The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Online Learning for Students from Diverse Backgrounds: Learning
Disability Students, Excellent Students and Average Students

Miri Shonfeld and Ilana Ronen

13

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Abstract
The perceived contribution of science education online course to pre-service students (N=121)
from diverse backgrounds - students with learning disabilities (25 LD students), 28 excellent
students and 68 average students is presented in this five years research. During the online course
students were asked to choose a scientific subject; to map it and to plan teaching activities; tocarry out the proposed activities with students in a classroom experience; and to reflect theprocess. The assumption was that adapting the online course by using information andcommunication technology following formative assessment will improve students' self-learning
ability as well as broaden their science knowledge, their lab performance and teaching skills.
Data were collected using quantitative and qualitative tools including: pre and post questionnaires
and nine (three students from each group) depth interviews upon completion of the course.
Findings, based on students` perceived evaluation, pinpointed on the advantages of the online
course for students of the three groups. LD students’ achievements were not inferior to those of
their peers, excellent students and average students. Yet, it carefully reports on a slight but
explicitly marginal perceived evaluation of the LD students in comparison to excellent students
and average students regarding: forum participation, authentic task and water lab performance.
The article discusses the affordance of the online course via additional features that can begrouped into two categories: knowledge construction and flexibility in time, interaction andknowledge. Further research is suggested to extend the current study by examine the effect ofother courses and different contents and by considering various evaluation methods of online
courses, such as: observation, the think aloud, text and tasks analysis, and reflection.
Keywords: Online learning; students with learning disability; excellent students; scienceeducation.

14

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Introduction
The advantages of an online Science Education course to pre-service students (students in theirsecond grade toward B.Ed degree) from diverse backgrounds are presented in this study. In lightof the importance of online learning as a teaching tool, an ongoing five-year study was designed
to face the challenge of adapting a course for three groups of students: students with learning
disabilities, excellent students, and average students. The "Science Education" on-line course ispart of the teacher-training program for K-2 pre-service teachers which focuses on constructing ascience teaching unit and is based mainly on learning scientific concepts, including fostering lab
skills, and practicum. Adapting a science education online course by using information andcommunication technology following formative assessment was a challenge for students withdifferent needs and capabilities as well as for their lecturers. The study will describe students`
evaluation of the perceived advantages of the online course and the way it dealt with thechallenge.
Literature Review
Accessibility of online learning
During the last twenty years, studies focusing on the integration of Information andCommunication Technology (ICT) in teaching (Chazan, 2001), shows teacher and student lackof knowledge of technology (Wegner, Holloway, & Crader, 1998), and hardware limitations(Goldstein, Shonfeld, Waldman, et al., 2011; Kreka, 1996) .During this time new technologybased teaching methods and processes have been developed and incorporated in active learning
processes (Venezky & Davis, 2002). Additionally, a great number of studies on theappropriateness of the learning styles (Fuller, Norby, Pearce, & Strand, 2000), and thecharacteristics of students who benefit from online courses (Lockee, 2001) have also been made.
Tthere are no conclusive answers to the nature and extent of the impact of online learning forstudents with diverse backgrounds. Researchers agree that students taking online course are
required to possess self-learning abilities, maturity and high self-discipline, high motivation, thecapability of expression and communication in writing, time organization skills (Leasure, Davis,& Thievon, 2000), as well as the ability to manage an online learning environment (Buchanan,
1999; Diaz & Cartnal, 1999; Trentin, 2002).
Furthermore, Cavanaugh, Barbour & Clark (2009) pointed to greater improvement in criticalthinking, researching, use of computers, independent learning, problem solving, creative thinking,decision-making, and time management skills of online students compared to their counterpartsin traditional classroom settings. Not surprisingly, the online learning environment poses somechallenges to student learning as well as numerous benefits. The challenges most often reported
in the research literature generally fall into two broad categories: challenges due to a mismatch
between students' specific learning style preferences and the online learning environment andchallenges in communication. With respect to these challenges, researchers suggested that in an
online environment extroverted students may miss the face-to-face interaction with peers andstudents who do not have strong verbal/reading skills may experience a disadvantage in a textheavy online environment. In addition, using problem solving and computer-mediatedcommunication, such as the MindTool software (essentially any computer program the learneruses to engage and facilitate critical thinking and higher order learning, such as: databases;
semantic networks -concept maps; spreadsheets; expert systems; system modelling tools; microworlds; search engines; visualization tools; multimedia publishing tools; live conversation
environments; and computer conferences), may encourage critical thinking and can help in
implementing cooperative learning based on technology (Jonassen, 2005).
Diverse background students
15

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Policies to promote widening participation, benchmarks, and incentives to recruit students from
more diverse backgrounds and those with disabilities have led to a doubling of the declared
number of students with disabilities entering higher education over the last 10 years (NLCLE,
2007). Counterpart to the students with learning disabilities is the excellent students who are an
integral part of higher education (see Methodology).
Students with learning disabilities
Students with learning disabilities might be affected by a group of disorders that affect the ability
to acquire and use listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or math skills (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2000). Profiling individuals with LD is not easy because the most citedcharacteristic of this group is that each individual is unique. However, despite the diversity, mostindividuals with LD share some common patterns of behavior. They have decreased motivation
to learn, are inactive in learning, need tasks to be broken into smaller units, have problems withgeneralizing, and are poor in problem-solving and thinking skills (Smith, 1998). The Internet has
the potential to dramatically change the way students continue with their formal education (Hill& Buerger, 1996), particularly students with learning disabilities who need the convenience of
Web Based Instruction (WBI). WBI allows students to be self-directed and self-paced, with thepossibility of repeated reiteration, giving instructors the tools necessary to organize and deliver
content in well-defined teaching systems and expand the learning process by providing activities
such as discussion forums (Kesselman & Tobin, 1999).
In addition, electronic texts offer many advantages over print-based materials for students wholearn in a web-based environment (O'Neil, & Fisher, 2008). However, for students with learning
disabilities, these advantages were not realized (Kwesi, 2002; Skylar, Higgins, & Boone, 2007).
On the other hand, Simoncelli & Hinson (2008) employed Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
methods that can be used for all students, including those with learning disabilities, and how
proper use of UDL can benefit these learners in the ever-changing online learning environment.
The findings reflected no apparent differences between two students with learning disabilities andthree without disabilities in regard to the use of instructional media.
Researchers (Brunvand & Abadeh, 2010; Skylar et al., 2007) reviewed a variety of tools andtechniques that teachers can use to help make online learning more manageable for students withdisabilities. Tools such as ShareTabs and TrackStar (Web sites for an interactive, online lesson),are designed to make it easier for teachers to share multiple Web sites, but for some students thetask of having to work through multiple sites may still be overwhelming, even with the support
and guidance provided by these resources. To accommodate these students, teachers can use avariety of tools designed to annotate and highlight individual Web sites rather than looking toshare a collection of different sites.
Excellent students
The excellent students are part of a selective, demanding, and rewarding program for thoseseeking an intellectual challenge and who are prepared to invest the extra effort required to meetthat challenge (NLCLE, 2007). Thomson (2010) states that online programming can be aneffective means of meeting the needs of many gifted students, based on in-depth qualitative andquantitative investigation of the perceptions and experiences of gifted students and their teachersof courses offered through an online program designed specifically for them. Students were able
to work at a pace consistent with their rate of learning, had more time to reflect, felt more incontrol of the learning process, and engaged in more self-directed and independent learning. The
online course described here is a general course which enables learning in heterogeneous groups
made up of excellent students, students with learning disabilities, and average students (Ronen &Shonfeld, 2008).
Online science education course

16

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Science plays a key role in preparing K-2 pre-service teachers. Nonetheless, most of them arereluctant to get involved in science (Ashenhaimer, Kashtan, Gur, Zymerman, & Eldad, 2001).
The question of quality and comparability of online learning naturally arises, mainly in relation toworkshop courses based on labs, which are typically (Face to Face) F2F oriented. Trying tohighlight the advantages of online labs for diverse background pre-service teachers, Ronen &Shonfeld (2008) designed an online course which is based on hands-on labs. The online course
challenges the attempts to promote science instruction and foster student-teachers’ lab skills. In
addition, the online science education course provides a model to follow in the field.
The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which an online science education course
works for pre-service students of diverse backgrounds, including students with learning
disabilities, excellent students, and average students.
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which the online course "Science
Education for K-2" is the appropriate learning environment for different student teachers ─ "LD,""Average," and "Excellent" students ─ based on learners’ perceived evaluation in these aspects:(1) The contribution of the online course to learning, (2) the degree of coordination between
online tools for learning, and (3) the degree of interaction between participants in the course. The
findings reflected the adjustment of the course to the learners, as it was perceived by them,
despite the possible bias which limits self-reporting and the trend to answer according to what is
considered desirable (Paulhus, 2002). Nevertheless, researchers argue that exploring personality
features (such as the emotional intelligence trait) in a study can be measured by self-reported
questionnaires (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). Similarly, the present study examined the potential
behavior of students, via self reported questionnaires, i.e., capabilities (such as self-learning) andbehaviors (such as time organization). Data was collected through attitude questionnaires
distributed to all students attending the course and through interviews with three representativesof each group. The quantitative findings allowed comparison between the three groups ofstudents, and the interviews revealed students' attitudes and abilities, as is customary inqualitative research (Shelsky & Alpert, 2007).
The online "Science Education for K-2"
The online "Science Education for K-2" is intended to expose students to a variety of scientifictopics taught in early childhood classes and focuses on constructing a science teaching unit. It
was based on project-based learning (PBL), most of which took place in small groups (pairs or
threes) and was involved solving authentic problems and tasks for the study of the selected topic.
During the course the building of a scientific subject using the Science, Technology and Society(STS) approach is demonstrated to students while focusing on the process: collecting andorganizing information, mapping the topic, and planning activities. It also emphasizes the solvingof everyday life problems through research for the development of inquiry skills and theadaptation of scientific-technological changes, such as:
1.
2.

