FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR MATHEMATICS TEACHERS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v13i2.1669Keywords:
Online Professional Development, Distance Learning, elearning, Online Facilitation, Self-paced LearningAbstract
The study compared the effects of a professional development course delivered in an online and a face-to-face format. The effects examined included changes in teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, instructional practices, and understanding of teaching number-sense and related mathematical concepts. The study randomly assigned participants to either the online or the face-to-face format and employed the same instructors, reading materials, and instructional activities for both formats of the course. Both formats of the course were also delivered over the same eight-week period and required participants to invest approximately the same amount of time each week engaging in learning activities. Both formats of the course showed significant impacts on teachers’ mathematical understanding, pedagogical beliefs, and instructional practices. Consistent with prior research on online versus face-to-face instruction, the positive outcomes were comparable across both formats. Interestingly, teachers who participated in the online course reported that they were more willing to take courses in the future online than did teachers in the face-to-face condition. Further research is needed to determine whether this finding is limited to self-selected
teachers, the specifics of this course, or other factors that limit generalizability.
References
Carey, R., G. Kleiman, M. Russell, J. D. Venable & J. Louie. Online Courses for Math Teachers: Comparing Self-Paced and Facilitated Cohort Approaches. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 7(3): December 2008. Retrieved date from http://www.jtla.org.
Russell, M., G. Kleiman, R. Carey & J. Douglas. Comparing self-pace and cohort-based online courses for teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 41(4): 361–384, 2009.
Clark, R. E. Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research 53:45–459, 1983.
Clark, R. E. Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 42(2): 445–459, 1994.
Bernard, R., P. Abrami, Y. Lou, E. Borokhovski, A. Wade, L. Wozney, P. Wallet, M. Fiset, & B. Huang. How does distance education compare with classroom instruction?: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research 74(3): 379–439, 2004.
Cobb, T. Cognitive efficiency: Toward a revised theory of media. Educational Technology Research and Development 45(4): 21–35, 1997.
Kozma, R. A reply: Media and methods. Educational Technology Research and Development 42:11–14, 2004.
Smith, P. L. & C. L. Dillon. Comparing distance learning and classroom learning: Conceptual considerations. American Journal of Distance Education 13: 107–124, 1999.
Garrison, D. R. Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction, and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. Moored (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction, 47–58. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2003.
Spicer, J. Even better than face-to-face? In A. Thorson (Ed.), By your own design: A teacher’s professional learning guide, 32–33. Columbus, OH: Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education, 2002.
Treacy, B., G. Kleiman & K. Peterson. Successful online professional development. Leading & Learning with Technology 30(1): 42–47, 2002.
Weinberger, D. Small pieces loosely joined. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing, 2002.
Delfino, M. & D. Persico. Online or face-to-face? Experimenting with different techniques in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23: 351–365, 2007.
Meyer, K. A. Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: the role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 7: 55–65, 2003.
Sparks, D. Dreaming all that we might realize. In A. Thorson (Ed.), By your own design: A teacher's professional learning guide, 18–23. Columbus, OH: Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for mathematics and Science Education, 2002.
Lawless, K. & J. Pellegrino. Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research 77(4): 575–614, 2007.
Ginsburg, A., T. Gray & D. Levin. Online professional development for mathematics teachers: A strategic analysis. Washington D. C.: National Center for Technology Innovation, American Institutes for Research, 2004.
Whitehouse, P. L., L. A. Breit, E. M. McCloskey, D. J. Ketelhut & C. Dede. An overview of current findings from empirical research on online teacher professional development. In C. Dede (Ed.), Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods, 13–29. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2006.
Allen, M., E. Mabry, M. Mattrey, J. Bourhis, S. Titsworth & N. Burrell. Evaluating the effectiveness of distance learning: A comparison using meta-analysis. Journal of Communication 54(3): 402–420, 2004.
Neuhauser, C. Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education 16(2): 99–113, 2002.
Russel, T. The no significant difference phenomenon. Montgomery, AL: International Distance Education Certification Center, 2001.
Becker, H. Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, 1999. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from: http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/internet-use/startpage.htm.
Russell, M., L. O’Dwyer, D. Bebell & H. Miranda. Technical Report for the USEIT Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative, 2004. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from: http://www.intasc.org/PDF/useit_r11.pdf.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
