Experimental Psychology
Research Topic Homework

Information:
Topic: Are students more inclined to prepare for online/hybrid or in-class/traditional course?

3 Hypotheses

1. The more demanding the course requirements are encourages face-to-face class preparation.

2. The lack of flexibility of face-to-face /traditional courses encourages more preparation.

3. Students with higher GPA will have no difference in the amount they prepare for either online

or in class whereas people with lower GPA are more inclined to prepare for traditional face-to-

face classes.

Read the information and reference and Follow the instruction.

1. Describe the topic of your research study from a broad perspective. (1 paragraph, around 150-
200 words)
It should aim for the level of introduction to be that broad.

2. Summarize your literature sources to indicate what is already known about your research topic.
(1 paragraph, around 250-300 words) – 3 literature source -provided.

3. Spell out the hypotheses (Up stair) for your research study. Follow the instruction below.

In this section, make sure to make clear predictions about the questions you are investigating. Do
not just say that for example intelligence may be related to job performance but spell out in which
way (directionality) if possible. The more specific you could be in the formulation of your
hypothesis, the better.

4. Write the Introduction. Please follow the instructions and rubrics

The length of the assignment should not exceed 3 pages (excluding references). Be sure to add a
separate page with the references in APA format to your file. 12 Time New Roman and double
space.

Rubrics For Introduction
Introduction (25 points)
1. Has the general theoretical or conceptual area of interest been presented?
2. Is there an adequate review of the relevant literature? (6 points given for mentioning a required three
references).
3. Are the research question(s) clear and explicitly stated?
4. Has the value and implication of the study been discussed? (4 to 5 points).

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hajd20

American Journal of Distance Education

ISSN: 0892-3647 (Print) 1538-9286 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

Choosing Between Online and Face-to-Face
Courses: Community College Student Voices

Shanna Smith Jaggars

To cite this article: Shanna Smith Jaggars (2014) Choosing Between Online and Face-to-Face
Courses: Community College Student Voices, American Journal of Distance Education, 28:1,
27-38, DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2014.867697

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.867697

Published online: 06 Mar 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3426

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 59 View citing articles

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hajd20

https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08923647.2014.867697

https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.867697

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hajd20&show=instructions

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hajd20&show=instructions

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/08923647.2014.867697

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/08923647.2014.867697

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/08923647.2014.867697&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-03-06

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/08923647.2014.867697&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-03-06

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/08923647.2014.867697#tabModule

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/08923647.2014.867697#tabModule

The Amer. Jrnl. of Distance Education, 28:27–38, 2014
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0892-3647 print/1538-9286 online
DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2014.867697

Choosing Between Online and Face-to-Face Courses:
Community College Student Voices

Shanna Smith Jaggars
Teachers College, Columbia University

In this study, community college students discussed their experiences with online and face-to-face
learning as well as their reasons for selecting online (rather than face-to-face) sections of specific
courses. Students reported lower levels of instructor presence in online courses and that they needed
to “teach themselves.” Accordingly, most students preferred to take only “easy” academic subjects
online; they preferred to take “difficult” or “important” subjects face-to-face. To meet students’ needs,
then, colleges need to either more explicitly build instructor presence and guidance into online courses
or continue to provide ample face-to-face sections of courses for those students who prefer them.

Although nearly half of community college students have taken at least one fully online course,
most enroll in only one or two online courses each semester, filling the rest of their schedule with
face-to-face courses (Jaggars 2012; Public Agenda 2013). It is not clear, however, whether stu-
dents prefer this mix-and-match strategy or an approach in which they would take all their courses
online and are simply thwarted by a lack of available online offerings. In order to scale online
learning offerings appropriately, community college administrators need a stronger understanding
of the reasons students take some courses online and others face-to-face.

Several previous studies have established that convenience and flexibility are key factors that
entice students to enroll in online coursework (Aslanian and Clinefelter 2013; Benbunan-Fich and
Hiltz 2003; Farris, Haskins, and Yemen 2003; Flowers and Cotton 2003; Hittelman 2001; Kariya
2003; Noel-Levitz 2006). In contrast, few students choose an online course because they believe
it will provide a superior learning experience (Aslanian and Clinefelter 2013; Farris, Haskins,
and Yemen 2003; Public Agenda 2013). For example, in a recent survey of community college
students, only 3% believed that students learn more in an online-only class than in a face-to-face
class (Public Agenda 2013).

Students may also be dissuaded from online learning if they or a peer have had a negative
academic experience with an online course. Negative experiences can arise from technical prob-
lems (Bambara et al. 2009; El Mansour and Mupinga 2007; Hara and Kling 1999; Mupinga,
Nora, and Yaw 2006; Navarro and Shoemaker 2000; Rivera, McAlister, and Rice 2002; Wang
2008; Zavarella 2008), a reduced sense of instructor and peer presence (Bambara et al. 2009;
El Mansour and Mupinga 2007), or difficulties handling the degree of time management and
self-directed learning required by many online courses (Bork and Rucks-Ahidiana 2013; Yen and

Correspondence should be sent to Shanna Smith Jaggars, Community College Research Center, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 525 West 120th Street, Box 174, New York, NY 10027. E-mail: sj2391@tc.columbia.edu

28 JAGGARS

Liu 2009). Perhaps due to such factors, community college students tend to perform more poorly
in online than in face-to-face courses (for a review, see Jaggars 2012; also see Kaupp 2012; Xu
and Jaggars, in press).

As of yet, no studies have examined how students balance a desire for flexibility against
potential concerns about academic performance as they consider whether to take courses online
or face-to-face. The literature is also silent on whether the particular course subject under
consideration—for example, English or biology—influences students’ decision-making pro-
cesses. This article draws on findings from a qualitative study at two community colleges
to explore the factors that students consider as they choose between online and face-to-face
offerings.

METHOD

The data discussed in this article are drawn from a larger study of online learning (also see Bork
and Rucks-Ahidiana 2013; Jaggars and Xu 2013). In spring 2011, the research team collected data
at two Virginia community colleges, with a particular focus on high-demand introductory courses
(such as English, math, sociology, and biology) that offered sections in a fully online format. The
team conducted interviews with online faculty, support and administrative staff, and forty-seven
students who were taking at least one online course in that semester. This analysis focuses on
the student interview portion of the study. Student respondents were primarily African American
or White (reflecting the ethnic makeup of the colleges), and approximately half appeared to be
age thirty or older. Most were attending college full-time while also working. Three-quarters had
taken an online course in a prior semester, and most reported that they expected to pass their
current online course(s).

Semistructured interview protocols focused on experiences and perceptions related to online
learning, particularly on the students’ learning experiences in their current online courses.
Students were also asked to report why they chose to take each of their current courses in an online
setting. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. For the current analysis, the author developed
a preliminary set of codes based on impressions from the interviews in terms of students’ reasons
for selecting online or face-to-face course sections, including life demands or responsibilities,
structural barriers (such as lack of transportation), learning style preferences, interaction with
instructors, and interaction with other students. After coding a small set of test transcripts, the
codes were slightly refined and expanded. After all transcripts were coded, the final set of codes
was organized according to the larger thematic areas laid out in the next section. Quotes included
in the next section are presented verbatim, with the occasional excision of verbal fillers (e.g.,
“um” or “you know”) when they did not add meaning.

FINDINGS

Overall, respondents provided several general reasons to choose online coursework, discussed
in more detail later. As expected based on the previous literature, flexibility and convenience
were key reasons to take courses online; moreover, a handful of students preferred the learning
environment of online learning. Despite these advantages, however, very few respondents wished

COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT VOICES 29

to take all their courses online. In subsequent sections, the author first discusses general reasons
students wished to take courses online or face-to-face and then how those factors played out as
students faced the decision to take particular courses online rather than face-to-face.

General Reasons to Choose Online Courses

Students cited two broad reasons for taking courses online. First, almost all students appreciated
the flexibility and convenience of online courses, and some felt that online courses allowed them
to use their learning time more efficiently. In addition to these structural reasons, a few students
felt that online courses were a better match to their own learning style or interpersonal interaction
preferences.

Flexibility, convenience, and time efficiency. When asked why they chose to take online
courses, almost all respondents explained that they had busy lives with multiple responsibilities
and that the flexibility of online learning helped them better balance their schedule. One-third of
the sample specifically mentioned childcare responsibilities. As one mother said:

I think one thing that influences a full-time working adult to do distance learning is how much time
are you willing to sacrifice away from your family? . . . I just left Algebra II last semester, which was
two days a week for two hours at night. That was tough. I missed a lot in my son’s school and his
sports, so it was more of a personal choice when I came back to register for the spring classes. I said,
“You know, I think I’m only willing to sacrifice one night a week for school, for my family.”

Over 80% of the sample also reported that they were employed. Interviewers did not specif-
ically probe respondents about the nature of their employment, but as students discussed their
reasons for choosing online coursework, more than half of those who were employed explained
that they worked full-time or longer each week. An additional 11% volunteered that they worked
overnight shifts, and 8% mentioned that they had unpredictable schedules, with work shifts that
varied from week to week. Several respondents who worked long or variable hours explained
that without the option of online course taking, they would enroll in fewer courses each semester.
As one student said:

Unless I only wanted to work part-time or quit my job, I felt that [online coursework] was the only
way that I was going to get my classes in, unless I wanted to take one or maybe two classes a semester.

Outside of the advantage of flexible scheduling, some students also said that they chose online
learning to reduce the number of times they needed to travel to campus. About 20% of respon-
dents mentioned transportation issues; most of these involved living a long distance from campus,
having no car or sharing a car, or dealing with the price of gasoline. Most respondents also alluded
to the comfort of working at home, with several specifically noting that they enjoyed the ability
to take breaks, have snacks, work “in your pajamas,” or avoid venturing outside during the cold
winter months.

In addition to the advantages of flexibility, at-home convenience, and reduced travel time,
several students said they preferred online courses because these courses allowed them to use
their time more efficiently. These students felt that in-class time was often wasted, sometimes
due to the instructor’s choices and sometimes due to other students. For example, one student
noted:

30 JAGGARS

Really you have more time [in an online course] because you don’t have that time where a classmate
may come in and disrupt the class, or somebody’s not getting it and then you’re sitting there having
to listen and wait until they get it. And I’m sitting there twiddling my fingers going “Okay, are they
going to get this thing or what are they doing?”

