Are Achievement Outcomes for Online and Face-to-Face Learning Equal

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

https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

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

Instructional Design Model Mashup: ADDIE + Merrill’s First Principals

The ADDIE Model and Merrill’s First Principals are very complementary to each other, thus making for the perfect Instructional Design Model Mashup.

Brown and Green (2016) outline three simple steps that comprise the most commonly used approach to creating instruction:

(1) Determine what practical or theoretical knowledge is to be taught, and how will the instruction be delivered.

(2) Design the program.

(3) Review the effectiveness of the training. 

These simple steps describe the ADDIE Model and/or process of training development.  Although many ID practitioners use ADDIE as a prescriptive model for developing instruction, it is actually a means of describing the essential components of any instructional design model (Molenda, 2003).

The explanation of the acronym ADDIE:

A – Analyze

Establish learning goals and objectives.  Determine learner needs.  

D – Design

Will learners have some knowledge of required course work? 

Who will provide theoretical training – employer, community college, industry training vendor? 

What format is the course study – classroom, online? 

D- Develop

Evaluate learning objectives to determine if program rigor needs enhancement to achieve desired outcome. 

Create training so trainer and learner consult on learning outcomes.

I – Implement

Train the trainers on program content and how to best implement.

Train the learners on what they should expect during training – course study, lab time, assessments.

E – Evaluate

Review training effectiveness to confirm if obtained instruction objectives. 

Make necessary program revisions to course study, trainer engagement. 

Assess overall program performance.

Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction is designed to be engaging from beginning to end, and is a more detailed version of the ADDIE Model.  Merrill (2002, pp. 44-45) suggests there are five basic principles that hold true for the design of any instruction. 

Problem –

Learners are informed of training goals and objectives.  Learners also become acquainted with the training model – content, duration, performance expectations.

Activation –

Training is designed for specific course and/or occupational study (i.e. chemical operator, certified medical assistant). 

Training provider and format is dependent on student’s prior course knowledge.            

Demonstration –

Training side-by-side with program trainer’s students can build upon their current knowledge base. 

Learners are engaged in course study and/or skill they are expected to master.

Application –

Trainers provide theoretical and practical examples for learners to commit to memory then expand upon. 

The learner continually has the opportunity to practice what is learned and receive feedback on their performance.

Integration –

Training is designed to give learners the opportunity to transfer all they have learned to the environment in which they work. 

Learners are also given the opportunity to create and defend an original work process that could become a new best practice.

Illustrated below: Instructional Design Model Mashup: ADDIE + Merrill’s First Principals

Gagne’s Nine Elements of Instructional Design vs. Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction

Critique and Compare Instructional Design Models:

Gagne’s Nine Elements of Instructional Design vs. Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction

Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction

Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction (GNEI) is a pointed progressive outline of how to maximize learning by developing instructional design to identified mental conditions – Gaining Attention (Reception); Informing Learners of Objective; Stimulating Recall of Prior Learning; Presenting the Stimulus (Self Perception); Providing Learning Guidance (Practice); Eliciting Performance (Responding); Providing Feedback (Reinforcement); Assessing Performance (Retrieval); and Enhancing Retention & Transfer (Generalization). 

Each of the nine events is easy for the learner to comprehend and for the instructor to act upon as this Chalk Square Media You Tube video demonstrates. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxPt75bU6rc&list=PLP7XhBeZ13pY1cCeHcDJX03rlL7IIu0t1&index=1

Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction

The image for Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction (MFPI) represented in the Canvas learning module best visualize how the Problem principle takes center stage to the four equally important side stages -Activation, Demonstration, Application, and Integration – each principal building upon the previous while resolving the training issue in the core Problem principal.    

The difference in my mental version of the referenced image is the four side principles revolve around the lead principal (see Figure 1.1).  This visual demonstrates how MFPI instructional design can move with ease from Problem, to Activation, to Demonstration, to Application, to Integration. 

Figure 1.1 Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction Revolving Stage Industrial Design Plan

This You Tube video by Hugh McCutchen offers a fun review of MFPI.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUYwz_VZalw

Both Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction and Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction are similar in making certain the Learner knows the:

Ø  Objective of the training

Ø  Utilization of prior knowledge

Ø  Providing learner guidance

Ø  Practice and/or apply learning

Ø  Transfer learning to real world contexts

The most notable difference between the two instructional design models is really none at all considering Merrill’s First Principles is a concise version of Gagne’s Nine Events resulting in the same projected outcomes (Figure 1.2).  Similarities are highlighted yellow.

GNEI Event	GNEI Learning	MFPI Principle	GNEI & MFPI Learning
Gaining Attention (Reception)	GNEI gains attention to the task with a live demonstration of chemical mixing to purify drinking water.
Informing Learners of Objective (Expectancy)		Problem and task centered	Takes the problem or task of a chemical operator – and makes clear Learner expectations are to become highly skilled chemical operators.  Attainment of problem/task is outlined in 3 components: (1) 3-years of course study, (2) hands on laboratory, and (3) production floor on-the-job learning.  Combination of the 3 components will result in the successful development of a chemical operator.
Stimulating Recall of Prior Learning		Activation	This specific training program is targeted to those with interest in chemical sciences.  Thus instruction is designed to utilize existing knowledge in chemistry and advanced math. Because existing knowledge is tapped the Learners confidence in his/her ability to successfully master the task is elevated.
Presenting the Stimulus (Self Perception) Providing Learning Guidance (Practice)	*Exception - Specifically with Providing Learning Guidance (Practice) no new knowledge is introduced.	Demonstration	Development of practical and theoretical knowledge is equally weighted in this 3 component learning model. Learners work side-by-side with training mentors to build upon their current knowledge base.
Eliciting Performance (Responding) Providing Feedback (Reinforcement) Assessing Performance (Retrieval)		Application	Course study and on-the-job learning are purposely woven together in this model to enable Learners to practice and master what they learn. The Learner continually has the opportunity to practice what is learned and to receive feedback on their performance.
Enhancing Retention & Transfer		Integration	Training is 100% designed to give Learners the opportunity to transfer all they have learned to the environment in which they work as chemical operators.  Learners are also given the opportunity to create and defend and original work process that could become a new best practice.

Reflecting on UDL Principles in Your Own Instructional Design

It was interesting to realize that in my current instructional design projects the most frequently used UDL principals and guidelines come from one principal: Provide Multiple Means of Engagement.  It is possible that because apprenticeship’s are comprised of the specific elements of on-the-job learning and classroom study that providing options for recruiting for interest and/or sustaining effort and persistence work best for the learner and final outcome. 

Both principals are equally weighted because the core elements of practical and theoretical learning in apprenticeship are central to the development of a specialized skilled trade’s person.  Course work and hands-on learning must optimize the relevance, value, and authenticity of the skill being taught; while collaboration and mastery-oriented feedback is at the foundation of the entire program.

I would like to expand how program content is presented; moving beyond the traditional classroom setting to include video, webcast lecture sessions, and virtual classrooms.  This would allow companies to include learners from multiple facility locations into one classroom or learning lab.