This study compared student learning outcomes and student perceptions of/satisfaction with the learning process between two sections of the same class—an online section and a traditional face to face section. Using a quasi-experimental design, students were randomly assigned to the two course sections. Conclusions suggest that the face to face encounter motivates students to a higher degree *** but learning outcomes are not statistically significant *** and also provides students with another layer of information concerning the instructor that is absent in the online course.





Recent research in online education has focused upon whether web-based courses provide students with the same degree of personalized learning and content mastery that students experience in face-to-face (f2f) classes. Few studies, however, utilized experimental design across several variables including student learning as well as satisfaction with the learning experience.

Progress and innovative use of technology in education has greatly improved the quality of web-based delivered courses (Schott, et. al.,  et. al., 2003). To determine whether web-based courses indeed provide students with a comparable if not more superior learning experience, researchers over the past 5 years have conducted a plethora of studies comparing aspects of the traditionally delivered instruction with online instruction (Rivera, McAlister, & Rice, 2003). Findings are mixed, but the general consensus is that students learn just as well using web-based instruction, but are less satisfied with the learning experience. Miller, Rainer,  & Corley (2003) noted that the more negative aspects of web-based instruction include procrastination, poor attendance, and a sense of isolation. Other studies Another study noted that online courses are more effective with particular personality types (Daughbenbaugh, et. al.,et. .al., 2002). Few if any studies have utilized random assignment to determine whether the “average” student might fare just as well in an online course as in an f2f course. Rather than comparing two potentially unequal groups, this study utilized random assignment in order to compare equivalent groups thereby controlling for predispositions towards one type of learning style over another.

The course in this study, Early Childhood Education: Philosophy and Practice, is a beginning level survey course required for early childhood majors who just entered their pre-professional program.  Currently there are more than 900 students enrolled in the Bachelor of Education in Early Childhood Education program which prepares students to teach children ages 3-8 with a variety of learning styles including those at-risk, typically developing, mild to moderately disabled and gifted. The f2f sections of the course are scheduled to meet twice weekly in seminar fashion. Content covered in the course ranges from ECE history, theorists, curriculum, inclusive learning environments, designing and planning themes, webbing to strategies, evaluation and parent involvement. Central to the course is the development of reflective thinking and application to reflective practice.

To make both sections of the course “equivalent”, the instructor used duplicate syllabi, revealing duplicate assignment requirements. Students in the web-based section were required to attend at least two “Live Chat” sessions per week which served to replace the discussion time in the f2f section. Students in both sections were given equal credit for attendance. All students in both sections were assigned to small groups for in-class or online assignments.





Often students who enroll in web-based courses have a predisposition towards this means by which to learn. This issue threatens the validity of findings based upon comparisons between web-based and f2f courses. The groups, by nature of learning preference and computer comfort levels, are not equivalent and therefore findings cannot be generalized beyond the restrictions of the studies. To address this weakness, this study used a quasi-experimental design that infused non-random selection with random assignment to the control (f2f) and experimental (web-based) groups. Prior to registration, students were asked whether they would be amenable to allowing the department to assign them to either the f2f or the web-based section of the course. While students volunteered to participate in the study, random assignment to the groups strengthened the internal validity of the study and enhanced group equivalency.

To validate group equivalency, all students completed the VARK (visual, aural, read/write, kinesthetic)—a diagnostic instrument designed to determine learning preferences (Copyright Version 4.1, 2002, held by Neil D. Fleming, Christchurch, New Zealand and Charles C. Bonwell, Green Mountain Falls, Colorado 80819 U.S.A.). Using the VARK, students can be classified with mild, strong or very strong preferences in any of the four learning styles. In addition, students can show multimodal tendencies (more than one style appears to be preferred). For the purposes of this study, students were classified in one of 5 categories—visual, aural, read/write, kinesthetic, and multimodal learners.

