In my current working environment, we hold live face-to-face (f2f) courses and we are developing online courses.
Using Anderson’s model as a framework, there are definite distinctions between how each of our formats address each learning attribute.
| LEARNING ATTRIBUTES | FACE-TO-FACE COURSES | ONLINE COURSES |
| Learner-centred | Our courses are learner centred in that the content covered reflects knowledge lacking in a particular professional community (as ascertained by a committee and a needs assessment.)
Learners seeking that knowledge choose to attend our programs. Programs are held on Saturdays to accommodate professionals’ schedules. Programs assume an understanding of Canadian/Manitoban professional standards. |
Our online courses are learner-centred in that the content covered reflects knowledge lacking in a particular professional community (as ascertained by a committee and a needs assessment.)
Learners seeking that knowledge choose to take our online courses. Courses may be taken online at any time that suits the individual learner. Programs assume an understanding of North American professional standards. |
| Knowledge-centred | Courses are taught within a specific professional context.
Clinical updates within specific healthcare topics are discussed. Most courses provide the opportunity for hands-on clinical instruction with low student-teacher ratio.
|
Courses are taught within an interprofessional healthcare provider context.
Supplemental resources are provided for later use within practice setting. Much opportunity exists for individual reflection on case studies and personal practice. |
| Assessment-centred | In our lecture programs, there is no form of assessment. Learners must simply attend to get their learning credits, as per accreditation criteria. (For example, you would get professional credit for attending a conference but not be tested on the content covered there – though there is extra credit to be earned if you write a reflection piece afterwards.)
In our hands-on courses, there is some formal assessment, as well as over-the-shoulder coaching of clinical techniques.
|
Learners are tested using an online multiple choice test. However, there is no minimum grade to pass, as it would violate our current accreditation criteria.
|
| Community-centred | Many participants attend specifically for the opportunity to interact with other practitioners in the community. | At present, there is no opportunity to interact with others. Interaction is strictly student-content.
|
As you can see, one of the biggest differences between our two types of courses (with the notable exception of the opportunity for hands-on-learning) is the ability (or not) to interact with other practitioners in the community. Our online courses are strictly used for knowledge transmission and have no capacity for interactivity with others. This is the biggest drawback of our online program, especially as the courses are designed with the hope of fostering interprofessional collaboration.
At present, our online courses may be taken at anytime by participants, but because they are offered free-of-charge, there are no funds to hire someone to facilitate online discussion forums. At the very least, I am hoping to set up a Twitter feed to encourage participants to interact with others who have taken our courses and/or have an interest in the material.
Reference:
Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University.
Hi Tanya,
I am very intrigued by the differences that seem to exist between the F2F learning environment and the course offered online. IT seems almost as these would serve different purposes entirely and not be a substitute for one another. I was wondering if there was a preference among the participants. Do more people enroll to the online course than the face-2-face? I think your idea of creating a twitter could help bridge the some of the differences between the two formats. I do not know if this is feasible in your situations, but have you considered something similar to the MET community, in which all participants, whether they have taken the course face-2-face or on-line have access to a discussion forum? This could lead to the creation of a large community of practice grouping together both formats.
Thank you for clearly detailing your experience.
Danielle
Hi Danielle;
Your intuition was right on the mark. The courses we offer online are entirely different than the ones we offer in a f2f format. They cannot be substituted for one another. I should have made that more clear.
I just found it interesting that our department is conscious of the fact that the reason many people attend our f2f courses is so that they have the chance to network; however, when creating a vision for their online courses, they did not consider networking as an imperative. I am now trying to come up with ways to enable some contact between learners – the problem is, I never know how many people will be taking each course and when.
I love your idea of creating one overall discussion forum for people taking our courses. That might indeed help us creating a community of practice.
Thanks so much for your comments; they were really helpful.
Kind regards,
Tanya