Comparing Student Achievement in Online and Face-to-Face Class Formats - Article Example

Article Summary: Comparing Achievement in Online and Face-to Face Formats. Schools Number and of Instructors Name Date of Submission (e.g., October 12, 2009) Article Summary: Comparing Student Achievement in Online and Face-to-Face Class Formats. Introduction The article entitled “Comparing Student Achievement in Online and Face-to-Face Class Formats (Dell, Low and Walker, 2010) is written by three senior educators in the field of education in the United States. It starts with the observation that online teaching and learning is growing in popularity in teacher education programs, and quotes statistics from other researchers to show that this trend is set to continue. The authors state that faculty members have mixed feelings about this, with some people showing enthusiasm for this new medium for teaching and learning, and others expressing concerns about possible problems in the quality of learning that students gain, and possible workload, administration and training pressures on faculty staff. The fundamental issue that the authors explore is whether learning online is better or worse for students than learning in a traditional face-to-face classroom situation. In order to find the answer to this question the authors devised a study in which student learning strategies and achievement in each of these two contexts are compared. The purpose of the article, then, is a straightforward comparison of online and face-to-face learning and it appears to prove that these two modes are equivalent in their outcomes. Analysis Before launching into their own fieldwork, the authors briefly summarize some of the large amount of literature that has been written on this field already. An important meta-analyisis by Bernard et al. (2004) is quoted, highlighting the fact that in some 200 studies on distance learning, which includes some online learning, the results were “mixed at best.” (Dell, Low and Wilker, 2010, p. 31) The authors note that Bernard’s review ends with a call for further research, and with a preliminary finding that variables like methodology and pedagogy are more important than media (i.e. combinations of online or standard teaching or books) in predicting achievement. The authors cite further studies which suggest online learning is no less effective and perhaps slightly more effective than traditional learning, but again with an emphasis on pedagogical variables such as 1) use of problem based learning strategies, 2) opportunity for mediated communication with the instructor, 3) course and content provided before class starting and 4) the use of video, and many more not mentioned fully. Course design, rather than delivery method, appears to be a critical factor in the literature, and it is suggested that, the design of some of the research done in this field leaves a lot to be desired. A key issue is the difficulty in collecting comparable data from two such different teaching and learning processes, since there is a tendency in the literature to describe the distance (or online) element in detail, but not to give as much information on the classroom instruction element. Having explained these methodological difficulties at length, the authors then introduce their own study, which turns out to be two separate studies, one of undergraduates studying educational psychology, and another of postgraduates studying human development and learning. Students in each group were randomly allocated to online or face-to-face teaching groups. Material was delivered in the same order, and in roughly equivalent time scales, to both sets of groups, and the authors mention, but do not much comment on, the role of “facilitators” in the online postgraduate group. The same instructor delivered both online and classroom versions of the programs. Following their own advice, the authors give an account of the delivery methods of both types of learning. The outline of how each group engaged with the material is rather sketchy, however, and it appears the authors are keen to highlight the overlap, and somewhat reluctant to go into detail about the differences which were bound to occur in the two types of learning group. A very thorough and blind grading system was described, in which the markers had no way of distinguishing which papers came from which group. In the undergraduate program no difference in the achievement levels of the online and classroom based groups was found, while in the graduate program, in two of the four assignments, the online learners achieved higher grades. The authors rightly advise caution because of low numbers involved, and other variables not being controlled. For some reason the authors return to a discussion of the secondary literature at the end of the article in their “conclusions” section, citing numerous studies that emphasize the role of the instructor, the fact that prior experience of online learner is not a predictor of success, the importance of higher level thinking skills, motivation factors, self- regulation etc. It is not clear what relevance these points have at this stage in the paper, and there is more than a suggestion that the lack of clear outcomes in the small studies described has prompted the authors to look elsewhere for something important to report. Despite the more positive results for online learning in the graduate group, the authors conclude that “Instructional platforms formats differ, but evidence strongly suggests that either type can be effectively designed and taught, leading to equally strong student learning outcomes.” This is a rather simplistic conclusion, which seems more than a little self-evident. Conclusion Overall this is a disappointing article which tries to cover too much ground in too short a space. A more thorough description of the small studies reported would have been much more useful empirical evidence. Alternatively, a thorough analysis of the secondary literature, which the authors launched into but did not finish, would have also made a valuable contribution to the field. As it is, however, the article reports its meager findings very briefly, and avoids the issue of how valid, or not, they might be. There is a hint that online learning might be better, but the authors dare not make an outright statement to this effect. This means that the article would not be particularly useful for use by other students, but it does point the reader to some further studies, notably Bernard et al. (2004) which look as if they might be more interesting. Works Cited Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y. et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research 74 (3), 379-439. Dell, C.A., Low, C. and Wilker, J.F. (2010). Comparing Student Achievement in Online and Face-to-Face Class Formats. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 6 (1), 30-42. Read More