Table Of ContentLEARNING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT: DEEP LEARNING AND
ACCELERATED ONLINE GRADUATE COURSES
by
Anastasia M. Trekles, Ph.D.
Pam Frampton, Ph.D.
Purdue University Calumet
A Research Study Sponsored by Academic Partnerships
Spring, 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. 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. The
study focused on a Master’s in Educational Administration program at Purdue University
Calumet, a partner of Academic Partnerships. 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.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 31
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 58
CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ..................................................... 101
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ................................................... 166
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 190
APPENDIX A. THE REVISED TWO-FACTOR STUDY PROCESS
QUESTIONNAIRE (R-SPQ-2F) ........................................................................ 198
APPENDIX B. MERRILL’S EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, AND ENGAGING DESIGN
RUBRIC and the SOLO TAxonomy .................................................................. 201
iii
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 ........................ 76
Table 2. Table for Collecting Data Related to Accelerated Online Course ILOs
Based on the SOLO Taxonomy ............................................................................ 85
Table 3. Overall Surface and Deep Approach Scores with Overall Motivation and
Strategy Subscale Score ...................................................................................... 113
Table 4. Surface Motivation Statements with Overall Means per Statement ................. 114
Table 5. Surface Strategy Statements with Overall Means per Statement ..................... 115
Table 6. Deep Motivation Statements with Overall Means per Statement ..................... 116
Table 7. Deep Strategy Statements with Overall Means per Statement ......................... 117
Table 8. All Participants' Surface Motivation (SM), Surface Strategy (SS), Deep
Motivation (DM), and Deep Strategy (DS) Scores and Means on R-SPQ-2F ... 119
Table 9. Illustration Displaying Course Objectives for All Analyzed Courses based
on the SOLO Taxonomy ..................................................................................... 149
Table 10. Illustration Displaying Summary of First Principles Presence in Each
Course ................................................................................................................. 160
iv
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). ......................................................................................... 38
Figure 2. Themes revealed by R-SPQ-2F analysis. ........................................................ 121
Figure 3. Themes revealed by interview analysis. ......................................................... 145
Figure 4. Model of interrelationships between themes found in the study and surface
motive, surface strategy, deep motive, and deep strategy. .................................. 171
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following study report describes details on the methods and outcomes of a
qualitative case study involving the Master of Science in Education with an emphasis on
Educational Administration at Purdue University Calumet. The study was designed in
order to shed light on the effectiveness of the instructional design and delivery methods
used within this program to ensure that learners in this accelerated, online 15-month
master’s program were given access to a quality education that led them toward deep
learning appropriate for the graduate level. This case study examined the learning
approaches used by students within the program in order to attempt to answer the
following research questions:
1. How do learners approach their learning in accelerated, asynchronous online
graduate courses?
2. Which instructional design characteristics and strategies used in accelerated
asynchronous online courses play a role in helping learners reach deeper levels
of learning?
In order to accomplish this, all students enrolled in the program (n=136) were
asked to participate in an electronic version of the Revised Two-Factor Study Process
Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) (Biggs, Kember & Leung, 2010) in order to obtain baseline
data on their approaches to learning. After completing the survey, students were invited
to volunteer to participate in follow-up, in-depth interviews. Finally, nine of the ten
1
courses in the program, excluding the internship, were analyzed through the use of
Merrill’s (2012) First Principles of Instruction and the SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Tang,
2007). These three types of data were collected and analyzed using a constant
comparative analysis technique to better understand the factors that contributed to the use
of either surface or deep approaches to learning within the accelerated, online, graduate
context.
In response to Research Question 1, the following was discovered based on
results from the R-SPQ-2F and the follow-up interviews:
• Learning approach is heavily influenced by time, and compressed time can lead to
surface-level approaches to learning.
• Graduate students appear to hold high levels of personal motivation and self-
discipline when it comes to their studies, leading to deeper approaches to learning
overall.
• Consistent course structure, content, and delivery are highly important to ensuring
that students are able to acclimate themselves to their course quickly, leading to
higher levels of deep learning strategies.
• Inconsistencies in assignment scheduling and the use of quizzes and exams over
project-based and field-based assignments tended to lead toward more surface-
level approaches to learning.
• Peer interaction and a focus on real-world application were cited as important for
enhancing students’ interest in courses, and thus, their overall tendencies toward
deep approaches to learning.
In response to Research Question 2, the following was discovered based on
2
results from course analysis, and comparison to interview and R-SPQ-2F data:
• Course analysis showed that SOLO levels of objectives covered the
spectrum fairly evenly between unistructural, multistructural, relational,
and extended abstract. The most common verbs were examine, define,
describe, discuss, analyze, apply, collaborate, rationalize, summarize,
evaluate, reflect, and design. This is consistent with Biggs and Tang’s
discussion of the SOLO Taxonomy and intended use of it – as learning
demands increase in complexity, they should be reflected in SOLO Levels
employed.
• Common course features included a consistent course interface for every
course, divided into weekly modules for each of the 5 weeks of each
course. Objectives were provided at the beginning of each unit, in
addition to a checklist of things to do and a discussion to allow students to
ask open questions about the course topics at the end of each unit.
• Some courses had more assignments than others, and some courses
featured quizzes as opposed to projects. The course in special education
law and the course in curriculum leadership tended to receive the most
feedback from students, and it was found that these had a large number of
readings and discussions compared to others, and also included some
divergent features like “mini-projects” and due dates that were at different
points within the week instead of the preferred Sunday due date that most
students seemed to appreciate the most.
• Some participants noted a lack of direction or clear assessment criteria
3
present in some of their individual course assignments, and their
comments were substantiated in the review of the course materials. Often,
instructions for completing assignments were straightforward and simple,
and less than a page in length, although in some cases, the assignment may
have warranted more explication in order to provide clear guidance.
• Worked examples of what finished projects looked like were not common,
only being featured in three courses, although two courses used real-world
case studies in the form of video. Many others used only text-based cases
as examples. Multimedia was in fact not extensive on most of the courses
also many provided some measure of narrated PowerPoint at the
beginning of most – and sometimes all – weekly modules. Students were
also asked to use a variety of computer-based tools to create and
communicate, including Microsoft PowerPoint for presentations and
Skype or Google Docs for collaboration.
• Application was strongly encouraged and many projects were highly
problem-based. Students were continually asked to put themselves into
the role of an educational leader, performing field experiences, shadowing
practicing administrators, interviewing school officials, and analyzing
school policies.
• Coaching and feedback from the instructor and other students were also
very important parts of the courses, and although some students in
interviews noted that these things were not always consistent, the
structures were present to offer coaching and feedback at multiple levels
4
to guide understanding. Most courses built from less complex to more
complex in terms of tasks and concepts, and the program itself built in this
way as well, adding more extensive field experiences until students are
ready to complete their internship.
In summary, while there is still much yet left to learn about the effective design of
accelerated learning environments, this exploratory study cites a number of strong
recommendations that warrant further use and investigation. Consistency, project-based
activities, and real-world application were among the most important strategies noted by
this study, indicating that students may be willing to devote more effort and use deeper
approaches to learning when these elements are included in their coursework. On the
other hand, courses that do not take time, the needs and prior knowledge of adult
learners, consistency in format and technology, or real-world understanding of critical
theories and skills into account may prompt students to adopt more surface approaches
to learning.
5
