bplist00_WebMainResource_WebSubresources
^WebResourceURL_WebResourceTextEncodingName_WebResourceMIMEType_WebResourceData_WebResourceFrameName_4http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/29/onlineUUTF-8Ytext/htmlO S
News: The Evidence on Online Education - Inside Higher Ed
WASHINGTON -- Online learning has definite advantages over face-to-face instruction when it comes to teaching and learning, according to a new meta-analysis released Friday by the U.S. Department of Education.
The study found that students who took all or part of their instruction online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through face-to-face instruction. Further, those who took "blended" courses -- those that combine elements of online learning and face-to-face instruction -- appeared to do best of all. That finding could be significant as many colleges report that blended instruction is among the fastest-growing types of enrollment.
The Education Department examined all kinds of instruction, and found that the number of valid analyses of elementary and secondary education was too small to have much confidence in the results. But the positive results appeared consistent (and statistically significant) for all types of higher education, undergraduate and graduate, across a range of disciplines, the study said.
A meta-analysis is one that takes all of the existing studies and looks at them for patterns and conclusions that can be drawn from the accumulation of evidence.
On the topic of online learning, there is a steady stream of studies, but many of them focus on limited issues or lack control groups. The Education Department report said that it had identified more than 1,000 empirical studies of online learning that were published from 1996 through July 2008. For its conclusions, however, the Education Department considered only a small number (51) of independent studies that met strict criteria. They had to contrast an online teaching experience to a face-to-face situation, measure student learning outcomes, use a "rigorous research design," and provide adequate information to calculate the differences.
The department noted that this new meta-analysis differs from previous such studies, which generally found that online education and face-to-face instruction were similarly effective on issues of learning, but didn't give an edge to online learning that may now exist.
While the new study provides a strong endorsement of online learning, it also notes findings about the relative success (or lack thereof) of various teaching techniques used in online courses. The use of video or online quizzes -- frequently encouraged for online education -- "does not appear to enhance learning," the report says.
Using technology to give students "control of their interactions" has a positive effect on student learning, however. "Studies indicate that manipulations that trigger learner activity or learner reflection and self-monitoring of understanding are effective when students pursue online learning as individuals," the report says.
Notably, the report attributes much of the success in learning online (blended or entirely) not to technology but to time. "Studies in which learners in the online condition spent more time on task than students in the face-to-face condition found a greater benefit for online learning," the report says.
In noting caveats about the findings, the study returns to the issue of time.
"Despite what appears to be strong support for online learning applications, the studies in this meta-analysis do not demonstrate that online learning is superior as a medium," the report says. "In many of the studies showing an advantage for online learning, the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages. At the same time, one should note that online learning is much more conducive to the expansion of learning time than is face-to-face instruction."
In a statement, Education Secretary Arne Duncan urged educators to consider the report's findings. “This new report reinforces that effective teachers need to incorporate digital content into everyday classes and consider open-source learning management systems, which have proven cost effective in school districts and colleges nationwide,” he said.
John R. Bourne, executive director of the Sloan Consortium, a group of colleges and other organizations that work on online education issues, said he was not surprised by the findings, but thought it was quite important that the Education Department was the source. "I think this is incredibly significant," he said. "Those of us in the business have thought these things for some time, but we have had enormous trouble convincing some folks" about the quality of online education. "I think this will give more credibility to the things that have been said."
Diana G. Oblinger, president of Educause, also was pleased with the findings. "Online education provides additional opportunities," she said. "It gives people greater opportunity for flexibility, for experiential learning, for illustrating things in multiple ways such as visualization." What the study demonstrates, she said, is that colleges need to think broadly about using online education, and not be "artificially limited" to face-to-face instruction.
Lawrence N. Gold, director of higher education at the American Federation of Teachers, said via e-mail that it was important to pay attention to the report's caveats and not view it as evidence for shifting everything possible online.
"This report correctly recognizes that online learning and blended learning are growing components of higher education and, employed properly, can play a significant role in promoting student learning. Further public investment in experimentation and technology is certainly warranted," he said.
But noting the caveats in the report about factors other than medium of instruction, he said that "we should not take the report as saying it is simply better to move to online learning. These results demonstrate why more research is needed -- broadly based research that moves well beyond case studies conducted by distance education practitioners, research focused on student retention in online environments and especially research that looks behind the instructional medium to isolate the characteristics of instruction that produce positive results. Successful education has always been about engaging students whether it is in an online environment, face to face or in a blended setting. And fundamental to that is having faculty who are fully supported and engaged in that process as well."
The University of Montana has a unique opportunity for an Instructional Designer (ID) who will facilitate the design, development and assessment of ...
Online would be fine if students would bother to do it. In our "blended" courses if we don't sit there with them and lead them through it (individually!!!) they don't do the work. Result? How do you compare one-on-one learning vs. classroom? That is what you would be comparing, not online vs. classroom.
Where the faculty and staff ratios to students identical?
Posted
by Joan Morris, DNP, CNE, RN
, College of Nursing Online Instructor, Full Time
at University of South Florida
on June 29, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
To this point many of the distance learning studies that I have seen had ratios of one faculty member to twenty students. There are wide variations as far as who designs and updates the online course that go from a single factulty member doing it all to a regular team of 2-8 of instructional designers, online tech support and online tutors. I am looking forward to seeing if this study has addressed these important issues. I have heard of faculty members having as many as 300 students in one class that was a totally online course.
I think that the interactivity of the course enhancing learning is no surprise considering the existing body of research and educational theory to support this finding.
It's called accountability ...
Posted
by SL
, "F2F" (actually blended) and online Prof
on June 29, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
Yes, I may have to spend a little extra time at the beginning of the term making sure my students understand how to navigate the LMS and point them to the online course resources, activities and communications tools, but they don't get the option of NOT learning how to use them, even in my F2F classes, which I would term all blended to a great er or lesser degree! In some EVERYTHING for the course is in our LMS and it is taught in a computer classroom.
The results are always the same:
1) An early steep learning curve, with a fair amount of "I can't" and "You're making us do all the work!" whining.
2) A period of "Well yeah, maybe I can" when a lot of the tech-forward students start helping their tech-phobic classmates (with my encouragement because I am into the subject matter content phase at that point(although I will always help students one on one with tech issues outside of class) which fosters group interaction and interdependence.
3)What I like to call "the quiet time" from about three weeks into the term until near the end, when my blended courses are firing on all cylinders (meaning the students have finally accepted that I am NOT going to do this for them- it is up to THEM, individually and collectively), right through me attending meetings, "lost" class time from snow days, athletics trips (all our teams travel with a laptop), students having to go home for family or health emergencies (including one having to miss the last month of a term for major surgery), etc. My "class" is always in session, 24-7, rain or shine, internet-willing.
