You are here:

Is There a Difference in Student Achievement Based on the Delivery Method in an Undergraduate Assessment Course: A Comparison of Face-to-Face, Hybrid, and Online Sections
PROCEEDINGS

, Eastern Kentucky University, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Toronto, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-81-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

This study looked at student achievement in an undergraduate assessment course presented to three groups of students via three different course delivery methods in a teacher education program at a large comprehensive university in the South. One group of students (N = 26) was taught in a traditional face-to-face section, one group was in a hybrid section (N = 16) which received their instruction partially in a classroom and partially online, and one group was fully online (N = 31). The study used the four metrics of achievement on the midterm exam, the comprehensive final exam, the comprehensive final project, and the grade achieved in the course. Even though the course contained a large statistics component, and even though, since it was conducted in 2009, technology had increased the opportunity for students in the traditional classroom to interact with the material in more meaningful ways than in the past, the study determined that there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups on any of the measures.

Citation

Lovern, J.J. (2010). Is There a Difference in Student Achievement Based on the Delivery Method in an Undergraduate Assessment Course: A Comparison of Face-to-Face, Hybrid, and Online Sections. In J. Herrington & C. Montgomerie (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2010--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 2462-2467). Toronto, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 6, 2021 from .

© 2010 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Beffa-Negrini, P. (2001). Factors for success in online and face-to-face instruction. Academic Exchange Quarterly (December 22, 2001), ISSN 1096-1453.
  2. Bourne, J.R., McMaster, E., Rieger, J., & Campbell, J.O. (1997). Paradigms for on-line learning: A case study in the design and implementation of an asynchronous learning networks (ALN) course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(2), 38-56.
  3. Coates, D., Humphreys, B.R., Kane, J., & Vachris, M.A. (2004). No significant distance between face-to-face and online instruction: Evidence from principles of economics. Economics of Education Review, 23, 533-546.
  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. McDonald, J. (2002). Is “as good as face-to-face” as good as it gets? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks: Special Issue on Nursing, 6(2), 10-23.
  6. Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99-113.
  7. Russell, T.L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education. Office of Instructional Telecommunications, NCSU Box 7401, Raleigh, NC 27695-7401.
  8. Summers, J.J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T.A. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), March 2005. Netherlands: Springer.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections