Can virtual learning spaces be as

effective as face-to-face learning

spaces for nurturing learning
communities?

Created By:
The Google Gals

Introduction
As a student have you ever been given the option
of taking an online course, or a face-to-face
course?
Have you considered the pros and cons of both?
Have you found that online courses lack a sense of
community?
Have you considered what makes each option
effective or ineffective?

Introduction Continued ...

We, the Google Gals, explored these questions
to get some quantitative data on the topic.
We have highlighted some pros and cons of
each, and presented our overall findings.
Next time you are given the option, will your
answer be the same?

Main Research Questions

1. Can online learning spaces be as effective as
face-to-face learning spaces for nurturing
learning communities?
2. What rhetorical features make them effective
or ineffective?

Research Scope
We evaluated three online learning
communities using a rubric, developed by our
team, and then compared the effectiveness of
those online learning communities with faceto-face learning communities.

learning Community
We are defining a learning community as a
group of individuals who are interested in a
common topic or area, and who participate in
knowledge acquisition activities with the aim of
accomplishing predetermined outcomes.

Websites Evaluated
The websites we evaluated were;
1. Nexus University of Winnipegs online learning
environment.
2. VOD - University of Winnipegs online video on
demand learning environment.
3. Khan Academy Non-profit educational
organization that provides online courses.
Click on the links to explore these learning spaces for
yourself!

Websites Evaluated Continued...

Some differences between the websites
evaluated:
Paid courses offered vs free courses offered.
Courses for enrolled students vs nonenrolled students.
Learning for credit vs learning to improve
skills.

Method of Analysis
We used the visual rhetoric method of analysis
to perform our evaluations, and to determine
the websites effective/ineffective features.

This method of analysis focuses on how the

visual communicates meaning using the visual
model of interpretation (Blakesley, David and
Collin Brooke).

Method of Analysis Continued...

Visual elements of a website such as colours,
forms, images, and textures make up the visual
(Goldrick-Jones, Amanda).

The visual mode of interpretation explores the

visual, and interprets its intention based on
symbolism (Blakesley, David and Collin Brooke).

The Visual
Some of the visual criteria we used to evaluate the websites included:
Multimedia tools used (discussion boards, video lectures,
presentations, emails).
Design elements chosen (lighting, textures,
foreground/background colours, font size/colour/style).
Visual symbols and images used (pictures, logos, symbols).
Site navigation organization (scannable text used linked/highlighted words, content summary first-detail later).
Content platforms chosen (words, sounds, videos, images).

Method of Analysis Continued...

The evaluations performed on all websites were based on
Lunsfords method of analysis. This method consists of
examining the websites message by inspecting the following
visual elements of arguments:
1. The creators and distributors.
2. The medium it uses.
3. The viewers and readers it hopes to reach.
4. Its content and purpose.
5. Its design.

The Rubric Used

To ensure our website evaluations were thorough,
objective, consistent, and well focused to answer our
research goals, we created a scoring rubric that was used
for both evaluations.

The rubric criteria was defined in a way where it could be

scored using the visual method of analysis.

Rubric Used Continued ...

Click the following link to be taken to a
webpage featuring our rubric.
Rubric Website Link
Feel free to download our rubric and use
it to evaluate a website of your choice.

Analysis of Nexus and VOD

Analyzed two online courses (team member currently enrolled
in both):
1) Rhetoric and the World Wide Web (RHET-3152)
NEXUS
2) Introduction to Disability Studies (DIS-1003)
NEXUS/VOD

Analysis of Nexus and VOD

Continued...

RUBRIC HIGHLIGHTS:

Accommodation of Learning Styles Good (3) to Excellent (4)

RHET-3152/ DIS-1003

Several multimedia tools used in both courses.

Course format geared to most learning styles (visual, tactile
(hands-on), reading/writing preferences) but not for auditory
learners who rely on verbal instructions.

Analysis of Nexus and VOD

Continued...
Learner Involvement
RHET-3152 - Good (3)

Students somewhat actively involved.

No video lectures strictly textual-based learning with
some symbols incorporated with text.
DIS-1003 - Excellent (4)

Video lectures provided a visual element to the course.

Analysis of Nexus and VOD

Continued...
Engagement of Online Community Good (3) Excellent (4)
Group Interaction
RHET-3152
Promotes online learning and creativity through team projects.
Discussion boards engaged online learning.
Students must post/reply for marks in the course.
Video Lecture
DIS-1003
Video lectures humanize the online learning environment.
Video lectures provided a sense of community.

Analysis of Nexus and VOD

Continued...
Discussion Boards
DIS-1003
Disadvantage was that the discussion threads did not
remain on Nexus for later reference in contrast to RHET3152.
Discussion posts do encourage students to do online
research, however, there were no team projects for online
community engagement.