"All" I have to do during this period is put out tech brush-fires (people suddenly locked out of their account, etc) and serve as guide on the side, spending parts of each class meeting as a "cheerleader", answering questions,doing demonstrations, reviewing 3D models (often in a "game" format), giving new topic overviews,leading (or just listening to) discussions, advising on group projects, and of course my "real job":, assessing learning (A LOT) with regular online quizzes and exams. A fair amount of classvtime is "free" for them to work, alone or together, on class assignments and online learning activities. Then all I do is walk around to keep them on task and off Facebook.
4) And lastly, what I term the celebratory "We did it!!!" phase, when the students look up, realize the term is almost over and that they have accomplished a BUTTLOAD of work and learned a great deal and that they did it (mostly) all THEMSELVES. Sometimes they do accuse me of having "tricked them into learning stuff".
For that I do not apologize!? ;-) >95% excellent course evaluations ensue, students ask what other courses I teach the same way and sign up for "extra" courses in my discipline, tests of retention in later classes and our program assessments show great retention for my blended students, and the students beg other faculty to use the LMS for course materials, the calendar, etc. and sometimes even show them how to do so. Students come back and report that the class made them a better, more responsible student in other classes, regardless of deliery method.
And no, these are not upper level or grad courses (which actually turn out to be a bit more comfortable taught in a more traditional Socratic style) however in those we still use the LMS for all sorts of course material exchange and communication. Its just a great way to put everything in one place, for faculty and students alike! The courses I teach as most strongly blended are a freshman-level non-majors class and a 200-level service course.
You just have to get past that Phase 1 with a determined and positive "Yes you CAN!" attitude ...
RE: Online? Fine, but how to get them to do it...
Posted
by JM
on June 29, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
LM, I believe this is part of the problem that online learning helps begin to solve. Students are having their hands held through their academic careers and a majority of them end up finding it difficult to come up with their own ideas later on. They also don't appreciate (and thus retain) what they're learning because they're learning it based on obligation and don't care. Online learning allows students to tap into their self-motivation and exploration. Sure, they need some guidance and there may need to be certain incentives (they just might even fail initially), but eventually they'll figure out that they're not going anywhere unless they do something about it on their own. If there are proper incentives and consequences, they'll do it.
time
Posted
by KEL
on June 29, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
If I read the article correctly, the analysis indicates that additional time spent by the students on the material is the most significant causal factor. Learning in a face to face situation would probably also increase if more time were spent.
The next question is why do students spend more time on task in an online setting. A second question is the amount of faculty time needed. As LM points out bringing students up to speed can take a significant amount of time. I am seeing that now in a course I am teaching. The students need time and so do I as I master aspects of the course management software.
interesting
Posted
by random thoughts
on June 29, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
Makes perfect sense: active learning, time-on-task, ability to focus on particular parts of the lectures or exercises a student doesn't get the first time -- I don't doubt that online learning can be equal or greater.
Of course, it depends on many things: the subject, course design (even traditional courses are "designed," even if the instructor just copies what his professors did decades before). And, of course, some online courses are inferior to some traditional courses (and vice versa).
But I bet there are a lot of folks who won't be persuaded -- because no evidence will persuade them.
random thoughts--agreed!
Posted
by Steven Clark, PhD
at University of Wisconsin
on June 29, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
"But I bet there are a lot of folks who won't be persuaded -- because no evidence will persuade them."
Especially if the study focused on K-12 (I am disappointed it didn't). There is a lot of debate in Wisconsin about online learning, much of it driven by the teacher's unions who claim that online learning is inferior (read, it is threatening their jobs). School administrators also don't like it because it can take students (read, dollars) from their districts. I think this is where the real debate will be in the future.
What about selection bias?
Posted
by M
on June 29, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
Traditional students are more likely to take traditional courses. Non-traditional students are more likely to take online and blended courses. Non-traditional and adult learners are more likely to be more motivated and focused. I wonder whether this angle was explored at all.
Yes, but...
Posted
by Docedd
on June 29, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
From this brief, it looks like what the study actually demonstrated is that students who put in more time on task get better results. Imagine... Also LM's comment on resource depth -- technology, instructional designers, etc.is a key point. On-line is very expensive and, gee, I wonder what would happen if we gave deparments dedicated staffs of instructional designers for faculty support for traditional venues...? It is hard to imagine how this meta study leveled the influence of resource and class size effects.
The time factor again
Posted
by College instructor/grad student
, Instructor
at Aurora College
on June 29, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
I've taken several distance and blended courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Some have been excellent learning experiences, and others have been absolutely agonizing, exhausting, and virtually unfinishable.
SL is correct in that this type of course is better adapted to the undergrad or applied level than, say, a graduate course in humanities. What makes the difference is the instructor's ability to accurately plan the time in the online environment.
Most of these courses-- even the blended ones-- feature compulsory online discussions among small groups of students, which I invariably found time-consuming and worthless as a learning method. Everyone is just putting in their blah-blah-blah in order to get the participation mark.
Yes, it's convenient for the instructor to park all the course materials on the online site-- but it is damned inconvenient and time-consuming for the students to have to download and read online or print documents that are literally hundreds of pages long.
These courses are also often overplanned, with learners forced down the tunnel of the instructor's objectives without much flexibility or consideration for the needs of the actual (not hypothetical) learners, and without any opportunity for sidetracks or serenipitous learning. For students with a more discursive learning style, this can be extremely frustrating.
I am concerned that too many decision-makers will take this study as the latest whiz-bang, ain't distance ed great proof without looking more deeply at the caveats. I would still take a well-taught F2F course over a distance or blended course any time.
selection bias
Posted
by Jennifer Olmsted
, Economics
at Drew U
on June 29, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
I want to second the comment made by M. The first thing that came to my mind when I read this article was - selection bias. Students who take on-line classes may on average be more motivated, for a variety of reasons, so that means that the study is comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps the study corrected for this problem, but from IHE's description it is not clear. The second question I have concerns what the measured outcomes were. Perhaps on-line learning is better for learning in some ways, but how about the oral components, interaction with other students, etc. I know some of this can be recreated virtually, but I would like to know more about which outcomes were measured. Also, did the study look at completion rates? My guess is that on-line courses require more motivation, but I am be wrong about that...
How to cook the data for the new emerging policy
Posted
by ellen
on June 29, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
51 of 1,000 studies selected!!! and because of the "better design"! And no subject variables included in the analyses such as learning style and so on!! and the facile assumption that ?methods" work exactly the same for everyone? And the causal variable being time-on-task and not mode of instruction! Talk about hocing up a headline, study tile and press release by Arne to support the new Obama policy of free on-line courses at Community Colleges.Pravda culdn't have done better. And no URL to the actual study so one could review it one's self; Excellent, Ted.