Water Lab: Laboratory dealing with water. Students were asked to perform experiments,
summarize, and draw conclusions.
Tiltan: Science kit that includes scientific equipment which enabled performing physics
experiments related to everyday life. The activities included participation in the forum,
forum management, attending meetings, and learning synchronously - asynchronously via
the course website. Each student was required to conduct a study discussion group on the
topic chosen and participate in discussion groups managed by colleagues in the course.

17

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

The online course was based on the Highlearn platform which enabled ICT learning
synchronously through InterWise. The course included peer teaching: students conducted group
discussion and peer feedback; individual monitored learning.
All students were instructed by the lecturer in developing their project andself-learning: students read articles and sent comments on tasks related to them. At the end thestudents tried the activities in class and reflected on their experience. A variety of learning tools
was provided, using an interactive site that contained the information (presentations, articles,
videos, recordings of lectures and exercises, handouts, forum, chat, survey, testing, training, andannouncements), which allowed learning through discussion groups (forums) and asynchronous
audial discussion. The course evaluation included formative assessment, including peer review
and teacher evaluation, and summative evaluation, which included scores on assignments and a
final grade for the work.
The study population
The five-year study population included 121 students in their second year in the Early Childhood
program: participants in the online course "Science Teaching for Early Childhood," 25 "LDstudents" (with learning disabilities, diagnosed as ADHD - Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder), 28 "excellent students" (enrolled in the Honors program including top 10% students`
academic achievements), and 68 "average students" (not identified as LD or excellent). Everycourse included about 20 students, including representatives of all three groups, and was taught
by the researchers.
Research tools
Pre–Questionnaire: The questionnaire included 12 closed questions and three open questions. Allof the closed questions included 3 or 4 choices, most of them rated on a Likert scale. For example,
when asked "how important was your relationship with the Instructors?" respondents had tochoose between “to a great extent," "moderately," or" not at all.” To assess the degree ofcommunication with the online course instructors, the students had to choose between"more\equal\less” than the relationship with regular lecturers. Questionnaire items related to thecomputer skills of learners, assessing their individual learning ability, the importance learners
attached to communication with lecturers and students in the course, their assumptions for the
online course communication they will attend, their work habits, and their degree of satisfaction
with the online course in various areas.
Post-Questionnaire: The questionnaire included 15 closed questions and three open questions andwas similar in its structure to the pre-questionnaire. Some of the questions of the prequestionnaire also appeared to test if students' attitudes changed after the online course.
Additional questions related to the students' evaluation of their individual learning and tocommunication with others in the course. Additional questions related to satisfaction with tasks
and activities, the degree of participation in discussion groups, and their evaluation of uniqueelements of online teaching. For example, "To what extent does knowledge sharing among forum
participants contribute to learning?" Possible responses included "to a great extent,""moderately," or "not at all."Interviews: Semi-structured interviews, lasting about forty-five minutes, were conducted withnine students - three from each of the three groups - based on questions set in advance, whichenabled an open dialogue with the interviewees. The interviews were conducted, recorded, andtranscribed by the researchers.
The research process
The five-year study was conducted by the researchers, who were careful to be uniformed about
which group the students belonged to ("LD", "average", and "excellent"). The Pre- and Post-

18

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015questionnaires were completed at the beginning and end of the course by participants via theInternet. The students’ course grades were determined by evaluating the following components:(1) Student activity and tasks performance, (2) participation in forums and chat rooms, (3) student
feedback in their peer forum, (4) information search in the chosen topic, (5) building learning
centers, and (6) project summary. Data was collected and analyzed separately each year. After thefive years of the study, the results were combined and analyzed to compare the three groups.
Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results of the questionnaires using SPSS software.
To check if the students’ responses from the three groups, "LD," "average," and "excellent,”
differed in various aspects of the course, an ANOVA test was conducted to examine differencesamong the three groups regarding their perceived contribution of the online course to theirlearning. In addition, a multivariate analysis was made between the three groups. Naralizer
software was used for content analysis of in-depth interviews, organizing the data according tocriteria defined by the researchers in advance or during analysis. In this study, four categories
were defined in advance (see sections 1, 2, 4 in Findings) and two additional categories emerged
from interviews with students (see sections 3, 5 in Findings).
Findings
Several aspects of the perceived contribution of the online learning course were reviewed in: (1)Students’ self-learning ability and participation in the online course; (2) Students` satisfaction
with the online course activities and skills; (3) Suitability of the online environment for learning;(4) Online course interaction; (5) Online course availability; and (6) Online course student
achievement.
1. Students' self-learning ability and participation in the online course
Figure 1 shows the LD, Average, and Excellent students` evaluation of their self-directed
learning abilities. As can be seen in the pre-questionnaires, the LD students reported lower levelsof self-directed learning in comparison to the average and excellent pre-service-teachers.
However, in the post-questionnaire they reported higher levels of self-directed learning incomparison to the others. The biggest improvement can be seen in the LD students' selfevaluation.

SDL Abilities
4
3.5
3
2.5

Pre

2

Post

1.5
1
0.5
0
LD

Average

Excellent

Figure 1. Students' Evaluation of their Self-directed Learning (SDL) Abilities: LD, Average, andExcellent students (N=121)

19

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

The interviews clarified the perceived contribution of the online course to the students' selflearning ability. As one LD student, N, said, "In the online course I needed to learn independently,
all by myself. At first I had difficulties in information processing, but I had to manage, so I
overcame. I managed in-time planning, I learned to take responsibility, and I feel much more selfdisciplined."
An excellent student, A, said, "Although I am a self-learner and I know how to learn by myself, I
mainly learn from my lecturer in a traditional lesson. The online course contributed to my selflearning skills, responsibility, and time planning."
And an average student, T, claimed, "Self learning is a necessary condition for online learning.
Students who need to see and hear their lecturer can`t be online learners."
Figure 2 shows the differences between the three groups in lesson participation. The excellent
students reported equal participation in an online course and in a traditional one. The average
students reported lower participation in an online course than a traditional one, while the LD
students reported higher participation in an online compared to a traditional course. LD students’
self-reported participation in the online course was virtually equal to that of the excellent students
and is not statistically significant.
4
3.5
3
2.5
Forum Participation

2

Class Participation

1.5
1
0.5
0
LD

Average

Excellent

Figure 2. Students' Evaluation of Participation Level in a Traditional Course and in an Online
Forum: LD, Average, and Excellent students (N=121)
2. Students' satisfaction with the online course activities and skills
The post-questionnaire required students to evaluate and rank the activities conducted in thecourse and the skills they acquired, including planning and execution processes and laboratorywater lab, forum management and participation, and an authentic task activity.
The analysis distinguishes (p <0.05) between LD student group and the other two groups on thefollowing activities: an authentic task, water lab, and forum management (Table 1). A
multivariate analysis in the form of discriminant analysis performed on the data revealed one
significant function which differentiated between the LD students and the other groups. The
results are presented in Table 1.

20

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Table 1. Structural Coefficients Discriminating between LD Students and the Other Groups(N=121)The Subjects

Structure Coefficients

Authentic task
Water Lab
Forum M
Forum P
Mabat
Science kit
Eigenvalue
X²
Wilks-lambda
Centroids:
LD
Average
Excellent.47***.47***.29***
.199
-.137
-.044
.69
27.72***
.41
-1.43
.46
.76

***P˂.005

A detailed assessment of LD, excellent, and average students’ standard measures distinguished(an authentic task, water laboratory, and forum management) is shown in Figure 3.
3

2.5

2
LD
1.5

A
EX

1

0.5

0
FORUM MANAGEMENTWATER LABAUTHENTIC

Figure 3. Students' Evaluation of Forum Management, Water Lab, and Authentic Task: LD, AAverage, and Ex-Excellent students (N=121)
Figure 3 and Table 1 show higher satisfaction expressed by the LD students compared with theirpeers regarding the three distinguished indices: an authentic task, water laboratory and forum
management. Moreover, it can be seen that the average students’ evaluation is also higher thanthat of the excellent students in all three indices, although the difference is not significant.
3. Suitability of online environment for learning
To study the contribution of online tools (tools for synchronously teaching, voice supported
software, multimedia, forums, online practice, and messages) to the learning of students withdiverse background (LD, excellent, and average students), the researchers relied on these tools:
questionnaire, criteria defined in the interview, and other criteria that emerged from the content
analysis of personal interviews.
21

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015(a). Synchronic lessons’ adjustment for learning:
During synchronous lessons, students could determine the learning place for themselves, at homeor elsewhere. They were able to see slides and exercises the professor presented and hear thevoice of the instructor and other participants. Students could take part by asking questions,express opinions by voting, and participate in the discussions. The students were able to listen torecorded lectures in their spare time.
Students noted the following synchronic learning benefits:
1. Synchronous instruction allows immediate interaction with the teacher and peers:"A synchronous lecture is important. It really helped me to have immediate response, and I likean immediate response. It is even well than a traditional lesson in which I almost do notparticipate and do not ask anything" (N.).
2. A synchronous learning environment allows privacy for learning, supporting learners withlearning disabilities who are sensitive to environmental disturbances:"It's like in a synchronous lecture. I was sitting in a lecture class with everyone, but it's neater andless noisy. This is important, particularly for students with attention deficit problems. Noise takes
you out of focus" (S.).
3. Learners could return to recorded materials for extra training according to their needs. Thisadvantage is particularly crucial for LD students and was noted as supportive of learning: "I could
hear the whole lesson over again, just the teacher talking to me. That is as if you are again in class,
if you did not understand something, if not the material was not provided, you can return to therecorded lesson" (S.).
Likewise, excellent students and average students noted the advantage of the recorded lessons: "Iparticipated at home always. Sometimes a move from the computer or something interfered and I
had to hear it, it bothered me. By using the recorded lesson I could listen again, even for cases
where I was absent from class or if I were unable to participate synchronously…."(H.).
4. Synchronic learning defines the time frame within which a learner is required to encounterlearning lesson. The possibility of designing the learning contributes mostly to LD students.
"I could read the lecture in advance, prior to the synchronic meeting, so I knew exactly whatquestions to ask. I was ready; it's an advantage over traditional lecture….It is the only place you
get an immediate response. We need much more synchronous sessions" (T.).
Several of the excellent students noted the specific time frame as an advantage:"I think we need more synchronous lessons… more frequently. There is a kind of framework andtime frames, which helps us not get lost" (R.).
(b). Asynchronous lessons’ adjustment for learning:Students performed tasks and responded to their colleagues in an asynchronous forum. They
could do it any time they chose, up to the date set for performance of the task. There was no
significant difference between the three groups regarding the degree of their participation neither
in the forum nor with their degree of satisfaction with participation in the forum (Table 1).
However, significant differences were found between the LD students and the other two groups
regarding their level of satisfaction with the task which they had to manage (see Table 1 andFigure). The LD students expressed greater satisfaction compared with their counterparts with the22

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

discussion group management and sharing ideas with peers and lecturers. This finding was
reinforced in interviews with LD students:"Members’ participation in the forum helped me run the forum and do well in my personal
mission. I saw sequences of peer teaching, I learned from colleagues` ideas, and I used thematerials of the members. I consulted with colleagues and lecturers, which helped me to a great
extent" (T.). In contrast, average and excellent students reported that participation in thediscussion group did not help them, and they were able to cope with learning individually andindependently, without the participation of colleagues or professors: "I didn't participate much in
the forum. Requirement to respond to five colleagues is exaggerated" (R.).
The essence of the discussion group is teamwork, designed to clarify questions and discuss
concepts and content. The researchers feel that online course discussion groups can help provide
the personal and social support of colleagues and thus were valuable for the majority of LD
students.
4. Online course interaction
The degree of online interaction between the students themselves and with the lecturers wastested in three aspects: (1) Students’ assessment of the expected interaction in the online course(pre-questionnaire), (2) The importance that students attribute to the interaction with participantsin the online course (pre-questionnaire), and (3) Students’ evaluation of the actual degree ofinteraction took place in the online course (post-questionnaire).

Figure 4. The degree of online interaction between the participants: before (Pr) and after (Po) thecourse, between students (S-S), and with the teacher (T-S), and their expected interaction (Exp)before the course started: LD, A-Average, and Ex-Excellent students (N=121)
The findings indicate no significant differences between the three groups. All students attach
great importance (over 3.3) to interaction with lecturers and among peers. Everyone expected amoderate degree of interaction (less than 2) in the online course, and at the end of the course allreported a moderate degree of interaction (less than 2).

23

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

The graph also reveals that LD students ranked the importance of the degree of contact, theexpected degree of contact, and the degree of actual contact higher than the excellent or regularstudents. From tracing the discussion groups and from interviews with students, it can be said that
the LD students reacted to discussion groups more than their peers and they demanded andreceived a larger number of responses from colleagues and lecturers. As one of the LD students
said, "…I had time to prepare my response properly and to send it in my time. I felt more
confident with my answers."
Most LD students prefer more intensive interaction with the lecturer than their peers. For
example: "I could contact the lecturer at any time and every time, not like a regular class teacher I
see only once a week, during class. That the course contributes to the self-learning, while
processing information. Initially, I had a problem and then I learned and developed. I learned touse more collaboration, more contact with professors, to ask relevant questions. These arequestions that make thinking "(N.).
The online course interaction allows topic discussion while each of the students presents theiropinions and reactions, without any preferential treatment or modification and without distracting
irrelevant stimuli (such as looks, dominance in class, or unusual behavior). The fact that online
course participants were treated equally, without discrimination among the groups, was reflectedin the words of an excellent student:"There were students who responded more or less, but since everyone has to respond there isuniformity. In a regular class there are always those who stand out" (N.).
In summary, in an online course students can choose the extent, date, and nature of the interaction
with other participants. Online course interaction is personal; allowing an intimacy between thestudents and lecturers and among the students, and students saw it as one of the strengths of thecourse.
5. The online course affordancesInterviews with students revealed additional features of the online course that can be grouped into
two categories: Flexibility and Knowledge Construction.
(a). Flexibility in time and knowledge: Flexibility in the online course allowed time management
and was reflected in access to information and in students' selection ability. This flexibility
allowed students with learning disabilities to plan learning and the availability of information at
the appropriate dose for their attention spans and concentration limitations. Hypertext wasanother tool mentioned by the LD students as contributing to the teaching and learning, providing
instant answers to questions that arise during the study and completing their knowledge gaps.
Hypertext supports knowledge construction in a complex, non-linear, and changing environment
based on the cognitive flexibility theory. But this flexibility in selecting the content could also
lead to a lack of focus in the learning process (Brunvand & Abadeh, 2010).
The special structure of the course described here assists students to focus on the task until
completion. The fact that the course is constructed of small teaching units contributed to target
specific learners' attention to relevant content while simplifying the route to finding information.
This structure helped all the students, especially those with learning disabilities, who prefer along process-phase, including memorization, training, and practice (Heiman, 2006). The excellent
students also emphasized that flexibility was the most successful aspect of the course, since itenabled a faster pace of learning and individual time management.
The findings showed that the online course enabled all students to take responsibility, to devote
the time necessary for learning, and to develop self-discipline that led to learning. As a LD

24

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

student said, "The online course contributed to my learning. The fact that I had to sit alone withmyself and process information…developed my own learning. At first I had problems, and then I
learned from the questions that require thinking. I feel that I have evolved" (N.).
(b). Conditions for knowledge construction: Transfer of responsibility to the learner: Online tools
have changed the place and role of the teacher by reducing dependency on the teacher as a sourceof knowledge and by enabling social interaction in the learning environment. These were reported
in the literature as supporting construction of knowledge (Beldarian, 2006; Simpson, 2006).
Thinking and learning discourse: The LD students reported the value of a study group found in
the online forum in meeting their needs. Even the excellent students, who tend to learn
independently in a traditional course, enjoyed the benefits of group discussion, even though they
did not choose it. Indeed, despite their differences, the various students participated in the
discourse, contributed and donated, and showed responsibility for the online learning process (c.f.
Rotem and Peled, 2008), which became effective, high quality, and purposeful.
Customized personal support: All of the students received personal instruction tailored to theirneeds. Factors identified in this study as contributing to success in learning, such as self-learning,interpersonal communication, group discussion and discourse, and flexibility in time, figure inadvancing learning (Bray, Aoki, & Dlugosh, 2008), especially when they fit the manner of
performance and style of thinking and learning of the learner (Brunvand & Abadeh, 2010;
Dwyer& Moore, 2001).
6. Students’ achievements in the online course:
Students' grades were given by lecturers at the end of the course and were based on theassessment of the following activities: participating in forums, task performance, forum
management, and quality of the final project. The findings showed that the LD students' average
grade was higher (89) than their counterparts, the excellent (87) and average (80) students. No
comparison was made between students' grades and scores in the online course and traditionalcourses.
Discussion
The advantages of an online science education course to students of diverse backgrounds (LDstudents, excellent students, and average students) are presented in this study. The ongoing fiveyear findings pinpointed the advantages of the online course to all three groups of students, yet it
carefully reports a slight but explicitly marginal advantage in the LD students` achievements incomparison to the excellent and average students. The unexpected LD students` achievement is
not in line with previous research (Kwesi, 2002; Woodfine & Wright, 2008). The LD students'
success was expressed by their final course score given by lecturers as well as the improvementin the students` evaluation of their own self-learning ability following the online course, theirsatisfaction level regarding content learned, participation in discussion groups, and performanceon tasks. A significant difference was found between the LD students and their peers regarding
the authentic task, the water lab, and their forum management. Dealing with everyday authentic
subjects, as well as the opportunity to conduct an online study forum, was particularly significant
for the LD students.
Moreover, the LD students reported higher participation in the online course in comparison to
traditional ones and high interaction with the lecturer and their classmates. A striking result
indicating the accessibility of online learning for disabled students was also pointed by Badge,
Dawson, Cann & Scott (2008), regarding disabled students using significantly more “user control”
features than the non-disabled group while actively seeking out information by selecting
appropriate portions of the material (Badge et al., 2008).

