Valley of the Sun Reviews Case Study Mathematical Theory
Introduction
The appearance of online didactics has made it possible for students with busy lives and limited flexibility to obtain a quality instruction. As opposed to traditional classroom teaching, Web-based instruction has made it possible to offer classes worldwide through a single Cyberspace connection. Although information technology boasts several advantages over traditional education, online instruction still has its drawbacks, including limited communal synergies. Still, online pedagogy seems to be the path many students are taking to secure a degree.
This study compared the effectiveness of online vs. traditional pedagogy in an environmental studies class. Using a single indicator, nosotros attempted to meet if student performance was effected past instructional medium. This written report sought to compare online and F2F teaching on iii levels—pure modality, gender, and course rank. Through these comparisons, we investigated whether 1 teaching modality was significantly more effective than the other. Although in that location were limitations to the study, this examination was conducted to provide united states of america with additional measures to decide if students performed better in 1 surroundings over another (Mozes-Carmel and Gold, 2009).
The methods, procedures, and operationalization tools used in this assessment tin can be expanded upon in hereafter quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method designs to further clarify this topic. Moreover, the results of this written report serve as a backbone for hereafter meta-analytical studies.
Origins of Online Education
Computer-assisted instruction is irresolute the pedagogical landscape 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 meet student needs worldwide. I study reported "increases in the number of online courses given by universities have been quite dramatic over the concluding couple of years" (Lundberg et al., 2008). Think tanks are also disseminating statistics on Spider web-based didactics. "In 2010, the Sloan Consortium found a 17% increment in online students from the years before, beating the 12% increase from the previous year" (Keramidas, 2012).
Opposite to pop belief, online education is not a new miracle. The first 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 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 and so, non-traditional study has grown into what it is today considered a more feasible online instructional modality. Technological advocacy indubitably helped meliorate the speed and accessibility of altitude learning courses; now students worldwide could attend classes from the comfort of their own homes.
Qualities of Online and Traditional Face up to Face (F2F) Classroom Pedagogy
Online and traditional education share many qualities. Students are withal required to attend class, learn the material, submit assignments, and complete group projects. While teachers, nonetheless have to blueprint curriculums, maximize instructional quality, answer class questions, motivate students to learn, and grade assignments. Despite these basic similarities, there are many differences between the two modalities. Traditionally, classroom teaching is known to exist teacher-centered and requires passive learning by the student, while online pedagogy is often educatee-centered and requires active learning.
In teacher-centered, or passive learning, the instructor usually controls classroom dynamics. The teacher lectures and comments, while students listen, accept notes, and ask questions. In pupil-centered, or active learning, the students usually decide classroom dynamics equally they independently analyze the data, construct questions, and ask the instructor for clarification. In this scenario, the teacher, not the pupil, is listening, formulating, and responding (Salcedo, 2010).
In instruction, change comes with questions. Despite all current reports championing online education, researchers are still questioning its efficacy. Research is still being conducted on the effectiveness of calculator-assisted teaching. Cost-benefit analysis, student feel, and student functioning are now being carefully considered when determining whether online education is a viable substitute for classroom teaching. This decision process will most probably carry into the time to come as technology improves and as students demand improve learning experiences.
Thus far, "literature on the efficacy of online courses is expansive and divided" (Driscoll et al., 2012). Some studies favor traditional classroom instruction, stating "online learners will quit more easily" and "online learning can lack feedback for both students and instructors" (Atchley et al., 2013). Considering of these shortcomings, student retention, satisfaction, and performance tin can be compromised. Like traditional instruction, distance learning also has its apologists who aver online education produces students who perform as well or better 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 meliorate educatee performance. Both modalities have been proven to be relatively effective, but, as mentioned earlier, the question to be asked is if one is truly amend than the other.
Student Need for Online Teaching
With technological advocacy, learners now want quality programs they can access from anywhere and at any time. Because of these demands, online education has go a viable, alluring option to business organization professionals, stay-at habitation-parents, and other similar populations. In addition to flexibility and access, multiple other face value benefits, including program option and time efficiency, have increased the bewitchery of distance learning (Wladis et al., 2015).
