COMPARATIVE QUALITY OF ONLINE AND CLASSROOM

INSTRUCTION
Introduction
A literature review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of online instruction in
higher education. Surprisingly, some past studies revealed little difference between the
effectiveness of online, hybrid and face-to-face instruction. However, other studies challenge
this assertion that all forms of educational modes are equal. Such studies, referred to as
comparison studies, have often been criticized as invalid. According to researchers Zhao, Lei,
Yan, Lei and Tan (2005), These comparison studies have been seriously criticized for many
reasons: focusing on the wrong factor, biased sampling, methodologically flawed, using
improper measures of outcomes, even being pseudoscientific ( p. 1839).Yet, these researchers
suggest that such flawed research can nonetheless provide guidance for future research. Zhao,
et al. (2005), surmise that conflicting variances in previous studies may be a reflection of
educational shifts and advancements in technology. Adding to the scrutiny of previous
comparative research, authors Benbunan-Fich and Hilz (2003), noting a dearth of multicourse
comparative studies, suggest that, research of more depth and breadth in empirical research
is needed to address other variables, primarily, key process variables such as motivation, and
participation, that explain how certain learning outcomes come about (298).
This study was designed to assess student satisfaction with distance education at East Carolina
University (ECU) at the graduate level. As in previous comparison studies, participants in this
study were asked to rate the quality of distance education at ECU, through a method of
comparison and contrast, with traditional classroom instruction received. It examines student
perspectives and outcomes derived from multiple courses over time, at both the graduate and
undergraduate levels, through two different delivery modes. This baseline study will serve as a
foundation for future comparative research and assessment of distance education at the
university.

Research Questions
What do ECU students perceive as the strengths and advantages of distance education, and
how do they rate the online educational environment in comparison to traditional classroom
instruction received at this or other educational institutions? Is online instruction at the

Gibson

university of comparable quality to face-to-face instruction and an equally effective

instructional method?
Theory and Methodology
According to Zhao, et al. (2005), the finding that studies prior to 1998 found distance
education to be less effective than face-to-face education, whereas those post-1998 found the
opposite, could be an indication that distance programs are getting better-- with more
powerful delivery media and more sophisticated support systems (p. 1864). Technology has
evolved considerably, with nearly every American household and school outfitted with Internet
access and or mobile services and devices. Clearly, the popularity of online education has
grown immensely, for myriad reasons. So, have time, educational trends, and technology
granted distance education the validity and credibility it seeks? These, among other variables,
contribute to overall perceived student learning outcomes.
One theoretical orientation underpinning this study is the long-held belief that traditional faceto-face classroom instruction is superior and preferable to other modes of instruction. Since its
advent, the distinct advantages of distance education have been convenience, flexibility and
easy accessibility of instruction. Though not as nascent as some believe, online education has
long been viewed as suspect and lacking in credibility. This disdainful stance has been
encouraged by the rapid rise of many online education programs charging excessive fees,
while delivering substandard education and diplomas of questionable quality and clout.
Competing with online diploma mills and promising convenient and credible instruction,
many traditional brick and mortar schools began an expansion into online degree programs
of their own.
Yet, questions remain. Is distance education as effective as its more traditional counterpart?
Some reports show that retention rates of online programs lag behind those of traditional
classrooms. The 2012 Sloan Survey of Online Education found that nearly 90% of the
surveyed academic leaders from more than 2800 colleges and universities in the United States
have identified lower retention rates for online courses as a barrier to the widespread adoption
of online learning (Wang, 2014, p. 345). Yet, despite this fact, students continue to see
distance education as a viable option, primarily because of low cost and convenience. Some
would surmise that through continual assessment of instruction and review of educational
practices, educators of online programs can improve student learning outcomes and increase
the rate of student satisfaction. Others remain skeptical, believing that online education will
remain a distant second to face-to-face instruction, hindered by physical distances and
educational gaps too large to overcome.
Does distance impede human interaction and hinder effective learning? According to
Benbunan-Fich and Hilz (2003) constructivist theory implies that learning as a process takes
2

Gibson

place through interaction with others (p. 299). Additionally, researcher Mishaw (2012)
believes the importance of social environmental factors such as social interfacing
communication, interaction, engagement, participation, and other inspirational factors should
not be overlooked when measuring the effectiveness of online instruction (p. 189). Can
technology alone bridge this perceived absence of engagement and student interaction in
online instruction? Through this study of comparative quality, the researcher determined to
answer these questions and ascertain the quality and effectiveness of East Carolinas distance
education program at the graduate level, as opposed to traditional classroom instruction.

