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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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)
Bangert, A.W.: Identifying factors underlying the quality of online teaching effectiveness: an exploratory study. J. Comput. High. Educ. 17(2), 79–99 (2006)
Brown, B., Liedholm, C.: Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of microeconomics? Am. Econ. Rev. 92(2), 444–449 (2002)
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)
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)
Heppner, F.H.: Teaching the Large College Class: A Guidebook for Instructors with Multitudes. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2007)
Hone, K.S., EI Said, G.R.: Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: a survey study. Comput. Educ. 98, 157–168 (2016)
Hughes, G.: Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention. Teach. High. Educ. 12(3), 349–363 (2007)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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
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)
Navarro, P., Shoemaker, J.: The power of cyber learning: an empirical test. J. Comput. High. Educ. 1(1), 29–54 (1999)
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)
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)
Peng, W., Yang, Z., Tu, S., Li, N.: Survey of online learners’ and learning behavior. J. China Educ. Technol. 251, 1–5 (2009)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thompson, D.F.: Determining student-faculty ratios and faculty scholarship levels/rates. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 74(10), 193a (2010)
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)
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)
Zhan, Z., Li, X.: Blended learning: the definition, the strategy, the status and development trend. J. China Educ. Technol. 275, 1–5 (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-018-0510-8