To control other confounding variables that might result from the delivery methods of two sections of the course, the same instructor taught both sections during the same semester. The instructor took care to compare the design and delivery of both sections of the course to ensure that topics covered, work required, testing, and the classroom experience were as closely matched as possible. The syllabi of both courses were also compared by a colleague to provide content validity.

In order to provide an unbiased measure and comparison of student-teacher interaction between groups, a modified interaction analysis instrument (IA) based upon the work of Flanders (1970) was utilized. Flanders’ IA is a systematic method of coding spontaneous verbal communication that has been used in classroom observation studies to examine teacher interaction styles. The IA instrument consists of the following 10 categories:



Teacher talks                                          Accepts feelings

                                                                 Praises or encourages

                                                                 Accepts or used ideas of pupils

                                                                 Asks questions


                                                                 Gives directions



Student talks                                          Responds




Four categories were added to “student talks”: “validation of others’ ideas”, “praise or courtesy remarks”, “questions or asks for clarification”, and “silence due to ‘down time’”. This last category was designed to earmark extra time needed in a live chat online. Lengthy contributions in the chat room require both longer time for typing as well as for reading. In this case, “silence/confusion” is not an appropriate label for what is occurring. The “down time” category was used only for the web-based course and was not a function of comparison between groups. It was verified by rereading logs of the live chats.

IA scoring is measured by using an observer to listen to the classroom interaction and check off the type of interaction taking place from the list of categories. The observer marks a category every 3 seconds. Frequencies of categories are then tabulated and preferences or trends can be seen by comparing categories within a session. In this study, comparisons were made between f2f and web-based discussions to determine whether the interaction experience between the groups varied.

Two 20-minute sessions were randomly selected and video-taped from all possible f2f classroom discussions. Two corresponding web-based chat room discussions were also monitored for 20 minutes. The resulting frequencies were then compared using a chi-square test of homogeneity to observe differences between multiple variables with multiple categories.

The examination of student learning outcomes compared group means of student test grades and overall grades using an independent t-test. Test scores (as opposed to letter grades) were used with the assumption that they reflected interval spacing.  To measure student perceptions of student-teacher interactions as well as satisfaction with the course as a whole, identical end-of-semester evaluation were completed and an independent sample t-test to compare mean evaluation scores for the groups was calculated.





Sample info:  Of the total (100+) students who enrolled in all four sections of the ECE: Philosophy and Practices course, 42 agreed to participate in the study.  The f2f course (control) had 24 students—3 males and 21 females—and the web-based course had 18 students—1 male and 17 females. *** Suggestion: Sex ratio in groups is unequal. it may result with a bias in testing. An independency test on sexes could be done if the number of units had been large enough in your experiment/ or you can omit the male students *** The unequal class sizes resulted when some students either added or dropped the course at a late date after the assignment control process was halted. All of the students in the f2f course were considered traditional students in that they enrolled in college right out of high school. There were two non-traditional students (returning for licensure) enrolled in the web-based course.


Group equivalency: The VARK survey of learning preferences was completed by 18 students in the f2f group and 15 students in the web-based group. The distribution of learning preferences for each group was equally distributed across the learning styles. A chi square goodness of fit test was administered using the control group as expected frequencies and the experimental group as the observed frequencies. Results showed no statistically significant difference between group learning preferences (χ2 = 3.36; df = 4; α= 0.05). Therefore it was assumed that the groups were equivalent.


Interaction Analysis: Results of the chi square test of homogeneity revealed that a statistically significant difference did indeed exist between the nature of teacher/student interaction in the two groups (χ2 = 900.035; df=9; α= 0.05). An examination of the standardized residuals revealed the interaction categories contributing to the differences. Areas where the observed frequency was significantly higher (H) than expected for the web-based course included student responds, student supports others in class, student silence/confusion, and teacher accepts feelings. Lecturing was the only area lower than expected. For the f2f course, student responds, student asks questions, student initiates and idea were all higher than expected and silence/confusion was lower. The instructor lectures was also higher than expected.