Methods
Data was compiled from primary resources, while secondary sources served only to provide
background history on comparative studies and insight into learning theories. An online
questionnaire consisting of 40 questions captured student data, which measured attitudes
related to the instructor, technologies, course workload, interaction with classmates, in
addition to other topics.
The Respondents
The sampling for this study consisted of students enrolled in a graduate level course, Research
Design, with all students in possession of at least a bachelors degree and in pursuit of studies
at the graduate level. All students were distance education students at ECU, in the Technical
and Professional Communication concentration. Respondents were employed and working in
professional positions when the results were recorded. The participants were recruited using
student email accounts, and results were recorded using a questionnaire designed specifically
for the study. All nine class members were recruited, but two students failed to respond to the
request for participation. Seven completed questionnaires were returned via email, by the
extended deadline, with only 2 responses omitted. Though the questionnaire was comprised of
40 questions, fifteen were extracted from the overall data. This reduction was to ensure data
was manageable and chartable.
The Questionnaire
Questions were developed by a graduate level distance education student seeking to measure
students level of satisfaction with the online instruction at ECU. The researcher attempted to
devise the questions without bias and hoped to capture the essence of the online learning
experience, by addressing pertinent issues and topics for students of online programs. The
questionnaire consisted of 40 questions, to measure students attitudes toward the two
educational modes. It recorded two responses per question, one each for impressions on
classroom instruction and distance education at ECU, respectively. Each variable received a
score ranging from 0-2. A value of 2 was assigned for the most positive response, while the
3

Gibson

most negative response received a score of 0. Variables rated as mid-range, neither completely
negative nor positive, received a score of 1. See Figure 1, for students responses for each
variable, and Figure 2, for an overall comparative score.
The answer codes, appropriate for most questions, consisted of responses which reflected the
most positive to the most negative impression. For example, a variable may have been rated
as True, Somewhat true, or Untrue, with scores assigned as 2, 1, and 0, respectively.

Table 1. Variables extracted from the questionnaire, measured and charted.

Convenience and accessibility of instruction
Accessibility of instructors
Instructor promptly responds to student requests, i.e. emails and conferences
Instructors are/were supportive and attentive
Felt comfortable asking the instructor for help
Instructor was/is easy to approach
Instructor did/does know the subject
Instructor was/is organized
Instructor helped you understand difficult concepts
Subjects are/were covered in depth
Classes are/were challenging and intellectually stimulating
Instructor contributes to class/group discussion
Opportunity for class/group discussions
I feel taught by the instructor versus self-instructed
Manageability of course workload

Gibson

Figure 1. Quality Comparison of Classroom and Distance Education at ECU

Quality Comparison of Classroom Instruction and

Distance Education
Classroom Instruction

Distance Education
1.86

1.43

1.57

1.57

1.64

1.71

1.43

CONVENIENCE AND ACCESSIBILITY OF

ACCESSIBILITY OF
INSTRUCTORS
INSTRUCTION

INSTRUCTOR
PROMPTLY
RESPONDS TO
STUDENT
REQUESTS, I.E.
EMAILS AND
CONFERENCES

1.5

1.71

1.64

1.43

1.43

INSTRUCTORS
FELT
ARE/WERE
COMFORTABLE
SUPPORTIVE AND
ASKING THE
ATTENTIVE
INSTRUCTOR FOR
HELP

1.57
1.42

INSTRUCTOR
INSTRUCTOR
WAS/IS EASY TO WAS/IS ORGANIZED
APPROACH

Gibson

Figure 1. Quality Comparison of Classroom and Distance Education at ECU (cont.)

Quality Comparison of Classroom Instruction and

Distance Education
Classroom Instruction

1.86

1.71

1.64

1.64 1.57

1.71 1.71

Distance Education

1.83

1.58

1.71

1.5

1.29

1.71
1.43
1.14

INSTRUCTOR
INSTRUCTOR
DID/DOES KNOW HELPED YOU
THE SUBJECT
UNDERSTAND
DIFFICULT
CONCEPTS

SUBJECTS
ARE/WERE
COVERED IN
DEPTH

CLASSES
MANAGBILITY OF INSTRUCTOR
OPPORTUNITY
ARE/WERE
COURSE
CONTRIBUTES TO
FOR
CHALLENGING
WORKLOAD
CLASS/GROUP CLASS/GROUP
AND
(ASSIGNMENTS, DISCUSSION
DISCUSSIONS
INTELLECTUALLY TESTS, ETC.)
STIMULATING

I FEEL TAUGHT
BY THE
INSTRUCTOR
VERSUS SELFINSTRUCTED

Figure 2. Quality Comparison of Classroom and Distance Education at ECU-- Overall Score

Quality Comparison of Classroom Instruction and

Distance Education
Classroom Instruction

Distance Education

24.298

22.690

OVERALL SCORES

Gibson

Findings
The majority of responses were comparatively similar, reflecting no particular preference for
one educational mode over the other. However, at least two respondents clearly reflected a
preference, one strongly in favor of face-to-face instruction and one student obviously in favor
of distance education. It is noteworthy, that most classroom instruction occurred at the
undergraduate level, while most online instruction occurred at the graduate level. Variances in
scores and student opinions may also be reflective of the different educational experiences and
expectations typical at each academic level. Traditional classroom instruction received the
highest overall score of 24.29762, while distance education trailed, with a total score of
22.69048.
Distance Education
This mode of delivery scored highest in three categories: Convenience and accessibly of
instruction, Manageability of course load, and Opportunity for class/group discussion.
Surprisingly, distance education rates higher in the category of class/group discussion. It could
be assumed that the classroomhence, proximity, provides the ideal environment for student
engagement and discussion and that distance would actually impede communication. Clearly,
technology can be credited with providing this opportunity for feedback and meaningful
intellectual and social exchange. This may confirm the hypothesis of Zhao, et al. (2005)that
distance programs are getting better-- with more powerful delivery media and more
sophisticated support systems (p. 1864).
Research findings on the effectiveness of online education shows an online delivery system
allows opportunities for more equal participation and indicates that the online environment
promotes a more equal discussion and eliminates prejudices based on physical appearances
(Benbunan-Fich & Hilz, 2003, p. 191-192). Studies also reveal that interaction with peers and
instructors is vital to the success of online students and is essential to enhancing the
understanding of material. One participant, in a study of graduate students best online
experiences, commented, Although textbooks have been good, the best experiences have
come from being able to interact with other students and the instructors, and learn from their
experiences. Classes requiring only reading and no interaction with the instructor or other
students are not even remotely as helpful (Holzweiss, P.C., Joyner, S.A., Fuller, M.B.,
Henderson, S., & Young, R., 2014, p. 318).
The high score in manageability of course load may also reflect the fewer classes normally
taken at the graduate level. Convenience and easy accessibility of instruction is the hallmark of
distance education, and hence, the high score here is to be expected.

Gibson

Classroom Instruction
Traditional face-to-face instruction ranked highest in the categories related to the instructor:
Instructor contributes to class/group discussion; I feel taught by the instructor versus selfinstructed, and Instructor helped you understand difficult concepts.
A closer look at collaborative learning at the graduate level may shed light upon these survey
results. Online graduate level courses attempt to mimic the prolific social environment of the
classroom by providing collaborative and group assignments. Fich and Hilz (2003) believe that
in collaborative learning, instruction is learner-centered, rather than teacher-centered. In
addition, the role of the teacher changes from transferring knowledge to students, to being a
facilitator, in the students construction of their own knowledge (p. 299). Again, the
constructivist theory of learning is evident, here. This shift in instructional methodology,
however, remains a hidden concept to many students, who apparently sense an absence of
instructor input in distance education courses. In one study of online graduate students best
learning experiences, participants in the study emphasized the importance of the faculty
through 36 comments covering topics such as feedback, support and encouragement, and
expertise shared with students (Holzweiss et al., 2014, p. 317). Constructivist approach or not,
students clearly long for input from instructors. The traditional classroom method employs a
more familiar teaching model, in which the teacher transmits and imparts knowledge to
students. This instructional style is deeply ingrained, apt to be more comfortable, and thus
often deemed more effective.
The findings of the ECU study may also reflect differences between graduate and
undergraduate level expectations and approaches to instruction. Graduate level students may
be expected to function more independently and draw from the intelligence and insight of peer
interaction.
Mashaw (2003) sees the online instructor as a mentor, whose job is to provide direction,
opportunity and motivation to facilitate learning (197). Furthermore, he list five factors that
reflect a mentors effective motivation in action: explanations and presentation methods,
design of the assignments; motivational technique for critical thinking, timely feedback, and
assistance at the individual levels (Mashaw, 2003, p. 197). At least one respondent in the ECU
study overwhelmingly believed that distance education instructors were less supportive, and
the student unabashedly admitted to steering others away from online instruction. The feeling
that instructors are unsupportive may contribute to a reduction in student retention and
furthermore reflects a lack of trust between teacher and student.
Researcher Y.D. Wang, author of Building Student Trust in an Online Environment, defines trust,
in this educational context, as the degree to which a student is willing to rely on the e-learning
system and has faith and confidence in the instructor or the education institution to take
8