Another student complained of his face-to-face English instructor: “Nobody has questions, so
she keeps talking and talking and she fills up the whole class instead of letting us go to work
on the papers.” Students citing such complaints tended to feel that they could learn the material
and complete assignments more quickly if they were able to skip the in-class portion of the
course. In contrast to this view that online courses were more efficient, however, most other
students felt that online courses were more challenging and difficult (for more details, see Bork
and Rucks-Ahidiana 2013), and several noted that online courses were more time consuming.
As one student said, “I thought that distance learning was less time spent on the work, and it’s
totally not. If anything you are spending more time on the work because you have lost that face-
to-face interaction.” Another student agreed, noting that there was a balance between time saved
in class and time spent in extra work: “It was just a lot more than what would have to be done if
I was in a class. So I think that’s the trade-off as far as that time of sitting in the class.” Indeed,
of the ten or so students who made comments to the effect that online courses used time more
efficiently, about half also noted that they entailed equal or more amounts of work. Thus only a
handful of students seemed to feel that online courses provided inherent time savings.

Learning and interaction preferences. In addition to the structural reasons for choosing
online learning, several students cited learning- and interaction-oriented factors. Three students
explicitly said that they learned course material more effectively in the online context. One
explained that the online course materials were “way more valuable than to be sitting in the
classroom having someone lecture to me”; the second said, “I just have trouble sitting, being
still and listening to somebody for like a long period of time because I’m kind of ADD.1 I can’t
stay on one track.” This student felt that it was “better for me to do it at home because if I get
sidetracked, at least I know I’ll come back to it.” And the third said that when she worked online:

I’m not so much distracted by other students. . . . And I think the professors definitely, I just like the
way they taught. So I don’t know if [online professors] learn the same way, or teach the same way I
learn. I enjoy it a lot.

In contrast, most other students seemed to feel that they learned better in face-to-face courses, a
theme that is explored in more detail in subsequent sections.

Finally, some students, particularly older students, noted that they tended to prefer online
courses due to the lack of face-to-face interaction with other students. As one older student
explained:

I think a lot of the older, mature people take online classes because they are afraid of the classroom.
I was when I first took my first class. I’m like, “I’m the oldest thing in here and these kids just got out
of high school. I can’t remember all of this stuff.” And I think the older person, the mature person,
leans toward the online classes basically because of, you know, it’s almost like stage fright. I mean
being out of school for twenty years and then going back to a classroom, it just kind of scares you.
It did me.

1ADD is a common abbreviation of the term attention deficit disorder.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT VOICES 31

A half dozen students of nontraditional age echoed this theme, with one underlining the fact
that:

being in a class with a whole bunch of youngsters talking about their weekend, it’s kind of like, “I
can do without.” . . . That’s why when you’re online you’re like, “I don’t need to interact with them,
so I’m not going to.”

Why Not Take All Courses Online?

Overall, despite the fact that most students strongly appreciated the flexibility and at-home
accommodation that online learning provides, only five students said that they would take all their
courses online if they could. Perhaps not coincidentally, three of these students were the same
respondents who said they learned better online than in the face-to-face setting, and the fourth
was one of the students who felt they could complete coursework significantly more quickly in
the online setting. For the fifth student, the overriding benefit of online courses was flexibility,
given that she worked full-time and was a single parent of two children. Given the clear advan-
tages of online coursework, why did the rest of the sample feel it was important to take at least
some courses on campus?

General reasons to take courses face-to-face. Students provided two general reasons
they took at least some courses face-to-face: (1) to maintain a connection to the campus and their
peers and (2) the stronger student–instructor connection.

First, several students implied that it was important to maintain a connection to the physi-
cal campus or to other students. A few articulated their distaste for purely online colleges with
no campus; one student noted that she simply felt more “comfortable” going to a college with
a physical campus: “I feel like I can still take online courses but still have [the campus] here
if I have any questions. I have somewhere to come in person to ask questions or whatever.”
For others, the importance of the physical campus seemed tied to the importance of a face-to-
face connection with other students. Respondents generally agreed that online courses included
lower levels of student–student interaction than face-to-face courses—although, as might be evi-
dent from the preceding discussion on older students, opinions were mixed as to whether this
reduced interaction was a positive, negative, or neutral aspect of online learning. For those who
valued interactions with other students, however, the limited student interaction in online courses
provided a reason to take at least some courses face-to-face. For example, a student who was
attending two colleges (taking online and face-to-face courses from the college under study as
well as online courses from another college) explained:

I think that being in the specific curriculum that I am, with the on-campus classes, it has given me a
stronger tie to the school. I’ll be graduating both of these colleges in May, and unfortunately both of
their graduations are on the same date, so I had to choose which one I wanted to do. And I chose to
come to this school because my peers are here.

Second, almost all students noted that the nature of the student–instructor interaction was more
“distant,” less “personal,” less “immediate,” less “detailed,” or less “solid” online. In particular,
they missed the direct instruction that they received in face-to-face courses, and many felt as
though they were “teaching themselves.” One student explained:

32 JAGGARS

It just seems more, when you do it online, if you need help, your teacher is basically not there. Like
face-to-face, she can help you a little bit more. But then when it comes to online, you have to teach
yourself, I guess you could say.

Other analyses based on the larger study discuss the nature of student–instructor and student–
student interaction in more detail (see Bork and Rucks-Ahidiana 2013; Jaggars and Xu 2013).
In this article, the author focuses on the impact of these weaker interpersonal connections in terms
of students’ decisions to take a particular course online rather than face-to-face, as discussed in
more detail in the following section.

Reasons to Take Specific Courses Online Rather Than Face-to-Face

Although students were pulled toward online courses due to their flexibility and convenience (and
for some, personal learning preferences), they were also pushed away from online courses due to
the weaker instructor presence (and, to a lesser extent, the weaker student–student interaction).
Each student had idiosyncratic ways of balancing between these sets of considerations when
faced with the choice of whether to take a particular course online or face-to-face. In some cases
there was no choice: a needed course was simply not available face-to-face at a time when the
student could attend, and the student thus found it necessary to enroll in an online section. In most
cases, however, students made a conscious decision to enroll in a particular course online, based
on three factors specific to the academic subject area: (1) whether the subject area was well suited
to the online context, (2) whether the course was “easy” or “difficult,” and (3) whether the course
was “interesting” and/or “important.”

Suitability of the subject area. The first category of courses students preferred to take face-
to-face was subject areas that they judged to be poorly suited to online learning. Several students
mentioned laboratory science courses in this context. Although one respondent enthused about
the excellence of the at-home chemistry materials provided through her online course, others
were not convinced. As one noted, “It’s kind of like, ‘No, that seems a bit much.’ I don’t want
to have a chemistry lab going on in my kitchen.” Some also preferred not to take science courses
online because they classified them under the heading of “difficult” courses, as discussed further
in the following section.

Students also tended to agree that foreign language courses were not suitable to online learn-
ing. Based on students’ explanations, it appeared that language practice in these courses was
purely textual, with little opportunity for listening and no opportunity for spoken practice. As one
student explained, “When all you do is write your German and type in little prompts, you’re not
really learning how to speak it.” Along similar lines, several students felt that public speaking was
inappropriate to take online. Although her college’s online public speaking course did provide
opportunities for students to perform video-based speeches, one student reported that the video-
based speech activities sometimes suffered from technical difficulties and were not sufficient to
fully capture the experience of public speaking. She said:

If I really wanted to get something out of the class, I’d want a podium and a live audience. . . . I think
it would be very good if she did just let us get together a couple times to do our speech. It might be
hard for some people, so it may be that she needs to make it a hybrid class and say, “These are certain
times when you have to come to class to make your speech,” whether it’s in the middle of a day or at
night, like from 6 to 8 or something. That would make me more nervous, [but I would] realize, “Well

COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT VOICES 33

yeah, that’s what it’s all about.” I feel like I’m “getting away with it” a little bit by just talking on the
computer, where I can’t really see everybody, but they can see me.

Course difficulty. Most students reported that they preferred to take courses online only
when they thought the subject area would be easy for them; they preferred to take more difficult
courses face-to-face. For example, 40% of the respondents volunteered that they would prefer not
to take a math course online because they perceived that it would be too difficult. As one student
said, “There’s no way I could do algebra online. I’m barely making it through algebra right now,
face-to-face, so I know I could not do it online.”

When students discussed subject areas they would avoid taking online, they consistently
described them as subjects that they could not “teach themselves.” As one student said:

Sometimes I can teach myself something out of the book, and sometimes I can’t. It just depends on
your strengths. I could never teach myself math, it’s not my strong point. I would suffer. But I could
probably teach myself, I could probably do history and survive.

Although different students found different subject areas easier or harder, for many students it
seemed that the words easy and difficult were code words for humanities versus math and science.
These respondents tended to provide explanations similar to that of the following student, as she
summarized which courses she would take online this semester:

I knew I had to take my math on campus. I knew I couldn’t take it online. And I wanted to have as
many credits as I could get this semester, so my advisor told me certain classes I could take. And then
she said, “Well these are online,” and I figured that they are mostly reading. Which they are, health is
mostly reading. And college composition, it’s reading and writing. I figured I could do those online.

When pressed to explain why they would not take math courses online, students offered
explanations such as this one:

Just because with math I would rather be face-to-face. That way I can see what the teacher does, how
she does it, and get some more one-on-one help rather than having the material and trying to figure it
out for myself.

Another student explained similarly: “Math, for me personally, I will not get it looking at num-
bers. I need somebody to stand in front of me and teach me and explain as they go, and let me
ask questions.”

Few of the sample reported having a strong aptitude for math or science, but those who did
used similar reasoning to explain which courses were easy for them; for example, when asked to
explain which courses he would be willing to take online, one said, “It could be something easy,
like science is just reading and you’ve got to study. It’s not like you have to actually do work. It’s
just facts and definitions, it’s really not hard.”

Overall, students thought that they could “teach themselves” courses if they felt competent
to learn the subject matter strictly from a textbook or other readings, with little or no explicit
instruction. For more difficult courses, they felt that stronger instructor guidance was necessary.
For example, one student explained that “if you took a class you were uncomfortable with” online,
then “you wouldn’t have anything to really base it on, whereas a teacher being there next to you
could really just break it down for you so much better.” Another said:

34 JAGGARS

I think [online] is good for some courses. Other courses, I think I’ll need to be in the classroom. You
know, sometimes you just don’t get it and I think you need that “little extra” instruction, and [you]
are able to ask questions right then and there.

Students felt that in difficult courses, they needed the immediate question-and-answer context
of a face-to-face course. As one student said, “It’s just easier to talk to them about any issues
that you’re having face-to-face rather than e-mailing somebody who you have no idea who they
are, and then waiting for a response, however long it’s going to take.” Another explained that in
online courses:

I think that communication barrier is the hardest one. I think that the difference is, once again, being
able to ask questions on the spot. Depending, of course, on the level of the class and what type of
learning you are doing in there. If it’s a class where you can pretty much go off the book and you’re
not going to ask a lot of questions, that’s fine, online doesn’t affect you.

In general for students across the sample, the weaker student–instructor interaction in the online
context was a strong argument against taking difficult courses online. Fewer students alluded to
student–student interaction when explaining why they avoided taking difficult courses online; this
theme arose only a handful of times. But as one student, who said that she would prefer to take
English courses face-to-face, explained:

I guess with English, I’m not really good. I have to read a story probably three or four times before I
really grasp what it’s about. Where in a classroom you can get different opinions, different ideas, and
draw a better conclusion yourself; where [online] I didn’t really have that. Yeah, you have the peer
review board, but it’s not the same as being there like you and I are talking right now.

As a final summary of the problems involved with taking a difficult course online, one student
explained:

If you’re not comfortable learning the material on your own and teaching yourself, then you should
be in class. That’s the biggest thing, because even with all the handouts, all the notes, you’re the only
one who’s really holding yourself responsible for the material. And if you find that you have a lot of
questions or need another person’s point of view on a subject, then it’s best to be in class. That way
you can have your point of view, the teacher’s, and all the comments of the students around you to
help support your learning. If you don’t need that information and you’re really able to pick up on
general concepts on your own, then I would say definitely be outside of class. Because some things
. . . I can pick up general concepts and I don’t need to be in class. Others, I need to be in class. So each
person has to really look at themselves to figure out, “Is this a good subject for me? Is this not a good
subject for me? Does this sound like something I can do on my own?” Because that’s really how it is.
Even though you can e-mail the teachers, you’re really on your own.

Course importance and interest. In terms of the third category of courses that students
were reluctant to take online, several respondents said they preferred to take “important” courses
(including courses in their academic major) or “interesting” subjects face-to-face. For example,
one student said that she had initially signed up for a particular course online, “But I started to,
I actually enjoyed going, or actually enjoyed the class, so I didn’t want to just take it online.
I wanted to actually go sit in the classroom and actually learn about it.” As these students
discussed why they preferred to take such courses face-to-face, they consistently stressed the
importance of instructor presence. For example, a student said she preferred taking psychology
courses face-to-face because “I think I could learn so much more, and those teachers, they always

COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT VOICES 35

have other little things to talk about in the class, and stories and examples, and you don’t really
get that quite as much with online.”

A few students also added that, in addition to the instructor’s presence, the presence of other
students was important in these particular courses. One student explained:

The class I’m taking this evening is not offered distance, just because it can’t. It’s a group therapy
class and you’ve got to be there with other classmates, and you need a teacher. And he relies a lot on
his day-to-day experiences and relaying them to the class. There would be a lot that would be missed
if it were given as a distance class.

Another student, referring to an English literature course, said:

A lit class online almost just seems like a bit of a yawn. I think there’s something to being amongst
a group of people for that kind of class. . . . I have Shakespeare Histories and Comedies, I can’t
imagine doing that online because there is so much there to discuss and interpret. And then just to see
your teacher’s opinion and know your opinion, it seems like a bit of a loss [to take a literature course
online].

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In weaving together students’ perspectives on course-specific and subject-specific reasons to
select online versus face-to-face sections, there seemed to be a strong underlying pattern: most
students suspected they did not learn the course material as well when they took it online.2

For most students, this deficit was due to reduced teacher explanation and interaction; for some
respondents, the weaker student–student interaction was also problematic. As a result, students
did not want to risk taking difficult courses online and preferred what they considered the richer
experience of the face-to-face classroom when learning about subjects they felt were particularly
interesting or important.

The findings of the current article suggest that, unless a college works to systematically culti-
vate strong levels of instructor presence and guidance into its online courses, its students’ demand
for online learning may soon level off. Moreover, students’ online enrollments may tend to con-
centrate on introductory humanities courses and other subject areas that are generally regarded as
“easy”—that is, courses that are primarily reading based and require little hands-on application.

In considering how to apply the results of this article to their institutions, community colleges
may wish to survey their online learners in order to understand whether students perceive a gap
between the college’s online and face-to-face offerings in terms of instructor guidance and pres-
ence or in terms of the quality of learning. If such gaps are observed, college leadership could
work closely with both full-time and part-time instructors to identify opportunities and resources
for improvement.

2It was not possible to empirically verify whether this particular sample of students indeed performed more poorly
in online courses than they would in face-to-face courses. However, their perspectives align with a previous study of
introductory math and English courses across all twenty-three Virginia community colleges, which found that, after
controlling for a wide array of student characteristics, students were substantially less likely to successfully complete
online courses with a C or better, compared with face-to-face courses (Xu and Jaggars 2011).

36 JAGGARS

The literature on faculty development suggests that top-down approaches to pedagogical
improvement—such as one-time required faculty workshops—are unlikely to strongly impact
instructors’ everyday practices (e.g., Edgecombe and Bickerstaff 2012; Guskey and Yoon 2009;
Murray 2002; Waskow 2006). Instead, colleges could create structures that cultivate and support
a bottom-up approach to improvement. For example, college leadership could work with faculty
committees to design student survey items that would provide useful and actionable feedback
for both online and face-to-face instructors, disaggregate survey data by program or department
and share those results with department chairs and program coordinators, encourage the creation
of faculty inquiry groups that would generate ideas and provide mutual support for pedagogi-
cal improvement, and fund instructional technologists to provide technical input and support for
course design and improvement (e.g., see Dietz-Uhler, Fisher, and Han 2007; Grubb and Gabriner
2013; Hixon 2008; Huber 2008; Ice 2009; Marincovich 1998).

Such improvement processes might initially focus on online courses, but they should not dis-
sipate once a college has successfully closed any observed gaps between online and face-to-face
sections. Although most students in our study preferred to enroll in face-to-face sections for cer-
tain courses, that does not necessarily imply that they were always pleased with the quality of
learning in their face-to-face courses. Many face-to-face community college courses still revolve
around lectures and other instructor-centered approaches and could certainly benefit from peda-
gogical improvement (Cox 2009; Grubb and Gabriner 2013). Accordingly, colleges may wish to
first ground their improvement processes in the relatively innovative culture of online instruction,
and after having demonstrated success in that environment, expand those processes across the
entire institution.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Members of the research team who contributed to the data collection and coding for this
analysis include Nikki Edgecombe, Melissa Barragan, Rachel Hare Bork, Thao Tran, Zawadi
Rucks-Ahidiana, and Di Xu. For more information about the data set, please contact Shanna S.
Jaggars.

FUNDING

This research was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

REFERENCES

Aslanian, C. B., and D. L. Clinefelter. 2013. Online college students 2013: Comprehensive data on demands and
preferences. Louisville, KY: The Learning House, Inc.

Bambara, C. S., C. P. Harbour, T. G. Davies, and S. Athey. 2009. Delicate engagement: The lived experience of
community college students enrolled in high-risk online courses. Community College Review 36 (3): 219–238.

Benbunan-Fich, R., and S. R. Hiltz. 2003. Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication 46 (4): 298–312.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT VOICES 37

Bork, R. H., and Z. Rucks-Ahidiana. 2013. Role ambiguity in online courses: An analysis of student and instructor
expectations (CCRC Working Paper No. 64). New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College
Research Center.

Cox, R. D. 2009. The college fear factor: How students and professors misunderstand one another. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Dietz-Uhler, B., A. Fisher, and A. Han. 2007. Designing online courses to promote student retention. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems 36 (1): 105–112.

Edgecombe, N., and S. Bickerstaff. 2012. Pathways to faculty learning and pedagogical improvement (Inside Out No. 3).
New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

El Mansour, B., and D. M. Mupinga. 2007. Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online classes.
College Student Journal 41 (1): 242–248.

Farris, P. W., M. E. Haskins, and G. Yemen. 2003. Executive education programs go back to school. Journal of
Management Development 22 (9/10): 784–802.

Flowers, J., and S. Cotton. 2003. Master of arts in career and technical education—now 100% online. Tech Directions 63
(2): 22–23.

Grubb, W. N., and R. Gabriner. 2013. Basic skills education in community colleges: Inside and outside of classrooms.
New York: Routledge.

Guskey, T. R., and K. S. Yoon. 2009. What works in professional development? The Phi Delta Kappan 90 (7): 495–500.
Hara, N., and R. Kling. 1999. Students’ frustrations with a web-based distance education course. First Monday 4 (12).

Available online at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/710/620
Hittelman, M. 2001. Distance education report, August 2001: California community colleges, fiscal years

1995–1996 through 1999–2000. Sacramento: California Community Colleges, Office of the Chancellor.
Hixon, E. 2008. Team-based online course development: A case study of collaboration models. Online Journal of

Distance Learning Administration 11 (4). Available online at http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/
Huber, M. T. 2008. The promise of faculty inquiry for teaching and learning basic skills. Stanford, CA: Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Ice, P. 2009. Using the Community of Inquiry Framework survey for multi-level institutional evaluation and continuous

quality improvement. The Sloan Consortium. Available online at http://sloanconsortium.org/
Jaggars, S. S. 2012. Online learning in community colleges. In Handbook of Distance Education, 3rd ed., ed. M. G.

Moore, 594–608. New York: Routledge.
Jaggars, S. S., and D. Xu. 2013. Predicting online student outcomes from a measure of course quality (CCRC Working

Paper No. 57). New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
Kariya, S. 2003. Online education expands and evolves. IEEE Spectrum 40 (5): 49–51.
Kaupp, R. 2012. Online penalty: The impact of online instruction on the Latino-White achievement gap. Journal of

Applied Research in the Community College 12 (2): 1–9.
Marincovich, M. 1998. Ending the disconnect between the student evaluation of teaching and the improvement of

teaching: A faculty developer’s plea. Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.
Mupinga, D. M., R. T. Nora, and D. C. Yaw. 2006. The learning styles, expectations, and needs of online students. College

Teaching 54 (1): 185–189.
Murray, J. P. 2002. The current state of faculty development in two-year colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges

2002 (118): 89–98.
Navarro, P., and J. Shoemaker. 2000. Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace. The American

Journal of Distance Education 14 (2): 15–35.
Noel-Levitz. 2006. National online learners priorities report. Available online at https://www.noellevitz.com/papers-

research-higher-education/2006/2006-national-student-satisfaction-and-priorities-report
Public Agenda. 2013. What employers and community college students think about online education. Available online at

http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/not-yet-sold
Rivera, J. C., M. K. McAlister, and M. L. Rice. 2002. A comparison of student outcomes and satisfaction between

traditional and web based course offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 5 (3): 151–179.
Wang, L. 2008. Developing and evaluating an interactive multimedia instructional tool: Learning outcomes and user

experiences of optometry students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 17 (1): 43–57.
Waskow, J. A. 2006. Understanding and application of learner-centeredness among community college faculty. Ph.D.

diss., Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.

38 JAGGARS

Xu, D., and S. S. Jaggars. 2011. The effectiveness of distance education across Virginia’s community colleges: Evidence
from introductory college-level math and English courses. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 33 (3):
360–377.

———. In press. Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: Differences across types of students and
academic subject areas. Journal of Higher Education.

Yen, H. J., and S. Liu. 2009. Learner autonomy as a predictor of course success and final grades in community college
online courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research 41 (3): 347–367.

Zavarella, C. A. 2008. Computer-based instruction and remedial mathematics: A study of student retention at a Florida
community college. Ph.D. diss., University of South Florida, Tampa.

Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 29, No. 3, Spring 2005 ( C© 2005)
DOI: 10.1007/s10755-005-1938-x

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

Jessica J. Summers, Alexander Waigandt,
and Tiffany A. Whittaker

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.

KEY WORDS: distance learning; Internet; student satisfaction; statistics instruction;
online course development.

No Significant Difference?

Interest in the World Wide Web has been rapidly increasing since
its inception (Browning, 1999). Few innovations in the past century
have captured the imagination and interests of educators around the
globe more than the World Wide Web. With Web technology distance
education can now be easily accessed by anyone in the world from
anywhere in the world. Web-based instruction is emerging as a viable
option to traditional classroom instruction for many colleges and
universities which offer distance learning. Through the integration of

Jessica J. Summers and Tiffany A. Whittaker are Assistant Professors, and Alexander
Waigandt is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational, School, and
Counseling Psychology at the University of Missouri–Columbia. Dr. Summers holds
a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Texas at Austin. Her
research interests include the study of social contexts of motivation, academic classroom
community, and cooperative learning. Dr. Waigandt holds a Ph.D. in Community and
School Health from the University of Oregon. His primary research interest is in
demographic analysis. Dr. Whittaker holds a Ph.D. from the University of Texas at
Austin. Her research interests include model selection methods in structural equation
modeling and multiple regression, interpretation of score reports in computer-based
testing, and the effects of missing data on the recovery of item and person parameters
in the item response theory framework.

233 C© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

234 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

technology and instruction, educators hope to prepare their students
for what is to come in the workplace (Butik, 1998; Hadley, 1998).

Many people taking distance-learning classes are non-traditional
students (e.g., single parents, older students) who are less able to
take face-to-face classes than traditional students because of jobs
and/or family obligations (Browning, 1999; Gallagher & McCormick,
1999; Paulsen, Higgins, Miller, Strawser, & Boone, 1998; Wilkins &
Barrett, 2000). Distance education, especially Internet courses, reduces
or eliminates the travel time of students and instructors (Gallagher &
McCormick, 1999; Paulsen et al., 1998).

To date, one of the most supportive publications of distance education
is Russell’s The No Significant Difference Phenomenon (1999), in which
he cited several comparison studies of distance education classes with
face-to-face classes. Although the annotations included studies that
span a significant portion of the last century and cite a variety of
distance correspondence techniques and media communication devices
used to deliver course material, many of the recent studies are direct
comparisons of online classes with traditional face-to-face classes that
deliver the same or similar content. While Russell’s original intension
was to root out sources that made an argument in favor of distance
learning through communication media, he has instead made a solid
argument for using technology without denigrating instruction as long
as it is practically and economically feasible.

Russell’s (1999) publication has come under some scrutiny, however,
for a variety of reasons. One of the main problems cited regarding
distance education is that instructors often adopt curriculum to fit the
technology rather than choosing the technology to fit the curriculum
(Bennett & Green, 2001). Often, instructors are approached to employ
certain technological tools in their classrooms to meet economical
or practical goals of the department or institution. For example,
instructors may be encouraged to write a course specifically to serve
students who cannot otherwise attend classes on the campus, thus
serving institutional enrollment needs. The technology is usually
packaged to serve this purpose, sometimes at the expense of the
curriculum and/or instructional pedagogy (Bennett & Green, 2001).

As indicated in a report developed by Phipps and Merisotis (1999),
“technology is not nearly as important as other factors, such as learning
tasks, learner characteristics, student motivation, and the instructor
(p. 8).” The report is a critical and comprehensive review of the
literature that compares online distance education with traditional
face-to-face classrooms, citing many errors in the studies highlighted
by Russell that support “no significant difference” between student

Online Versus a Face-to-Face Statistics Class 235

outcomes of online learning and face-to-faces courses. According to the
report, two of the key shortcomings of the studies mentioned in Russell’s
publication included (1) not controlling for extraneous variables and (2)
not using reliable or valid instruments to measure student outcomes.

Although our study was limited by using a small convenience
sample of students, we hypothesized that a significant difference in
student outcomes does exist, using instruments with good psychometric
properties and controlling for extraneous variables as much as possible.
Specifically, we were interested in investigating differences between
students’ knowledge of statistics and attitudes toward their statistics
class for an online and face-to-face class. We expected that our measures
might detect some significant difference, despite the conviction of
Russell’s (1999) publication, perhaps due in part to critical factors
mentioned by Phipps and Merisotis (1999) such as learning tasks,
learner characteristics, student motivation, and the instructor. The
following sections provide an outline of the literature as it applies to
these factors.

Learning Tasks

According to Sharpe and Hawkins (1998), “The technology must serve
the subject matter, and not the other way around” (p. 28). Regardless
of this suggestion, many instructors who develop a distance education
course, especially those who do it for the first time, are caught up
in the activity “translating” their current curriculum into an online
format without consideration of how to utilize the technology in the
most effective ways (Sharpe, Harper, & Brown, 1998). For example,
many instructors will take their lecture materials and copy them to
their course website, thus simply presenting course content without
considering new and innovative ways to facilitate learning using an
electronic medium.

As suggested by Gillespie (1998), the tasks of online learning
should be designed to help learners develop higher level thinking
skills and evaluate their own understanding, mediated by sharing
ideas and problems with the content using interactive or collabora-
tive online formats. With the use of the Internet to host distance
classes, interaction can take on an entirely different meaning (Mclsaac,
Blocher, Mahes, & Vrasidas, 1999). Some claim the lack of face-to-
face interaction can leave students feeling isolated from each other
and from their instructors (Browning, 1999; Gallagher & McCormick,
1999; Mclsaac et al., 1999; Morelos-Borja, 1999). Extreme doubt exists

236 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

among educators who believe that technology is averting attention
away from the student-teacher interaction, perhaps the most critical
aspect of the educational process, and is in effect creating a lack
of engagement among otherwise interested students (Rintala, 1998;
Sharpe & Hawkins, 1998).

Supporters of online learning suggest that constructivist theory
may offer the best framework for student learning online (Bennett
& Green, 2001; Dabbagh, 2000) where constructivism is generally
defined as the “coconstruction” of knowledge that develops as a product
of student–student and student–instructor interactions. This is a
dramatic shift from the classic “instructivist” pedagogy, characterized
by instructor-generated resources and delivery of content in a very
uniform manner (Dabbagh, 2000). Online instruction can be designed
to foster collaboration among peers in the form of bulletin boards, chat
rooms, and threaded discussions, thus following a constructivist design
of content delivery.

Learner Characteristics

Since the interaction between the student and the technology be-
comes a critical factor when learning content online, a lack of computer
knowledge may in fact hinder an online student. While some claim
that computer skills have little effect on student participation in an
online class (Mclsaac et al., 1999; Rumpradit, 1999), others suggest that
student comfort with technology is a factor that should be taken into
consideration when designing and executing an online course (Phipps
& Merisotis, 1999).

In addition to having the necessary technological skills, online
students must also take a greater responsibility for their own learning
since they have limited access to instructional support (McMahon
& Oliver, 2001). While some students claim to value the freedom
and flexibility of online courses, these are usually testimonials of
students who are already self-regulated learners (O’Hanlon, 2001).
Those students who may not have developed appropriate strategies
for self-regulation may find that online courses do not meet their
needs and may subsequently drop the course; as a consequence, online
courses have been associated with much higher rates of attrition than
face-to-face courses (McMahon & Oliver, 2001; Phipps & Merisotis,
1999). Instructors can make efforts to incorporate self-regulating
tools in their online courses by integrating learner activities, learner
supports, and learning resources in an online environment (McMahon

Online Versus a Face-to-Face Statistics Class 237

& Oliver, 2001) or by supplementing instruction with tips for increasing
student motivation, interest, task value, use of cognitive strategies,
and resource management (Cennamo & Ross, 2000; Cennamo, Ross, &
Rogers, 2002). However, despite all the instructor’s efforts to design an
online course that meets the needs of the curriculum, the content, and
the students, he/she may still encounter some resistance from students
who are not comfortable with a learner-centered experience (Gillespie,
1998).

Student Motivation

Another issue that may be associated with the lack of traditional
interaction common to most distance education classes is student
motivation and achievement (Mclsaac et al., 1999). When the course
content is found to be equal, student achievement is comparable be-
tween traditional and distance education classes, even when students
do not have immediate access to an instructor or each other (Paulsen
et al., 1998). Students who are characterized as the most successful
in an online learning environment tend to be motivated, independent,
and organized (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999) with good self-regulation
strategies (McMahon & Oliver, 2001).

