farrell final paper - impact of online learning

8/6/2019 Farrell Final Paper - Impact of Online Learning

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/farrell-final-paper-impact-of-online-learning 1/17

Online Learning and its Impact on Traditional Classroom Performance

Brian Farrell

University of British Columbia

March 5, 2011



Online Learning and its Impact on Traditional Classroom Performance – Farrell

Abstract

Online courses are often included as part of a larger program of

instruction, and may be used to help augment or complement a face-to-face (f2f)

curriculum. This study contrasts two groups of students, one of whom is involved

in one online course as part of their standard course load, with another peer

group at the same school that is enrolled only in f2f courses. After highlighting

the differences in online learners and online learning environments, and

discussing how online learning is currently being implemented, this study focuseson the grade score outcomes of the two groups of students. The study finds that

in taking an online course, there is no resulting significant impact, positive or

negative, upon a student’s grades.

2




Introduction

Online learning is a field that is emerging and evolving at an incredible

pace. Its adoption is not yet widespread, although it is a way of learning that has

already existed for a number of years. Many schools, particularly at the high

school level, that are now engaging in online learning are doing so in a mixed or

blended format, rather than offering their entire program of instruction online. A

common practice is to continue to offer a regular program of face-to-face (f2f)

instruction, while using online learning as a way to expand the school’s course

calendar to include additional subjects that may not be as greatly in demand, or

that cannot be accommodated due to staffing, limited enrollment, or facilities at

the school.

These schools are obviously interested in seeing their students be as

successful as possible in mastering curriculum and transferring knowledge. Butsince many of these schools have no previous experience with online learning,

there can be apprehension or misgivings about exactly what results their

students will achieve, and about how these online courses might affect students’

other f2f studies.

This study attempts to examine the relationship between student

engagement in online courses and their overall performance in both their online

and f2f classes. In an area that does not have a great deal of previously

established study, it aims to bring clarity for students, teachers, and

administrators who may be questioning the validity and impact of online learning.

3




Literature Review

There are identified best practices and strategies in developing online

courses (MacKillop, 2010), but they can still vary widely in their development,

scope, and deployment. Similar to f2f courses, online courses employ a variety of

learning tools and methods to engage learners with a body of knowledge, and

can be offered in a variety of forms, be it blended with f2f interactions, 100%

online, synchronous or asynchronous, and guided or entirely independent in their

inquiry. For schools that want to offer a wide variety of subjects for their students,

and who hope to build global connections between their learners and the world,

online courses present themselves as a very appealing opportunity for students.

It’s important then to understand how learning online impacts the

performance of students in the traditional classroom, and in this area, the

research is currently unclear. Research has shown that online teachers feel thatworking in this environment has a direct positive impact upon their f2f practice

(Roblyer, et. al., 2009), but the picture is less clear when it comes to students.

Studies have been conducted that show that students can struggle in online

environments (Marcel, 2003), but these studies have not always clearly linked

these difficulties with performance in f2f environments. Further, other studies

appear to conflict with these results, as they have shown linkages between the

use of online learning environments and better engagement with curriculum and

development of critical analysis skills (Korkmaz & Karakus, 2009) both online and

in f2f environments. Other studies have shown mixed results, with students

4




gaining some benefit from online learning, but also succeeding in other ways due

to f2f instruction (Kirtman, 2009). Clearly then, a larger body of investigative

study is certainly needed to help clarify some of the confusion.

Online learners, much like f2f learners, vary widely in their abilities,

motivation, prior knowledge, and as an added complication, their level of comfort

and ability with technology. No two learners are alike, and so it can be difficult to

derive wide-ranging conclusions from their examination. Still, it is difficult to find

research that clearly links the engagement with online learning to learning

outcomes in f2f environments, and hence the emphasis of this study of exactlythat dynamic. The topic has been circled in previous studies, but there is little if

any evidence showing that online learning has any sort of direct impact on

student performance in traditional f2f environments.

For some students, online learning can be a very effective way of learning.

These types of learners are generally motivated, organized, and engaged with

technology (Kirby & Sharpe, 2010), and so it stands that they would likely also be

successful in f2f environments. These results imply that online learners are likely

aware of what is involved in this type of learning before they choose to engage

with it, but that cannot always be assumed. When schools such as the one

surveyed in this study do not have a great deal of prior history in offering courses

online, it should be expected that students will in fact have mixed expectations

and an unclear understanding of this type of learning environment, as they have

no prior knowledge on which to base these assumptions. Some may even falsely

assume that, due to its flexible and visibly unstructured nature, online learning

5




may be an easier option to taking a f2f course, an assumption that will likely set

these learners up for disappointment and possibly failure.

Therefore learners that are newly engaged with online learning, such as

those covered in this study, will not necessarily fit the mould of already being

motivated, organized, and engaged with technology. Further, some students,

including those that are studied here, are often enrolled in online courses simply

because it was the only option that worked in a logistical sense with their course

timetable. In contrast to the university level, high school students cannot

realistically be classified as independent actors when it comes to courseselection and timetabling, as they are heavily guided in these decisions by

parents, school counsellors, and the constraints of their school’s timetable.

This study contrasting learning outcomes between online students and f2f

students then aims to help bring some clarity to these issues. It is not realistic to

assume that any conclusions reached can necessarily be applied to all high

school students, or even all high school students engaged in online learning, as

there is such a breadth of difference in terms of learning environments,

socioeconomic status, access to technology, and other differentiating factors as

to make direct comparison impossible. But conclusions drawn from this research

might help to further define how we think about online learners, and in better

understanding how these learning environments impact upon f2f environments.

Methodology

To measure the relationship between learners engaged in online learning

and their performance in traditional f2f environments, a simple correlation of end

6




of term grade data between two groups of students at the same school was

devised. The school is a medium sized international school in Japan with a total

enrollment of approximately 700 students from early years (pre-kindergarten) to

high school graduation, and with students enrolled from a very diverse spectrum

of linguistic and national backgrounds. The school’s program of instruction in

grades eleven and twelve is the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program

(IBDP), a university-entry level curriculum. A significant portion of students at the

school have a mother tongue other than English, however all instruction (aside

from language courses) is offered in English. All students in grade eleven wereincluded in the survey, but are identified only collectively by their overall grade

point average (GPA).

The first group (Group A) consisted of eight grade eleven students, all of

whom are enrolled in one online course in addition to five f2f courses offered on

site. The second group (Group B) consisted of the remaining peer group of 35

grade eleven students, all of whom are enrolled in six f2f courses and no online

classes. An additional ten grade eleven students were excluded from the survey,

as they did not attend the school in the previous year, and therefore no grade

data was available.

The students enrolled in online courses (Group A) were spread across two

different online courses, one of each at the standard and higher levels offered in

the IBDP, with three instructors between the various class sections, and so their

class experience was diverse in nature. The online courses were all delivered by

teachers with direct classroom experience in the subject of instruction, and were

7




externally assessed and validated at the same standard as traditional f2f IBDP

classes by the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO). Similarly, the f2f

courses on offer at the school represented a broad spectrum of subject areas,

with some degree of flexibility offered to students in their selection.

Survey data compared the GPA of each group from the end of the

previous school year (where no online courses were offered), to the most recent

end of semester report from the current school year. Ideally, this survey will

eventually be expanded to include additional GPA data as it becomes available,

as the students will still be enrolled for an additional year and half of study, bothf2f and online.

The students in both groups have transitioned from the International

General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) curriculum in grade ten to

the IBDP in grade eleven, which makes the direct comparison of grades difficult

as these two programs grade on different scales. The transition was the same for

both groups though, and so this should not be seen as a weakness in the given

data. Further, both sets of grades were translated to a 4.0 GPA scale as this is

the scale on which the school reports its grades on its official transcript. These

scores are represented in the data collected to two decimal places to best

understand their implications.

The students participating in online as well as f2f courses (Group A) are

enrolled in online courses for a variety of reasons. Primarily, the online course

that they enrolled in was the best fit for their timetable, although some of the

group were specifically interested in learning in an online environment, and all

8




held some level of interest in the subject of their online class, as these particular

classes are not offered in a f2f environment by the school. The school that these

students attend has not offered online courses in the past, and so the students

involved generally did not have any direct knowledge of what an online learning

environment might entail before choosing to enroll in one of these courses. This

is important to note, as previous research has identified online learners as being

highly motivated and organized (Kirby & Sharpe, 2010), but does not make clear

whether these students exhibited these traits prior to engaging in online learning,

or whether they gained them as a result of their involvement in learning in thisenvironment.

It is hard to establish a level of significance using the GPA scale, since it

does not move on a linear scale (see Appendix A – GPA to Letter Grades

Conversion). However, given that variations of 0.3-0.4 on the GPA scale (except

at the extremes on either end of the scale) correspond with roughly one +/- letter

grade (e.g. 3.7=A- while 3.3=B+ and 2.3=C+ while 2.0=C), a difference of 0.35,

or 8.75% between Group A and Group B will be considered significant.

Findings

While further statistical analysis may be needed, this survey has found

that there is no significant impact, positive or negative, on student performance

from taking an online course. That is, taking an online course as part of a

student’s regularly required course load does not cause their grades to

unnecessarily suffer or benefit in any significant way relative to their peers who

9




are enrolled only in f2f courses.

Students in both Group A and Group B experienced a decline in their

collective average GPA from grade ten to grade eleven. For Group A, this was a

mean decline of -0.099 on the GPA scale, or -2.48%, while Group B saw a mean

GPA grade decline of -0.138 or -3.45%. The median decline was also similar, at

-0.14 on the GPA scale or -3.50% for Group A and -0.08 on the GPA scale or

-2.00% for Group B. These findings represent a mean difference of 0.039 and a

median difference of 0.06 on the GPA scale, or 0.98% and 1.5% respectively

between the two groups.Perhaps owing to the lower sample size, the differences between mean

and median are contradictory, with Group A experiencing a less dramatic

decrease in mean GPA and Group B faring better in median GPA. These

divergent findings further reinforce that the data does not show any causality

from taking an online course.

Implications

Simply stated, online courses do not cause a student to perform any better

or worse than their peers. Taking an online course will not prove to be an

unnecessary distraction or burden upon students, although it will similarly also

not necessarily help a student to be any more successful than their peers. This of

course should not discount the inherent utility and benefit to students and

schools in being able to offer online courses. These courses can be highly

flexible and allow schools to offer classes that they might not otherwise be able

10




to due to staffing, funding, or physical plant constraints. While subjective in

nature, and therefore difficult to quantitatively measure, these benefits come at

no cost to student performance, as demonstrated in this study.

This notion of neutrality in impact reinforces the idea of incorporating

some online course offerings in a school’s catalogue, since it shows that students

taking these courses will not suffer in their studies. It further validates that online

courses, implemented correctly, are suitable replacements for f2f classes when

the need should arise.

There is clearly a need for further research, and this study itself could beexpanded to follow the same group of students for a longer duration of time, or

enlarged to include a larger sample from multiple schools. Still, there is no

compelling logic that says that these results would be any different from what has

been found here.

Conclusion

Online learning and online learners are different from traditional classroom

environments, to be sure. Online learning requires students to exercise some

independence and discipline as they regularly log in to engage with their

curriculum material, and they need to maintain a good stream of communication

with their teacher and peers to ensure success. But really, can this be said to be

any different from how a student would be expected to achieve success in a f2f

environment?

This study has found that online learning is very similar (if not identical) to

11




f2f environments when it comes to student performance and the interactions

between workload in various classes. Students of any stripe need to organize

themselves and multi-task, but they should rest assured that taking an online

course as part of their studies will not unnecessarily burden them with more work

or responsibilities relative to their peers.

12




Table 1 – Data Analysis

Group A Group B

(Online f2f Mix) (100% f2f)8 students 35 studentsMean GPA (Avg) Sem 2 2009-2010 3.555 3.640Mean GPA (Avg) Sem 1 2010-2011 3.456 3.502Mean GPA Change from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011 -0.099 -0.138Mean % Change from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011 -2.48% -3.45%Median GPA Sem 2 2009-2010 3.60 3.66Median GPA Sem 1 2010-2011 3.46 3.58Median GPA Change from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011 -0.14 -0.08Median % Change from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011 -3.50% -2.00% Exclusions:

Ten students not enrolled in 2009-2010One online student no longer enrolled

Table 2 – Group A GPA (Online & f2f students)

Group A 2010-2011 2009-2010Student 1 3.12 2.98Student 2 3.34 3.29Student 3 3.56 3.45Student 4 3.72 3.85

Student 5 3.69 3.85Student 6 3.36 3.75Student 7 3.81 3.96Student 8 3.05 3.31 MEAN (AVG) GPA 3.45625 3.555MEDIAN GPA 3.46 3.60RANGE 3.05-3.81 2.98-3.96MEAN GPACHANGE -0.09875AS % -2.47%MEDIAN GPA

CHANGE -0.14AS % -3.50%

13




Table 3 – Group B GPA (100% f2f students)

Group B 2010-2011 2009-2010

Student 1 2.65 3.17Student 2 3.57 3.76Student 3 3.35 3.48Student 4 3.82 3.98Student 5 3.6 3.69Student 6 3.55 3.77Student 7 3.58 3.59Student 8 3.24 3.91Student 9 3.78 3.85Student 10 3.09 3.44Student 11 3.47 3.42Student 12 3.68 3.91

Student 13 3.43 3.63Student 14 3.67 3.69Student 15 3.45 3.63Student 16 3.35 3.39Student 17 3.5 3.51Student 18 3.33 3.22Student 19 3.58 3.77Student 20 3.72 3.92Student 21 3.63 3.58Student 22 3.32 3.49Student 23 3.24 2.73Student 24 3.63 3.73Student 25 3.33 3.58Student 26 3.73 3.78Student 27 3.1 3.36Student 28 3.65 3.61Student 29 3.7 3.81Student 30 3.76 3.93Student 31 3.6 3.85Student 32 3.3 3.59Student 33 3.8 3.83Student 34 3.77 3.87Student 35 3.6 3.93 MEAN (AVG) GPA 3.50 3.64MEDIAN GPA 3.58 3.66RANGE 2.65-3.82 2.73-3.98MEAN GPACHANGE -0.138AS % -3.45%MEDIAN GPACHANGE -0.08

14




AS % -2.00%

Appendix A – GPA to Letter Grades Conversion

GPA 4.0 = A+3.9 = A3.7 = A-3.3 = B+3.0 = B2.7 = B-2.3 = C+2.0 = C1.7 = C-1.3 = D+1.0 = D

0.7 = D-0.0 = F

Adapted from McMaster University Career Services.

15




References

Kirby, D., & Sharpe, D. (2010). High School Students in the New Learning

Environment: A Profile of Distance E-Learners. Turkish Online Journal of

Educational Technology - TOJET , 9(1), 83-88. Retrieved from

EBSCO host .

Kirtman, L. (2009). Online versus In-Class Courses: An Examination of

Differences in Learning Outcomes. Issues in Teacher Education , 18(2),

103-116. Retrieved from EBSCO host .

Korkmaz, O., & Karakus, U. (2009). The Impact of Blended Learning Model on

Student Attitudes towards Geography Course and Their Critical Thinking

Dispositions and Levels. Turkish Online Journal of Educational

Technology - TOJET , 8(4), 51-63. Retrieved from EBSCO host .

MacKillop, R. (2010). Teaching Business Online. Techniques: Connecting

Education and Careers , 85(6), 48-51. Retrieved from EBSCO host .

Marcel, K. W., & Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, B. O.

(2003). Online Advanced Placement Courses: Experiences of Rural and

Low-Income High School Students. WCALO Special Studies. Retrieved

from EBSCO host .

McMaster University Career Services (n.d.). GPA Conversion Chart. Retrieved

from http://careers.mcmaster.ca/students/education-planning/virtual-

16




resources/gpa-conversion-chartRoblyer, M. D., Porter, M., Bielefeldt, T., & Donaldson, M. B. (2009). "Teaching

Online Made Me a Better Teacher": Studying the Impact of Virtual Course

Experiences on Teachers' Face-to-Face Practice. Journal of Computing in

Teacher Education , 25(4), 121-126. Retrieved from EBSCO host .

17

farrell final paper - impact of online learning

Documents