Gibson

appropriate steps that help the student achieve his or her learning objectives (2014). ECU
students surveyed consistently ranked instructors as being less supportive and less engaging
than those of their classroom experience. Clearly, ECU students did not always feel that
instructors were taking all the appropriate steps to ensure students met their learning
objectives, steps such as participating in online discussions and providing more feedback.
Additionally, Wang suggest that students trust in a teacher determines the degree to which
that student will be open to being taught by that teacher (2014). Openness by the student
will be reflected in increased student participation and input and produce a better learning
outcome overall. Wang believes that trusting students are less likely to drop out, thus
improving the schools overall rate of retention (2014).
Wangs research proposes a socio-technical framework which classifies trust- inducing factors
into four dimensions, including the instructor socio-communicative style (2014). The trustinducing factors most likely to positively impact learning outcomes, student satisfaction and
retention were assertiveness of the instructor, responsiveness of the instructor, and a sense of
care and community created by the instructor (2014). Wangs finding are timely and of vital
importance for online learning specifically, but it should be noted that aspects of his sociotechnical framework can be applied to any learning environment.
While Wangs research and the ECU survey results are indeed significant, clearly, these are
modifiable instructional approaches that can be revised to lead to greater student satisfaction.
For learning to be effective, students at all levels must feel engaged, motivated, instructed and
supported during the learning process, in spite of peer support and the collaborative construct.

Conclusion/Implications
It is important to note that the classroom instruction measured was received while students
were undergraduates. Thus, the survey not only reflects differences in delivery modes, but also
differences at two academic levels. As a result, the study reflects a perceived equal or higher
quality of undergraduate studies when compared to graduate studies. This finding may reflect
a more presumed ideal environment at the undergraduate level. Differences at the graduate
level may further reveal that graduate students are expected to function more independently,
and hence instructional approaches may reflect this belief. Failure to understand the variances
in instructional approaches, i.e. constructivist approach versus objectivist approach, places
distance education students at a distinct disadvantage in understanding the shifting role of
teacher and student in the online environment. Students typically transition from the
traditional classroom at the undergraduate level to online graduate programs, which differ
greatly in instructional approaches, theories and expectations. Yet, graduate-level
expectations and learning theories do not negate the significance of student-teacher
9

Gibson

interaction and the impact of supportive and engaging instructors. In spite of technological
tools, human instructors still have the greatest overall impact in student satisfaction, student
outcomes and retention rates.
The differences between the two instructional modes in the survey do not reflect a wide
variance, and modifications in the approach to distance education can easily bridge this narrow
gap. The ECU survey results would prove beneficial to administrators and instructors of
distance education programs seeking to improve performance, increase enrollment and gauge
overall success, in keeping pace with traditional face-to-face instruction.
Limitations
Only seven respondents participated in this study. Scores may vary more widely with more
student responses recorded. For example, the one respondent who rated the online
environment as overwhelmingly negative, shifted the survey results in favor of traditional
classroom instruction. Until this respondents result were recorded, the difference in scores
was almost nil.
The questions posed in the survey were somewhat limiting and restrictive, while an interviewstyle survey would uncover opinions not expressed here and allow respondents to elaborate.
In addition, most of the student participants have completed graduate studies online and
undergraduate studies in the classroom, with one exception. A comparison between online
graduate education and classroom graduate education may or may not reveal similar
responses.
Steps for Further Research
Additional research may be employed to explore variances between the two delivery modes at
the graduate level only, while examining external factors such as student self-motivation, selfdiscipline, learning styles, technology skills, among other factors. Consideration must be given
to the nature and overall expectations of graduate school. Characteristics and features noted
in graduate study online may be more reflective of graduate education as a whole, rather than
a reflection of distance education, alone.
The importance of the ECU survey, among other studies, cannot be understated. Examination
of these studies aids academic programs in their continual assessment of online instruction
and its impact on student satisfaction and learning outcomes. It is not sufficient that
technology alone continues to develop and enhance the online environment, but
administrators and instructors must continue to evolve in approaches to learning, to ensure
optimization of the online education environment. Due to its low cost, ease of access and
10

Gibson

flexibility, online instruction will continue to be a viable option for many seeking entry to the
scholarly world of education. Distance education programs should seek to rival and surpass
their traditional classroom counterparts, proving the online method as credible and effective
as any other educational pathway.

11

Gibson

References
Benbunan-Fich, R. & Hiltz, S.R. (2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, 46 (4), 298-312.
Holzweiss, P.C., Joyner, S.A., Fuller, M.B., Henderson, S., & Young, R. (2014). Online graduate
students perceptions of best learning experiences. Distance Education, 35 (3), 311-323,
DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2015.955262
Mashaw, B. (2012). A Model for measuring effectiveness of an online course. Decision Sciences
Journal of Innovative Education, 10 (2), 189-221.
Wang, Y.D., (2014). Building student trust in online learning environments. Distance Education,
35 (3), 345-359.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J. Yan, B., Lai, C., Tan & Hueyshan, S. (2005). What makes the difference? A
practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers
College Record, 107 (8), 1836-1884.

12