First, prospective students desire to be able to receive a quality didactics without having to sacrifice work fourth dimension, family time, and travel expense. Instead of having to be at a specific location at a specific time, online educational students have the freedom to communicate with instructors, address classmates, study materials, and complete assignments from whatever Internet-accessible point (Richardson and Swan, 2003). This type of flexibility grants students much-needed mobility and, in plow, helps make the educational process more than enticing. According to Lundberg et al. (2008) "the student may adopt to take an online course or a complete online-based degree program as online courses offer more flexible written report hours; for case, a pupil who has a job could attend the virtual form watching instructional film and streaming videos of lectures after working hours."
Moreover, more than study fourth dimension can lead to better class performance—more capacity read, better quality papers, and more group project time. Studies on the relationship between study time and performance are limited; however, it is often assumed the online student will utilize any surplus fourth dimension to meliorate grades (Bigelow, 2009). It is crucial to mention the link between flexibility and student performance as grades are the lonely performance indicator of this research.
2d, online education also offers more program choices. With traditional classroom study, students are forced to take courses only at universities within feasible driving distance or movement. Web-based instruction, on the other hand, grants students electronic admission to multiple universities and class offerings (Salcedo, 2010). Therefore, students who were once limited to a few colleges within their firsthand area tin can now access several colleges worldwide from a unmarried user-friendly location.
3rd, with online educational activity, students who normally don't participate in form may now vocalization their opinions and concerns. As they are not in a classroom setting, quieter students may feel more than comfortable partaking in class dialogue without being recognized or judged. This, in turn, may increase average form scores (Driscoll et al., 2012).
Benefits of Face up-to-Face up (F2F) Education via Traditional Classroom Instruction
The other modality, classroom teaching, is a well-established instructional medium in which teaching style and structure have been refined over several centuries. Face-to-face education has numerous benefits not establish in its online counterpart (Xu and Jaggars, 2016).
First and, maybe most importantly, classroom instruction is extremely dynamic. Traditional classroom didactics provides real-time contiguous instruction and sparks innovative questions. Information technology as well allows for firsthand teacher response and more flexible content delivery. Online instruction dampens the learning process because students must limit their questions to blurbs, then grant the instructor and beau classmates time to respond (Salcedo, 2010). Over time, however, online instruction volition probably improve, enhancing classroom dynamics and bringing students face-to face with their peers/instructors. However, for at present, face-to-confront teaching provides dynamic learning attributes not found in Web-based educational activity (Kemp and Grieve, 2014).
Second, traditional classroom learning is a well-established modality. Some students are opposed to modify and view online instruction negatively. These students may be technophobes, more than comfortable with sitting in a classroom taking notes than sitting at a computer arresting data. Other students may value face-to-face interaction, pre and post-class discussions, communal learning, and organic student-teacher bonding (Roval and Hashemite kingdom of jordan, 2004). They may come across 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 education. With more universities employing reckoner-based training, students may be forced to take merely Spider web-based courses. Albeit true, this doesn't eliminate the fact some students adopt classroom intimacy.
Third, face-to-face teaching doesn't rely upon networked systems. In online learning, the student is dependent upon access to an unimpeded Cyberspace connection. If technical problems occur, online students may not be able to communicate, submit assignments, or access study material. This trouble, in turn, may frustrate the student, hinder performance, and discourage learning.
Fourth, campus teaching provides students with both accredited staff and inquiry libraries. Students tin rely upon administrators to aid in course selection and provide professorial recommendations. Library technicians tin can assistance learners edit their papers, locate valuable study material, and amend study habits. Enquiry libraries may provide materials non accessible by figurer. In all, the traditional classroom experience gives students important auxiliary tools to maximize classroom performance.
Fifth, traditional classroom degrees trump online educational degrees in terms of hiring preferences. Many academic and professional person organizations do not consider online degrees on par with campus-based degrees (Columbaro and Monaghan, 2009). Often, prospective hiring bodies think Spider web-based education is a watered-downward, simpler means of attaining a caste, often citing poor curriculums, unsupervised exams, and lenient homework assignments as detriments to the learning process.
Finally, inquiry shows online students are more probable to quit form if they exercise not like the instructor, the format, or the feedback. Because they piece of work independently, relying virtually wholly upon self-motivation and self-direction, online learners may be more inclined to withdraw from class if they do non get immediate results.
The classroom setting provides more motivation, encouragement, and management. Fifty-fifty if a student wanted to quit during the start few weeks of form, he/she may be deterred by the instructor and young man students. F2F instructors may be able to accommodate the structure and teaching mode of the form to ameliorate student retention (Kemp and Grieve, 2014). With online teaching, instructors are limited to electronic correspondence and may not pick-upward on verbal and non-exact cues.
Both F2F and online didactics have their pros and cons. More than studies comparing the ii modalities to achieve specific learning outcomes in participating learner populations are required earlier well-informed decisions can exist made. This study examined the two modalities over eight (eight) years on three different levels. Based on the aforementioned information, the post-obit research questions resulted.
RQ1: Are there significant differences in bookish performance betwixt online and F2F students enrolled in an environmental science form?
RQ2: Are at that place gender differences between online and F2F pupil operation in an environmental science class?
RQ3: Are there significant differences betwixt the performance of online and F2F students in an environmental science course with respect to class rank?
The results of this written report are intended to edify teachers, administrators, and policymakers on which medium may work all-time.
Methodology
Participants
The report sample consisted of 548 FVSU students who completed the Environmental Science class between 2009 and 2016. The final grade grades of the participants served every bit the primary comparative cistron 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 report. Of the 548 total students, 246 were male, while 302 were female person. The report too used students from all four class ranks. There were 187 freshmen, 184 sophomores, 76 juniors, and 101 seniors. This was a convenience, non-probability sample so the limerick of the study fix was left to the discretion of the instructor. 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-fourth dimension biology professor at FVSU. The professor had over ten years pedagogy feel in both classroom and F2F modalities. The professor was considered an outstanding tenured instructor with strong advice and management skills.
The F2F form met twice weekly in an on-campus classroom. Each class lasted 1 h and 15 min. The online class covered the same cloth as the F2F class, but was washed wholly on-line using the Want to Acquire (D2L) e-learning system. Online students were expected to spend equally much time studying as their F2F counterparts; however, no tracking measure out 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 procedure.
This study did not differentiate between part-time and full-time students. Therefore, many part-time students may take been included in this report. This study also did not 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 ecology science grade requirement.
Test Instruments
In this study, student performance was operationalized by final course grades. The final grade grade was derived from exam, homework, class participation, and enquiry projection scores. The four aforementioned assessments were valid and relevant; they were useful in gauging student ability and generating objective functioning measurements. The last grades were converted from numerical scores to traditional GPA letters.
Data Collection Procedures
The sample 548 student grades were obtained from FVSU's Role of Institutional Enquiry Planning and Effectiveness (OIRPE). The OIRPE released the grades to the instructor with the expectation the instructor would maintain confidentiality and non disclose said information to 3rd parties. After the information was obtained, the instructor analyzed and candy the data though SPSS software to calculate specific values. These converted values were subsequently used to describe conclusions and validate the hypothesis.
Results
Summary of the Results: The chi-square analysis showed no pregnant departure in educatee performance between online and contiguous (F2F) learners [χ2 (four, Northward = 548) = half dozen.531, p > 0.05]. The contained sample t-test showed no pregnant difference in pupil performance between online and F2F learners with respect to gender [t (145) = 1.42, p = 0.122]. The 2-way ANOVA showed no significant deviation in pupil performance between online and F2F learners with respect to class rank (Girard et al., 2016).
Research question #1 was to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the academic performance of online and F2F students.
