Online Learning Efficacy Research Database

This study is a comparison of ground-based versus online student performance using a combination of common final examination scores and associated demographic data in a biological science college course taught by a single instructor. Multivariate and standard statistical analyses are used to examine data from five semesters of ground and online instruction. Overall, students in ground course sections scored higher than those in online sections. Demographic comparisons of the pooled student populations from all five semesters show that there was a larger proportion of female than male students in both ground and online sections. Moreover, most students in ground sections were of traditional college age (18 to 24 years old), whereas online, the majority consisted of roughly equal numbers of college-age and post-college age students (older than 24 years old). High school–age students (younger than 18 years old) constituted the minority in both the ground and online sections, with their proportion being smaller in the latter. Regardless of gender and age group, ground students scored higher than online students. Additionally, the course pass rate was greater overall for ground students than for online students; this contrasted with the course withdrawal rate, which was greater for online students. 
[less]

Hybrid and online courses are gaining attention as alternatives to traditional face-to-face classes. In addition to the pedagogical flexibility afforded by alternative formats, these courses also appeal to campuses aiming to maximize classroom space. The literature, however, reports conflicting results regarding the effect of hybrid and online courses on student learning. We designed, taught, and assessed a fully online course (100% online) and a hybrid-and-flipped course (50% online 50% face-to-face) and compared those for¬mats with a lecture-based face-to-face course. The three formats also varied in the degree of structure; the hybrid course was the most structured and the face-to-face course was the least structured. All three courses were taught by the same instructor in a large His¬panic-serving research university. We found that exam scores for all students were lowest in the face-to-face course. Hispanic and Black students had higher scores in the hybrid format compared with online and face-to-face, while white students had the highest per¬formance in the online format. We conclude that a hybrid course format with high struc¬ture can improve exam performance for traditionally underrepresented students, closing the achievement gap even while in-person contact hours are reduced. 
[less]

Assembling and curating specimen collections is a valuable educational exercise that integrates subject-specific skills such as field collection, curation, identification, organization, and interpretation of relationships. Collection projects have been used primarily in face-to-face classes, but they can be readily adapted for distance education. The primary challenges to using collection projects in distance education center on two concerns: (1) whether distance students learn as much as their face-to-face peers and (2) whether academic dishonesty occurs more often in distance education than face to face. This study addressed both concerns by assessing learning outcomes in two entomology courses with both face-to-face and distance sections and evaluating the frequency of specimen-based plagiarism (submitting specimens collected by someone else). An ungraded survey testing students’ insect identification knowledge found equivalent learning outcomes in face-to-face and distance classes. Insect collections were monitored for plagiarized (resubmitted or purchased) specimens in a 5-year “mark-release-recapture’ investigation. Academic dishonesty was detected in fewer than 2% of collections; cheating was more than 12 times more likely in distance than in face-to-face classes. This study’s findings raise the possibility that distance learning assessments can be artificially inflated by cheating, suggesting that evaluations of distance learning should be considered in light of academic dishonesty. These results highlight the benefits and challenges of collections as teaching tools in distance education and underscore the need for instructors to be vigilant about academic integrity. 
[less]

Biology I is a required course for many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors and is often their first college-level laboratory experience. The replacement of the traditional face-to-face laboratory experience with virtual laboratories could influence students’ content knowledge, motivation to learn biology, and overall course performance. Three hundred undergraduate STEM students in face-to-face or virtual laboratories in a Biology I course completed a laboratory content test and the Biology Motivation Questionnaire II at the beginning and end of the semester. Final course grades were also obtained. Analyses revealed no significant differences between STEM students in the face-to-face and virtual laboratories in learning gains on the content test and final course grades. Two thirds of the STEM students experienced a decline in motivation to learn biology over the semester, but no significant differences were found between the laboratory groups. Thus, virtual laboratories may offer an affordable alternative to resource intensive face-to-face laboratories in large-enrollment Biology I courses. 
[less]

Traditional lecturing has been shown again and again to be a less effective teaching method regarding student engagement and promotion in the sciences. Studies that compare different teaching methods often face limitations because, over time, courses are either substantially changed and/or are taught by different instructors. This article presents a comparison of the success rates of students (percentage of students earning a grade of C or higher) enrolled in a general biology course with laboratory for majors in a community college. The data spans a 6-year period and includes a total of 670 students. The same professor taught all students and used a common final examination. The only difference among the sections taught was the teaching method: lecture, blended, and hybrid. The lecture method involved lecturing with the use of clicker-style questions and laboratory. The blended method was a fusion of the lecture and laboratory. The hybrid method consisted of online lectures with in-class weekly laboratory sessions. On average, the highest success rates for students were observed for those students taught with the blended method, followed next by the hybrid method, and then by the lecture method. 
[less]

We developed a hybrid course format (part online, part face-to-face) to deliver a high-enrollment, introductory environmental biology course to resident (living on or near campus), non-science majors at a large, public university. The hybrid course was structured to include bi-weekly online assignments and weekly meetings in the lecture hall focused on active-learning exercises. To evaluate the effectiveness of the web-based component of the hybrid course, we taught the hybrid course simultaneously with a traditional course in which we used passive lectures to cover material in the online assignments. Both courses received the same active-learning activities in class. Students in the hybrid course reported that the quality of interaction with the instructor was high, that they read the text more often and studied in groups more frequently. Performance on a post-course assessment test indicated that the hybrid course format was better or equivalent to the traditional course. Specifically, online assignments were equivalent to or better than passive lectures, and that active-learning exercises were more effective when coupled with online activities. Performance gains were greater for upperclassmen than for freshmen, indicating that hybrid course formats might be a superior option for upperclassmen when satisfying general science requirements. 
[less]

Outcomes assessments were conducted with a pretest/post-test desin in an online non-majors' biology course that included laboratory and lecture components. Data were compared with those of students at the same college enrolled in the same course with the same instructor on-campus. No significant differences were found in outcomes for students in the two modes of instruction. 
[less]