The report "Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning
A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies" from the US Department of Education suggests that online learning is more effective than face to face classroom learning, that blended learning is no more effective than purely online learning and that video and online quizzes do not improve online learning: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

It should be noted that the US study has limitations: it is a "meta" analysis, that is analysis of previous results, not new data collection. Also this was only for K-12 students and may not be applicable to vocational, university or adult learning.

That said, the report seems to support the federal government's Digital Education Revolution (DER): http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/

However, the federal government do not appear to be explicit about how they expect the funded broadband and computers for schools to be actually used to deliver education. No doubt the government realises it would not be politically wise to say that they intend to replace teachers and schools with computers and the Internet, even if this is educationally beneficial.

The approach I have been using in teaching Green ICT Strategies to Masters students at the Australian National University is a low tech version of e-learning. I will be discussing in Mentored and Collaborative e-Learning for Postgraduate Professional Education, for the Computer Science Seminar, at the ANU in Canberra, 27 August 2009: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/collaborative_e_learning/

The full US report is 93 page (819 Kbytes) of PDF. I have prepared an extract of the executive summary, minus footnotes at: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/08/evaluation-of-online-learning.html

I demonstratively know absolutely nothing about this, as I had to use Google to figure out that K-12 means Kindergarten through to Grade 12.

That said, the idea that Kindergarten kids learn better online sounds downright weird.

rstuart wrote 24 August 2009 10:08:44 PM:

>... had to use Google to figure out that K-12
> means Kindergarten through to Grade 12.

Apologies, that is US educational jargon. I should have explained it n more detail. But then you worked it out from Google, which may count as online learning. ;-)

>... Kindergarten kids learn better online sounds downright weird.

It turns out that I misread the report. They were saying that they did not have data for K-12. So the results may not apply to that sector. But I don't find it strange that young children could learn from computers. Of course in terms of social development we would want them to interact with other children. But in that interaction computers could still be used.

I visited the Hawker Primary School in Canberra last year and saw their use of interactive white boards: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2008/09/sustainability-and-e-learning-at-hawker.html

These replace a blackboard and are used by the teachers and students in a group. What makes this useful is that the students interact as a group, rather than each isolated at an individual computer screen.

tomw: "But I don't find it strange that young children could learn from computers."

It's not that. It is that unsupervised learning doesn't happen until after grade 12. Before that there is always an adult around to "guide" you, even if that just means forcing the kids to stay in front of the computer. I can't see how unsupervised learning would work in most of the K-12 years. Needing both the parent and the teacher on duty, as would be required for on-line learning, seems wasteful when the alternative is easy to do.

And then there is also the fact that schooling in the K-12 years provides a child minding service, allowing the mothers to go off and do other productive things - like work.

As for the years beyond K-12, it is nice to see a study providing hard evidence for something my gut tells me would be true. Did you think about the likely effect of this on Australia's Education export industry? Probably you did, as it is a pretty obvious thought. It seems like a great way to leverage it even further. Students would no longer have to reside in Australia to attend University.

rstuart wrote 25 August 2009 10:50:24 AM:

>... unsupervised learning doesn't happen until after grade 12.
> Before that there is always an adult around to "guide" you ...

I am not sure that is the case. I learnt a lot of things before grade 12 on my own, but not necessarily what adults wanted me to learn. ;-)

More seriously, I was not suggesting we just sit children down alone in front of a computer and expect them to learn. This doesn't even work with adults: I mentor and help adult students learn online. This is done via the computer system. For young children I can see a physical presence would be needed some of the time. But simiarly they could work in groups and with supervision, from older children, or parents, as well as teachers. Those supervising need not be devoting all their time to one child (just as I have a class of 17 adult students to look after online).

>... Did you think about the likely effect of this on Australia's
>Education export industry? ...

Yes. My Green ICT course is designed to meet a global standard for professional education. There is the opportunity to provide very cost effective education online from Australia, of great benefit to developing nations, as well as to Australian exports. But there is also an increased risk of competition.

This is something my more conservative university colleagues are having difficulty coming to terms with. They think they can just ignore it and the problem will go away. But if they do not innovate, what is likely to go away are all the students and all the export income.

Learning is MUCH, MUCH more than following academic pursuits. The measure of one's intelligence is MUCH, MUCH more than academic marks or formal qualifications. There's no doubt that digital education is a learning tool. But, everything in life is a learning tool. Everything!