Are Achievement Outcomes for
Online and Face-to-Face Learning Equal
Pamela L. McGimpsey
Lenoir Rhyne University
Are Achievement Outcomes for
Online and Face-to-Face Learning Equal
Online learning may
have become prevalent in the mid-1990’s, but distance learning started long
before the ease of internet access. A
correspondence program mailed to learners wanting to expand their knowledge
base was an accepted practice for decades before the World Wide Web and a
laptop. With continued advancements in
technology, a deepening acceptance by instructors of online teaching, and an
expanding pool of computer literate students the presence of the virtual
classroom will continue to expand. As
more colleges, universities, and the public sector incorporate online learning
programs into their respective curriculum and training one frequently asked
question remains. Are achievement outcomes for online and face-to-face learning
equal? This literature review takes into
consideration peer reviewed articles that examine online learning achievement
by students.
Online
Learning Achievement
As educational
institutions continue to increase the integration of online study into individual
program curriculum the concern over optimal outcomes continues to be a looming
issue. Perry and Pilati (2011) found
that research over the past 10 years however, supports that singular worry is
becoming increasingly less debatable.
The
most comprehensive review of online effectiveness is carried out by the U.S.
Department of Education (Means and others, 2010) that examined over 1,000
empirical studies of online learning reported in the literature from 1996
through 2008. While the study reached a
number of conclusions the most pertinent are listed:
·
Students
who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than
those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.
·
Instruction
combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to
purely online instruction, where “advantage” refers to the learning
effectiveness of the various instructional approaches (that is, hybrid online
instruction was more effective than purely online).
·
The
effectiveness of online learning approaches appears quite broad across
different content and learner types. The
effectiveness of online learning was similar for undergraduates, graduates, and
professionals and was independent of the subject being learned (p. 16-17).
Palacios and Wood (2016)
specifically sought to determine differences by racial/ethnic affiliation in
students’ academic success and course retention for community college men. Findings demonstrate that Asian, Black,
Latino, and White men enrolled in online and face-to-face courses found that
face-to-face was the most effective modality for all men. “However, for most groups as mentioned, there
were no clear patterns in which online modality was better than others with
regard to success, except for Black men; for those men, asynchronous with
multimedia was identified as the second most effective online modality
pertaining to success” (p. 652). Though
specific to men of color enrolled in community college, the finding that
weaving asynchronous with multimedia into the online modality finds increased
success even in a subset of the study group supports findings by Means and
others (2010) that hybrid online instruction enhances learning over online alone.
Dell, Low, and Wilker
(2010) analyzed the online and face-to-face learning of undergraduate and
graduate students to find any differences between submitted course works. The primary outcome found no significant
disparities between submitted works for online students and face-to-face
students; but, a secondary outcome revealed while class content, instruction,
readings, activities, assignments, and discussions were consistent between
sections, instructors for online learners needed to focus on providing quality
instruction. “Interaction among the
learners and with the instructor is important in face-to-face and online
formats. Active learning, application of
knowledge; effective interaction; facilitation of self-regulation and
self-efficacy; and high expectations are all important methods of instruction”
(p. 25).
Not only does
effective interaction become an integral piece to consistently achieving desirable
online learning outcomes, as in the aforementioned, as Means and others (2013)
found in The Effectiveness of Online and
Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature, “the
advantage over face-to-face classes was significant in those studies
contrasting blended learning with traditional face-to-face instruction but not
in those studies contrasting purely online with face-to-face conditions” (p.
2).
Conclusion
The review of the literature is
consistent in providing evidence to support the success of online learning in
comparison to face-to-face. However, while
evidence is noted to the benefits of a blended online learning model that
includes multi-media, and face-to-face further investigation is warranted. Additional study should also be conducted
into how interaction or lack of impacts online learning.
References
Dell,
C. A., Low, C., 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.
Means,
B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., Jones, K., (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based
Practices in Online Learning: A
Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from
Means,
B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Baki, M., (2013).
The Effectiveness of Online and Blended
Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the
Empirical Literature. Teachers College
Record
115(030303), 1-47.
Palacios,
A. M. G., Wood, J. L., (2016). Is Online
Learning the Silver Bullet for Men of Color?
An
Institutional-level Analysis of
the California Community College System.
Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(8), 643-655. doi:
10.1080/10668926.2015.1087893
Perry,
E. H., Pilati, M. L., (2011). Online
Learning. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning,
128(2011), 95-104. doi:
10.1002/tl