On-line "works"
Posted
by Grandma Betty
, Adjunct Faculty
on June 29, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
As an adjunct faculty member teaching the same course (in my specific vocational field) for a number of years (and past retirement age), I requested to teach entirely "on line". A few students do have trouble getting started if they haven't taken our excellent Intro to On-Line that the college offers. However, they either "catch on" or drop out. Maybe the discussion boring but it does keep the student involved. I sometimes miss the face to face but am comfortable that students are learning!
Posted
by Unemployed Academic
on June 29, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
Best of all, fully online courses can be "outsourced" to India!
Who Enrolled?
Posted
by Bear
, Retention Services
on June 29, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
At my community college, we just completed a study of student success in online courses comparing students who had online-only schedules to students who took online and in-person classes the same term (mixed schedules). We had some evidence that the mixed-schedule students had poorer outcomes in their online classes than in their in-person classes and compared to online-only students. Our review confirmed this. Students with mixed schedules withdraw or go AWOL much more often than students with online-only schedules and are much less likely to earn A's in online courses; the distribution of B's, C's, D's and F's is essentially identical between the two groups. Not surprisingly, de-matriculated students and first-term students with mixed schedules had the poorest outcomes. We call students who fail to log in by the end of the first week of classes; students with mixed schedules are twice as likely to be on the call list and more than half of the students on the call list officially or unofficially withdraw. A survey of students with mixed schedules who failed or withdrew from an online class found they did not have problems with the technology. They attributed their poor outcomes to not realizing how much time and effort an online class would take and the lack of instructor "presence" in the class (i.e. the instructor didn't put much effort into engaging the students). They were more than happy to sign up for online classes in future terms, albeit sometimes with the same result. As far as term-to-term retention goes, the students with mixed schedules were much more likely to continue their enrollment compared to online-only students. The factors that most likely contribute to the poorer retention of our online-only students: they enroll part-time and 31.6 percent of the online-only students were non-matriculated compared to 6.7 percent of the students with mixed schedules, so their retention is consistent with part-time and non-matriculated students.
I mention all of this because I agree with the comments about comparing apples to oranges. That concern goes beyond comparing traditional to hybrid to online, etc. Our study showed that aggregating online outcomes vs. traditional masks important information that will help us advise students better.
I can't wait
Posted
by RCH
, Professor
at Minnesota University
on June 29, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
to have them use this promising technique coaching the football and hockey teams.
Actually, having taught more than a few of these, I wonder how they handled the subjects who dropped courses. Many statistical tests are sensitive to small variations in numbers.
from a student's perspective
Posted
by George
, student
at University of Delaware
on June 29, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
The self-motivation factor and working at my own pace are two reasons why I believe online learning is more efficient than traditional face to face lecture style learning. I'm sure many students out there will agree with me when I say that students don't always come to class prepared or motivated to focus on the material. Whether we are up late the night before from studying, socializing, or various other reasons and find our eyes drooping and minds drifting, or we are thinking about other obligations, once a moment of lecture passes without us taking anything out of it, we can never get that moment back. But with online learning, the course is more flexible to our readiness to focus. Lectures can be read and reread, videos that professors post can be rewound, and everything is automatically stored and can be retrieved easily. Online learning is more convenient for the modern college student and allows us derive the most out of our sometimes limited and unpredictable willingness to focus on our work.
URLs of two studies
Posted
by Ray Schroeder
, Dir of Center for Online Learning, Research and Service
at University of Illinois at Springfield
on June 29, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
Having done a degree by face to face tuition and another undergraduate degree and a Masters degree by blended education (mostly distance education) I much prefer the blended approach. I am a self motivated learner and I think that helps. One approach does not fit all, but with rising tuition costs the option to do blended study (which is usually cheaper and can be done part time around your job) is very attractive to many. I worked for the company (Doctor Global) that first offered online medical consultations in the late 90's and early 2000's. Everyone said it couldn't be done but now just 9 years later online and blended online medical consultations are becoming mainstream. I see the future of education as being online with blended vacation course as used very successfully by the Open University in the UK.
what about actual interaction?
Posted
by gh
on June 29, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
Oooh, this reads as such an indictment of normalized classroom teaching practices! It's no surprise that when the choices are huge lectures or online learning, students find they do better in the online format--when all you're doing is taking notes while a person at the front of the classroom speaks, of course that process is easier when the person can be rewound!
But in a class that's *working,* students don't just sit back and take notes: they interact with the professor and with the other students in the class; they produce, speak, engage, argue, write, read; they're on their toes, working with the material at hand out loud and on the page--in class discussion, in peer-to-peer work and on their own. And the learning styles on offer suit them. Some students learn best by ear, so talking is great; but others (many others) are visual learners, so they need to see material referenced and explained up on the board or in other visual forms. And most students (most people) are experiential learners, so they need not only to write stuff down, but also to work with the material at hand. When students are challenged and engaged in the classroom, they learn just fine "face to face." It's when teaching becomes spoonfeeding or an endless recitation of material to be spat back that online learning alone is better.
I've used blended learning in my classrooms for some time, and it works beautifully--and I find that student peer-to-peer comments, discussions and other postings are substantive and useful. But that's because students already know that there are serious expectations for them to step up to, AND they're engaged in their own work and constantly working with their peers, so they're ready to do so. When it works, it's not an online utopia--it's just another space for meaningful learning.
This type of teaching is a luxury, of course: it requires small classes, faculty who have time to engage with their students, meaningful support for faculty in terms not only of technology but also of writing assistants, opportunities for pedagogical professional development, and so forth. That's a situation that many schools can't "afford," and it's a huge burden for adjunct faculty. And *those*facts say a great deal about what we have come to value in "higher" education, sadly.
I'm a believer
Posted
by JFV
, Higher Education
at Penn State
on June 29, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
I have taught the same educational research courses to the same number of graduate students both F2F and on-line, and the on-line learning not only is more thorough for the individual, but also is more consistent across the class. The 24-7 nature of asynchronous instruction creates flexibility for students and instructors alike, and this not only promotes greater time-on-task, but also but generates more complete discussions and interaction. In most F2F courses, students can attend without doing the readings, but my on-line students cannot complete their postings without digesting the readings first. Best of all, the lesson is always there so students can go back and repeat particular parts of the lectures or exercises, thus promoting more durable learning.
Cultural Changes
Posted
by Jonathan Cohen
, Professor of mathematics
at DePaul University
on June 29, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
Students arrive at college today with a very different set of experiences from those arriving even 20 years ago. The introduction of cell phones, personal computers and a variety of communication devices have changed the way people communicate and receive information.
