Learning at the Speed of Light: Deep Learning and Accelerated Online Graduate Courses

209 Pages·2013·1.14 MB·English

by  Anastasia Marie Trekles

LEARNING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: DEEP LEARNING AND
ACCELERATED ONLINE GRADUATE COURSES
by
Anastasia M. Trekles

ROD SIMS, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair
KIMBERLY RYNEARSON, PhD, Committee Member
CHARLOTTE REDDEN, PhD, Committee Member

Feranda Williamson, PhD, Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University
April 2013
© Anastasia Trekles, 2013
Abstract
An increasing number of university programs, particularly at the graduate level, are
moving to an accelerated, time-compressed model for online degree offerings. However,
the literature revealed that research in distance education effectiveness is still confounded
by many variables, including course design and student approach to learning.
Particularly in graduate-level coursework, it is essential that students gain deep, expert-
level understanding within their given fields, but how accelerated programs can best
serve this need has remained largely unexplored. The purpose of this investigative,
embedded single-case study was to explore instructional design strategies and
characteristics of online, asynchronous accelerated courses and students’ choices of deep
or surface learning approaches within this environment. Through qualitative exploration
of data from the Revised Study Process Questionnaire, student interviews, and course
design analysis of an online, accelerated master's program in educational administration,
it was found that these adult learners overall approached learning quite deeply. As an
implication for program and instructional designers, course activities that were engaging,
hands-on, practical, and collaborative were found to encourage students to adopt deeper
approaches more often. When courses were consistent and user-friendly, students were
able to adopt routines that allowed them to complete coursework in the limited time that
they had, given their many professional and personal obligations. However, when due
dates were changed frequently, or when too many exams or less clear and engaging
projects were given over those that were more complex and authentic, students tended to
adopt more surface approaches to learning.
Dedication
Many people stood behind me to help make this work possible, including my parents,
Bob and Wendy, and many beloved colleagues including Helen, Pam, Bob, Lynn, Emily,
and Brandi. Without the many people in my life who have supported me during my
doctoral journey, this work may never have come to fruition, so I thank all of them
deeply for their support.
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Rod Sims, for his kind and gentle support
throughout my research, as well as my committee members, Dr. Kim Rynearson and Dr.
Charlotte Redden for their advice and insightful, thought-provoking observations. I
would also like to acknowledge the helpful advice received from a number of outside
mentors, including Dr. Edward Vockell, Dr. Emily Hixon, Dr. Dean Larson, Dr. Diana
Underwood, and Dr. Gayle Millsaps.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. ii
Dedication ......................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................................................... 98
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................. 163
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 187
APPENDIX A. THE REVISED TWO-FACTOR STUDY PROCESS
QUESTIONNAIRE (R-SPQ-2F) ........................................................................ 195
APPENDIX B. MERRILL’S EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, AND ENGAGING DESIGN
RUBRIC AND THE SOLO TAXONOMY ....................................................... 198

v
List of Tables
Table 1. Illustration of the R-SPQ-2F Statements and Their Categorization as
Either Surface or Deep and Related to Either Motive or Strategy ........................ 70
Table 2. Table for Collecting Data Related to Accelerated Online Course ILOs
Based on the SOLO Taxonomy ............................................................................ 79
Table 3. Overall Surface and Deep Approach Scores with Overall Motivation and
Strategy Subscale Score ...................................................................................... 109
Table 4. Surface Motivation Statements with Overall Means per Statement ................. 111
Table 5. Surface Strategy Statements with Overall Means per Statement ..................... 112
Table 6. Deep Motivation Statements with Overall Means per Statement ..................... 113
Table 7. Deep Strategy Statements with Overall Means per Statement ......................... 114
Table 8. All Participants' Surface Motivation (SM), Surface Strategy (SS), Deep
Motivation (DM), and Deep Strategy (DS) Scores and Means on R-SPQ-2F ... 116
Table 9. Illustration Displaying Course Objectives for All Analyzed Courses based
on the SOLO Taxonomy ..................................................................................... 146
Table 10. Illustration Displaying Summary of First Principles Presence in Each
Course ................................................................................................................. 157
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Comparison of SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982; Biggs & Tang, 2007)
to Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (L. Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Krathwohl,
2002) with sample learning outcome verbs and indication of when schemata
become more developed and curriculum moves from quantitative to qualitative
phase, beginning at the Relational/Analyzing level (Biggs & Tang, 2007;
Bransford et al., 2000). ......................................................................................... 33
Figure 2. Themes revealed by R-SPQ-2F analysis. ........................................................ 118
Figure 3. Themes revealed by interview analysis. ......................................................... 142
Figure 4. Model of interrelationships between themes found in the study and surface
motive, surface strategy, deep motive, and deep strategy. .................................. 168

vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
Distance education is one of the most prevalent and important trends in education
today. At all levels, learners expect to be able to work on assignments and projects
anytime, anywhere, and far beyond the walls of a traditional classroom (L. Johnson,
Smith, Willis, Levine, & Haywood, 2011; Picciano & Seaman, 2008). L. Johnson et al.
(2011) noted that new technologies such as tablet computers have allowed this trend to
expand exponentially toward ever more innovative and sophisticated mobile learning
opportunities. Taking education “on the road” has become commonplace, as illustrated
by the growth in online versus traditional enrollment at a rate of nearly ten to one since
2003 (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Many prospective distance learners have also sought out
accelerated or intensive academic programs for degree completion, which require far less
completion time than traditional programs (C. Johnson, 2009). Millions of people are
now learning online and at faster rates than ever before, but are they learning as well, or
better, than they have in more traditional settings?
As a science of the development of learning experiences, instructional design
theories and models have had an extensive impact on the distance education sphere.
Merrill (2002) noted that the large array of theories that have been proposed over the
years all have value, and that many share core concepts related to the methods and
strategies used to design instruction, assessment, and supporting media. One of the
1
primary concepts that instructional design theories share is the goal of helping learners
achieve the objectives set before them effectively, in any learning endeavor. In other
words, regardless of the instructional context or setting, instructional design principles
apply anytime there is a desire to increase learners’ knowledge. This concept is at the
heart of the instructional designer’s specialization and core competencies.
Within distance education settings, however, observing whether learners are
meeting given objectives is no simple proposition. When students engage in online
coursework, are they completing it to the instructor’s specifications merely to achieve a
grade or particular extrinsic goal? Or, are they truly engaging deeply in the content and
gaining intrinsically valuable knowledge? Research shows that graduate education has
the ability to enhance critical and higher-order thinking about specialized topics, and
those pursuing advanced degrees typically seek such qualities (Clotfelter, Ladd, &
Vigdor, 2007; Wier, Stone, & Hunton, 2005). Yet, the movement toward accelerated
coursework allows students to transcend both time and place, allowing learners the
freedom to work more quickly toward their desired goals (Pastore, 2010; Seamon, 2004).
However, regardless of the instructional design of such coursework, deep learning of
program objectives and the approaches learners take to get there may be difficult to
assess properly, as learners may not be given enough time to adequately internalize
course materials.
Upon consulting the literature on instructional design, distance education, deep
learning, and accelerated coursework, it is clear that more investigation is needed to fully
understand the complex interplay that occurs between learners, materials, and time in
online graduate programs (Biggs and Tang, 2007; C. Johnson, 2009; Seamon, 2004;
2