Research Question one
The first enquiry question investigated if there was a departure in student performance betwixt F2F and online learners.
To investigate the first inquiry question, we used a traditional chi-square method to analyze the information. The chi-foursquare analysis is peculiarly useful for this blazon of comparison because it allows us to determine if the relationship between teaching modality and performance in our sample set can exist extended to the larger population. The chi-foursquare method provides u.s. with a numerical result which can exist used to determine if there is a statistically significant divergence between the 2 groups.
Tabular array one shows us the hateful and SD for modality and for gender. It is a general breakdown of numbers to visually elucidate any differences between scores and deviations. The hateful 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 can be seen between the GPAs earned by men and women. Men had a 3.23 hateful GPA while women had a ii.9 mean GPA. The SDs for both groups were most identical. Fifty-fifty though the 0.33 numerical difference may look fairly insignificant, information technology must exist noted that a 3.23 is approximately a B+ while a two.ix is approximately a B. Given a categorical range of merely A to F, a plus differential can be considered significant.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations for 8 semester- "Environmental Science data prepare."
The hateful grade for men in the environmental online classes (M = 3.23, N = 246, SD = i.19) was higher than the hateful form for women in the classes (G = 2.9, N = 302, SD = 1.twenty) (see Table 1).
Beginning, a chi-square analysis was performed using SPSS to determine if at that place was a statistically significant difference in course distribution between online and F2F students. Students enrolled in the F2F class had the highest percentage of A's (63.threescore%) as compared to online students (36.xl%). Table 2 displays grade distribution by course commitment modality. The difference in pupil operation was statistically meaning, χii (four, N = 548) = half-dozen.531, p > 0.05. Table 3 shows the gender departure on student operation betwixt online and F2F students.
Tabular array 2. Contingency table for student's academic performance (Due north = 548).
Table iii. Gender *performance crosstabulation.
Table 2 shows us the performance measures of online and F2F students by grade category. As can be seen, F2F students generated the highest operation numbers for each grade category. However, this disparity was mostly due to a higher number of F2F students in the written report. In that location were 401 F2F students as opposed to just 147 online students. When viewing grades with respect to modality, at that place are smaller percentage differences betwixt corresponding learners (Tanyel and Griffin, 2014). For example, F2F learners earned 28 As (63.sixty% of total A'due south earned) while online learners earned 16 As (36.40% of full A'southward 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 (six.9%) earned As as compared to sixteen of 147 (ten.nine%) online learners. In this case, online learners scored relatively higher in this grade category. The latter measure (course total every bit a percent of modality full) is a meliorate reflection of corresponding operation levels.
Given a critical value of vii.seven and a d.f. of 4, we were able to generate a chi-squared measure of 6.531. The correlating p-value of 0.163 was greater than our p-value significance level of 0.05. We, therefore, had to take the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis. In that location is no statistically meaning deviation between the two groups in terms of performance scores.
Research Question two
The second research question was posed to evaluate if there was a difference between online and F2F varied with gender. Does online and F2F student operation vary with respect to gender? Table 3 shows the gender deviation on educatee performance between online and face up to face up students. We used chi-foursquare test to make up one's mind if there were differences in online and F2F educatee performance with respect to gender. The chi-square test with alpha equal to 0.05 as benchmark for significance. The chi-square upshot shows that in that location is no statistically significant difference between men and women in terms of operation.
Research Question 3
The 3rd research question tried to decide if there was a difference betwixt online and F2F varied with respect to form rank. Does online and F2F student performance vary with respect to class rank?
Table 4 shows the mean scores and standard deviations of freshman, sophomore, and inferior and senior students for both online and F2F educatee performance. To exam the tertiary hypothesis, we used a two-way ANOVA. The ANOVA is a useful appraisal tool for this particular hypothesis as it tests the differences betwixt multiple means. Instead of testing specific differences, the ANOVA generates a much broader picture of average differences. As tin can be seen in Table iv, the ANOVA exam for this particular hypothesis states there is no significant difference between online and F2F learners with respect to course rank. Therefore, nosotros must accept the null hypothesis and decline the alternative hypothesis.
