An Analysis of Three Instructional Delivery Models in Business Education
Keywords:
Business Education, Instructional delivery models, EnrollmentsAbstract
Problem: Enrollment trends at community colleges nationwide reflect a steady decline since 2010 (Hickman, 2016). Multiple factors affect these numbers, including competition from for-profit institutions offering 100% online degrees that utilize sophisticated learning management systems. In an effort to retain students and remain competitive, many community colleges have launched online course offerings, and in some instances, utilized additional technologies such as GoToMeeting or other synchronous communication systems. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze three delivery methods (face-to-face, 100% online, and interactive television [ITV]) in the same course taught by the same instructor during the same semester to determine if one method of delivery exhibited statistically significant results in student performance. Methodology: Five sections of Introduction to Business were taught using three different platforms. There was one 100% online section, two 100% face-to-face sections, and two ITV sections taught with students in a classroom and broadcast to remote locations. Each section lasted 14-weeks and was taught by the same instructor to further control for delivery methods. Results: Students enrolled in the ITV course and the 100% online course had significantly higher final examination results than students in the face-to-face course. There was no statistically significant difference in final examination results between ITV students and 100% online students. Students enrolled in the 100% online courses and ITV courses reflected statistically significant satisfaction compared to the face-to-face students. Student experience and satisfaction were not statistically different for those enrolled in 100% online sections compared to those enrolled in the ITV course.
References
Birkeland, K., Weinandt, M., & Carr, D. (2015). Student outcomes in economics principles: Online vs. face-to-face delivery. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 11(2), 41-50.
Callister, R., & Love, M. (2016). A comparison of learning outcomes in skill sbased courses: Online versus face-to-face formats. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 243-256.
Chawla, D., & Joshi, H. (2012). E-learning perception and its relationship with demographic variables: A factor analysis approach. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 8(4), 108-118. doi: 10.4018/jicte.2012100109
Cole, A., & Timmerman, C. (2015). What do current college students think of MOOCs? Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 188-200.
Fish, L., & Snodgrass, C. (2015). Business student perceptions of online versus face-to-face education: Student characteristics. Business Education Innovation Journal, 7(2), 82-96.
Hickman, C. (2016, July 7). Increasing enrollment in today’s community college. Retrieved from www.eab.com: https://www.eab.com/research-and-insights/community-college-executive-forum/infographics/increasing-communitycollege-enrollment
Jaggers, S. (2013). Choosing between online and face-to-face classes: Community college student voices. New York: Community College Research Center.
Ladyshewsky, R. (2013) Instructor presence in online courses and student satisfaction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 7(1), 1-23.
Li, N., Verma, H., Skevi, A., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). MOOC learning in spontaneous study groups: Does synchronously watching videos make a difference? Research Track, 88-94.
Potter, J. (2015). Applying a hybrid model: Can it enhance student learning outcomes? Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 1-11.
McGreal, R., Kinuthia, W., & Marshall, S. (2013). Open Educational Resources: Innovation, Research and Practice. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning.
Seaman, I. (2007). Online Nations. Five Years of Growth in Online Learning. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