Issues regarding the efficacy of teaching courses with difficult or
advanced content at a distance are also of concern. Many students
already view statistics as one of the most difficult disciplines to learn
for several reasons. For instance, students who are required to take
statistics as part of their major frequently relate this topic to things
they do not enjoy like mathematics, probability models, and calculators
(Gordon, 1999; Oathout, 1995; Sutarso, 1992a, 1992b). While some
students feel that statistics is a boring subject (Oathout, 1995), others
may actually fear the subject because they do not feel competent in
related areas such as math. They are consequently labeled as having
“math anxiety” (Bessant, 1992) or “statisticophobia” (Sutarso, 1992b).
Regardless of their area of study, students who hold negative attitudes
or who are anxious about statistics tend to achieve significantly lower
grades, including students majoring in education, in business (Sutarso,
1992a), and in advertising (Fullerton & Umphrey, 2001). For these
reasons, it is common for students to avoid taking a required statistics
course as long as possible (Oathout, 1995). When they finally do enroll,
many students choose to use surface level strategies to learn the
material because they do not perceive statistics knowledge as useful
or meaningful (Gordon, 1999).

238 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

To remedy problems associated with students’ lack of interest or
anxiety in statistics, instructors have turned to the Internet to make
information more interesting and accessible. For example, Wisenbaker
and Douzenis (2000) supplemented their face-to-face class by posting
a series of readings that applied statistical concepts in “real life”
situations on the Internet to help make statistics more meaningful
for their students. Others have used the Internet to deliver ancillary
tutorials to help students work through problems, with consequent
positive effects on students’ understanding of statistics as well as their
attitude towards the content (Aberson, Berger, Healy, & Romero, 2001;
Collis, Oberg, & Shera, 1988; Scanlon & Morris, 2000). Dereshiwsky
(1998) made the argument that it is possible to deliver a statistics
course entirely online with students feeling appreciative of the freedom
and flexibility to work at their own pace. He suggested two main
instructional strategies directed to increase the likelihood of student
understanding and positive student attitudes with an online statis-
tics course: (1) “Ensure that the learning modules have numerous,
additional extra examples, replete with visual inserts and real life
applications. . .” and (2) “Create multiple avenues of instructor acces-
sibility” (p. 5). This last suggestion seems particularly important for
online learners of statistics since they do not have regular interaction
with their instructor as they would in a traditional face-to-face class.
Dereshiwsky (1998) and others also supported student learning by
encouraging them to develop study groups. For instance, according
to Dunn (2001), “Students should not learn statistical concepts in
isolation” (p. 2), suggesting that collaborative learning is one of the
most optimal methods for students to learn and understand statistics.

The Instructor

Before making instructional decisions in an online environment, it
has been suggested that an instructor should first have a pedagogical
foundation for content delivery. According to de Boer and Collis (2002),
it is critical that pedagogical motivation steer the instructor’s decisions
with regards to using online technology. Like those who support the
notion of constructivist learning in an online course, de Boer and Collis
(2002) recommend a pedagogical model that supports participation as
opposed to acquisition. In order to meet these pedagogical standards,
instructors must have a sense of confidence in both the content
and in themselves as teachers. Cyrs (1997) identified six specific
competencies that instructors should strive for if they are designing or

Online Versus a Face-to-Face Statistics Class 239

mediating an online course: (1) course planning and organization, (2)
verbal and nonverbal presentation skills, (3) collaborative teamwork,
(4) questioning strategies, (5) subject matter expertise, and (6) involv-
ing students and coordinating their activities at field sites. In addition
to these instructor competencies, the American Association of Higher
Education has suggested that instructors apply their “Seven Principles
for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” to current communi-
cation and information technologies that enhance the teaching and
learning process (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996).

Specific to the instruction of statistics, McMillan (2001) suggested
a framework called “backward instructional design” in which the
instructor is encouraged to think first about student outcomes of a
statistics class, like understanding the material and applying statisti-
cal skills, before selecting an appropriate pedagogical framework. Once
a framework is established, McMillan (2001) encouraged instructors to
gain students attention by helping them overcome fear and anxiety and
by motivating them with a positive learning climate that is supportive
of a deep and meaningful comprehension of statistics.

In our particular study, the instructor was invited to teach his already
highly evaluated introductory statistics course on the Web without
any student interaction except for communication via e-mail. Because
he had had so much past success with the delivery of the material
in a face-to-face environment, he literally translated all of his face-
to-face lectures, activities, and homework assignments to the online
format. This online class was delivered the same semester as a face-
to-face class taught by the same instructor, and these courses were
the subject of comparison. Although one might not expect there to be
any significant difference in student outcomes between the courses
since the content was exactly the same, this study was designed as
an exploratory analysis to detect if there was in fact, “no significant
difference” with regards to students’ grades and attitudes toward the
courses.

Method

Participants

Thirty-eight undergraduate students enrolled in the School of
Nursing at a large midwestern university were selected for inclusion
in this study. Most were upper-division students who were taking the
statistics class to meet a major requirement for nursing. Seventeen

240 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

students elected to take the Web-based statistics course, while 21 chose
the traditional face-to-face statistics course.

The Course

During the fall of 1998, the University of Missouri had created
MU Direct. The mission of this academic division was to explore and
expand possibilities for distance education. MU Direct utilizes Course
Information Technology, a delivery method for courses off campus
via the Internet. After three months of preparation, the introductory
statistics course for nursing majors went online using the delivery
system WebCT, and students were allowed the option of taking their
required basic statistics course via the web or in the traditional face-to-
face course offered on campus. The same instructor was assigned both
courses, and the courses were equivalent in content. Examinations, also
the same for both classes, were designed to measure equal academic
outcomes. Additionally, students in both courses were required to fill
out an instrument designed to evaluate attitudes towards the course.

Students taking the online statistics course were expected to have
daily access to Internet and e-mail. Using WebCT technology, the course
was structured to look like a website with a row of buttons down the
side. To access different parts of the course (i.e., syllabus, assignments,
and supplementary materials), students were required to click on one
of the buttons on the side. The course was organized on a weekly basis,
meaning students had approximately a week to complete readings in
the textbook, complete and send (by e-mail) any assignments to the
instructor. Threaded discussion, where online student-to-student and
student–teacher interaction occurred, took the place of what occurred in
a face-to-face classroom. In this case, students read instructor’s regular
questions and responded by e-mail.

Instruments

Measure of Statistics Knowledge. In this study, statistics knowledge
was measured by establishing a cumulative score for students based on
the sum of their performance on three class exams and a final exam in
introductory statistics. The exams for the online class and the face-
to-face class were exactly the same, totaling 175 items, and tested
students’ statistical knowledge in content areas such as graphing tech-
niques, measures of central tendency, variability, correlation, simple
regression, Students t-test, one-way ANOVA, and chi-square analysis.

Online Versus a Face-to-Face Statistics Class 241

For students taking the face-to-face class, exams were administered
during regular class time. For students taking the online class, exams
were administered at a location close to them as part of the university’s
MU Direct Distance Learning Program. The students were supervised
by an approved proctor for each exam and given the same amount of
time to complete their exams as the face-to-face students.

Measure of Student Satisfaction With the Course. The second instru-
ment was derived from evaluation forms developed at the University
of Washington’s Office of Educational Assessment (1998). According to
the report, the coefficient alphas ranged from 0.85 to 0.91, indicating
fairly good reliability for each item. In addition, the report indicated
that several studies have established content validity by using the
University of Washington form in comparison with other evaluation
forms, although no statistical estimate of validity was provided. Two
items were added to the University of Washington instrument by the
University of Missouri’s Assessment Resource Center. These items
concerned the instructor’s language proficiency and use of technology,
for which there was unfortunately no local reliability or validity data
available. Because slightly different versions of the evaluation form
were used for the online class and the face-to-face class, items that
were most similar were matched and labeled in one of two categories:
Category 1, which had eight questions related to the instructor, and
Category 2, which had eight questions related to the course.

Analyses

The research analysis focused on two main questions. (1) Were there
any differences in statistics knowledge as measured by student scores
on the examinations, and (2) were there any differences in student
attitudes as measured by course evaluations? Independent-samples t-
tests were used to determine whether significant differences existed
between groups in terms of statistics knowledge and on the items
related to student satisfaction. Because some students chose not to
answer every item, the n and subsequently the degrees of freedom for
each analysis was slightly different.

Results

Statistics Knowledge

Students were pretested to assess baseline data discrepancies re-
lated to entry-level mathematics/statistics proficiency with basic and

242 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

algebraic math problems raging in difficulty. No significant differences
were found between the two groups on entry-level math/statistics skills
(t(36) = 1.25; n.s.). At the end of the 15-week course, students were
evaluated on their statistics knowledge by using their cumulative test
scores from the class. No significant differences were found between the
groups on statistics knowledge at the end of the course (t(36) = 1.42;
n.s.).

Course Satisfaction

To assess differences in satisfaction between the two presentation
methods, 16 questions relating to the instructor and the course were
evaluated. Descriptive statistics for student responses are found in
Tables I and II. Students were allowed to rate each question on a scale
of 1–5 (1 being lowest and 5 being highest). Each question was treated
as a dependent variable.

To determine if there were group differences, independent-samples
t-test were conducted on all 16 items related to student satisfaction.
Significant group differences were found on seven of the items, four of
which were instructor related and three of which were course related.

Table I
Descriptive Statistics and t-Tests for Student Satisfaction

Related to the Instructor

Face-to-face Web t-Tests

Item Mean SD n Mean SD n t df da

1. Instructor organization 4.8 0.37 19 4.4 0.84 14 2.01 17b

2. Instructor preparation 4.8 0.92 19 4.5 0.76 14 0.96 31
3. Instructor’s explanations 4.9 0.24 18 3.6 1.28 14 3.76∗∗ 14b 2.03
4. Instructor’s enthusiasm 5.0 0.00 19 4.3 0.90 11 2.67∗ 10b 1.75
5. Instructor’s openness 4.8 0.38 18 3.7 1.16 10 3.00∗ 10b 1.98

to students
6. Teaching effectiveness 4.7 0.58 19 4.2 1.14 12 1.41 29
7. Use of Class Time 4.7 0.45 19 3.5 1.38 6 2.16 5b

8. Instructor’s interest 4.7 0.45 19 3.9 1.16 12 2.33∗ 13b 1.32
in student learning

ad is a measure of effect-size and was calculated using the t-values.
bAdjusted t-values and degrees of freedom (df) were used to determine statistical
significance due to the violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption.

∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01.

Online Versus a Face-to-Face Statistics Class 243

Table II
Descriptive Statistics and t-Tests for Student Satisfaction

Related to the Course

Face-to-face Web t-Tests
Item Mean SD n Mean SD n t df da

1. Class discussion 4.6 0.60 19 3.6 1.24 12 2.74∗ 14b 1.50
2. Quality of questions/ 4.7 0.45 19 4.3 0.63 13 2.25∗ 30 0.84

problems
3. Course as a whole 4.2 0.71 19 3.8 1.05 14 1.38 31
4. Course content 4.1 0.74 19 3.8 1.12 14 0.99 31
5. Amount learned 4.1 0.85 19 4.0 0.91 13 0.17 30
6. Relevance/usefulness 4.1 0.78 19 3.7 0.89 12 1.27 29
7. Evaluation and grading 4.4 0.69 19 3.8 1.09 13 2.07∗ 30 0.77
8. Reasonableness of work 4.5 0.70 19 3.9 1.12 13 1.72 30

Note. Significant differences were found between students in an online versus face-to-face
statistics class with regard to course satisfaction.
ad is a measure of effect-size and was calculated using the t-values.
bAdjusted t-values and degrees of freedom (df) were used to determine statistical
significance due to the violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption.

∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01.

Results from these analyses are presented in Tables I and II. Most of
the significant group differences were detected within the instructor-
related items, including instructor’s explanations, instructor’s enthu-
siasm, instructor openness to students, and instructor’s interest in
whether or not students learned the material. Significant group dif-
ferences were detected for three of the course-related items, including
class discussion, quality of questions/problems, and evaluation/grading
techniques.

Discussion

Although the students in the Web course learned statistics as well as
students in the traditional classroom, the results of the Wests indicated
that the Web students were generally less satisfied with the course than
those in the traditional classroom, despite the fact that the instructor, a
statistics professor with 20 years of experience, was the same professor
for both the face-to-face class and the Web class. Specifically, Web
students expressed less satisfaction than the face-to-face students in
the following areas.

244 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

Instructor Variables

Instructor’s Explanations. There were significant differences be-
tween the Web and the traditional students in their satisfaction
with the instructor’s explanations although the Web students felt as
though the instructor was effective at teaching the material. This could
be due to many factors: discussion was not real-time in the web course,
so students had to wait to get their questions answered; statistics is
aided by actually seeing an example worked out, a benefit the web
students did not have; and finally, answers to their questions were
provided electronically, so Web students did not get the opportunity to
witness their professor’s expertise in-person.

Instructor’s Enthusiasm. Although the Web students felt the in-
structor was effective at teaching the material, they were not as
satisfied with the instructor’s explanations. Enthusiasm for a discipline
is especially hard to portray electronically.

Instructor’s Openness and Concern Towards Students. There was
a significant difference in satisfaction with the instructor’s openness
to students. The Web students did not feel as satisfied with the
approachability to the instructor, most likely because questions were
posed on a bulletin-board format and answered electronically with a
delayed e-mail response. There was also a significant difference in the
levels of satisfaction concerning whether or not the instructor appeared
concerned that the students learned the concepts.

Instructor’s Interest in Student Learning. There was a significant
difference in students’ satisfaction for the instructor’s interest in
student learning. The Web students did not feel as satisfied as the face-
to-face students, most likely because instructor’s interest is typically
conveyed by personal contact in the classroom and in office hours. The
Web students did not have the opportunity for this type of instructor
contact.

Course Variables

Class Discussion. The web students were significantly less satisfied
with the class discussion than were the traditional classroom students.
This was most likely due to the fact that discussion between a student
and his or her fellow students and the instructor took place on a bulletin
board.

Quality of Questions/Problems. Although the questions and prob-
lems presented by the instructor were nearly identical for both the Web

Online Versus a Face-to-Face Statistics Class 245

students and face-to-face students, the Web students were significantly
less satisfied with the quality of questions and problems presented in
their version of the course. Perhaps this stems from issues of clarity,
because the Web students may have perceived fewer opportunities to
ask the instructor to explain the problems and questions personally,
instead depending on an electronic medium for communication.

Evaluation and Grading. The Web students were less satisfied with
evaluation and grading techniques than were the traditional classroom
students. There was no significant difference in the amount of work
assigned, in the clarity of student responsibilities and requirements,
or in the grades achieved by students in either class. So, although
the students knew what they had to do and accepted that, they did
not feel as though they were satisfied with the evaluations of what
they had done. This difference could again, in part, be due to the level
of clarity expressed for how assignments were being scored. Perhaps
in a web course, an increased need exists for explicit explanations
in the scoring methodology of the instructor. In a traditional course,
the instructor can give verbal explanations to supplement his written
instructions that may or may not be explicitly stated in the web
assignments.

Conclusion

Distance learning via web instruction is a viable opportunity to
increase availability of statistics instruction. The results of this study
indicate that students taking statistics on the web learned as much as
students in a traditional face-to-face course. However, results indicate
that web students were less satisfied with the method of delivery
as compared to traditional students, contrary to the claims made
in Russell’s publication, The No Significant Difference Phenomenon
(1999).

Some possible reasons why there may have been differences between
the face-to-face class and the online statistics class could be due to the
disregard of critical factors that were explicitly outlined by Phipps
& Merisotis (1999) as considerations for change when developing
course technology, namely task characteristics, student characteristics,
student motivation, and characteristics of the instructor. In our study,
there was very little if any change in the delivery of content via the
Internet from the face-to-face class: the lesson content was the same,
the homework was the same, and the exams were the same. The
only difference between these courses was that the instructor was not

246 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

present for the delivery of content online. Although the instructor was
available to answer questions via e-mail, this is hardly comparable to
being able to answer questions in real-time or in person. The benefit of
having minimal differences between the online class and the face-to-
face class is that we were able to minimize extraneous variables in our
study. However, the differences were most likely significant because we
did not make our class more amenable to an electronic format.

On the basis of the outcome of this study as well as the literature
in online education, the following suggestions may help to minimize
those differences for future students: (1) establish a pedagogical
framework before course development, preferably one that lends itself
to constructivist theory; (2) explicitly state grading procedures when
assigning homework, projects, and tests; (3) hold office hours on
the phone as well as online so that students have increased access
to the instructor; (4) make a concerted effort to portray enthusiasm
for the content and make it as meaningful as possible so that students
are genuinely interested in learning the content; and (5) utilize real-
time, on-line discussion periods for student and instructor interaction
to help make students engage with each other and feel like an important
part of the class.

For online courses in general, the suggestion for a constructivist
pedagogical framework may be the most important: many of the
significant differences in course satisfaction between the face-to-
face and online statistics students found in this study may have
stemmed from pedagogical issues more than logistical problems. For the
purposes of this study, we were able to evaluate significant differences
by controlling for extraneous variables. However, we also feel it is
important to use this information to improve courses that have the
potential to deliver the information in ways that are more satisfying
to students. As Bennett and Green (2001) suggested, it is difficult
to overcome the traditional pedagogy of lecture-style classrooms and
adapt to contemporary ideas of an interaction-rich model using online
technology. At times, the technology itself can be an instructor’s worst
enemy by providing overly complicated “courseware” systems that offer
features beyond the scope of the course (Firdyiwek, 1999).

Fortunately, there are existing publications that suggest appropriate
pedagogical frameworks for developing online courses that support a
more constructivist, interactive model. For example, Knowlton (2000)
provided a framework that encourages instructors to use a student-
centered approach to learning online, stating that students need to
interact with the instructor and each other electronically to gain a

Online Versus a Face-to-Face Statistics Class 247

personal sense of organization and interpretation of content. Similarly,
Schrum (1998) believes that electronic communication is a natural
platform for collaboration and group interactions; and instructors
should take advantage of this by designing projects and lessons
that foster this type of communication. A real example of how the
interactionist pedagogy framework has been applied is evident in Bell
and Kaplan’s (1999) design of a graduate course with tools used to
foster a sense of community, including features such as an electronic
resource space, discussion space, and collaboration space. Finally, it is
suggested that the summative and formative evaluation of pedagogical
effectiveness is just as important as implementation (Sonwalkar, 2002;
Vrasidas & Mclsaac, 2000).

In our study, it was unfortunate that we did not have the foresight to
ask questions specific to the development and usefulness of the online
course. Future development efforts could investigate more deeply what
specifically led to the lessened satisfaction in the web course. For
instance, did they not like the web design? What about the organization
of the course led them to be less satisfied when they were satisfied with
the professor’s teaching preparation and effectiveness? Can anything
be done to increase the feeling of community for students enrolled in
an online class? How can we make possible effective, real-time, online
discussions that are not seen as obligations, but as tools that encourage
deeper analysis of the concepts? Additionally, questions concerning the
technology itself were not posed in this study. For instance, did students
have slow Internet connections, or did they try to access the site during
peak hours? Did they find the web site easy to navigate? Was the
language easy to read? All of these variables could have hampered
student satisfaction with the course as well.

Of this we are certain: our society is racing towards a global
community, and by providing statistics education via the Web, we
have the opportunity to serve some of those persons we could not have
previously reached. Perhaps with further research and new advances
in technology, we can provide future distance education courses that
are just as accessible and enjoyable as face-to-face classes.

References

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.

Bell, B., & Kaplan, D. E. (1999). CourseMaster: Modeling a pedagogy for on-line distance
instruction. Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia and

248 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

Hypermedia. Seattle, Washington. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED446730).

Bennett, G., & Green, F. P. (2001). Student learning in the online environment: No
significant difference? Quest, 53, 1–13.

Bessant, K. C. (1992). Instructional design and the development of statistical literacy.
Teaching Sociology, 20, 143–149.

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).

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).

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).

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.

Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles. AAHE
Bulletin, 49(2), 2–4.

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.

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.

Dabbagh, N. H. (2000). The challenges of interfacing between face-to-face and online
instruction. TechTrends, 44, 37–42.

