"No significant distance" between face-to-face and online instruction: Evidence from principles of economics.
Coates , D., Humphreys, B.R., Kane, J., & Vachris, M.A. (2004). Economics of Education Review, 23, 533-546.
-
examining126Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2019
- Practice Guide (findings for Face-to-face and online instruction)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Understanding College Economics (TUCE) |
Face-to-face and online instruction vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.94 |
12.71 |
Yes |
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Maryland, New York, Virginia
-
Race Asian 9% Black 14% White 68%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted during the Fall 2000 semester to freshman and sophomores in a principles of economics course offered at three universities: SUNY-Oswego, University of Maryland Baltimore County, and Christopher Newport University.
Study sample
Demographic breakdowns are reported for the full sample in Table 4 as descriptive statistics. Fifty-two percent of undergraduates were female, 68% were White, 14% were Black, and 9% were Asian. Fourty-four percent received finanical aid and 45% had a father with a bachelors degree.
Intervention Group
[Online Instruction] This study makes use of online and classroom instruction at three different institutions. Institutional characteristics are presented in Table 1. The online course at each institution differed in terms of the course, textbook, and mode of online delivery. Notably, the course at SUNY-Oswego was microeconomics, and macroecomics courses were studied at the other two institutions (the TUCE has separate sections for microeconomics and macroeconomics, one of which was presumably administered within each course as appropriate). Moreover, Christopher Newport and SUNY-Oswego used asynchronous online discussions while UMBC used synchronous online discussion. These differences are summarized in Table 2. All three courses require electronic tests and exams and allow for extra credit. However, the course at CNU required group assignments and the course at Oswego required online discussion participation and graded homework assignments as part of the grade. Differences in assignments and grade determination are presented in Table 3.
Comparison Group
[Business as usual lecture] Comparison students in the one principles of economics course at each institution involved face-to-face business-as-usual lectures using the same content as the online course. Not much information is provided on this business-as-usual condition. However, Table 5 presents the demographic characteristics for this group. Fifty-six percent of undergraduates were female, 70% were White, 15% were Black, and 7% were Asian. Fourty-four percent received finanical aid and 44% had a father with a bachelors degree.
Support for implementation
CNU and UMBC used the WebCT software to deliver the course, while Oswego used a Lotus Notes based product for the online course and TopClass for exams and assignments in the face-to-face class.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).