You are here:

Comparing Student Evaluations of Traditional and Online Instruction: A Quantitative and Qualitative Approach
PROCEEDINGS

, Towson University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Orlando, Florida, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-58-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This study compared graduate student perceptions of an online and traditional face-to-face educational research methods course taught simultaneously by the same instructor. Four sections of graduate students responded to identical end-of-semester course and instructor evaluations. The students also completed an in-depth qualitative survey of their perceptions of various activities and experiences included in the class. Results indicated that instructor ratings were largely unaffected by mode of delivery; however, student perceptions of the online course were statistically significantly lower than the traditional F2F course. A number of potential explanations were uncovered in the qualitative evaluations, suggesting that faculty should utilize various mechanisms to provide online students with an educational experience as rich as their F2F counterparts.

Citation

Fox, H. (2006). Comparing Student Evaluations of Traditional and Online Instruction: A Quantitative and Qualitative Approach. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2006--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 344-349). Orlando, Florida, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 6, 2021 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world. Kogan Page: London.
  2. Duffy, T., Gilbert, I., Kennedy, D., & Wai Kwong, P. (2002). Comparing distance education and conventional education: Observations from a comparative study of post-registration nurses. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 10(1), 70-82.
  3. Hysong, S.J. & Mannix, L.M. (2003). Learning outcomes in distance education versus traditional and mixed environments. Paper presented at the 2003Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. April 11-13.
  4. Johnson, S.D., Aragon, S.R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29-49.
  5. Lockwood, F., & Gooley, A. (2001). Innovation in open and distance learning– successful development of online and webbased learning. Kogan Page: London.
  6. Matthews, D. (1999). The origins of distance education and its use in the United States. T.H.E. Journal, 27(2), 54-60.
  7. Rintala, J. (1998). Computer technology in higher education: An experiment, not a solution. Quest, 50, 366-378.
  8. Ryan, R.C. (2000). Student assessment comparison of lecture and online construction equipment and methods classes. T.H.E. Journal, 27(5). Retrieved September 16, 2002 from www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/articleprintversion.cfm?aid=2596 St. Pierre, P. (1998). Distance learning in physical education teacher education. Quest, 50(4), 344-356.
  9. Waschull, S.B. (2001). The online delivery of psychology courses: Attrition, performance and evaluation. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 143-147.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References