Table 4. Descriptive analysis of student performance past class rankings gender.
The results of the ANOVA show there is no significant difference in performance between online and F2F students with respect to class rank. Results of ANOVA is presented in Table 5.
Table five. Assay of variance (ANOVA) for online and F2F of class rankings.
As can be seen in Table 4, the ANOVA test for this particular hypothesis states there is no significant difference betwixt online and F2F learners with respect to class rank. Therefore, nosotros must accept the null hypothesis and reject the culling hypothesis.
Discussion and Social Implications
The results of the study bear witness there is no pregnant departure in performance between online and traditional classroom students with respect to modality, gender, or course rank in a scientific discipline concepts course for non-Stem majors. Although in that location were sample size problems and study limitations, this cess shows both online learners and classroom learners perform at the same level. This determination indicates teaching modality may non affair as much every bit 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 have not found a study of this nature comparing online and F2F non-STEM majors with respect to three separate factors—medium, gender, and course rank—and the ability to learn scientific discipline 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, just rarely regarding outcomes relevant to population characteristics of learning for a specific scientific discipline 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 information where tested students successfully achieved learning outcomes comparable to students taking the F2F course (Herman and Banister, 2007).
Another study evaluated the similarities and differences in F2F and online learning in a non-STEM course, "Foundations of American Education" and overall class satisfaction past students enrolled in either of the two modalities. F2F and online class satisfaction was qualitatively and quantitative analyzed. However, in analyzing online and F2F grade feedback using quantitative feedback, online grade satisfaction was less than F2F satisfaction. When qualitative data was used, course satisfaction was like between modalities (Werhner, 2010). The class satisfaction information and feedback was used to suggest a number of posits for effective online learning in the specific class. The researcher concluded that there 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 be successful in either format" (Dell et al., 2010). The author's conclusion presumes that the "issues surrounding class size are under command and that the instructor has a course load that makes the intensity of the online course workload feasible" where the authors conclude that the workload for online courses is more than for F2F courses (Stern, 2004).
In "A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education," Bernard et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis evaluating 3 types of instructional and/or media conditions designed into distance education (DE) courses known as interaction treatments (ITs)—student–student (SS), pupil–teacher (ST), or student–content (SC) interactions—to other DE instructional/interaction treatments. The researchers found that a potent association existed between the integration of these ITs into distance education courses and achievement compared with composite or F2F modalities of learning. The authors speculated that this was due to increased cognitive engagement based in these iii interaction treatments (Larson and Sung, 2009).
Other studies evaluating students' preferences (but not efficacy) for online vs. F2F learning establish that students adopt online learning when it was offered, depending on form topic, and online course technology platform (Ary and Brune, 2011). F2F learning was preferred when courses were offered late morning or early afternoon ii–3 days/week. A significant preference for online learning resulted across all undergraduate class topics (American history and authorities, humanities, natural sciences, social, and behavioral sciences, diversity, and international dimension) except English composition and oral communication. A preference for analytical and quantitative thought courses was besides expressed by students, though not with statistically significant results (Isle of man and Henneberry, 2014). In this inquiry report, we looked at three hypothesis comparing online and F2F learning. In each example, the nada hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, at no level of examination did we observe a pregnant divergence betwixt online and F2F learners. This finding is of import because information technology tells united states traditional-style teaching with its heavy emphasis on interpersonal classroom dynamics may 1 day be replaced by online pedagogy. According to Daymont and Blau (2008) online learners, regardless of gender or class rank, acquire as much from electronic interaction as they do from personal interaction. Kemp and Grieve (2014) also establish that both online and F2F learning for psychology students led to similar academic functioning. Given the price efficiencies and flexibility of online education, Web-based instructional systems may apace rise.
A number of studies support the economic benefits of online vs. F2F learning, despite differences in social constructs and educational support provided by governments. In a report by Li and Chen (2012) college education institutions benefit the most from 2 of 4 outputs—research outputs and altitude educational activity—with teaching via distance education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels more profitable than F2F didactics at college teaching institutions in Prc. Zhang and Worthington (2017) reported an increasing cost do good for the use of distance instruction over F2F instruction 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 significant savings in higher education when using online learning platforms vs. F2F learning. In the W, the cost 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 institute the cost benefits of online learning significantly greater than that of F2F learning at U.S. institutions.
Knowing there is no pregnant deviation in pupil operation betwixt the ii mediums, institutions of college education may make the gradual shift away from traditional instruction; they may implement Web-based didactics to capture a larger worldwide audience. If administered correctly, this shift to Web-based teaching could lead to a larger buyer population, more cost efficiencies, and more academy revenue.
The social implications of this study should exist touted; however, several concerns regarding generalizability need to be taken into account. Beginning, this study focused solely on students from an ecology studies class for non-Stalk majors. The power to effectively prepare students for scientific professions without easily-on experimentation has been contended. As a class that functions to communicate scientific concepts, just does not require a laboratory based component, these results may not translate into similar performance 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. In that location are few studies that advise the mural may be changing with the ability to effectively train students in Stem cadre 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 big-scale courses analyzed, two F2F sections outperformed students in online sections, and three found no meaning departure. A study by Beale et al. (2014) comparison F2F learning with hybrid learning in an embryology class constitute no difference in overall educatee operation. Additionally, the bottom quartile of students showed no differential effect of the delivery method on test scores. Farther, a written report from Lorenzo-Alvarez et al. (2019) plant that radiology didactics in an online learning platform resulted in similar academic outcomes as F2F learning. Larger scale research is needed to determine the effectiveness of Stem online learning and outcomes assessments, including workforce development results.
In our enquiry study, it is possible the study participants may have been more than knowledgeable well-nigh environmental science than nigh other subjects. Therefore, information technology should be noted this study focused solely on students taking this 1 particular class. Given the results, this grade presents a unique potential for increasing the number of not-STEM majors engaged in citizen science using the flexibility of online learning to teach environmental science core concepts.
Second, the operationalization mensurate of "grade" or "score" to determine operation level may be defective in scope and depth. The grades received in a class may not necessarily testify actual power, especially if the weights were adapted to heavily favor grouping tasks and writing projects. Other performance indicators may be better suited to properly access educatee functioning. A single exam containing both multiple choice and essay questions may be a better operationalization indicator of student performance. This blazon of indicator will provide both a quantitative and qualitative measure of discipline matter comprehension.
Third, the nature of the student sample must be further dissected. It is possible the online students in this report may accept had more time than their counterparts to acquire the material and generate better grades (Summers et al., 2005). The inverse holds truthful, as well. Because this was a convenience not-probability sampling, the chances of actually getting a fair cross section of the educatee population were express. In future studies, greater emphasis must be placed on selecting proper written report participants, those who truly reflect proportions, types, and skill levels.
This study was relevant because it addressed an important educational topic; it compared 2 student groups on multiple levels using a unmarried operationalized performance mensurate. More studies, notwithstanding, of this nature need to be conducted before truly positing that online and F2F teaching generate the same results. Futurity studies need to eliminate spurious causal relationships and increase generalizability. This will maximize the chances of generating a definitive, untainted results. This scientific research and comparison into online and traditional education will undoubtedly garner more attention in the coming years.
Summary
Our study compared learning via F2F vs. online learning modalities in pedagogy an environmental scientific discipline course additionally evaluating factors of gender and class rank. These data demonstrate the ability to similarly translate environmental scientific discipline concepts for non-STEM majors in both traditional and online platforms irrespective of gender or class rank. The social implications of this finding are of import for advancing admission to and learning of scientific concepts by the general population, every bit many institutions of college teaching allow an online grade to be taken without enrolling in a degree program. Thus, the potential exists for increasing the number of non-STEM majors engaged in citizen science using the flexibility of online learning to teach ecology science core concepts.