25

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Similar benefits of interaction and collaborative learning in online learning are also reported in
the literature (O'Neil & Fisher, 2008; Shea, Pickett, & Sau Li, 2005), while the low benefits frominteraction involving excellent students in this research contradicts others (Olszewski & Lee,2004). These differences may result from various characteristics of the courses; for example,
teaching methods of the online course (working in pairs, cooperative learning, peer review),
course content (theoretical issues or authentic topics related to everyday life), online tools (forum,
chat, practice, videos, simulations, audio lecture, learning through texts), type of task required(reading, forum participation, hands-on lab) and the assessment of learning (formative assessment,summative assessment). When online learning is used just for knowledge transfer and mainly as
a communication platform, the online learning advantages that lead to the success of the learners
are likely to be minimal (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones 2009). In this case, theexcellent students are capable of coping with the educational content on their own and therefore
rarely use discussion groups or supervisor support.
In contrast, using a variety of online tools in online courses probably contributes to the learningof students from all backgrounds, and especially LD students, as was described in this research.
The online tools used in this research were synchronous classes using audio and visual means(supporting primarily the LD students), students forum management (supporting cooperative
learning and peer review), computerized follow-up submission of assignments (allowing tasks to
be divided into small units and helping students with time management), online documentation of
the products (continuous and intensive formative assessment), forum support (for questions,guidance and assistance).
In an online discussion forum, discourse lies at the heart of knowledge construction sincelearning is social, collaborative, consensual and negotiated. Recognition of learning discourse asa meaningful key component in knowledge construction (Teo & Webster, 2008) is also describedby the Model III theory, which refers to online tools under the term Web 2.0 (Kesselman & Tobin,
1999; Rogoff, Matsuov, & White, 1998).
Students describe unique features of the online course as flexibility and choices in utilization of
the information and in time management; interaction, including the availability of cooperative
learning and peer review; duration of lessons determined by the learners; and knowledge
construction based on the transfer of responsibility to the learner, thinking and learning groups,
and individual and customized learner support.
Adjusting instruction to students from different backgrounds is a challenge facing colleges andschools of education. The combination of excellent students with LD and average students
intensifies the challenge. However, the encouraging findings of this study suggest that an online
course contributes to the education of students from different backgrounds (Shonfeld, Hoter, andGaneyam, 2013). To establish the trend apparent from this study’s findings, more online courses
should be examined and the sample increased. Other methods (such as observation, thinking
aloud, report analysis, and report communication tasks) should be examined to deepen theassessment of online course effectiveness.

26

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

References
Ashenhaimer, R., Kashtan, Y. Gur, O., Zymerman, H., & Eldad, E. (2001). Lelamed Madayim
Bederech Acheret [Teaching science in another way]. Tel Aviv: Mofet Israel.
Badge, J. L., Dawson, E., Cann, A. J., & Scott, J. (2008). Assessing the accessibility of online
learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(2), 103-114.
Beldarian, Y. (2006). Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student
interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139-153.
Bray, E., Aoki, K., & Dlugosh, L. (2008). Predictors of Learning Satisfaction in Japanese Online
Distance Learners. IRRODL, 9(3), 1492-3831.
Brunvand, S., & Abadeh, H. (2010). Making Online Learning Accessible. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 45(5), 304-311.
Buchanan, E. (1999). Assessment measures: Pre-tests for successful distance teaching andlearning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(3). Retrieved July 20, 2015,
from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/buchanan24.html.
Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K-12 online learning:
A review of open access literature. The International Review of Research in Open andDistance Learning, 10(1), 1-22.
Chazan, A. (2001). Tiunim shel studentim lehorahat hamatematiksamvemmadayim legabei shiluv
tikshuv cetahalihai horaa ulemida [Mathematics and science students' arguments about
CMC integration in teaching and learning process]. Dapim, 32, 88-105.
Diaz, D. P., & Cartnal, R. B. (1999). Students' learning styles in two classes: Online distancelearning and equivalent on-campus. College Teaching, 47(4), 130-135.
Dwyer, F. M., & Moore, D. M. (2001). The effect of gender, field dependence, and color-coding
on student achievement of different educational objectives. International Journal of
Instructional Media, 28(3), 309-318.
Fuller, D., Norby, R. F., Pearce, K., & Strand, S. (2000). Internet teaching by style: Profiling theon-lineprofessor.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://ifets.massey.ac.nz/periodical/vol_2_2000/pearce.html.
Goldstein, O., Shonfeld, M., Waldman, N., Forkush-Baruch, A., Tesler, B., Zelkovich, Z., Mor,N., Heilweil, I., Kozminsky, L., & Zidan, W. (2011a). ICT integration in teacher education:
The case of Israel. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 2860-2867).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Heiman T. (2006). Assessing learning styles among students with and without learning
disabilities at a distance-learning university. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(1) 55-63.
Hill, J., & Buerger, R. B. (1996). Hypermedia as a bridge between education and profession.
Educational Technology Review, Winter(5), 21-25.
Jonassen, D. H. (2005). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. (3rd Ed.).
[Location: Publisher].

