Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

An investigation of effectiveness differences between in-class and online learning: an engineering drawing case study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of learning technologies has increased rapidly during the last two decades, primarily for online learning but also for in-class learning. It has become widely accepted that online learning may offer conveniences and cost reductions. However, a comparison of student performance when engaged in online learning versus in-class learning and the corresponding implications have yet to be thoroughly investigated—especially in STEM education. The gap in the current relevant literature motivates this research. In this paper, two key questions are addressed: (1) which learning mode generates a better student performance in STEM education, in-class or online mode? (2) what types of factors affect learning performance for in-class and online modes? To help analyze these questions, the authors designed and implemented an engineering drawing case study. The case investigated whether there exists a significant statistical difference in the performance of two student groups. In one, 32 students were asked to be physically present in a classroom, to listen to a lecture given by an instructor, and to participate in class discussion prior to taking a quiz. In the other, 32 different students received the same content online and were allowed the same time to study as well as post to an online discussion board before taking an identical quiz. A hypothesis test was then used to analyze the performance difference. The results show that there is no significant learning outcome difference between in-class and online learning modes in engineering drawing content. The relevant previous experience has significant impacts on the learning outcomes for both in-class and online learning modes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anstine, J., Mark, S.: A small sample study of traditional and online course with sample selection adjustment. J. Econ. Educ. 36(2), 107–127 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bangert, A.W.: Identifying factors underlying the quality of online teaching effectiveness: an exploratory study. J. Comput. High. Educ. 17(2), 79–99 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown, B., Liedholm, C.: Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of microeconomics? Am. Econ. Rev. 92(2), 444–449 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Coates, D., Humphreys, B.R., Kane, J., Vachris, M., Agarwal, R., Day, E.: “No Significant Distance” between face-to-face and online instruction: evidence from principles of economics. Econ. Educ. Rev. 23(6), 533–546 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goette, W.F., Delello, J.A., Schmitt, A.L., Sullivan, J.R., Rangel, A.: Comparing delivery approaches to teaching abnormal psychology: investigating student perceptions and learning outcomes. Psychol. Learn. Teach. 16(3), 336–352 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Heppner, F.H.: Teaching the Large College Class: A Guidebook for Instructors with Multitudes. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hone, K.S., EI Said, G.R.: Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: a survey study. Comput. Educ. 98, 157–168 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hughes, G.: Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention. Teach. High. Educ. 12(3), 349–363 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jensen, S.A.: In-class versus online video lectures: similar learning outcomes, but a preference for in class. Teach. Psychol. 38(4), 298–302 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kemp, N., Grieve, R.: Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates’ opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning. Front. Psychol. 5, 1278 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S., Gasevic, D., Siemens, G., Hatala, M.: What public media reveals about MOOCs: a systematic analysis of news reports. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 46(3), 510–527 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ma, J., Tucker, C.S., Okudan Kremer, G.E., Jackson, K.L.: Exposure to digital and hands-on delivery modes in engineering design education and their impact on task completion efficiency. Trans. SDPS J. Integr. Des. Process Sci. 21(2), 1–18 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ma, J., Okudan Kremer, G.E., Li, M.: A key components based heuristic modular product design approach to reduce product assembly cost. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-017-0448-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moazami, F., Bahrampour, E., Azar, M.R., Jahedi, F., Moattari, M.: Comparing two methods of education (virtual versus traditional) on learning of Iranian dental students: a post-test only design study. BMC Med. Educ. 14, 45 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Messineo, M., Gaither, G., Bott, J., Ritchley, K.: Inexperienced versus experienced students’ expectations for active learning in large classes. Coll. Teach. 55(3), 125–133 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Navarro, P., Shoemaker, J.: The power of cyber learning: an empirical test. J. Comput. High. Educ. 1(1), 29–54 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pascual-Miguel, F., Chaparro-Pelaez, J., Hernandez-Garcia, A., Iglesias-Pradas, S.: A comparative study on the influence between interaction and performance in postgraduate in-class and distance learning courses based on the analysis of LMS logs. technology enhanced learning. Qual. Teach. Educ. Reform 73, 308–315 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Peltier, J.W., Schibrowsky, J.A., Drago, W.: The interdependence of the factors influencing perceived quality of the online learning experience: a causal model. J. Mark. Educ. 29(2), 140–153 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Peng, W., Yang, Z., Tu, S., Li, N.: Survey of online learners’ and learning behavior. J. China Educ. Technol. 251, 1–5 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Perna, L., Ruby, A., Boruch, R., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., Evans, C.: Moving through MOOCs understanding the progression of users in massive open online courses. Educ. Res. 43(9), 421–432 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Russell, T.: The No Significant Difference Phenomenon: A Comparative Research Annotated Bibliography on Technology for Distance Education: as Reported in 355 Research Reports, Summaries and Papers. North Carolina State University, Raleigh (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stephen, D.E., O’Connell, P., Hall, M.: Going the extra mile,’fire-fighting’, or laissez-faire? Re-evaluating personal tutoring relationships within mass higher education. Teach. High. Educ. 13(4), 449–460 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stewart, I., Hong, E., Strudler, N.: Development and validation of an instrument for student evaluation of the quality of web-based instruction. Am. J. Distance Educ. 18(3), 131–150 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Terry, N., Lewer, J.J., Macy, A.: The efficacy of alternative instruction modes in economics. J. Econ. Econ. Educ. Rev. 4(1), 23–34 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Thompson, D.F.: Determining student-faculty ratios and faculty scholarship levels/rates. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 74(10), 193a (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tong, J., Han, J., Liu, J., Yang, F., Chen, S.: The Analysis of influencing factors of college students’ learning effect in face-to-face, online and blended learning. Netw. Comput. Inf. Secur. 345, 528–538 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wang, M.C., Dziuban, C.D., Cook, I.J., Moskal, P.D.: Dr. Fox rocks: using data mining techniques to examine student ratings of instruction. In: Shelley, M.C., Yore, L.D., Hand, B. (eds.) Quality research in literacy and science education: international perspectives and gold standards, pp. 383–398. Springer, Dordrecht (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhan, Z., Li, X.: Blended learning: the definition, the strategy, the status and development trend. J. China Educ. Technol. 275, 1–5 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix

Appendix

The grading rubric is shown below. In the table below, assignments of points are for correct responses of the quiz sections. Based on the amount of incorrect solution within each segment, the point is pro-rated to reflect the partial correct answer.

Grading rubric

Multi-view quiz

Front view

Top view

Right view

Dimension

Total

Multi-view one

1

1

1

1

4

Multi-view two

1

1

1

1

4

Multi-view three

1

1

1

1

4

Multi-view total

    

12

Isometric view quiz

Cube

Shape

Total

Isometric one

1

1

2

Isometric two

1

2

3

Isometric three

1

2

3

Isometric total

  

8

Quiz total

  

20

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Ma, J., Kremer, G.E. et al. An investigation of effectiveness differences between in-class and online learning: an engineering drawing case study. Int J Interact Des Manuf 13, 89–98 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-018-0510-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-018-0510-8

Keywords

Navigation