Analysis of Nexus and VOD

Continued...
We found that Nexus and VOD online learning sites used
words, sound, video, and images to engage the online
learners.
Various multimedia tools such as discussion boards, video
lectures, PowerPoint presentations, email, links etc. worked
together to create an interactive online learning
environment.

Analysis of Nexus and VOD

Continued...
The rhetorical strategies of Nexus were designed to attract
our attention through visual appeal (text, symbols,
design), linking students to other media (VOD, online
readings) and incorporating interactive elements
(discussion boards, Email, group chats) to engage online
learners.

Analysis of Khan Academy

We found that Khan Academy excelled at several aspects, such as
content purpose, scannable text, and visual design. However, it
did lack in aspects such as learner involvement, and participation
expectation.

Each video posted is directly related to the topic labeled.

Each subject is colour coded, and there are several topics
listed under each subject.
The majority of the background is white making it easy to
read content.

Ex: Colour Coded Subjects

Face-to-Face Learning Spaces

In order to compare online virtual learning
spaces to face-to-face learning spaces we
conducted research on face-to-face learning
spaces.
We found several benefits,
as well as drawbacks, to these
spaces.

Face-to-Face Learning Spaces Pros

Additional information is available through nonverbal
communication.
Offers a multi-sensory appeal.
Students can actively participate in hands-on activities.
Classrooms offer greater personal contact, which facilitates
the formation of relationships.
Interaction is immediate.

Face-to-Face Learning Spaces Cons

Class times are structured, which limits flexibility with
work and other activities.
Generally, in-class instruction is not available after the
classroom session is over.
Students who struggle to focus may find the classroom
to be distracting, and may have trouble retaining the
material covered in class.
The instructor sets the pace.

Conclusion
Through our in-depth analysis and evaluation of the arguments
created through the visual elements on the Nexus, VOD, and Khan
Academy websites, we determined that online learning spaces CAN
be as effective as face-to-face learning spaces for nurturing learning
communities.
These three websites consisted of a group of individuals who are
interested in a common topic or area, and who participate in
knowledge acquisition activities with the aim of accomplishing
predetermined outcomes; effectively defining them as learning
communities.

Conclusion Continued ...

As the message sent by these three learning communities was
effective, based on their high rubric scores from our evaluation of
Lunsfords visual elements of arguments, we viewed them as
nurturing learning communities with quantitatively comparable
pros and cons to face-to-face learning communities.
We determined that there are both effective, and ineffective
features of an online learning community which ultimately
influence whether it is a nurturing learning community or not,
which include:

Effective Rhetorical Features of

Online Learning Spaces
Asynchronous interaction.
Incorporation of several multimedia tools can accommodate
more student learning styles.
Discussion forums can create dialogue and critical thinking.
Online courses can reach more students.
Technology can be used to appeal to students.
Delicate choices of text and headings can be visually inviting.

Ineffective Rhetorical Features of

Online Learning Spaces
Asynchronous aspect can delay student response time.

If multimedia tools are limited, fewer learning styles

and students can be accommodated.
Amount of links and readings can be overwhelming.
Navigating through a website can be frustrating for
students who are not comfortable using technology.

What do you think?

We would love to hear what you think!
Are our findings consistent with what you have
experienced in similar learning environments?
Join the discussion, by visiting our website,
clicking on the discussion tab, and posting a
reply.

Bibliography
Blackboard Exemplary Course Program Rubric. Blackboard Community Programs. 2012. PDF.
Blakesley, David and Collin Brooke. Introduction: Notes on Visual Rhetoric. Enculturation. 3.2 (Fall
2001):1-4. Internet resource.

Dongsong Zhang, J. Leon Zhao, Lina Zhou, Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr. Can e-learning replace classroom
learning? Communications of the ACM - New architectures for financial services. 47.5 (2004): 75-79. Print.
Goldrick-Jones, Amanda. Visual Rhetoric. University of Winnipeg, Nexus. September 8, 2014. Course Notes.
Kokemuller, Neil. Online Learning vs. Classroom Learning. Global Post: Americas World News Site. Web.
Lunsford, Andrea A. and John J. Ruszkiewicz. Everythings an Argument: Sixth Edition. Boston, NY Bedford,
St. Martins, 2013. PDF.
Visual Rhetoric/Visual Literacy: Crafting and Evaluating Websites. Writing Studio: Duke University. n.d.
PDF.

Website Evaluation Rubric. Pearson Education. 2010. PDF

Created by: The Google Gals

Chantal Verrier
Kathleen McLeod
Emma Gee
Janis Ollson