Limitations of the Report
The limitations of the report centered around the nature of the sample group, educatee skills/abilities, and student familiarity with online teaching. First, considering this was a convenience, non-probability sample, the contained variables were non adapted for existent-world accuracy. 2d, student intelligence and skill level were not taken into consideration when separating out comparison groups. There exists the possibility that the F2F learners in this study may accept been more capable than the online students and vice versa. This limitation besides applies to gender and course rank differences (Friday et al., 2006). Finally, in that location may have been ease of familiarity issues between the ii sets of learners. Experienced traditional classroom students now taking Web-based courses may be daunted by the technical aspect of the modality. They may non have had the necessary grooming or experience to efficiently due east-acquire, thus leading to lowered scores (Helms, 2014). In addition to comparison online and F2F instructional efficacy, time to come research should also clarify composite teaching methods for the effectiveness of courses for non-STEM majors to impart bones STEM concepts and see if the blended style is more effective than whatsoever 1 pure way.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding writer.
Ideals Statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Fort Valley State University Human Subjects Institutional Review Lath. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accord with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.
Author Contributions
JP provided substantial contributions to the conception of the work, acquisition and assay of information for the work, and is the respective author on this paper who agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accurateness or integrity of any function of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. FJ provided substantial contributions to the design of the piece of work, interpretation of the information for the work, and revised it critically for intellectual content.
Funding
This research was supported in office by funding from the National Science Foundation, Awards #1649717, 1842510, Ñ900572, and 1939739 to FJ.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or fiscal relationships that could exist construed every bit a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their detailed comments and feedback that assisted in the revising of our original manuscript.
References
Agasisti, T., and Johnes, G. (2015). Efficiency, costs, rankings and heterogeneity: the case of United states higher educational activity. Stud. High. Educ. 40, sixty–82. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.818644
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Ary, E. 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, Westward., Wingenbach, K., and Akers, C. (2013). Comparison of course completion and student performance through online and traditional courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open up Dist. Acquire. fourteen, 104–116. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1461
CrossRef Total 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. seven, 167–175.
Google Scholar
Beale, E. K., Tarwater, P. M., and Lee, Five. H. (2014). A retrospective look at replacing face up-to-face embryology didactics with online lectures in a human anatomy course. Am. Assoc. Anat. 7, 234–241. doi: 10.1002/ase.1396
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Bernard, R. Thousand., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. G., Surkesh, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in altitude educational activity. Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 1243–1289. doi: 10.3102/0034654309333844
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Biel, R., and Brame, C. J. (2016). Traditional versus online biology courses: connecting grade blueprint and educatee learning in an online setting. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 17, 417–422. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1157
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Bigelow, C. A. (2009). Comparison student performance in an online versus a face to face introductory turfgrass science course-a case report. NACTA J. 53, 1–7.
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, Yard. (2008). Student operation in online and traditional sections of an undergraduate management grade. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 9, 275–294.
Google Scholar
Dell, C. A., Low, C., and Wilker, J. F. (2010). Comparison pupil achievement in online and face-to-face grade formats. J. Online Learn. Teach. Long Beach 6, 30–42.
Google Scholar
Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Chase, A. N., Tichavsky, L., and Thompson, Grand. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparing of student functioning and satisfaction in an online versus a contiguous introductory sociology course. Am. Sociol. Assoc. twoscore, 312–313. doi: 10.1177/0092055X12446624
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Friday, E., Shawnta, Due south., Greenish, A. L., and Hill, A. Y. (2006). A multi-semester comparison of student operation between multiple traditional and online sections of ii management 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-to-face courses. Knowl. Manag. ELearn. 8, 528–539. doi: 10.34105/j.kmel.2016.08.033
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Helms, J. L. (2014). Comparing student performance in online and face-to-face delivery modalities. J. Asynchr. Learn. Netw. 18, 1–14. doi: x.24059/olj.v18i1.348
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Herman, T., and Banister, S. (2007). Face-to-face versus online coursework: a comparing of costs and learning outcomes. Contemp. Problems Technol. Teach. Educ. vii, 318–326.