27

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Kesselman, M., & Tobin, T. (1999). Evaluation of web-based library instruction programs. Eric
Document Reproduction Services No. ED441454.
Kreka, S. (1996). Distance learning, the Internet, and the World Wide Web. Eric Clearinghouseon Adults, Career and Vocational Education, Columbus Ohio. ERIC Document No.
ED395214.
Kwesi, A. (2002). Web based instruction and students with learning disabilities: Examination of
the strategies and limitations. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(08) 2784A.
Leasure, A. R., Davis, L., & Thievon, S. L. (2000). Comparison of student outcomes andpreferences in a traditional vs. World Wide Web-based baccalaureate nursing researchcourse. Journal of Nursing Education, 39(4), 149-154.
Lockee, B. B., (2001), What matters in judging distance teaching? Not how much it's like aclassroom course, The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved July 20, 2015, fromhttp://chronicle.com/article/What-Matters-in-Judging/108500/.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidencebased practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
Project Report. Centre for Learning Technology. U.S. Department of Education Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service.
National Center for Education Statistics, (2000). Postsecondary students with disabilities:
Enrollment, services, and persistence. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://nces.ed.gov.
National Center for Education Statistics, (1998). Distance education in higher education
institutions: Incidence, audiences, and plans to expand. United States National Commissionon
Excellencein
Education.
Retrieved
July
20,
2015,
from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98132.pdf.
National Leadership Council for Liberal Education & America's Promise, (2007). College
learning for the new global century. A report from the. Association of American Collegesand Universities.
Olszewski, K. P., & Lee, S. Y. (2004). Gifted adolescents' talent development through distancelearning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(1), 7-35.
O'Neil, C., & Fisher, C. (2008). Should I take this course online? Journal of Nursing Education.
47(2), 53-59.
Paulhus, D.L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. Braun, D.
N. Jackson, & D.E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational
measurement (pp.67-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation
with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448
Rogoff, B., Matsuov, E., & White, C. (1998). Models of teaching and learning: Participation in acommunity of learners. In D. R. Olsen & N. Torrance (Eds.). The handbook of educationand human development – New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 388-414).
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Professional.
Trentin, G. (2002). Educational mediators in continuing and distance education. Educational
Technology, 42(4), 39-48.

28

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Ronen, I., & Shonfeld, M. (2008). Online learning works for diverse-skilled students.
Proceedings of SITE, Las-Vegas, USA.
Rotem, A., & Peled, Y. (2008) Towards Online School. [Likrat bet sefer Mekuvan]. Tel Aviv:
Mofet
Shelsky, S., & Alpert, B. (2007). Ways in writing qualitative research [Derachim bektivat
mechkar echutani]. Tel Aviv: Mofet. Israel
Shea, P., Pickett, A., & Sau Li, C. (2005). Increasing access to higher education: A study of the
diffusion of online teaching among 913 college faculty. IRRODL 6(2), 1492-3831.
Shonfeld, M., Hoter, E., & Ganayem, A. (2013). Connecting cultures in conflict through ICT in
Israel. In R. S. P. Austin & W. J. Hunter (Eds.), Linking schools: Online learning andcommunity cohesion. New York: Routledge.
Simpson, K. P. (2006). Collaboration and critical thinking in online English courses. Urbana,33(4), 421-429.
Simoncelli, A., & Hinson, J. M. (2008). College students with learning disabilities personal
reactions to online learning. Journal of College Reading and Learning. Lenexa: 38(2), 49.
Skylar, A., Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (2007). Web-based history learning environments.
Intervention in School and Clinic 43(1) 3-11.
Smith, D. D. (1998). Introduction to special education: Teaching in the age of challenge (3rd ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Wegner, S., Holloway, K., & Crader, A. (1998). A Problem-based approach on the World-WideWeb Eric Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. ERIC Document No.
ED414262.
Venezky, R.L., & Davis, C. (2002). Que vademus? The transformation of schooling in a
networked world. Research report: OECD/CERI.
Teo, Y., & Webster, L. (2008). Acquiring knowledge from asynchronous discussion. Journal ofTechnology and Teacher Education. 16(3), 265-281. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Thomson, D. T. (2010). Beyond the classroom walls: Teachers' and students' perspectives on how
online learning can meet the needs of gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4),662-712.
Woodfine, B. P., Nunes, M. B., & Wright, D. J. (2008). Computers & Education, 50)3(, 703-17.

29