Advertisement

Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 233–250 | Cite as

A Comparison of Student Achievement and Satisfaction in an Online Versus a Traditional Face-to-Face Statistics Class

  • Jessica J. Summers
  • Alexander Waigandt
  • Tiffany A. Whittaker
Article

Abstract

In this study we examined differences between online distance education and traditional classroom learning for an introductory undergraduate statistics course. Two outcome dimensions were measured: students’ final grades and student satisfaction with the course. Using independent samples t-tests, results indicated that there was no significant difference in grades between the online and traditional classroom contexts. However, students enrolled in the online course were significantly less satisfied with the course than the traditional classroom students on several dimensions. This finding is inconsistent with the “no significant difference phenomenon,” described in Russell’s (1999) annotated bibliography, which supports minimal outcome differences between online courses and face-to-face courses.

Keywords

distance learning Internet student satisfaction statistics instruction online course development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aberson, C. L., Berger, D. E., Healy, M. R., & Romero, V. L. (2001). Teaching statistics with web technology: The WISE project. Syllabus, 14, 43–45.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, B., & Kaplan, D. E. (1999). CourseMaster: Modeling a pedagogy for on-line distance instruction. Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. Seattle, Washington. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED446730).Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, G., & Green, F. P. (2001). Student learning in the online environment: No significant difference? Quest, 53, 1–13.Google Scholar
  4. Bessant, K. C. (1992). Instructional design and the development of statistical literacy. Teaching Sociology, 20, 143–149.Google Scholar
  5. Browning, J. (1999). Analysis of concepts and skills acquisition differences between web-delivered and classroom-delivered undergraduate instructional technology courses. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 2456A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ADG 9938354).Google Scholar
  6. Butik, N. (1998). Michigan teachers and the World Wide Web, “Will the World Wide Web change my classroom?” Masters Abstracts International, 37, 1077. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ADG 1393498).Google Scholar
  7. Cennamo, K. S., & Ross, J. D. (2000, April). Strategies to support self-directed learning in a Web-based course. Paper presented a the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455194).Google Scholar
  8. Cennamo, K. S., Ross, J. D., & Rogers, C. S. (2002). Evolution of a Web-enhanced course: Incorporating strategies for self-regulation. Educause Quarterly, 25, 28-33.Google Scholar
  9. Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 2–4.Google Scholar
  10. Collis, B., Oberg, A., & Shera, W. (1988). An evaluation of computer-based instruction in statistical techniques for education and social work students. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 17, 59–71.Google Scholar
  11. Cyrs, T. E. (1997). Competence in teaching at a distance. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs: Vol. 71. New directions for teaching and learning (pp. 15–18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Dabbagh, N. H. (2000). The challenges of interfacing between face-to-face and online instruction. TechTrends, 44, 37–42.Google Scholar
  13. de Boer, W., & Collis, B. (2002). A changing pedagogy in e-learning: From acquisition to contribution. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 13, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dereshiwsky, M. I. (1998, April). “Go figure”: The surprising success of teaching statistics courses via Internet. Paper contributed to the Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference, “Online Instruction: Trends and Issues II.” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449975).Google Scholar
  15. Dunn, D. S. (2001, August). Two heads are better than one: Learning statistics in common. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED458272).Google Scholar
  16. Firdyiwek, Y. (1999). Web-based courseware tools: Where is the pedagogy? Educational Technology, 39, 29–34.Google Scholar
  17. Fullerton, J. A., & Umphrey, D. (2001, March). An analysis of attitudes toward statistics: Gender differences among advertising majors. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED456479).Google Scholar
  18. Gallagher, P., & McCormick, K. (1999). Student satisfaction with two-way interactive distance learning for delivery of early childhood special education coursework. Journal of Special Educational Technology, 14, 32–47.Google Scholar
  19. Gillespie, F. (1998). Instructional design for the new technologies. In K. H. Gillespie (Ed.), The impact of technology on faculty development, life, and-work (pp. 39–52): Vol. 76. New directions for teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Gordon, S. (1999, April). An instrument for exploring students’ approaches to learning statistics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED440142).Google Scholar
  21. Hadley, N. (1998). The effects of technology support systems on achievement and attitudes on pre-service teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 4044A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ADG 9914276).Google Scholar
  22. Knowlton, D. S. (2000). A theoretical framework for the online classroom: A defense and delineation of a student-centered pedagogy. In R. E. Weiss (Ed.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classpetom: Vol. 84. New directions for teaching and learning (pp. 5–14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Mclsaac, M., Blocher, J., Mahes, V., & Vrasidas, C. (1999). Student and teacher perceptions of interaction in online computer-mediated communication. Educational Media International, 36, 121–131.Google Scholar
  24. McMahon, M., & Oliver, R. (2001, June). Promoting self-regulated learning in an on-line environment. Proceedings from the ED-Media World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Tampere, Finland. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466194).Google Scholar
  25. McMillan, J. H. (2001, April). Some pedagogical tips for teaching statistics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453251).Google Scholar
  26. Morelos-Borja, H. (1999). Partner-finder: A framework to study peer collaborations in a web-based education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 3373B. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ADG 9939122).Google Scholar
  27. O’Hanlon, N. (2001). Development, delivery, and outcomes of a distance course for new college students. Library Trends, 50, 8–27.Google Scholar
  28. Oathout, M. J. (1995, April). College students’ theory of learning introductory statistics: Phase one. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED391841).Google Scholar
  29. Paulsen, K., Higgins, K., Miller, S., Strawser, S., & Boone, R. (1998). Delivering instruction via interactive television and videotape: Student achievement and satisfaction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 59–77.Google Scholar
  30. Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference: A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.Google Scholar
  31. Rintala, J. (1998). Computer technology in higher education: An experiment, not a solution. Quest, 50, 366–378.Google Scholar
  32. Rumpradit, C. (1999). An evaluation of the effect of user interface elements and user learning styles on user performance, confidence, and satisfaction on the World Wide Web. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 10A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ADG 9918516).Google Scholar
  33. Russell, T. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
  34. Scanlon, E., & Morris, E. (2000, April). Design features in computer supported learning environments for teaching statistics to psychology students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED443408).Google Scholar
  35. Schrum, L. (1998). On-line education: A study of emerging pedagogy. In B. Cahoon (Ed.), Adult learning and the internet (pp 53–61): Vol. 78. New directions for adult and continuing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  36. Sharpe, T., Harper, W., & Brown, S. (1998). In response: Further reflections on technology, science, and culture. Quest, 50, 332–343.Google Scholar
  37. Sharpe, T., & Hawkins, A. (1998). Technology and the information age: A cautionary tale for higher education. Quest, 50, 19–32.Google Scholar
  38. Sonwalkar, N. (2002). A new methodology for evaluation: The pedagogical rating of online courses. Syllabus, 15, 18–21.Google Scholar
  39. Sutarso, T. (1992a, November). Some variables in relation to students’ anxiety in learning statistics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED353334).Google Scholar
  40. Sutarso, T. (1992b, November). Students’attitudes toward statistics (STATS). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED353316).Google Scholar
  41. University of Washington, Office of Educational Assessment (1998). Instructional assessment system, general description. Report retrieved March 19, 2003, from http://www.washington.edu/oea/describe.htm
  42. Vrasidas, C., & Mclsaac, M. S. (2000). Principles of pedagogy and evaluation for web-based learning. Education Media International, 37, 105–111.Google Scholar
  43. Wilkins, B., & Barrett, J. (2000). The virtual construction site: a web-based teaching/learning environment in construction technology. Automation in Construction, 10, 169–179.Google Scholar
  44. Wisenbaker, J. M., & Douzenis, C. (2000, April). Web-based statistical readings for an introductory statistics course. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED441812).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica J. Summers
    • 1
  • Alexander Waigandt
    • 1
  • Tiffany A. Whittaker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational, School, and Counseling PsychologyUniversity of Missouri–ColumbiaMissouri–Columbia

Personalised recommendations