What changes online participation in education?

It is frequently assumed that the Internet facilitates participation in educational services. However, this is not dependent merely on whether indeed educational institutions develop and offer online services: The characteristics or skills among users may also facilitate, or obstruct, educational participation on the Net – the following section will deal with this aspect in greater depth. But what happens if online participation in education succeeds? What changes will this bring?

Studies conducted on online educational services show that the underlying technical conditions influence how effective the platform can be. Above all, a distinction is made between synchronous and asynchronous platforms. This reveals that synchronous communication, meaning direct communication between teachers and students, also among the students themselves, positively affects the learning success (Duncan et al., 2012). In particular, synchronous communication creates a sense of stronger involvement among the participants, prompting them to become more active and to participate to a larger extent (Hratinski, 2008).

Studies conducted so far suggest that online education should not be shy of a comparison with offline services. Comparative studies confirm that students in online courses show greater engagement than those taking offline courses (Robinson & Hullinger, 2008). A reason for this may be that online courses are more self-managed and hence require greater self-discipline. On many occasions online participation is associated with better examination performances (Davies & Graff, 2005; Stewart et al., 2011). It is indeed possible that active online participation acts as an indicator for a student’s motivation, which in turn exhibits a positive correlation with performance in examinations. At this point there may be a positive self-reinforcement effect, as successful students frequently show greater online participation and are more prone to interactive communication (Robinson & Hullinger, 2008). Participation in online offerings does not show any negative repercussions on offline participation when online and offline elements are provided simultaneously (Stewart et al., 2011).

However, the insight described here commonly assumes that there are hierarchical structures of teaching and learning. What is considered here is therefore a typical school or study context, which takes place partially or entirely on the Internet. By contrast, participation in education produces further repercussions whenever previous structures and processes are called into question. This is true in particular when the Internet fosters collaboration between the students. In these cases the students establish networks of relationships to suit their needs, and the interaction and dialogue enabled therein shape the learning experience (Hratinski, 2009). Students possess greater autonomy in these networks (McBrien et al., 2009). The learning experience centres around the students, their decisions and collaboration (Arbaugh, 2000; Hratinski, 2008; Erstad, 2006).

The Internet supports sharing between students even in situations that the educational provider did not intend. An example of this is the controversy around rating teachers and professors on the Net (Rambe, 2012). So even if there are no specific offerings for communication between students, it cannot simply be prevented. This is the reason why more recent pedagogical concepts define the role of the teacher less as the provider of information and more as that of a facilitator (Reimer, 2003; Duncan et al., 2012). The Net holds countless places where information can be found; the pedagogue is characterised by guiding or facilitating the process of information acquisition. Therefore, this is not a unilateral transfer of knowledge, as the Net in particular offers teachers the opportunity to learn from other participants (Asselin & Moayeri, 2011).

It goes without saying that the online world of education is far from perfect. Online participation in education most certainly comes with challenges. Among them is once more the question of intellectual property. It is not uncommon in an online learning environment to source content quickly, without clarifying legal entitlement (copyright, trademarks, etc.). There are occasional warnings, also, that as a learning environment, the Internet holds far too many distractions and that as a result the students may suffer from lapses in concentration and attentiveness (Rambe, 2012). Asynchronous online communication can produce delays and misunderstandings (Hesse & Giovis, 1997). New examination forms must be established, as fresh forms of cheating spread quickly among students (Grell & Rau, 2011). Individual studies tackle the question of whether online learning – entirely bereft of physical communication or face-to-face study – may lead to isolation among students. It is certainly true that participants in online courses engage in less intensive communication with their colleagues than those taking offline courses (Rabe-Hemp et al., 2009). But by the same token: The options found on the Internet introduce greater sociability and interaction to distance learning than was the case in pre-digital times (McBrien et al., 2009).