teaching and learning environments allow geographically separated students to interact, independent of time or place. This provides a greater choice for educational consumers, particularly working professionals, who are considering the possibility of taking classes. No longer are people confined to a local college or university. ALNs make distance education a much more attractive option for those who want to further their education.
The active, collaborative learning aspect that ALNs facilitate is another important benefit. Many studies indicate that students learn better by becoming actively engaged with the subject matter and by applying what they learn as quickly and as often as possible. ALNs help make this application easier, especially for students who might otherwise have difficulties arranging a common meeting time or place to collaborate with others in the class. For off-campus distance education students, this continous communication with others helps to reduce their isolation from campus. However, this same collaborative learning environment can help even traditional on-campus students increase their communication with fellow classmates and instructors. This is especially helpful for students who would normally be hesitant to speak out or ask for assistance in a traditional classroom setting.
Another possible benefit of an ALN is the potential for students to self-pace their own learning. If a student is particularly motivated in a particular field of study, he/she can work at a rapid pace, gaining extra time to explore enrichment resources in greater depth. Mayadas (1997) notes that for students who possess intellectual capabilities, but have difficulty maintaining the pace of a traditional lecture-style class, self-pacing is an attractive option.
ALNs offer limitless possibilities for creative course developers. Electronic communication can enable students to contact experts in a particular field, access documents from near or distant libraries, debate issues presented by the instructor or other students, and so on. The educational applications of such a program are expanding and improving at a rapid pace.
As with any innovation, there are some negative consequences associated with using an asynchronous learning network. First and foremost, any drastic change in traditional practices will cause discomfort for many involved. In the case of ALNs used in education, some students may resist the change from traditional classroom modules. Instructors may be uncomfortable with the technology involved in delivering courses over the Internet. There would be a large time commitment on the part of instructors new to ALNs for the technological training and new course design. These instructors may now need to rely on the help of other experts such as those in graphic design, web page creation, network administration, and the like. This reliance may be difficult for instructors who are not accustomed to collaborating in the design of their courses.
The self-pacing aspect previously mentioned as a benefit also has the potential for negative consequences. Typically, self-paced learning environments are most effective when used by highly motivated students. For students who are not so motivated, however, ALNs may not be utilized to their fullest potential. Often, these types of learner are best suited to a more structured schedule that is offered by the traditional classroom module.
Professors at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne discovered other unexpected problems when they employed ALNs to facilitate their Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) program. Gail Hawisher was disappointed in her students' lack of use of the class e-mail discussion group and listserv. Instead of lively debate on class issues, there was little more than the required postings. Hawisher had expected to see the same type of communication activity among her seventeen students that she generally saw in her own professional discussion groups that contained a hundred or more participants. According to Hawisher (1997), "What we learned from this experience was that even when postings were not graded per se, the tendency for students was to see their work as occurring in an educational context and therefore subject to evaluation. Regardless of how informal and supportive teachers expected these spaces to be, students still saw (and continue to see) their participation as required and graded."
Many of these negative aspects of ALNs can be resolved with some extra care on the part of the instructor or course developer. The way in which students utilize the capabilities often correlates directly with the instructional goals set forth by the faculty member. When designing an ALN, structure becomes a much more important factor. The instructor must make sure, first of all, that each student is comfortable with the technology involved. Secondly, the policies of the course should be stated directly, especially with respect to course objectives, expected participation (do not assume students will use a feature just because it is avaliable), assessment and grading, and timelines. Modeling appropriate online communication is also an effective way for an instructor to elicit student responses. For example, if an instructor wants a newsgroup to reflect thoughtful personal opinions regarding course materials (as opposed to summarizing required readings), then the instructor might post his/her own reflections to start the discussion. Students that are new to online communication forums may appreciate such examples.
Although there is a major trend in the development of ALNs and technologies that would help support this type of learning, the evaluation of student learning within an online context has lagged far behind. Currently, much of the research is limited to qualitative data that is gathered from participants (both students and instructors) of ALNs. Quantitative research would involve much larger numbers, and many educators are hesitant to divide learners into control and experimental groups.
Some early adopters of ALNs have conducted preliminary evaluative research. New Jersey Institute of Technology, for instance, began delivering courses via ALNs about ten years ago. According to research conducted at this institution, course rating surveys completed by students of ALN courses were equal or superior to those representing traditional classroom module courses. This research also discovered that "dropout" or "incomplete" outcomes are more prevalent among students of ALN based courses. Not surprisingly, Hiltz (1997) found that more "start-up" time was necessary in the beginning of ALN courses (for both professors and students) to deal with logistical concerns.
At Drexel University, a course entitled System Analysis and Design has been offered asynchronously. It has been studied as a model for ALN course design and evaluation. According to research conducted at Drexel, ALN courses are most effective if they employ a requirement-driven methodology. This particular type of methodology requires what Andriole (1997) refers to as "the identification of purposeful and functional requirements, the identification of pre-course, early-course, mid-course and end-course activities, course 'packaging' and prototyping, and 'choreographed' delivery."
In Fall 1997, Michael R. Simonson (1997), a professor at Iowa State University, argued that to effectively evaluate distance education, evaluators need to combine both quantitative and qualitative information that could be collected from those involved with a particular program. Simonson combines a traditional approach with one that is somewhat unconventional to collect more complete data. He highlights important categories of evaluation that should be examined such as measures of activity, efficiency, outcomes, program aims, policies, and organizations. The unconventional approach he mentions concentrates on issues of accountability, effectiveness, impact, organizational context, and unanticipated consequences, which are particulary helpful when used to evaluate a technology driven program.
The recent advances in technology make distance education a very attractive and exciting opportunity for colleges and universities. Those institutions that devote more energy to creating effective asynchronous learning networks may have an edge in a competitive educational consumer market. As Chute, Sayers, and Gardner (1997, p. 75) illustrate in Figure 1 below, an ideal networked learning environment places the distance learner at the center of many remote resources using both asynchronous and real-time communications capabilities.
Advances in computer and telecommunication technology are making this ideal situation an attainable goal; however, it will only be achieved with a sincere institutional commitment; proper training for faculty, support services personnel, and students; and constant evaluation of whether students are actually learning effectively by proxy.
Chute, Alan G., Pamela K. Sayers, and Richard P. Gardner. (1997). Networked Learning Environments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 71 (Fall 1997), 75-83.
Hawisher, Gail. (1997). Writing Across the Curriculum Encounters Asynchronous Learning Networks or WAC Meets Up With ALN. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks [Online], 1 (1), 73 paragraphs. Available: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/issue1/hawisher.htm [12 December 1997].
Hiltz, Starr Roxanne. (1997). Impacts of college-level courses via Asynchronous Learning Networks: Some Preliminary Results. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks [Online], 1 (2), 79 paragraphs. Available: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/issue2/hiltz.htm [12 December 1977].
Mayadas, Frank. (1997). Asynchronous Learning Networks: A Sloan Foundation Perspective. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks [Online], 1 (1), 61 paragraphs. Available: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/issue1/mayadas.htm [12 December 1997].
Simonson, Michael R. (1997). Evaluating Teaching and Learning at a Distance. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71 (Fall 1997), 87-93.