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.

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).

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).

Firdyiwek, Y. (1999). Web-based courseware tools: Where is the pedagogy? Educational
Technology, 39, 29–34.

Fullerton, J. A., & Umphrey, D. (2001, March). An analysis of attitudes toward statis-
tics: Gender differences among advertising majors. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED456479).

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.

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.

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).

Online Versus a Face-to-Face Statistics Class 249

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).

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.

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.

McMahon, M., & Oliver, R. (2001, June). Promoting self-regulated learning in an on-line
environment. Proceedings from the ED-Media World Conference on Educational Mul-
timedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Tampere, Finland. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED466194).

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).

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).

O’Hanlon, N. (2001). Development, delivery, and outcomes of a distance course for new
college students. Library Trends, 50, 8–27.

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).

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.

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.

Rintala, J. (1998). Computer technology in higher education: An experiment, not a
solution. Quest, 50, 366–378.

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).

Russell, T. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of
Instructional Telecommunications, University of North Carolina.

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).

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.

Sharpe, T., Harper, W., & Brown, S. (1998). In response: Further reflections on technology,
science, and culture. Quest, 50, 332–343.

Sharpe, T., & Hawkins, A. (1998). Technology and the information age: A cautionary tale
for higher education. Quest, 50, 19–32.

Sonwalkar, N. (2002). A new methodology for evaluation: The pedagogical rating of online
courses. Syllabus, 15, 18–21.

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).

250 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

Sutarso, T. (1992b, November). Students’attitudes toward statistics (STATS). Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED353316).

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

Vrasidas, C., & Mclsaac, M. S. (2000). Principles of pedagogy and evaluation for web-
based learning. Education Media International, 37, 105–111.

Wilkins, B., & Barrett, J. (2000). The virtual construction site: a web-based teach-
ing/learning environment in construction technology. Automation in Construction,
10, 169–179.

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).

STUDENTS’ POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES
IN HYBRID AND ONLINE CLASSES

BASsou EL MANSOUR, PH.D.
Assistant Professor

DAViSON M. MUPINGA, PH.D.
Associate Professor

Industrial Technology Education Department
Indiana State University

As higher education institutions struggle to meet the growing
demand for education from non-traditional students, many are
turning to hybrid and online courses. These courses, free up
classroom space, allow faculty to reach a wider audience using
technology; and are therefore cost effective. But, what learning
experiences do these courses provide students? Understanding
the students’ experiences in these courses has implications on the
effectiveness of the teaching strategies. This study describes the
characteristics of hybrid and online courses, the students’ posi-
tive and negative experiences in hybrid and online courses, and
what can be done to improve hybrid and online courses. Twelve
students enrolled in a hybrid course and 41 students in an online
course were interviewed for this qualitative study. Additional
data was obtained from the class’ online discussion forums. Flex-
ibility in the class schedule and the instructor’s availability were
positive experiences for the hybrid course. Convenience, instruc-
tor availability, and online interactions were cited as positives for
the online course while the negatives were technology hiccups
and a sense of feeling lost in Cyberspace. Training faculty and
familiarizing students with online course environments are rec-
ommended to improve online and hybrid courses.

Traditionally, learning has been
assumed to take place in a classroom or
face-to-face environment where the instruc-
tor and students are physically together.
But, not all students learn the same way and
therefore the traditional approach is not
ideal for all students (Young, 2002). There-
fore, the notion that learning only takes
place in face-to-face environments has
since been challenged and overtaken by
the use of the Internet and network tech-
nologies to provide a means of

communication to learners wherever they
are located (Stacey et al, 2004). The cur-
rent paradigm shift in higher education,
from traditional classroom settings to dis-
tance education program delivery via the
internet (Ryan et al, 1999), has ensured
that every student is fully engaged in at
least some class activities. In addition,
instructors are using technology as part of
instructional strategies to overcome limit-
ed budget constraints and serve the growing
numbers of non-traditional students.

242

Today, hybrid and online courses are
among the delivery strategies widely used.

In the traditional format, the teacher
develops and transmits the content to the
students who learn in a face-to-face envi-
ronment (Knowles, 2005). Although
during a set period of time, learners are
frequently provided with activities that
require them to be active rather than listen
and or watch passively (Berg, 2003;
Knowles, et al, 2005; Perry 2003), the
instructional approach may generate pro-
ductive interaction among all participants
in the class. However, the face-to-face
approach has a number of shortcomings,
namely: 1) it requires the students and the
instructor to be in the same room; 2)
instruction can be inconsistent; and 3) lack
of flexibility. In addition, the diverse skill
levels of the students in the class presents
another challenge. As each student comes
to class with a different purpose, expecta-
tion, experience, and ability within a given
topic, the normal “one-size-fits-all” course
does not produce effective results in this sit-
uation. The pace of classroom instruction
may only be applicable to a few students
and may limit activities that can be per-
formed in a classroom setting. The
shortcomings of the face-to-face approach
have paved the way for alternative
approaches such as hybrid and web-based
courses.

Characteristics of Hybrid Courses
A hybrid course, also known as web-

enhanced/assisted, or blended course, is a
course that combines elements of face-to-
face instruction with elements of distance
teaching (Lorenzetti, 2004). In most cases,

Hybrid and Online Courses … /243

through the use of technology, hybrid
courses allow students to first meet new
information, concepts and procedures out-
side the classroom before the class
physically meets. Furthermore, by allow-
ing students to meet new information
outside of the class discourages students
from making major investments of their
time during the face-to-face meeting
(Lorenzetti, 2004).

According to Young (2002), Graham
Spanier, president of Pennsylvania State
University, hails the convergence of online
and resident instruction as “the [hybrid
courses] single-greatest unrecognized trend
in higher education today.” Putting cours-
es partially online can save a university
some money without prompting students’
protests (Carnevale, 2006). Furthermore,
one advantage of this strategy is to move
the first exposure to the course material to
the online portion of the course. This prac-
tice, according to Debi Moon, the director
of distance learning at Georgia Perimeter
College, “frees the faculty member and
encourages more in-depth processing activ-
ities when the class meets in person”
(Lorenzetti, 2004 p.7). Besides, “a strong
case is beginning to be made on the basis
of research evidence that many students
learn better online than face-to-face, and
therefore, a mixture is the best way, accord-
ing to Chris Dede, professor of learning
technologies at Harvard University (Young,
2002).

Characteristics of online courses
Online courses are a type of distance

education. The delivery format goes by a
number of names: e-learning, Internet

244 / College Student Journal

learning, distributed learning, networked
learning, tele-learning, virtual learning, or
web-based learning. Online learning refers
to an instructional strategy in which the
learners are geographically separated from
the instructor, and the instruction is deliv-
ered totally through the computer (Western
Cooperative for Educational Telecommu-
nications, 2004). Among the distance
learning tools, online learning is expand-
ing rapidly (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2005). According to the Sloan
Consortium Report (2005), overall online
enrollment increased from 1.98 million in
2003 to 2.35 million in 2004.

This delivery format combines audio,
video, color, graphics, and animation to
stimulate student interest. In most web-
based courses, instructors and students do
not interact simultaneously; instead stu-
dents respond to messages that are posted
on a forum or website at some convenient
times. Overall, according to Wang and
Newlin (2001), this process limits the
amount and depth of interactions regard-
ing course material and procedures.
Furthermore, regardless of the exact
method, asynchronous communication is
slow and limits the type and amount of
communication between instructor and stu-
dent and tends to remove any feelings of
connection between the student and the
instructor (Wang & Newlin, 2001).
Although many colleges have turned to
online education, the cost of the technol-
ogy often eats away any savings from
holding class in cyberspace. In fact, online
education can often be more expensive
than its traditional counterpart (Carnevale,
2006).

Online learning offers several advan-
tages over traditional classroom learning.
Among these are the elimination of barri-
ers of time and space. In online learning
environments, learning takes place within
a flexible timeframe that a student devel-
ops without the constraint of a pre-set
classroom or organization’s schedule
(Beam, 1998; Micks, 2001). In addition,
web environments offer flexibility of
instructional pace, and more control over
which learning activities are more appro-
priate to engage in (Alexandra, 1996).
Besides, e-learning offers the same instruc-
tional material to each student every time
they need it (Allen 2003; Bullen, 2003;
Piskurich, 2003). However, e-learning may
lack real interactions between instructors
and students.

Just like face-to-face courses, online
and hybrid courses are not ideal for every-
one (Illinois Online Network, 2006).
Therefore, to succeed in any learning envi-
ronment, learners need to have appropriate
learning styles and necessary competen-
cies. Since the majority of students enroll
in online courses based on the convenience
and flexibility of scheduling (Ryan 2001),
and not on their learning styles; the stu-
dents need to have the appropriate learning
styles and technical competencies to suc-
ceed. Therefore, to ensure effectiveness of
the delivery strategies, there is a need to
determine what works best in each learn-
ing environment.

Statement of the Problem
As many instructors continue to expand

their traditional delivery methods (lecture,
laboratory, face-to-face discussion) to
include educational options ranging from

web-based course supplements to com-
plete delivery of courses online (Freeman
and Field, 2004), issues of instructional
quality continue to be of concern (Terry,
2000). Many educators question whether
students in online classes learn as much or
receive the same quality of instruction as
students in the face-to-face classroom
(Cooper, 2001). Although students who
enroll in online classes generally like the
flexibility and convenience offered, they
may not be beneficial to them. It becomes
important to establish the students’ expe-
riences in the delivery formats to keep the
positive components or make adjustments
to the undesirable aspects.

Purpose and Objectives of the Study
The main purpose of this study is to

describe students’ experiences in hybrid
and online courses. Based on the review of
literature and reflections from students who
took hybrid and online courses, this arti-
cle describes 1) the unique characteristics
of hybrid and online classes; 2) the posi-
tive and negative aspects of hybrid and
online courses as experienced by students;
and 3) what instructors can do to improve
the teaching of hybrid and online courses.