The instructor spent less time lecturing in the chat room than in the classroom. In a web-based course, lecturing often takes the form of a web page and is not a typical use of the chat room. On the other hand, the f2f classroom does not allow for the clear-cut compartmentalization of lecture versus discussion. Because only two samples from each group were observed, it is possible that other f2f sessions may have shown less time spent lecturing. The general trend, however, is that lecturing did not dominate the web-based course discussions.

The instructor also allowed for more and longer periods of silence in the chat room than in the classroom—most likely due to the expectant nature of chat room discussions. The instructor, without the aid of visual contact with the students, was unable to determine whether students were simply thinking and formulating questions and answers or whether they indeed had nothing to add. It was observed that a period of silence was followed by several contributions from students popping on the screen almost simultaneously. In an f2f setting, students and the instructor can tell exactly the discussion floor is open. The chat room discussions smudge this demarcation into fluctuations of silence and activity.

A unique difference between the two groups was illustrated in the first web-based session where students showed support for one another to a higher degree than expected. Chat room discussions may put students and the instructor on an even footing thereby encouraging students to not only support one another but to take on a more empowered role in the class discussion.


Student Evaluations:  Students in both classes completed identical course evaluations before their final exam. The evaluation included items that explored student perceptions of both the instructor and the course. Instructor items focused upon teacher effectiveness. Course items included those dealing with the general organization, the value of the course as it related to their major area of study, the textbooks, exams, and general assignment workload. All evaluations were anonymous.

Students in the f2f class rated the instructor and the course significantly higher than those students in the web-based course (with p = 0 p<0.001). Mean scores for the f2f and web-based classes were 1.22 and 1.82 respectively on a 5 point scale where a “1” indicated the highest ranking (outstanding) and a “5” the lowest (poor). In both cases the instructor received very good scores; yet the students in the f2f course felt the quality of the instructor and the course to be better. T tests were then conducted on individual questions to locate where the classes differed significantly. The alpha level was lowered to 0.01 to control for Type I error and the analysis revealed statistically significant differences on each of the 22 questions suggesting that students collect extra information concerning an instructor based upon direct observation. *** A table that shows mentioned questions and their test results is required here”*** For example, in the web-based course, students have limited access to instructor interaction with other students. A student in the web-based class will ask about personal difficulties using private e-mail. However, it is common for students to ask questions of this type before, during, and after an f2f class where other students may observe the exchange. It is logical, therefore, that an instructor might receive a lower rating on an item like offering assistance to students with problems connected to the course in a web-based course where this interaction is less evident.

Overall, the students in the web-based course students gave the instructor a high rating and the f2f students gave a stellar rating. In neither case did the students indicate a negative experience but rather a slightly less positive experience. Interesting comparisons indicated that the students in the f2f course expected an average grade of A- while those in the web-based course expected a grade of B-. As far as grading the instructor, f2f students assigned an average grade of A and the web-based students assigned a grade of B+. There have been many studies conducted showing the high correlation between student expected grade and student evaluation of the instructor. To determine whether students in one section of the course actually did perform better than those in the other, exam grades and overall grades were compared.

Three indicators of student success were examined—midterm examination, final examination, and overall points earned for the semester (included other assignments). Of the three comparisons, only the mean score for overall grade differed at a significant level (p = 0.02 p < 0.05). Students in the f2f course averaged an A- and those in the web-based course averaged a B. Students seemed to predict their final grade with accuracy indicating that the grading process for both sections was clear-cut. The main difference between test scores and overall points earned for the semester were other assignments required throughout the semester. A closer look at student records revealed that students in the web-based course did not earn lower grades on these assignments but merely failed to submit some of them suggesting that learning outcomes were similar but that the personal contact of an f2f course positively influenced and motivated students to turn in assignments.





General findings of this study showed that two equivalent groups, randomly assigned to either an f2f or web-based course, do not have equal experiences in the area of student perceptions. Learning outcomes can be considered to be equal based upon test scores. Because the instructor was the same for both courses, it can be concluded that the course delivery may have some effect on the variables examined.  The interaction analysis showed that the instructor tended to lecture less in the web-based course. Because only two pairs of discussion sessions were scrutinized, findings in other areas of interaction, and specially student interaction, may not generalize. Student evaluations of the course and the instructor also differed by type of courses. Students in the web-based course tended to rate both the course and the instructor lower than students in the f2f course—although ratings for both groups were considered to be above average. Finally, student achievement differed only in the area of course assignments. Test scores showed no statistically significant difference indicating that student mastery levels were essentially the same; yet students in the web-based course were more likely to omit submitting one or more assignments. So, students in the web-base course may be less motivated to complete assignments.

Limitations of this study include a small sample size and a restricted population. Future research might apply this model to other content areas and explore the specific differences in course delivery methods that account for student perceptions. Some of the differences between the f2f and web-based courses in this study were due to the random assignment of students to the groups. Students who may not be familiar or comfortable with web-based courses were in the experimental group. *** Is there no any survey about computer and/or web skills of the students before the test? If there is any your hypothesis should be tested within web-based group. As you can read from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/AUG01_Issue/article02.html  students' previous computing experience is an important factor for web-based learning/teaching. Why students are not comfortable in web-based group? Two non-traditional students (returning for licensure) enrolled in the web-based course break down the randomized distribution of the units to the groups *** Their perceptions and experiences, therefore, were more indicative of that of the “average” student as opposed to those students who generally enroll in web-based courses.




Cohen (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 145-153.


Daughenbaugh, R., Daughenbaugh, L., Surry, D. ,  & Islam, M. (2002). “Personality type and online versus in-class course satisfaction.” Educause Quarterly, 25 (3), 71-72.


Flanders, N.A. (1970). Analyzing Teaching Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.


Miller, M.D., Rainer Jr., P.K., & Corley, J.K (2003). “Predictors of engagement and participation in an on-line course.”  Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6 (1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/summer62/schott62.html, December 12, 2003.

Rivera, J.C., McAlister, M.K. , & Rice, M.L. (2002). “Comparison of Student Outcomes & Satisfaction Between Traditional & Web Based Course Offerings.” Online Journal of Distance Learning Education Administration, 5 (3). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/fall53/fall53.html , December 3, 2003.

Schott, M., Chernish, W., Dooley, K.E. , & Lindar, J.R. (2003). “Innovations in distance learning program development and delivery.” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5 (2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/summer62/schott62.html, September 9, 2003.


Submission Number: oooooooooooooo
Submission title: oooooooooooooooooooo

A - 2
B - 3
C - 2
D - 2
E - 4
F - 2
G - 2
H - 2


  1. All text should be left-aligned, and one space line should be left between paragraphs.
  2. No space lines should be left between references, but continuing lines should be intended.
  3. Cohen (1962) in references section should be also cited in the text.
  4. Following papers can be reviewed for a better evaluation of the results:
    1. Edward R. Jones, A Comparison of an All Web-Based Class to a Traditional Class, ERIC ED432286, 1999
    2. B Mehlenbacher, CR Miller, D Covington, JS Larsen, Active and Interactive Learning Online: A Comparison of Web-Based and Conventional Writing Classes, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 2000.
    3. JC Sweeney, D Ingram A comparison of traditional and Web-based tutorials in marketing education: An exploratory study Journal of Marketing Education, 2001
    4. T Gurbuz, S Yildirim, MY Ozden Comparison of on-line and traditional computer literacy courses for pre-service teachers: A case … Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 29, 2000
    5. J Sweeney, T O’Donoghue, C Whitehead Traditional face-to-face and web-based tutorials: a study of university students’ perspectives on … Teaching in Higher Education, 2004


Reviewer: ZEC