Google Scholar
Kemp, North., and Grieve, R. (2014). Face-to-Confront or face-to-screen? Undergraduates' opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning. Front. Psychol. five:1278. doi: x.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Keramidas, C. 1000. (2012). Are undergraduate students ready for online learning? A comparison of online and face-to-face sections of a class. Rural Special Educ. Q. 31, 25–39. doi: 10.1177/875687051203100405
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Larson, D.K., and Sung, C. (2009). Comparison student performance: online versus composite versus contiguous. J. Asynchr. Learn. Netw. 13, 31–42. doi: ten.24059/olj.v13i1.1675
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Li, F., and Chen, X. (2012). Economies of scope in distance teaching: the case of Chinese Research Universities. Int. Rev. Res. Open up Distrib. Larn. 13, 117–131.
Google Scholar
Liu, Y. (2005). Effects of online instruction vs. traditional educational activity on student'south learning. Int. J. Instruct. Technol. Dist. Acquire. two, 57–64.
Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Alvarez, R., Rudolphi-Solero, T., Ruiz-Gomez, Grand. J., and Sendra-Portero, F. (2019). Medical student teaching for abdominal radiographs in a 3D virtual classroom versus traditional classroom: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Roentgenol. 213, 644–650. doi: x.2214/AJR.xix.21131
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Lundberg, J., Castillo-Merino, D., and Dahmani, M. (2008). Do online students perform improve than face-to-face students? Reflections and a short review of some Empirical Findings. Rev. Univ. Soc. Conocim. 5, 35–44. doi: x.7238/rusc.v5i1.326
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Maloney, South., Nicklen, P., Rivers, G., Foo, J., Ooi, Y. Y., Reeves, Southward., et al. (2015). Cost-effectiveness analysis of composite versus face-to-face commitment of show-based medicine to medical students. J. Med. Internet 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 face-to-face: students' preferences for college grade attributes. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 46, 1–19. doi: 10.1017/S1074070800000602
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Mozes-Carmel, A., and Gold, S. S. (2009). A comparing of online vs proctored final exams in online classes. Imanagers J. Educ. Technol. half-dozen, 76–81. doi: 10.26634/jet.vi.1.212
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Richardson, J. C., and Swan, Grand. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to student's perceived learning and satisfaction. J. Asynchr. Acquire. 7, 68–88.
Google Scholar
Roval, A. P., and Hashemite kingdom of jordan, H. G. (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 assay of learning outcomes in face-to-face foreign language classes vs. language lab and online. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. 7, 43–54. doi: 10.19030/tlc.v7i2.88
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Stern, B. S. (2004). A comparison of online and face-to-face instruction in an undergraduate foundations of american didactics form. Contemp. Problems Technol. Teach. Educ. J. iv, 196–213.
Google Scholar
Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., and Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of pupil accomplishment and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional confront-to-face statistics form. Innov. High. Educ. 29, 233–250. doi: 10.1007/s10755-005-1938-ten
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Werhner, M. J. (2010). A comparison of the operation of online versus traditional on-campus earth science students on identical exams. J. Geosci. Educ. 58, 310–312. doi: 10.5408/ane.3559697
CrossRef Full 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 educational activity social work research. Adv. Soc. Work 7, 74–88. doi: ten.18060/184
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Wladis, C., Conway, Chiliad. M., and Hachey, A. C. (2015). The online Stem classroom-who succeeds? An exploration of the affect of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional student characteristics in the community college context. Commun. Coll. Rev. 43, 142–164. doi: 10.1177/0091552115571729
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Xu, D., and Jaggars, Due south. Southward. (2016). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: differences across types of students and academic subject 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). Scale and scope economies of distance education in Australian universities. Stud. High. Educ. 42, 1785–1799. doi: ten.1080/03075079.2015.1126817
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
pohlmanvalmostricay59.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007/full