The ability to read from a printed page is a skill that has been downgraded by the practice of reading on the internet. I find that I have become so accustomed to scrolling while I read off a screen that it is now more difficult for me to read from the pages of a book or even a newspaper.
What may be more important is the ability to customize so many experiences that the rigors of adopting to a classroom may be a burden to some. With the advent of cell phones we can have instantaneous contact with whomever we wish to speak. Email provides a form of communication with a much quicker response time than waiting a week or two for a letter to be answered.
Today's students are used to fitting things in their life to their own timetable. It is far less natural for them to adjust to the rigors of going to a class and paying attention. They are more used to deciding when they are in the mood for thinking about a subject than having say a teacher decide that for them.
For schools with residential campuses, the old cafeterias with trays and no choices have been replaced with food courts offering a wide variety of menus. The introduction of Blackboard or similar on line programs for communicating with students has made it unnecessary for students to write down assignments or find out the dates of exams and due dates on papers. All of this material is on line and so attendance has become more optional for students.
The classroom is an environment over which students have less control. The teacher may ask the student a question which he can't answer or publicly criticize the student for a poor paper or irrelevant comment. And an in class student can't get up and get a cup of coffee if drowsy or grab a sandwich if hungry.
My point is that a classroom involves a surrender of ones autonomy to the behavioral norms required for traditional learning environments. Students who are accustomed to eating what they want and when they want, talking to whomever they want whenever they want, and having much of the details of their responsibilities listed on line, may simply find it easier to learn in an environment that lets them learn when they feel like doing it rather than when their class schedule tells them to do so.
Student Survey
Posted
by Anne Matchett
, Director of Communications
at hands-on Labs, Inc.
on June 29, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
Posted
by Robert W Tucker
, President
at InterEd, Inc.
on June 29, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
It is refreshing to see how the center of the debate has shifted from “online education is not possible and is practiced only by charlatans” to “online education is inferior but sometimes necessary” to its current center where many educators now debate methodological and inferential issues in drawing comparisons between various learning platforms.
Alas, this discussion is also a reminder of the ultra-conservative culture of higher education, to the point of ignoring good science when it suits us. In 1989, when we (in my former life) graduated our first group of eight fully online students in undergraduate business, we presented nascent evidence of the superiority of online learning. That evidence was based on objective learning outcomes research. It was ignored or dismissed as “impossible” by the Department of Education and our regional accrediting body. Five years thereafter, then having graduated many thousand of fully online students, we had acquired compelling evidence that online education was, if properly delivered, superior to face-to-face education in achieving outcomes, even more so as a ratio to inputs. Yet most accrediting bodies at that time embraced language to the effect that quality education cannot occur more than 20 miles from a campus. Some accrediting bodies still honor their great grand-professors with this language.
It is also important to note that online learning serves a new political agenda. Marxist forces are surely playing a role in shaping the DOEd’s findings, if not the science from which they were derived. Students of history will recall the spate of scientific opinion that breast-feeding was unnecessary when we needed women in the workforce during WWII. Thereafter, when we needed the jobs back for our returning soldiers, and needed women in the home raising families, the scientific community found new evidence that breast-feeding was important.
One wonders why higher education clings to the past so adamantly and at times, acrimoniously. One wonders why we continue to experience so much difficulty extricating ourselves from the self-serving guilds that continue to hold us back. Will we ever approach and embrace change with the fresh eyes we hope to find in our students? Online higher education and its debates are leading us in new directions that, by sheer mass alone, are weakening the old beliefs that keep us from exploiting the learning sciences and technologies to become better educators.
On-line learning is not for the faint of heart
Posted
by Dr. William F. Stier, Jr.
, Distinguished Service Professor
at College at Brockport, State University of New York
on June 29, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
I have taught modern on-line courses (5 courses each, for five years as well as earlier forms of so-called “on-line instructional methods” for five years before that) and have found that my undergraduate and graduate students do as well, if not better, than the students do in the same courses taken in the traditional classroom setting. I think it is the quality of teaching and the commitment of the teacher that makes the difference. One has to be committed to make on-line courses successful and students have to be made aware (ahead of time) that on-line learning/teaching is not for everyone and requires hard work, dedication and commitment on behalf of the student (and teacher). I often have to encourage unprepared or unmotivated students to drop my course(s) as it is obvious that the person’s performance and commitment is lacking. On-line learning is not easy and is not for the faint of heart. Rather, it is another method of learning, equally challenging, equally difficult, and equally rewarding, both for the motivated student (and teacher).
Dr. William F. Stier, Jr., Distinguished Service Professor, College at Brockport, State University of New York,
No one sees the big elephant in te room...?
Posted
by WTF
on June 29, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
A meta-analysis is one that takes all of the existing studies and looks at them for patterns and conclusions that can be drawn from the accumulation of evidence.
So, let me get this straight:
They studied already existing research, some of which has problems with validity and reliability, some of which has been accused of bias in favor of online learning effectiveness, some of which shows bias against in-classroom pedagogy.
And we're surprised they found evidence to suggest online learning is better?
I have an idea!
How about the Department of Education commission a whole panel's worth of studies on education effectiveness (online, in-class, and blended) with similar methodology and comparable variables at several universities and colleges across the country?
You know, new research.
Meta-analyses are fine, but c'mon. With the scandalous remediation needed by most college students, this sort of nonsense really should be taken as a call for new, better research, not just making a sweeping pronouncement of what works and what doesn't.
The instructor factor
Posted
by Lesrah
, Teacher
at Public
on June 29, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
Further research may show that the 'preference' or benefits of online learning are due to its comparison watered-down, dilute, stale face-to-face instruction that our higher ed system tolerates,rather than on the best of the best teaching standards. Gains to students from active, capable and engaged instructors seem to have eroded over the years. While instructors focus on and are almost exclusively promoted on basis of research ... teaching suffers and thus the current scenario where online learning is seen as being the same as or better than face-to-face.
OK but add a healthy dose of skepticism
Posted
by Mary Anne Keefer
, Assoc Prof Humanities
at LFCC
on June 29, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
As a 6-year veteran of teaching online and newly instructor of hybrids, I can agree with some of the findings but, as many of you have posted, we need a healthy dose of skepticism in the findings. How valid is the data? A few facts --what about all those who drop out? Are they included? The f2f does have the problem in a literature course that many students do not even bother to read the assignments and just keep quiet during class discussion; whereas, online, students must post and reply to others. However, the online get to cut/paste (save us!) and they are not always caught.
What about the time involved for instructors? We have tons and tons of extra hours creating and grading. I don't always feel my online students are "getting it" and there is so much time I have to email each of them.
What about the sense of community? I've found many of my online courses DO create a real sense of community - but not always.
Just some thoughts...Mary Anne Keefer
Ellen & GH
Posted
by DFS
on June 29, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
Excellent comments.
Make sure that your heads are under armored helmets.
Commnunity?
Posted
by Robin
at UMC
on June 29, 2009 at 7:15pm EDT
@Mary Keefer writes, "What about the sense of community?"
Define community. How does a 500 or 50 person physical class foster community? When is there time?
Many students cannot wait until the official end of the class hour to pack up and rush out. Online, I have found students will go to the "water cooler" or " student lounge" open discussion forum to chit chat. Some students form bonds outside the class based on common interest discovered during the online discussion.
We found in early research that students appear to be more likely to create bonds beyond the end of class for a blended course of 500 than when simply seated in a 500 student lecture.
I will agree that it may be harder for instructors to establish a personal connection with students with a 100% online course but that does not translate into a lack of community between individual classmates. Both has a student and as instructor, I prefer the online course that permits me to learn when body, mind, soul, and lack of distractions is optimal for learning.
Bells are a-ringin' ...
Posted
by SL (again)
, Online and F2F prof
on June 30, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
Robin said: "Some students form bonds outside the class based on common interest discovered during the online discussion. "
LOL ... very true! I can go you one better on this one. I just attended the wedding of two recent graduates who "met" in my blended non-majors course class discussions their first semester at my school. True they were in the same room, but she, being a "good girl", sat in the front row of our stadium-style computer classroom, while he (not saying this makes him BAD or anything?) sat all the way in the back.
We all noticed the sparks starting to fly in their back and forth in the class online discussions ... I think "get a room!" might have even appeared in the getting-to-know-you thread at some point.
But next thing you know, guess who is sitting in the front row too? ;-) They agree they would have never seen anything remotely interesting in each other without meeting "online" first in the class!
They both did VERY well in my class and thereafter at our school too ... both turned into real class leaders and became just one of the cutest couples around.
What a happy outcome all the way around!
Raises more questions than it answers
Posted
by Peter Watson
, Media Distribution Director
at North Carolina State University
on June 30, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
It’s sort of like saying “Chinese food is just as good as Italian”
As others have noted, this raises more questions than it answers – not about online vs. classroom, but about the study itself. Are we comparing similar things or apples to oranges?
We need to know data like demographics; subject matter (extremely important); what kind of “online learning” we’re talking about; classroom parameters (methods, number of students, and so on); when the source research was conducted, and many other important variables.
And listen, I’m a guy whose work is in support of non-classroom instruction. – I should be dancing around when I see articles like this, right? No, not necessarily. I want to know what works: the who, what, why, where and how. If what we are doing needs improvement, I want to improve it. I need precise information to do that, I’m spending taxpayer dollars and our students and faculty need the best I can deliver.
Unless this study answers the questions that have been raised, it will be of little help to those of us who must make informed decisions with limited resources to the best advantage of our mission (which is virtually a definition of my job).
An example of questions that must be clarified: Many of our “non-traditional” students work all day and naturally use online resources. They are older and highly motivated. We could compare these folks to a freshman attending school on Dad’s dime. Guess which group is likely to perform best, under similar circumstances?
One last point for the good of the order: The first comment is from “LM” who laments the lack of student follow through unless instructors “stand over them”. If these students are in college, don’t stand over them. If they don’t do the work, they fail. That’s part of what you should learn in college, regardless of methodology.
Online Teaching Over the Long Haul
Posted
by Sue Stidham
, Associate Professor
at Pittsburg State University
on June 30, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
I've taught a fully online program for five years, and I've learned a great deal about this delivery system. Yes, at first students have steep learning curves because they're adjusting to technology-delivered lessons, a new teacher, and a change in lifestyle by beginning a two-year program. At first many begin with the "I can't" and "I'm frustrated" calls for help. But, it doesn't take long and the students adjust. At the end of our program, students tell us that the strength of our program is that it's totally online. They also say that they do miss face-to-face interaction, but they wouldn't trade the online environment for it because they're too busy and the cost of transportation is too high. As an online instructor, I also miss face-to-face interaction, but I wouldn't go back with this program into the traditional or blended environment because Pittsburg State can now reach far beyond the normal driving boundaries and thus serve more students who want and need our program. .
To LM.
Posted
by Joann Kroll
, Director, Extended Education
at Texas A&M University
on June 30, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
LM,
How does one do "one-on-one" in a lecture hall of 400 students?
JK
To Ellen
Posted
by KSM
, Faculty and Special Projects
at Colorado Community Colleges Online (CCCOnline)
on June 30, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
Looks like you missed it, as there most certainly is a link (URL) to the study so it could be reviewed, right in the first paragraph of the above article: a new meta-analysis.
Outcomes?
Posted
by RCH
, Professor
at Minnesota University
on June 30, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
I skimmed through the report and apparently the specific outcomes measure vary from one study to the next. One report can have mid-term grades as a student outcome, another final examination scores, etc. It is noted in the study that no group-level learning outcomes were used.
If the outcome measure is unsupervised test scores versus in-class testing, I can assure you that a random sampling of online students will perform better, as will my classroom students if allowed to chat with each other, use cell phones, etc.
Again, I teach both and plan to go online 100% in the coming year, but I am not convinced with these findings. The earlier comment about the need for better research is dead on.
Outcomes Assessment
Posted
by Dr. F. Gump
on June 30, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
None of the above (will be useful until we find out what employers think of online education).
How many "A" students wash out in real life because their education was too far out of context?
Education as a commodity
Posted
by MB
, Composition
at private university
on June 30, 2009 at 9:45pm EDT
We have been moving toward consumer-based education for a long time, and online courses fit this mode. We don't want to be bothered with the work and inevitable reward of dedicated focus on learning and self-improvement. We are a quick-fix, commodity based culture, and education has become just another commodity that, if purchased, will help to guarantee your "success," most often defined as a high paying job.