Methodology
Data for this study was collected

through a case study of college students
enrolled in a hybrid or blended course. The
case study involved 41 undergraduate stu-
dents at a four-year mid-western (US)
college. The students surveyed were
enrolled in a course that was delivered face-
to-face and online. The same course
material, audios of the face-to-face class
and the PowerPoint slides used in the face-

Hybrid and Online Courses … /245

to-face classes, were posted on Blackboard,
an online course management platform.
Twelve students took the hybrid class and
34 students were strictly online. Every
week the audio files recorded during the in-
class session were streamed and posted on
the course website. The course material
posted on the Blackboard course site
included: lesson content, assignments, and
online discussions. The students had the
same course assignments, including par-
ticipation in online discussions. Students
reflected on their experiences in online and
blended courses through their qualitative
responses. The students’ responses were
analyzed and are presented in the next sec-
tion.

Results
The students’ experiences in the cours-

es varied with the delivery format. In the
hybrid course, the students rated the option
of scheduling the class face-to-face and
online, and instructor availability as posi-
tive. On the negative, the rigid schedules
for the face-to-face sessions and technical
problems with computers and internet ser-
vice were cited. For the online course, the
positive aspects were grouped into: con-
venience, class expectations, and instructor
availability. Technology hiccups and feel-
ing lost in cyberspace were cited as
negative experiences for the online class.

Among some positive statements by the
students for the hybrid course were: “Abil-
ity to work both face-to-face and online
when schedules did not permit” and “Phys-
ical presence of the instructor to provide
additional input, explanations, etc”. How-
ever, the idea of having scheduled meetings
on campus was considered to interfere with

246 / College Student Journal

students social and work commitments.
Positive statements for the online course
included: “Being able to do your work
online on your own schedule allows me to
go back to school while working full time”,
“Ability to work on the course just about
anywhere one has computer access”, and
“Online discussions allowed me more time
to reflect and prepare well thought out
responses”. The main negative aspects of
the online course were ‘feeling lost in
cyberspace’, the technical problems with
the computers and course management
platforms. Issues related to delays in get-
ting responses to communication from
instructor and other students made them
feel lost in the cyberspace. In addition, the
students felt, “the teachers did not get to
know the students personally” and that
“there was no way of reading body lan-
guage [from either fellow students or the
instructor]” (see Table 1, for students’ expe-
riences).

Suggestions for improving hybrid and online
courses

Lack of technical training and support,
inadequate compensation and incentive
structures, and lack of release time for plan-
ning have been cited as reasons why faculty
resist participating in hybrid and online
courses (Clark, 1993; Khan, 1995; Olcott
and Wright, 1995). Therefore, providing
training is one way to reduce resistance by
faculty to participate in online courses. At
Georgia Perimeter College, a Hybrid Fel-
lowship has been created to encourage
faculty to develop hybrid and online cours-
es. The fellowship is a faculty development
program for teaching and creating hybrid
and online course; and providing the solid

pedagogical, technical and relevant legal
skills (Lorenzetti, 2004). Among the cours-
es covered during training are: How to
build a Hybrid/Online Course, Training on
course management platform (e.g. WebCT,
Blackboard); Using the Exemplary Course
Standards; Legal Issues and Copyright,
ADA Compliance Training for Distance
Education; Pedagogical Skills for Online
Courses; Creating a Positive Online Tone;
and Using Streaming Media (Lorenzetti,
2004).

When preparing to teach hybrid and
online courses, it is helpful to dispel some
of erroneous assumptions that students
make about online learning. According to
Online Classroom (2005), Tips from the
Pros, the following are traits/perceptions of
successful online learners: 1) students who
succeed in online courses generally work
during consistent times during the week;
and 2) every online course is different and
therefore students need to allow for time
to adjust to the course design and course
management strategies. It would also help
if institutions provided students with an
orientation to online learning that also
includes familiarization with the course
management platform.

Conclusion
The students in both the online and

hybrid classes agreed that the classes met
their expectations; however a larger per-
centage of students’ negative experiences
were expressed for online courses. Many
students who tried the hybrid course said
the model fits their learning style, attention
spans and life styles. On the other hand,
some students also felt the same for total-
ly online courses. Therefore, it becomes a

Hybrid and Online Courses … /247

Table 1: Positive and Negative Experiences in Hybrid and Online Courses
Positives Negatives

Hybrid Class Scheduling Rigid Class Schedules
Course • “The option to catch upon what I missed in • “Less flexible compared to online classes… I

class on the web” had to be on campus on certain days”
“Ability to work both face-to-face and online
when schedules did not permit” Technology Hiccups

Instructor Availability ” ‘My Internet connections were bad during
“* “Physical presence of the instructor to provide the online sessions.”

additional input, explanations, etc” “Confusing, especially the shifting from class
“* “Instructor input and answering of questions is sessions to web sessions”

available, in-class and online.”
“* “Face-to-face sessions offered more personalized

attention.”

Online Convenience and Flexibility Technology Hiccups
Course • “I was able to schedule a class when it suited my * “Unreliable Internet connections from my

work schedule” ISP [Internet Service Provider]”
“* “Ability to work on the course just about * “Too many technical problems with

anywhere one has computer access.” [college’s] course management platform”
“• “Being able to do your work online, on your own Communicationi

schedule allows me to go back to school while * “Instructor feedback tended to be slow”
working full time.”

“* “Online courses allow me to be full time student Feeling Lost in Cyberspace
and mommy at the same time.” • “I did not feel as part of the class”

“You cannot verbalize your thoughts and let
Class Expectations other hear your ideas.”
“* “The class expectations were the same as the ” ‘You also lose the personal teacher student

face-to-face class, i.e. grading scale and time relationship.”
frame for assignments was the same.” • “You are losing some civility that may be in

“* “The class audio tapes streamed to the web made a classroom discussion.”
it [the lesson] closer to face-to-face” • “Teachers do not get a chance to get to know

the student the same as they would in on-line
Instructor Availability classes”.
“• “Instructor was available to respond to questions “You don’t get to see the professor or class

through discussion board or email” members face to face.”
“• “The Cyber Cafe’ [forum on the discussion ” ‘With online classes, it is hard to be able to

board for students to post questions] was an get that whole “personal” thing.
excellent opportunity to get responses from other • “Not the one-on-one, or personal rapport, and
students” the personal attention many would like to

get.”
Online Interactions • “The camaraderie of partaking in a class
“* “Online discussions allowed me more time to function and setting.”

reflect and prepare well thought out responses” “No way to read body language.”
“The ability to work electronically in groups • “It is not possible to get immediate feedback

with students on campus. This was something as there are different time availabilities for
new and neat.” the student and instructor.”

“* “Web course is better for visual learners like ° “It takes more time to e-mail or post a
myself. I learn through visual cues and question on the discussion board and wait for
experiential exercises, and those that require a response.”
more time, are language-challenged, or
introverted”

question of what a student finds matching
his/her learning style and social commit-
ments, that makes the best delivery strategy.
Where possible, a blend of the delivery
strategies may be ideal.

References
Alexandra, R. (1996, November). Technology

transforms training. HR Focus, 73, p. 11.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the oppor-
tunity: The quality and extent of online
education in the United States, 2002 and 2003.
Needham, MA.

248 / College Student Journal

Allen, M. (2003). The lessons of e-learning. Opti-
mize, December 2003. p. 5 1 .

Beam, P. (1998). But what did we learn…?. Pro-
ceedings of the Sixteenth Annual International
Conference on Computer Documentation,
(pp.24-26).

Berg, S. (2003). Two sides of the same coin: engag-
ing student beyond the traditional classroom.
The Community College Enterprise, 9(1), 7.

Bullen, M. (2003). E-learning emergence. CGA
Magazine. Toronto: Jul/Aug. 37(4),

Carnevale, D. (2006). Online. Chronicle of High-
er Education. 52(20), 1/20/2006.

Clark, T. (1993). Attitudes of higher education fac-
ulty toward distance education: A national
survey. The American Journal of Distance Edu-
cation, 7(2), 19-33.

Cooper, L.C. (2001). A comparison of online and
traditional computer applications classes.
T.H.E. Journal, (28) 8. 52-46. March 2001.

Freeman, S.A, & Field, D.W. (2004). Student Per-
ceptions of Web-Based Supplemental
Instruction. Journal of Technology Studies,
30(4), 25-31.

Khan, B.H. (1995) Obstacles encountered during
stages of the educational change process. Edu-
cational Technology, March-April: 43-46

Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R.
A. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive
classic in adult education and human resource
development (6th ed.) Woburn, MA: Butter-
wroth-Heineman

Lorenzetti, J.P. (2004, November 1). For quality
and cost effectiveness, build a hybrid program.
Distance Education Report, 8(21), 1-2, 7.

National Center for Education Statistics (2005).
Distance education courses for Public Elemen-
tary and Secondary School Students: 2002-03.
Retrieved July 29, 2005 from http:// nces.
ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/ 2005 010/

Olcott, D. Jr. and Wright, S. J. (1995). An institu-
tional support framework for increasing faculty
participation in postsecondary distance educa-
tion. The American Journal of Distance
Education 9 (3): 5-17.

Perry, T. (2003, November). Torn over training.
Occupational Health & Safety, 72(11), 81.

Piskurich, G. M.(2003). Preparing learners for e-
learning. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, p.73.

Ryan, M., Hodson Carlton, K., &Ali, N. S. (1999).
Evaluation of traditional classroom teaching
methods versus course delivery via the world
wide web. Journal of Nursing Education, 38,
p. 272.

Ryan, S. (2001). Is online learning right for you?
American Agent and Broker 73 (6):54-58.

Sloan Consortium, (2005). Growing by degrees:
Online education in the United States,
Retrieved March 28, 2006, from
http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/survey.asp.

Stacey, E., Peter, S. J., Barty, K. (2004). Adult
Learners in the workplace: Online learning and
communities of practice. Distance Education,
(25)1, May 2004.

Young, J. R.(2002). ‘Hybrid’ teaching seeks to end
the divide between traditional and online
instructions. Chronicle of Higher Education,
3/22/2002, 48(28), p33.

Wang, A.Y. & Newlin, M.H. (2002). T H E
Journal, Online lectures: Benefits for the Vir-
tual Classroom, Aug 2001 (29)1.17-22.

Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommu-
nications, (2004). Distance education: A
consumer’s guide. Western Cooperative for
Educational Telecommunications, Retrieved
May 15, 2006: http://www.wcet.info/ Resourc
es/publications/conguide/

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Students’ Positive and Negative Experiences in Hybrid
and Online Classes

SOURCE: Coll Stud J 41 no1 Mr 2007

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited.