Market conditions are driving universities to expand educational programs beyond traditional face-to-face and into blended and online formats. This is relatively common knowledge in the field of higher education, although not all faculty, administrators, or students support the direction. Conversations about online learning have multiplied recently due to the (presumably temporary) shift some universities are making to online teaching as they respond to COVID-19. Twitter threads and conversations with faculty about online education reminded me of the need for ongoing advocacy of this delivery model.
I should start by sharing my bias. I whole-heartedly believe in online education. I hold a senior leadership position at an online university, American College of Education, and in 2020 I will earn my doctorate completely online at Arizona State University. I have seen and experienced the benefits and challenges of completing courses/programs online. I contrast these experiences to completing my undergraduate education face-to-face at a state university (Southern Illinois University Edwardsville) and earning my master’s degree face-to-face at a private university (DePaul University) while working full-time and taking night classes. Across these my personal educational experiences, I have seen amazing and awful courses and instructors regardless of delivery method. Simultaneously, I have the privilege of working for a university that offers some of the best online courses available anywhere (as we’ve been repeatedly told by external reviewers and students).
As I reflected on my experience and recent conversations, I recognized the need to summarize recent literature on this topic to communicate my perspective grounded in more than just my personal experiences and opinions. Today I am sharing a brief summary of several studies examining the efficacy of online education. This post is not comprehensive. I hope to extend it as I have more time and new research becomes available. Experimental research comparing student learning outcomes across delivery models (e.g., online, blended, face-to-face) is limited. This makes sense given the difficulty of randomly assigning a representative sample of students to different delivery methods and to holding constant all other elements such as instructor, motivation, and digital literacy. This results in an inability to definitively claim one mode of learning is better than the other. Given the multitude of factors impacting learning outcomes, results are mixed. A review of the literature helps clarify some important factors relevant to student learning outcomes across modalities, which should be considered by faculty, administrators, support staff, and students.
Means, Toyama, Murphy, and Baki (2013) conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies providing a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the effectiveness of online and blended learning. The authors examined the influence of specific conditions, including pedagogical approach, synchronous / asynchronous delivery, and fully online v. blended, on over 50 effect sizes. Results indicate that students in blended learning environments performed significantly better than students receiving face-to-face instruction only, and that no significant difference was found between online and face-to-face conditions. Additionally, there was no significant difference between fully online and face-to-face conditions. The authors found that differences in effect size relate more to moderator variables such as pedagogical approach and curricular/instructional materials than to delivery modality. These findings support my experiences, that regardless of delivery method, learning depends heavily on instructional method and materials.
This meta-analysis provides a great comparative snapshot of education delivery models at a point in time. However, as technology and teaching practices change, the applicability of these studies is reduced. Therefore, I’m including a few more recent studies on this topic to contrast.
Research examining undergraduate student performance indicates that the average student performs worse on course exams when completing an online course versus a face-to-face course (Alpert, Couch, & Harmon, 2016; Arias, J., Swinton, & Anderson, 2018). While these studies attempt to create similar samples across learning modalities, the degree to which they account for individual student and/or instructor differences or pedagogical approaches differs across studies. Numerous studies have found no significant difference in learning outcomes when comparing blended and face-to-face delivery models (Alpert, Couch, & Harmon, 2016; Joyce et al., 2015; Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013; Bowen et al., 2014), which supports Means et al (2013) meta-analysis results in support of blended learning. Researchers also recognize the choice of outcome measures (e.g., GPA, exam score) have limitations and other measures of student learning should be considered.
Given the complex nature of evaluating the efficacy of different learning modalities, researchers often use student satisfaction or engagement as proxy measures. Factors that impact satisfaction may not clearly impact learning. Therefore, engagement has been identified as a factor that more clearly impacts learning. Research comparing online, blended, and face-to-face learner engagement identified areas where online learners are at a disadvantage as well as areas where online learners have opportunities not shared by face-to-face students (Paulsen & McCormick, 2020). When controlling for individual differences, Paulsen and McCormick (2020) found that face-to-face and blended learners are more engaged in collaborative learning and rate student-faculty interactions more highly than online learners.
On the other hand, online learners found their interactions to be of higher quality than face-to-face or blended learners. Additionally, online learners showed greater higher order learning and reflective and integrative learning than face-to-face learners. No significant difference existed between learner groups regarding learning strategies used or perceived supportiveness of their learning environment (Paulsen & McCormick, 2020). Results from a meta-analysis conducted by Broadbent and Poon (2015) support these results related to learner strategies. Their research revealed that learner strategies of time management, effort regulation, and critical thinking were positively correlated with student academic achievement regardless of a course setting being online or face-to-face.
These results emphasize the role of pedagogical approach and instructional materials in student achievement and provide guidance for faculty and support staff to tailor practices to different learner groups based on program or course modality. For example, faculty teaching online may need to employ more creative eLearning practices to facilitate student collaboration such as in group assignments. Conversely, faculty teaching face-to-face may need to try different instructional strategies and assignment complexity to facilitate higher order learning.
Additionally, this research provides a reminder that learning strategies are critical to student success and should be fostered regardless of delivery modality. Finally, factors such as motivation and experience with online education impact student achievement, but results related to these factors is limited. At American College of Education, for example, we recognize that learners come from a variety of backgrounds and may need time to acclimate to the online learning environment. During the first two courses in a program, we provide special student support and faculty dedicated to helping students transition to online learning if that is the best option for them.
Education is not one size fits all, yet historically limited models have been available for educators to offer choices for the range of students seeking education. I view the opportunity to offer face-to-face, online, or blended learning to be the exact type of progress we need to expand access to all types of education, be it college, technical, professional development or otherwise, to the increasingly diverse pool of learners. The scholarly research does not conclusively show that one delivery model is better than another, but rather there is more research to be done and much to be considered when offering educational opportunities in different formats. The clearest result from the studies considered herein is the benefits of blended learning models. This research suggests that universities considering expanding online should consider if blended programs would meet their goals and needs of their target students.
References
Alpert, W. T., Couch, K. A., & Harmon, O., R. (2016). A randomized assessment of online learning. The American Economic Review, 106(5), 378-382.
Arias, J. J., Swinton, J., & Anderson, K. (2018). Online vs. face-to-face: A comparison of student outcomes with random assignment. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 12(2), 1-23.
Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., Lack, K. A., & Nygren, T. I. (2014). Interactive learning online at public universities: Evidence from a six-campus randomized trial. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(1), 94-111.
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievements in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1-13.
Joyce, T., Crockett, S., Jaeger, D. A., Altindag, O., & O’Connel, S. D. (2015). Does classroom time matter? Economics of Education Review, 46, 44-67.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115, 1-47.
Paulsen, J., & McCormick, A. (2020). Reassessing disparities in online learner student engagement in higher education. Educational Researcher, 49(1), 20-29.
