Literature Review on Distance Education Vs Traditioanl Education

Introduction

The appearance of online education has made it possible for students with decorated lives and limited flexibility to obtain a quality education. Equally opposed to traditional classroom teaching, Web-based instruction has fabricated it possible to offer classes worldwide through a unmarried Net connexion. Although it boasts several advantages over traditional education, online education still has its drawbacks, including express communal synergies. Even so, online didactics seems to exist the path many students are taking to secure a caste.

This written report compared the effectiveness of online vs. traditional instruction in an ecology studies form. Using a single indicator, we attempted to encounter if pupil performance was effected by instructional medium. This study sought to compare online and F2F teaching on 3 levels—pure modality, gender, and grade rank. Through these comparisons, we investigated whether one teaching modality was significantly more effective than the other. Although there were limitations to the written report, this exam was conducted to provide us with additional measures to determine if students performed better in one environs over another (Mozes-Carmel and Gold, 2009).

The methods, procedures, and operationalization tools used in this assessment can be expanded upon in future quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method designs to further analyze this topic. Moreover, the results of this written report serve every bit a backbone for time to come meta-analytical studies.

Origins of Online Education

Computer-assisted education is irresolute the pedagogical mural as an increasing number of students are seeking online pedagogy. Colleges and universities are now touting the efficiencies of Web-based education and are rapidly implementing online classes to run across student needs worldwide. One study reported "increases in the number of online courses given past universities have been quite dramatic over the last couple of years" (Lundberg et al., 2008). Think tanks are also disseminating statistics on Web-based teaching. "In 2010, the Sloan Consortium plant a 17% increment in online students from the years before, beating the 12% increase from the previous year" (Keramidas, 2012).

Reverse to pop belief, online education is not a new phenomenon. The get-go correspondence and altitude learning educational programs were initiated in the mid-1800s by the University of London. This model of educational learning was dependent on the mail service and therefore wasn't seen in American until the later Nineteenth century. It was in 1873 when what is considered the first official correspondence educational programme was established in Boston, Massachusetts known every bit the "Society to Encourage Home Studies." Since so, non-traditional report has grown into what information technology is today considered a more viable online instructional modality. Technological advancement indubitably helped ameliorate the speed and accessibility of altitude learning courses; at present students worldwide could nourish classes from the comfort of their own homes.

Qualities of Online and Traditional Face to Face (F2F) Classroom Pedagogy

Online and traditional education share many qualities. Students are still required to attend course, learn the material, submit assignments, and complete group projects. While teachers, still have to design curriculums, maximize instructional quality, reply class questions, motivate students to learn, and grade assignments. Despite these bones similarities, at that place are many differences betwixt the ii modalities. Traditionally, classroom education is known to exist instructor-centered and requires passive learning by the pupil, while online didactics is frequently pupil-centered and requires agile learning.

In instructor-centered, or passive learning, the instructor ordinarily controls classroom dynamics. The teacher lectures and comments, while students heed, have notes, and ask questions. In student-centered, or active learning, the students usually decide classroom dynamics as they independently analyze the data, construct questions, and ask the instructor for clarification. In this scenario, the instructor, not the student, is listening, formulating, and responding (Salcedo, 2010).

In education, change comes with questions. Despite all current reports championing online education, researchers are yet questioning its efficacy. Research is still beingness conducted on the effectiveness of computer-assisted teaching. Cost-benefit analysis, student feel, and pupil performance are at present being carefully considered when determining whether online teaching is a feasible substitute for classroom teaching. This decision process will almost probably carry into the time to come as technology improves and equally students need amend learning experiences.

Thus far, "literature on the efficacy of online courses is expansive and divided" (Driscoll et al., 2012). Some studies favor traditional classroom pedagogy, stating "online learners will quit more easily" and "online learning tin can lack feedback for both students and instructors" (Atchley et al., 2013). Because of these shortcomings, pupil retention, satisfaction, and performance can exist compromised. Like traditional teaching, distance learning also has its apologists who aver online education produces students who perform too or amend than their traditional classroom counterparts (Westhuis et al., 2006).

The advantages and disadvantages of both instructional modalities need to be fully fleshed out and examined to truly make up one's mind which medium generates better educatee performance. Both modalities have been proven to be relatively constructive, merely, as mentioned earlier, the question to be asked is if one is truly better than the other.

Educatee Need for Online Education

With technological advocacy, learners now want quality programs they tin access from anywhere and at whatever fourth dimension. Considering of these demands, online didactics has get a viable, attracting option to business organization professionals, stay-at home-parents, and other similar populations. In addition to flexibility and access, multiple other confront value benefits, including program choice and time efficiency, accept increased the attractiveness of altitude learning (Wladis et al., 2015).

Outset, prospective students want to be able to receive a quality education without having to sacrifice work fourth dimension, family time, and travel expense. Instead of having to exist at a specific location at a specific fourth dimension, online educational students have the freedom to communicate with instructors, address classmates, study materials, and complete assignments from any Internet-attainable betoken (Richardson and Swan, 2003). This type of flexibility grants students much-needed mobility and, in plough, helps make the educational process more enticing. Co-ordinate to Lundberg et al. (2008) "the educatee may prefer to take an online form or a complete online-based degree plan as online courses offering more flexible written report hours; for case, a educatee who has a chore could attend the virtual class watching instructional picture show and streaming videos of lectures later on working hours."

Moreover, more study fourth dimension can atomic number 82 to better class performance—more than chapters read, improve quality papers, and more than group projection fourth dimension. Studies on the relationship betwixt study fourth dimension and performance are limited; however, it is frequently assumed the online pupil volition use any surplus time to improve grades (Bigelow, 2009). It is crucial to mention the link between flexibility and pupil performance as grades are the lonely performance indicator of this enquiry.

Second, online teaching also offers more plan choices. With traditional classroom study, students are forced to take courses only at universities inside feasible driving distance or motility. Web-based pedagogy, on the other hand, grants students electronic admission to multiple universities and course offerings (Salcedo, 2010). Therefore, students who were once limited to a few colleges within their immediate area tin at present access several colleges worldwide from a single convenient location.

Third, with online teaching, students who usually don't participate in class may now voice their opinions and concerns. As they are not in a classroom setting, quieter students may feel more comfortable partaking in class dialogue without being recognized or judged. This, in turn, may increment average form scores (Driscoll et al., 2012).

Benefits of Face up-to-Face up (F2F) Education via Traditional Classroom Instruction

The other modality, classroom educational activity, is a well-established instructional medium in which teaching manner and structure have been refined over several centuries. Face-to-face instruction has numerous benefits not found in its online counterpart (Xu and Jaggars, 2016).

First and, perhaps nearly importantly, classroom instruction is extremely dynamic. Traditional classroom teaching provides real-time face-to-face instruction and sparks innovative questions. It besides allows for immediate teacher response and more flexible content commitment. Online instruction dampens the learning process because students must limit their questions to blurbs, then grant the instructor and boyfriend classmates time to respond (Salcedo, 2010). Over time, however, online didactics will probably improve, enhancing classroom dynamics and bringing students face-to face with their peers/instructors. However, for now, face up-to-face up education provides dynamic learning attributes not institute in Spider web-based teaching (Kemp and Grieve, 2014).

Second, traditional classroom learning is a well-established modality. Some students are opposed to change and view online didactics negatively. These students may be technophobes, more comfortable with sitting in a classroom taking notes than sitting at a computer absorbing data. Other students may value face-to-face interaction, pre and post-form discussions, communal learning, and organic student-teacher bonding (Roval and Jordan, 2004). They may see the Internet as an impediment to learning. If not comfortable with the instructional medium, some students may shun classroom activities; their grades might slip and their educational interest might vanish. Students, however, may eventually adapt to online instruction. With more universities employing computer-based preparation, students may be forced to take only Spider web-based courses. Albeit true, this doesn't eliminate the fact some students adopt classroom intimacy.

Third, contiguous instruction doesn't rely upon networked systems. In online learning, the educatee is dependent upon access to an unimpeded Internet connectedness. If technical problems occur, online students may not exist able to communicate, submit assignments, or access study material. This problem, in turn, may frustrate the pupil, hinder performance, and discourage learning.

Fourth, campus education provides students with both accredited staff and inquiry libraries. Students can rely upon administrators to assist in course selection and provide professorial recommendations. Library technicians can aid learners edit their papers, locate valuable study material, and amend study habits. Enquiry libraries may provide materials not accessible by computer. In all, the traditional classroom experience gives students of import auxiliary tools to maximize classroom performance.

Fifth, traditional classroom degrees trump online educational degrees in terms of hiring preferences. Many academic and professional organizations do not consider online degrees on par with campus-based degrees (Columbaro and Monaghan, 2009). Oftentimes, prospective hiring bodies think Spider web-based educational activity is a watered-down, simpler ways of attaining a degree, frequently citing poor curriculums, unsupervised exams, and lenient homework assignments every bit detriments to the learning procedure.