An Online Student's Response
Posted
by B. Knight
, Student in the Masters program for Educational Technology
at University of South Carolina Aiken
on July 1, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
I began a program of study in Educational Technology a little more than two years ago. Wanting to get a Master's Degree, I sought out what I could find within the institution where I am also employed. The online Master's Degree program in Educational Tehnology was appealing to me, as well as being completely online, a necessary requirement since there are no Master's level courses on my campus and I cannot travel during the day to attend in class courses. I must say that up to this point, I have learned a lot in almost every class I've taken so far. I am short just four classes of finisihing this degree program. Some of these online courses have been wonderful, some have been horrid - but they have all afforded me to earn a Master's degree without having to spend time sitting in a classroom anywhere. Since I live miles from most institutions where a Master's degree program of any kind is available, this is especially appealing to me. Although a few of the courses have arrived at my house as a "course in a box", most have not been delivered that way. My favorite courses have been delivered completely online, no boxes needed - or wanted, for that matter. Some professors of these online courses seem to understand that students in their online courses have jobs, families, homes, and many other things to take care of besides completing the readings, assignments, quizzes, tests, etc., for their online courses. However, there are some professors who seem to think that since we are all online students, we have all day, every day to work on their courses on a 24/7 basis. We do not have that kind of time to do this work, or I should say many of us do not. There are some students who have their very own wife to take care of everything they don't have the time or energy to do when their online course(s) take up so much of their lives there is no time left for anything else - not ever. Although these types of online courses are, indeed, very thorough, they are not designed with the learner in mind. Instead, they seem to be designed as a form of tortue just to see how much some students can take and still come out of it alive; especially those who have lives outside of online classes to live as well. For the last two years, I have spent much of my so called "free time" doing extensive amounts of work for online courses. Some professors do take into account that their course is only one course, not all of the courses at once and do keep the amount of material appropriate, interesting, valuable, and not too difficult to get done in a timely manner. There are some professors, however, who seem to think that students in online courses have absolutely nothing else to do but work on their own course all day, every day. Sometimes, that is exactly what it takes to get all of the readings and assignments done. These online courses are not easy by any means, but they do allow me to work on them when I can, at my own pace, and in my pajamas if I want to wear them. The do not give me an easy, free ride to an unearned Masters degree. I now have only two assignments left to finish the course I am currently taking. Not only do I have to figure out how and what I'm supposed to do, since the instructions are very unclear and no amount of questions posed to the professor by many students will get him to budge on giving us a more detailed and understandable explanation, we are also expected to create and answer the questions for the final exam ourselves. What???!!! Okay, I think this is getting out of hand. I don't mind answering your questions at all, dear professor, and I never mind writing how ever many papers you want me to write. I even understand exactly why I'm writing them and what I'm writing about. But, now you want me to make up the questions for my own version of my final exam, and then answer them? Either this exam is going to be much easier than I ever imagined, or I am way off base and have no clue what is really expected here. I do hope it's the former, rather than the latter. There are too many points resting on this final exam for me to mess up now. How sad it would be to see a student work diligently over the course of an entire, but much condensed summer semester, doing very well the entire time, and then misunderstand the incredibly bizarre directions for the final exam and end up failing the entire course because the professor likes to play games. Too bad I don't know or understand the rules of this one last game. I do hope I'm playing correctly.
Of course it's better, probably for most
Posted
by Gisele
, Student
on July 1, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
The online course has to be well-designed and a teacher is still needed to clarify some points but I have thought for decades that computers are terribly under-utilized due to lack of software. I am taking an online course right now and it is fabulous. I spend more time because I can move at my own pace. I can repeat things I don't understand until I do understand or I can access a teacher for clarification. I don't have to be bored listening to teachers clarify for other students. But, for younger students I agree it wouldn't be appropriate. What would be is if every student had a computer at their desk and if the software were in modules designed for each subject the way textbooks are designed for specific subjects and organized into chapters. The computers could do all the testing and marking, even track absentism. The teachers would then be free to assist individual students and to guide the learning of students allowing and helping them to develop faster in areas where they are strong and supporting them in areas where they are weak. It would be like having an IEP for every student. No more lecturing. Discipline problems would probably drop considerably too assuming the material was well-designed. That is key. Sub-standard material, whether it's in a book, a lecture, or a computer, won't deliver results.
2 sides to every story
Posted
by Katie
, Marketing Coordinator
on July 1, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
Throughout my academic career, I have been a traditional student. I went to the University of Michigan, did not take one online course and I absolutely loved it. Once I began working in higher education, I couln't understand why anyone would want to take online classes. Don't you want to work with your peers and listen to your professor give lectures? Why would you choose to sit in front of a computer by yourself? Now I understand.
There always going to be 2 sides to the online education equation. Whether studies show that flexnet education is the best form of learning or traditional campus learning is best, the important parts of the story are that students know the importance of earning a degree and they have the modalities in which to do so. Students need options, especially working adults and active military students. These busy individuals might yearn for a traditional campus setting, but their living/working situations make it difficult. I understand why it's important to track traditional vc.non-traditional successes/failures, but as long as students are receiving a quality education in the manner that best suits them, does it matter?
Re: Online Learning
Posted
by MP
on July 2, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
The Master's degree program I recently finished included traditional on-campus, blended and online courses. One of the main benefits is that online learning can encourage communication among classmates. In all of my online classes, when the professor posted a discussion topic, we had to submit a primary post, directly answering the question, and at least two secondary posts, commenting on other students' answers.
Online learning also provides a forum for people who are naturally oriented towards writing. They may participate more in an online class than they would in an actual classroom.
The disadvantage of online learning is that if an instructor is not really involved with the class, he/she may post all the questions at the beginning of the semester (in a software application such as Blackboard) and never really guide the class through their discussion. A class like this can turn out to be an ongoing dialogue among the students regarding the course materials, but they may not find out until the final project if their submissions were good, and what they need to improve.
Posted
by Kate
, Online Grad Student
at Drexel
on July 2, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
MB:
"We have been moving toward consumer-based education for a long time, and online courses fit this mode. We don't want to be bothered with the work and inevitable reward of dedicated focus on learning and self-improvement. We are a quick-fix, commodity based culture, and education has become just another commodity that, if purchased, will help to guarantee your 'success,' most often defined as a high paying job."
What in the blazes are you talking about? How are those taking online classes not working and focusing on learning and self-improvement? I'd say it's the opposite, if anything. I'm an MLS student who works full-time. Thankfully I work in Philadelphia, where Drexel is located, but because I have a hefty commute (over an hour each way) going to class on-campus, while something I try to do as often as I can, sometimes just doesn't work (especially when I need to travel for work on days I'd have class). Being an online student allows me to fit my education into my daily life without sacrificing my paycheck or sanity. Given that I have little free time to begin with (or, more honestly, energy), I take offense at your insinuation that online education is any less work than traditional, on-campus education. Spending my time working hard at my classwork, I think, makes me as dedicated as any traditional student. Without online education, getting my master's might not be an option.
P "'+/48<@EIMQUY]aeimquy}_WebResourceResponse_Ohttp://www.insidehighered.com/design/standard/javascript/tools/ezjsselection.jsObplist00
X$versionT$topY$archiverX$objects _WebResourceResponse_NSKeyedArchiver &,-3 45KLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[_`U$null
!"#$ %V$classR$3R$8S$10S$11R$5R$6R$4R$7R$2R$9R$0R$1
'()$+WNS.base[NS.relative _Ohttp://www.insidehighered.com/design/standard/javascript/tools/ezjsselection.js./01X$classesZ$classname12UNSURLXNSObject#Aĥw^c
6789BWNS.keysZNS.objects:;<=>?@A
CDEFGHIJ]Accept-RangesVServer\Content-TypeTDate^Content-LengthTEtagZConnection]Last-ModifiedUbytesVApache_application/x-javascript_ Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:46:58 GMTT1725_"d505c4-6bd-46061b2e09700"Uclose_ Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:50:36 GMT./\]]^2_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary./abbc2_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse ) 2 7 : P R d
\ajux~&4:A\| d _application/x-javascriptO//
// Created on: <20-Jul-2004 10:54:01 fh>
//
// SOFTWARE NAME: eZ Publish
// SOFTWARE RELEASE: 4.0.1rc2
// BUILD VERSION: 22188
// COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Copyright (C) 1999-2008 eZ Systems AS
// SOFTWARE LICENSE: GNU General Public License v2.0
// NOTICE: >
// This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
// modify it under the terms of version 2.0 of the GNU General
// Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation.
//
// This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
// GNU General Public License for more details.
//
// You should have received a copy of version 2.0 of the GNU General
// Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free
// Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston,
// MA 02110-1301, USA.
//
//
/*! \file ezjsselection.js
*/
/*!
Invert the status of checkboxes named 'checkboxname' in form 'formname'.
If you have a list of checkboxes name them with 'someName[]' in order to toggle them all.
*/
function ezjs_toggleCheckboxes( formname, checkboxname )
{
with( formname )
{
for( var i=0; i?@AB
DEFGHIJKL]Last-Modified]Accept-RangesVServer\Content-TypeTDate^Content-LengthTEtagUX-PadZConnection_ Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:51:46 GMTUbytesVApache_application/x-javascript_ Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:47:02 GMTU55774_"d606ba-d9de-46061b70cb480"_avoid browser bugUclose./`aab2_NSMutableDictionary\NSDictionary./effg2_NSHTTPURLResponse]NSURLResponse ) 2 7 : P R d
pu~ */>CITtz&).2F h TO/*
* jQuery 1.2.6 - New Wave Javascript
*
* Copyright (c) 2008 John Resig (jquery.com)
* Dual licensed under the MIT (MIT-LICENSE.txt)
* and GPL (GPL-LICENSE.txt) licenses.
*
* $Date: 2008-05-24 14:22:17 -0400 (Sat, 24 May 2008) $
* $Rev: 5685 $
*/
(function(){var _jQuery=window.jQuery,_$=window.$;var jQuery=window.jQuery=window.$=function(selector,context){return new jQuery.fn.init(selector,context);};var quickExpr=/^[^<]*(<(.|\s)+>)[^>]*$|^#(\w+)$/,isSimple=/^.[^:#\[\.]*$/,undefined;jQuery.fn=jQuery.prototype={init:function(selector,context){selector=selector||document;if(selector.nodeType){this[0]=selector;this.length=1;return this;}if(typeof selector=="string"){var match=quickExpr.exec(selector);if(match&&(match[1]||!context)){if(match[1])selector=jQuery.clean([match[1]],context);else{var elem=document.getElementById(match[3]);if(elem){if(elem.id!=match[3])return jQuery().find(selector);return jQuery(elem);}selector=[];}}else
return jQuery(context).find(selector);}else if(jQuery.isFunction(selector))return jQuery(document)[jQuery.fn.ready?"ready":"load"](selector);return this.setArray(jQuery.makeArray(selector));},jquery:"1.2.6",size:function(){return this.length;},length:0,get:function(num){return num==undefined?jQuery.makeArray(this):this[num];},pushStack:function(elems){var ret=jQuery(elems);ret.prevObject=this;return ret;},setArray:function(elems){this.length=0;Array.prototype.push.apply(this,elems);return this;},each:function(callback,args){return jQuery.each(this,callback,args);},index:function(elem){var ret=-1;return jQuery.inArray(elem&&elem.jquery?elem[0]:elem,this);},attr:function(name,value,type){var options=name;if(name.constructor==String)if(value===undefined)return this[0]&&jQuery[type||"attr"](this[0],name);else{options={};options[name]=value;}return this.each(function(i){for(name in options)jQuery.attr(type?this.style:this,name,jQuery.prop(this,options[name],type,i,name));});},css:function(key,value){if((key=='width'||key=='height')&&parseFloat(value)<0)value=undefined;return this.attr(key,value,"curCSS");},text:function(text){if(typeof text!="object"&&text!=null)return this.empty().append((this[0]&&this[0].ownerDocument||document).createTextNode(text));var ret="";jQuery.each(text||this,function(){jQuery.each(this.childNodes,function(){if(this.nodeType!=8)ret+=this.nodeType!=1?this.nodeValue:jQuery.fn.text([this]);});});return ret;},wrapAll:function(html){if(this[0])jQuery(html,this[0].ownerDocument).clone().insertBefore(this[0]).map(function(){var elem=this;while(elem.firstChild)elem=elem.firstChild;return elem;}).append(this);return this;},wrapInner:function(html){return this.each(function(){jQuery(this).contents().wrapAll(html);});},wrap:function(html){return this.each(function(){jQuery(this).wrapAll(html);});},append:function(){return this.domManip(arguments,true,false,function(elem){if(this.nodeType==1)this.appendChild(elem);});},prepend:function(){return this.domManip(arguments,true,true,function(elem){if(this.nodeType==1)this.insertBefore(elem,this.firstChild);});},before:function(){return this.domManip(arguments,false,false,function(elem){this.parentNode.insertBefore(elem,this);});},after:function(){return this.domManip(arguments,false,true,function(elem){this.parentNode.insertBefore(elem,this.nextSibling);});},end:function(){return this.prevObject||jQuery([]);},find:function(selector){var elems=jQuery.map(this,function(elem){return jQuery.find(selector,elem);});return this.pushStack(/[^+>] [^+>]/.test(selector)||selector.indexOf("..")>-1?jQuery.unique(elems):elems);},clone:function(events){var ret=this.map(function(){if(jQuery.browser.msie&&!jQuery.isXMLDoc(this)){var clone=this.cloneNode(true),container=document.createElement("div");container.appendChild(clone);return jQuery.clean([container.innerHTML])[0];}else
return this.cloneNode(true);});var clone=ret.find("*").andSelf().each(function(){if(this[expando]!=undefined)this[expando]=null;});if(events===true)this.find("*").andSelf().each(function(i){if(this.nodeType==3)return;var events=jQuery.data(this,"events");for(var type in events)for(var handler in events[type])jQuery.event.add(clone[i],type,events[type][handler],events[type][handler].data);});return ret;},filter:function(selector){return this.pushStack(jQuery.isFunction(selector)&&jQuery.grep(this,function(elem,i){return selector.call(elem,i);})||jQuery.multiFilter(selector,this));},not:function(selector){if(selector.constructor==String)if(isSimple.test(selector))return this.pushStack(jQuery.multiFilter(selector,this,true));else
selector=jQuery.multiFilter(selector,this);var isArrayLike=selector.length&&selector[selector.length-1]!==undefined&&!selector.nodeType;return this.filter(function(){return isArrayLike?jQuery.inArray(this,selector)<0:this!=selector;});},add:function(selector){return this.pushStack(jQuery.unique(jQuery.merge(this.get(),typeof selector=='string'?jQuery(selector):jQuery.makeArray(selector))));},is:function(selector){return!!selector&&jQuery.multiFilter(selector,this).length>0;},hasClass:function(selector){return this.is("."+selector);},val:function(value){if(value==undefined){if(this.length){var elem=this[0];if(jQuery.nodeName(elem,"select")){var index=elem.selectedIndex,values=[],options=elem.options,one=elem.type=="select-one";if(index<0)return null;for(var i=one?index:0,max=one?index+1:options.length;i=0||jQuery.inArray(this.name,value)>=0);else if(jQuery.nodeName(this,"select")){var values=jQuery.makeArray(value);jQuery("option",this).each(function(){this.selected=(jQuery.inArray(this.value,values)>=0||jQuery.inArray(this.text,values)>=0);});if(!values.length)this.selectedIndex=-1;}else
this.value=value;});},html:function(value){return value==undefined?(this[0]?this[0].innerHTML:null):this.empty().append(value);},replaceWith:function(value){return this.after(value).remove();},eq:function(i){return this.slice(i,i+1);},slice:function(){return this.pushStack(Array.prototype.slice.apply(this,arguments));},map:function(callback){return this.pushStack(jQuery.map(this,function(elem,i){return callback.call(elem,i,elem);}));},andSelf:function(){return this.add(this.prevObject);},data:function(key,value){var parts=key.split(".");parts[1]=parts[1]?"."+parts[1]:"";if(value===undefined){var data=this.triggerHandler("getData"+parts[1]+"!",[parts[0]]);if(data===undefined&&this.length)data=jQuery.data(this[0],key);return data===undefined&&parts[1]?this.data(parts[0]):data;}else
return this.trigger("setData"+parts[1]+"!",[parts[0],value]).each(function(){jQuery.data(this,key,value);});},removeData:function(key){return this.each(function(){jQuery.removeData(this,key);});},domManip:function(args,table,reverse,callback){var clone=this.length>1,elems;return this.each(function(){if(!elems){elems=jQuery.clean(args,this.ownerDocument);if(reverse)elems.reverse();}var obj=this;if(table&&jQuery.nodeName(this,"table")&&jQuery.nodeName(elems[0],"tr"))obj=this.getElementsByTagName("tbody")[0]||this.appendChild(this.ownerDocument.createElement("tbody"));var scripts=jQuery([]);jQuery.each(elems,function(){var elem=clone?jQuery(this).clone(true)[0]:this;if(jQuery.nodeName(elem,"script"))scripts=scripts.add(elem);else{if(elem.nodeType==1)scripts=scripts.add(jQuery("script",elem).remove());callback.call(obj,elem);}});scripts.each(evalScript);});}};jQuery.fn.init.prototype=jQuery.fn;function evalScript(i,elem){if(elem.src)jQuery.ajax({url:elem.src,async:false,dataType:"script"});else
jQuery.globalEval(elem.text||elem.textContent||elem.innerHTML||"");if(elem.parentNode)elem.parentNode.removeChild(elem);}function now(){return+new Date;}jQuery.extend=jQuery.fn.extend=function(){var target=arguments[0]||{},i=1,length=arguments.length,deep=false,options;if(target.constructor==Boolean){deep=target;target=arguments[1]||{};i=2;}if(typeof target!="object"&&typeof target!="function")target={};if(length==i){target=this;--i;}for(;i-1;}},swap:function(elem,options,callback){var old={};for(var name in options){old[name]=elem.style[name];elem.style[name]=options[name];}callback.call(elem);for(var name in options)elem.style[name]=old[name];},css:function(elem,name,force){if(name=="width"||name=="height"){var val,props={position:"absolute",visibility:"hidden",display:"block"},which=name=="width"?["Left","Right"]:["Top","Bottom"];function getWH(){val=name=="width"?elem.offsetWidth:elem.offsetHeight;var padding=0,border=0;jQuery.each(which,function(){padding+=parseFloat(jQuery.curCSS(elem,"padding"+this,true))||0;border+=parseFloat(jQuery.curCSS(elem,"border"+this+"Width",true))||0;});val-=Math.round(padding+border);}if(jQuery(elem).is(":visible"))getWH();else
jQuery.swap(elem,props,getWH);return Math.max(0,val);}return jQuery.curCSS(elem,name,force);},curCSS:function(elem,name,force){var ret,style=elem.style;function color(elem){if(!jQuery.browser.safari)return false;var ret=defaultView.getComputedStyle(elem,null);return!ret||ret.getPropertyValue("color")=="";}if(name=="opacity"&&jQuery.browser.msie){ret=jQuery.attr(style,"opacity");return ret==""?"1":ret;}if(jQuery.browser.opera&&name=="display"){var save=style.outline;style.outline="0 solid black";style.outline=save;}if(name.match(/float/i))name=styleFloat;if(!force&&style&&style[name])ret=style[name];else if(defaultView.getComputedStyle){if(name.match(/float/i))name="float";name=name.replace(/([A-Z])/g,"-$1").toLowerCase();var computedStyle=defaultView.getComputedStyle(elem,null);if(computedStyle&&!color(elem))ret=computedStyle.getPropertyValue(name);else{var swap=[],stack=[],a=elem,i=0;for(;a&&color(a);a=a.parentNode)stack.unshift(a);for(;i]*?)\/>/g,function(all,front,tag){return tag.match(/^(abbr|br|col|img|input|link|meta|param|hr|area|embed)$/i)?all:front+">";});var tags=jQuery.trim(elem).toLowerCase(),div=context.createElement("div");var wrap=!tags.indexOf("",""]||!tags.indexOf("",""]||tags.match(/^<(thead|tbody|tfoot|colg|cap)/)&&[1,"