Finally, research shows online students are more likely to quit class if they practice not like the instructor, the format, or the feedback. Because they work independently, relying most wholly upon self-motivation and self-direction, online learners may be more inclined to withdraw from class if they do not get immediate results.

The classroom setting provides more motivation, encouragement, and direction. Fifty-fifty if a pupil wanted to quit during the start few weeks of class, he/she may be deterred by the teacher and fellow students. F2F instructors may exist able to suit the structure and teaching style of the grade to meliorate educatee retentiveness (Kemp and Grieve, 2014). With online instruction, instructors are limited to electronic correspondence and may non pick-up on verbal and not-verbal cues.

Both F2F and online teaching accept their pros and cons. More studies comparing the two modalities to achieve specific learning outcomes in participating learner populations are required earlier well-informed decisions can be made. This study examined the two modalities over eight (8) years on three different levels. Based on the aforementioned information, the following inquiry questions resulted.

RQ1: Are there pregnant differences in academic operation between online and F2F students enrolled in an ecology scientific discipline course?

RQ2: Are in that location gender differences betwixt online and F2F educatee operation in an ecology science course?

RQ3: Are there meaning differences between the performance of online and F2F students in an environmental science course with respect to grade rank?

The results of this report are intended to edify teachers, administrators, and policymakers on which medium may work best.

Methodology

Participants

The study sample consisted of 548 FVSU students who completed the Environmental Science form between 2009 and 2016. The concluding grade grades of the participants served as the primary comparative factor in assessing operation differences between online and F2F instruction. Of the 548 total participants, 147 were online students while 401 were traditional students. This disparity was considered a limitation of the study. Of the 548 total students, 246 were male, while 302 were female. The study likewise used students from all four course ranks. In that location were 187 freshmen, 184 sophomores, 76 juniors, and 101 seniors. This was a convenience, non-probability sample and so the composition of the written report set was left to the discretion of the teacher. No special preferences or weights were given to students based upon gender or rank. Each student was considered a single, discrete entity or statistic.

All sections of the class were taught by a full-time biology professor at FVSU. The professor had over 10 years teaching feel in both classroom and F2F modalities. The professor was considered an outstanding tenured teacher with strong communication and management skills.

The F2F course met twice weekly in an on-campus classroom. Each class lasted 1 h and 15 min. The online class covered the same material as the F2F grade, just was washed wholly on-line using the Desire to Learn (D2L) e-learning organization. Online students were expected to spend as much fourth dimension studying as their F2F counterparts; yet, no tracking measure was implemented to gauge e-learning study time. The professor combined textbook learning, lecture and class discussion, collaborative projects, and assessment tasks to engage students in the learning process.

This study did non differentiate betwixt part-time and full-time students. Therefore, many office-time students may have been included in this study. This written report as well did non differentiate betwixt students registered primarily at FVSU or at some other institution. Therefore, many students included in this study may have used FVSU as an auxiliary institution to consummate their environmental science class requirement.

Test Instruments

In this report, student functioning was operationalized past final course grades. The last form form was derived from test, homework, class participation, and research project scores. The four aforementioned assessments were valid and relevant; they were useful in gauging student ability and generating objective performance measurements. The concluding grades were converted from numerical scores to traditional GPA messages.

Data Collection Procedures

The sample 548 student grades were obtained from FVSU's Office of Institutional Research Planning and Effectiveness (OIRPE). The OIRPE released the grades to the instructor with the expectation the instructor would maintain confidentiality and not disembalm said information to third parties. After the data was obtained, the instructor analyzed and processed the data though SPSS software to calculate specific values. These converted values were later on used to depict conclusions and validate the hypothesis.

Results

Summary of the Results: The chi-square analysis showed no significant difference in pupil performance between online and face-to-face up (F2F) learners [χ² (4, Northward = 548) = 6.531, p > 0.05]. The independent sample t-exam showed no pregnant difference in student performance between online and F2F learners with respect to gender [t ₍₁₄₅₎ = 1.42, p = 0.122]. The 2-way ANOVA showed no meaning difference in pupil functioning betwixt online and F2F learners with respect to class rank (Girard et al., 2016).

Research question #ane was to decide if at that place was a statistically significant difference between the bookish functioning of online and F2F students.

Enquiry Question 1

The outset research question investigated if there was a difference in pupil operation between F2F and online learners.

To investigate the commencement research question, we used a traditional chi-square method to analyze the data. The chi-square analysis is especially useful for this type of comparison because it allows united states of america to determine if the human relationship betwixt teaching modality and operation in our sample gear up can be extended to the larger population. The chi-square method provides us with a numerical consequence which can exist used to determine if there is a statistically significant divergence betwixt the two groups.

Tabular array 1 shows us the mean and SD for modality and for gender. It is a general breakdown of numbers to visually elucidate any differences between scores and deviations. The mean GPA for both modalities is similar with F2F learners scoring a 69.35 and online learners scoring a 68.64. Both groups had fairly similar SDs. A stronger difference tin can be seen between the GPAs earned by men and women. Men had a three.23 mean GPA while women had a two.9 mean GPA. The SDs for both groups were almost identical. Fifty-fifty though the 0.33 numerical departure may wait fairly insignificant, it must exist noted that a 3.23 is approximately a B+ while a two.9 is approximately a B. Given a categorical range of only A to F, a plus differential can be considered pregnant.

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for 8 semester- "Environmental Science data gear up."

The mean class for men in the environmental online classes (Grand = 3.23, Due north = 246, SD = i.nineteen) was higher than the hateful grade for women in the classes (One thousand = 2.9, Northward = 302, SD = 1.20) (encounter Tabular array 1).

First, a chi-square analysis was performed using SPSS to determine if in that location was a statistically significant difference in form distribution between online and F2F students. Students enrolled in the F2F grade had the highest pct of A's (63.60%) as compared to online students (36.twoscore%). Table 2 displays course distribution past grade delivery modality. The divergence in student performance was statistically meaning, χ² (4, Northward = 548) = 6.531, p > 0.05. Table 3 shows the gender deviation on student performance between online and F2F students.

Table ii. Contingency table for student's academic performance (Due north = 548).

Table 3. Gender ^*performance crosstabulation.

Table 2 shows us the functioning measures of online and F2F students by grade category. As can exist seen, F2F students generated the highest functioning numbers for each grade category. However, this disparity was mostly due to a higher number of F2F students in the report. There were 401 F2F students equally opposed to just 147 online students. When viewing grades with respect to modality, there are smaller percent differences betwixt respective learners (Tanyel and Griffin, 2014). For example, F2F learners earned 28 Every bit (63.sixty% of total A's earned) while online learners earned 16 As (36.40% of total A's earned). Nevertheless, when viewing the A grade with respect to total learners in each modality, it can be seen that 28 of the 401 F2F students (6.9%) earned Equally equally compared to sixteen of 147 (10.9%) online learners. In this case, online learners scored relatively higher in this class category. The latter measure (grade total every bit a percent of modality total) is a ameliorate reflection of respective performance levels.

Given a critical value of 7.7 and a d.f. of 4, we were able to generate a chi-squared measure out of vi.531. The correlating p-value of 0.163 was greater than our p-value significance level of 0.05. Nosotros, therefore, had to have the naught hypothesis and decline the culling hypothesis. In that location is no statistically pregnant difference between the two groups in terms of performance scores.

Enquiry Question two

The second research question was posed to evaluate if in that location was a difference between online and F2F varied with gender. Does online and F2F student performance vary with respect to gender? Table 3 shows the gender difference on student performance between online and face to confront students. We used chi-square test to make up one's mind if there were differences in online and F2F student performance with respect to gender. The chi-square test with alpha equal to 0.05 as criterion for significance. The chi-foursquare event shows that there is no statistically meaning divergence betwixt men and women in terms of performance.

Research Question three

The third research question tried to decide if there was a departure between online and F2F varied with respect to class rank. Does online and F2F student operation vary with respect to course rank?

Table 4 shows the mean scores and standard deviations of freshman, sophomore, and inferior and senior students for both online and F2F student performance. To test the tertiary hypothesis, we used a two-fashion ANOVA. The ANOVA is a useful appraisal tool for this particular hypothesis as it tests the differences between multiple means. Instead of testing specific differences, the ANOVA generates a much broader picture of boilerplate differences. As tin be seen in Table four, the ANOVA examination for this item hypothesis states in that location is no significant difference between online and F2F learners with respect to class rank. Therefore, we must accept the null hypothesis and turn down the alternative hypothesis.

Table four. Descriptive analysis of pupil performance by form rankings gender.

The results of the ANOVA evidence there is no meaning deviation in functioning between online and F2F students with respect to form rank. Results of ANOVA is presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for online and F2F of class rankings.

Every bit can exist seen in Table 4, the ANOVA test for this particular hypothesis states there is no pregnant difference betwixt online and F2F learners with respect to class rank. Therefore, we must accept the cipher hypothesis and turn down the alternative hypothesis.

Discussion and Social Implications

The results of the study prove there is no significant difference in performance between online and traditional classroom students with respect to modality, gender, or course rank in a science concepts course for non-Stalk majors. Although there were sample size issues and study limitations, this assessment shows both online learners and classroom learners perform at the same level. This conclusion indicates teaching modality may non matter as much as other factors. Given the relatively sparse data on pedagogical modality comparison given specific student population characteristics, this study could be considered innovative. In the current literature, we take non plant a report of this nature comparing online and F2F not-Stem majors with respect to three separate factors—medium, gender, and class rank—and the ability to learn science concepts and achieve learning outcomes. Previous studies have compared traditional classroom learning vs. F2F learning for other factors (including specific courses, costs, qualitative analysis, etcetera, but rarely regarding outcomes relevant to population characteristics of learning for a specific science concepts course over many years) (Liu, 2005).

In a study evaluating the transformation of a graduate level course for teachers, academic quality of the online course and learning outcomes were evaluated. The study evaluated the ability of course instructors to design the course for online delivery and develop various interactive multimedia models at a cost-savings to the corresponding university. The online learning platform proved effective in translating data where tested students successfully accomplished learning outcomes comparable to students taking the F2F grade (Herman and Banister, 2007).

Another report evaluated the similarities and differences in F2F and online learning in a non-STEM course, "Foundations of American Education" and overall course satisfaction by students enrolled in either of the two modalities. F2F and online course satisfaction was qualitatively and quantitative analyzed. All the same, in analyzing online and F2F course feedback using quantitative feedback, online course satisfaction was less than F2F satisfaction. When qualitative data was used, course satisfaction was similar between modalities (Werhner, 2010). The course satisfaction data and feedback was used to advise a number of posits for effective online learning in the specific course. The researcher concluded that in that location was no difference in the learning success of students enrolled in the online vs. F2F course, stating that "in terms of learning, students who apply themselves diligently should exist successful in either format" (Dell et al., 2010). The writer's determination presumes that the "bug surrounding class size are nether control and that the teacher has a course load that makes the intensity of the online form workload viable" where the authors conclude that the workload for online courses is more than than for F2F courses (Stern, 2004).

In "A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Didactics," Bernard et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis evaluating three types of instructional and/or media conditions designed into distance education (DE) courses known as interaction treatments (ITs)—student–student (SS), student–instructor (ST), or educatee–content (SC) interactions—to other DE instructional/interaction treatments. The researchers found that a strong association existed between the integration of these ITs into distance didactics courses and accomplishment compared with composite or F2F modalities of learning. The authors speculated that this was due to increased cognitive date based in these 3 interaction treatments (Larson and Sung, 2009).

Other studies evaluating students' preferences (simply not efficacy) for online vs. F2F learning establish that students adopt online learning when it was offered, depending on course topic, and online grade technology platform (Ary and Brune, 2011). F2F learning was preferred when courses were offered tardily morning or early afternoon 2–3 days/week. A pregnant preference for online learning resulted across all undergraduate course topics (American history and government, humanities, natural sciences, social, and behavioral sciences, diversity, and international dimension) except English composition and speech. A preference for analytical and quantitative idea courses was likewise expressed past students, though not with statistically significant results (Mann and Henneberry, 2014). In this inquiry report, we looked at iii hypothesis comparing online and F2F learning. In each case, the null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, at no level of examination did nosotros detect a significant departure between online and F2F learners. This finding is important because information technology tells us traditional-mode teaching with its heavy emphasis on interpersonal classroom dynamics may one day exist replaced by online instruction. According to Daymont and Blau (2008) online learners, regardless of gender or class rank, acquire every bit much from electronic interaction as they practice from personal interaction. Kemp and Grieve (2014) as well found that both online and F2F learning for psychology students led to similar academic performance. Given the cost efficiencies and flexibility of online education, Web-based instructional systems may rapidly rising.

A number of studies back up the economical benefits of online vs. F2F learning, despite differences in social constructs and educational support provided past governments. In a study by Li and Chen (2012) college education institutions do good the well-nigh from ii of four outputs—research outputs and distance education—with instruction via altitude education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels more profitable than F2F instruction at higher education institutions in China. Zhang and Worthington (2017) reported an increasing cost benefit for the use of distance education over F2F education as seen at 37 Australian public universities over 9 years from 2003 to 2012. Maloney et al. (2015) and Kemp and Grieve (2014) also found pregnant savings in higher didactics when using online learning platforms vs. F2F learning. In the West, the toll efficiency of online learning has been demonstrated past several research studies (Craig, 2015). Studies by Agasisti and Johnes (2015) and Bartley and Golek (2004) both plant the cost benefits of online learning significantly greater than that of F2F learning at U.South. institutions.

Knowing there is no pregnant difference in student operation betwixt the ii mediums, institutions of higher education may make the gradual shift away from traditional instruction; they may implement Web-based teaching to capture a larger worldwide audience. If administered correctly, this shift to Web-based teaching could atomic number 82 to a larger buyer population, more cost efficiencies, and more university revenue.

The social implications of this study should be touted; however, several concerns regarding generalizability need to be taken into business relationship. First, this study focused solely on students from an environmental studies form for non-STEM majors. The ability to effectively prepare students for scientific professions without hands-on experimentation has been contended. As a course that functions to communicate scientific concepts, simply does not require a laboratory based component, these results may not translate into similar functioning of students in an online Stem course for STEM majors or an online form that has an online laboratory based co-requisite when compared to students taking traditional STEM courses for Stalk majors. There are few studies that suggest the mural may be changing with the ability to effectively railroad train students in Stalk core concepts via online learning. Biel and Brame (2016) reported successfully translating the bookish success of F2F undergraduate biology courses to online biology courses. However, researchers reported that of the large-calibration courses analyzed, two F2F sections outperformed students in online sections, and three found no meaning divergence. A report by Beale et al. (2014) comparing F2F learning with hybrid learning in an embryology class plant no difference in overall student performance. Additionally, the lesser quartile of students showed no differential event of the delivery method on exam scores. Further, a study from Lorenzo-Alvarez et al. (2019) found that radiology education in an online learning platform resulted in similar academic outcomes equally F2F learning. Larger scale enquiry is needed to determine the effectiveness of Stalk online learning and outcomes assessments, including workforce development results.

In our research written report, information technology is possible the study participants may take been more knowledgeable about environmental scientific discipline than virtually other subjects. Therefore, it should be noted this written report focused solely on students taking this i particular class. Given the results, this course presents a unique potential for increasing the number of non-STEM majors engaged in citizen science using the flexibility of online learning to teach ecology science core concepts.

Second, the operationalization measure of "grade" or "score" to determine functioning level may be defective in telescopic and depth. The grades received in a class may not necessarily bear witness actual ability, especially if the weights were adjusted to heavily favor grouping tasks and writing projects. Other functioning indicators may be better suited to properly access student functioning. A single test containing both multiple option and essay questions may be a amend operationalization indicator of student performance. This blazon of indicator will provide both a quantitative and qualitative mensurate of subject matter comprehension.

Third, the nature of the student sample must exist further dissected. Information technology is possible the online students in this written report may accept had more than time than their counterparts to learn the material and generate better grades (Summers et al., 2005). The inverse holds true, likewise. Because this was a convenience non-probability sampling, the chances of actually getting a fair cross section of the student population were limited. In hereafter studies, greater emphasis must be placed on selecting proper study participants, those who truly reverberate proportions, types, and skill levels.

This study was relevant because it addressed an important educational topic; information technology compared two student groups on multiple levels using a unmarried operationalized performance measure. More studies, however, of this nature demand to be conducted before truly positing that online and F2F instruction generate the same results. Future studies need to eliminate spurious causal relationships and increment generalizability. This volition maximize the chances of generating a definitive, untainted results. This scientific inquiry and comparison into online and traditional teaching volition undoubtedly garner more attention in the coming years.

Summary

Our study compared learning via F2F vs. online learning modalities in education an ecology scientific discipline class additionally evaluating factors of gender and class rank. These data demonstrate the ability to similarly translate environmental science concepts for not-Stalk majors in both traditional and online platforms irrespective of gender or class rank. The social implications of this finding are of import for advancing access to and learning of scientific concepts by the general population, equally many institutions of higher education allow an online course to be taken without enrolling in a degree program. Thus, the potential exists for increasing the number of non-Stalk majors engaged in citizen science using the flexibility of online learning to teach environmental science core concepts.

Limitations of the Study

The limitations of the study centered around the nature of the sample grouping, student skills/abilities, and student familiarity with online instruction. First, because this was a convenience, non-probability sample, the independent variables were not adjusted for existent-earth accuracy. 2d, student intelligence and skill level were not taken into consideration when separating out comparison groups. At that place exists the possibility that the F2F learners in this written report may have been more capable than the online students and vice versa. This limitation also applies to gender and grade rank differences (Fri et al., 2006). Finally, at that place may take been ease of familiarity issues between the 2 sets of learners. Experienced traditional classroom students now taking Web-based courses may be daunted by the technical aspect of the modality. They may not take had the necessary preparation or experience to efficiently east-acquire, thus leading to lowered scores (Helms, 2014). In addition to comparing online and F2F instructional efficacy, futurity research should too clarify blended teaching methods for the effectiveness of courses for not-STEM majors to impart basic STEM concepts and come across if the composite mode is more effective than whatsoever 1 pure style.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are bachelor on request to the respective writer.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Fort Valley State University Human Subjects Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

JP provided substantial contributions to the conception of the work, acquisition and assay of data for the piece of work, and is the corresponding author on this newspaper who agrees to be answerable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. FJ provided substantial contributions to the design of the work, interpretation of the data for the work, and revised it critically for intellectual content.

Funding

This enquiry was supported in part by funding from the National Scientific discipline Foundation, Awards #1649717, 1842510, Ñ900572, and 1939739 to FJ.

Conflict of Involvement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of whatsoever commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of involvement.

Acknowledgments

The authors would similar to thank the reviewers for their detailed comments and feedback that assisted in the revising of our original manuscript.

References

Agasisti, T., and Johnes, 1000. (2015). Efficiency, costs, rankings and heterogeneity: the instance of US higher instruction. Stud. High. Educ. forty, threescore–82. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.818644

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ary, East. J., and Brune, C. W. (2011). A comparison of student learning outcomes in traditional and online personal finance courses. MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach. 7, 465–474.

Google Scholar

Atchley, W., Wingenbach, G., and Akers, C. (2013). Comparison of course completion and educatee functioning through online and traditional courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Acquire. 14, 104–116. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1461

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bartley, S. J., and Golek, J. H. (2004). Evaluating the cost effectiveness of online and face-to-face didactics. Educ. Technol. Soc. 7, 167–175.

Google Scholar

Beale, E. Grand., Tarwater, P. M., and Lee, 5. H. (2014). A retrospective await at replacing face-to-face embryology pedagogy with online lectures in a human anatomy course. Am. Assoc. Anat. vii, 234–241. doi: ten.1002/ase.1396

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bernard, R. Thousand., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, Due east., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkesh, Thou. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance instruction. Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 1243–1289. doi: x.3102/0034654309333844

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Biel, R., and Brame, C. J. (2016). Traditional versus online biology courses: connecting course blueprint and student learning in an online setting. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 17, 417–422. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1157

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bigelow, C. A. (2009). Comparison student performance in an online versus a face up to face up introductory turfgrass science class-a example study. NACTA J. 53, 1–seven.

Google Scholar

Columbaro, N. L., and Monaghan, C. H. (2009). Employer perceptions of online degrees: a literature review. Online J. Dist. Learn. Administr. 12.

Google Scholar

Daymont, T., and Blau, K. (2008). Student functioning in online and traditional sections of an undergraduate direction grade. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 9, 275–294.

Google Scholar

Dell, C. A., Low, C., and Wilker, J. F. (2010). Comparing student achievement in online and face-to-face course formats. J. Online Acquire. Teach. Long Beach six, 30–42.

Google Scholar

Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. North., Tichavsky, Fifty., and Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparing of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face up-to-face up introductory sociology grade. Am. Sociol. Assoc. 40, 312–313. doi: 10.1177/0092055X12446624

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Friday, E., Shawnta, S., Green, A. L., and Colina, A. Y. (2006). A multi-semester comparison of pupil performance between multiple traditional and online sections of 2 direction courses. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 8, 66–81.

Google Scholar

Girard, J. P., Yerby, J., and Floyd, K. (2016). Knowledge retention in capstone experiences: an analysis of online and face up-to-face courses. Knowl. Manag. ELearn. 8, 528–539. doi: x.34105/j.kmel.2016.08.033

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Helms, J. 50. (2014). Comparing pupil performance in online and confront-to-face up delivery modalities. J. Asynchr. Learn. Netw. 18, 1–fourteen. doi: 10.24059/olj.v18i1.348

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Herman, T., and Banister, Due south. (2007). Face-to-face versus online coursework: a comparison of costs and learning outcomes. Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. seven, 318–326.

Google Scholar

Kemp, N., and Grieve, R. (2014). Confront-to-Face or face up-to-screen? Undergraduates' opinions and examination performance in classroom vs. online learning. Front end. Psychol. five:1278. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keramidas, C. G. (2012). Are undergraduate students ready for online learning? A comparing of online and face-to-face sections of a form. Rural Special Educ. Q. 31, 25–39. doi: 10.1177/875687051203100405

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Larson, D.K., and Sung, C. (2009). Comparing pupil performance: online versus blended versus face-to-face. J. Asynchr. Learn. Netw. 13, 31–42. doi: 10.24059/olj.v13i1.1675

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Li, F., and Chen, X. (2012). Economies of telescopic in distance education: the case of Chinese Research Universities. Int. Rev. Res. Open up Distrib. Acquire. thirteen, 117–131.

Google Scholar

Liu, Y. (2005). Furnishings of online pedagogy vs. traditional education on pupil's learning. Int. J. Instruct. Technol. Dist. Learn. 2, 57–64.

Google Scholar

Lorenzo-Alvarez, R., Rudolphi-Solero, T., Ruiz-Gomez, Chiliad. J., and Sendra-Portero, F. (2019). Medical student instruction for abdominal radiographs in a 3D virtual classroom versus traditional classroom: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Roentgenol. 213, 644–650. doi: 10.2214/AJR.nineteen.21131

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lundberg, J., Castillo-Merino, D., and Dahmani, Thousand. (2008). Do online students perform better than face-to-face students? Reflections and a short review of some Empirical Findings. Rev. Univ. Soc. Conocim. 5, 35–44. doi: 10.7238/rusc.v5i1.326

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Maloney, S., Nicklen, P., Rivers, G., Foo, J., Ooi, Y. Y., Reeves, S., et al. (2015). Cost-effectiveness analysis of blended versus contiguous delivery of evidence-based medicine to medical students. J. Med. Cyberspace Res. 17:e182. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4346

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mann, J. T., and Henneberry, S. R. (2014). Online versus contiguous: students' preferences for college course attributes. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 46, 1–nineteen. doi: ten.1017/S1074070800000602

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Mozes-Carmel, A., and Gold, S. S. (2009). A comparison of online vs proctored final exams in online classes. Imanagers J. Educ. Technol. 6, 76–81. doi: 10.26634/jet.6.i.212

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Richardson, J. C., and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to pupil's perceived learning and satisfaction. J. Asynchr. Larn. 7, 68–88.

Google Scholar

Roval, A. P., and Jordan, H. 1000. (2004). Composite learning and sense of community: a comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 5. doi: ten.19173/irrodl.v5i2.192

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Salcedo, C. Southward. (2010). Comparative analysis of learning outcomes in face-to-face foreign language classes vs. language lab and online. J. Coll. Teach. Larn. vii, 43–54. doi: ten.19030/tlc.v7i2.88

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stern, B. S. (2004). A comparison of online and contiguous education in an undergraduate foundations of american didactics course. Contemp. Bug Technol. Teach. Educ. J. 4, 196–213.

Google Scholar

Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., and Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of pupil achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics grade. Innov. High. Educ. 29, 233–250. doi: 10.1007/s10755-005-1938-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Werhner, M. J. (2010). A comparison of the performance of online versus traditional on-campus earth science students on identical exams. J. Geosci. Educ. 58, 310–312. doi: 10.5408/1.3559697

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Westhuis, D., Ouellette, P. M., and Pfahler, C. L. (2006). A comparative analysis of on-line and classroom-based instructional formats for teaching social work research. Adv. Soc. Work 7, 74–88. doi: 10.18060/184

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wladis, C., Conway, Yard. M., and Hachey, A. C. (2015). The online Stem classroom-who succeeds? An exploration of the impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional educatee characteristics in the community college context. Commun. Coll. Rev. 43, 142–164. doi: x.1177/0091552115571729

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Xu, D., and Jaggars, Due south. Southward. (2016). Performance gaps between online and contiguous courses: differences across types of students and academic subject field areas. J. Higher Educ. 85, 633–659. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2014.0028

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, L.-C., and Worthington, A. C. (2017). Calibration and telescopic economies of distance education in Australian universities. Stud. High. Educ. 42, 1785–1799. doi: ten.1080/03075079.2015.1126817

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

nelsonengly1938.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007/full

Share this post