{"id":750,"date":"2017-10-30T12:00:09","date_gmt":"2017-10-30T19:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ecampus.oregonstate.edu\/research\/?page_id=750"},"modified":"2025-12-08T15:21:54","modified_gmt":"2025-12-08T23:21:54","slug":"faq","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/ecampus.oregonstate.edu\/research\/projects\/online-learning-efficacy-research\/faq\/","title":{"rendered":"Online Learning Efficacy Research Database FAQ"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

This database is a searchable resource of academic studies on the learning outcomes of online and\/or hybrid education in comparison to face-to-face environments. View overview<\/a> or\u00a0browse the database<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

About the database<\/h2>\n

What is online learning efficacy research?<\/h3>\n
\n

Online learning efficacy research explores whether the learning outcomes of online and\/or hybrid\/blended (online and in-person) education are equivalent to face-to-face environments. Some studies also compare multiple online modalities to one another.<\/p>\n

It is common for this research to compare the same classes in one discipline that are being taught across different modalities.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Why was the database created?<\/h3>\n
\n

Skepticism for online education remains a significant barrier to engaging faculty<\/a> in online teaching and learning initiatives. We repeatedly receive questions from faculty about whether online environments are equivalent to the face-to-face environment in terms of learning outcomes.<\/p>\n

This database is meant to provide faculty, administrators of distance education programs and other relevant stakeholder groups a way to quickly and easily search the literature on the topic of online learning efficacy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

How many citations are currently included in the database?<\/h3>\n
\n

The database has 297 citations across 79 discrete disciplines from 213 academic journals.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

How is this database different from the No Significant Difference database<\/b><\/a>?<\/b><\/h3>\n
\n

There are several ways this database differs from the No Significant Difference database, including date range, outcomes categories, the inclusion of hybrid\/blended research and the exclusion of dissertation studies. Each is described in more detail below.<\/p>\n

Dates<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

While the No Significant Difference database includes studies from 1928 through 2013, you will notice that our database only includes studies from 1998 through the present.<\/p>\n

Prior to 1998, we found that research publications in distance education were limited to studies that included pre-internet telecourses and effectiveness studies of outdated technologies, such as CD-ROM-based courses that are no longer relevant to many institutions currently offering online education.<\/p>\n

Given that the goal of this database is to provide relevant information to faculty and others looking for current research related to online education efficacy, we decided to only include studies in the database post-1997.<\/p>\n

Outcomes categories<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

The No Significant Difference database allows users to search by outcomes of the studies, including \u201cno significant difference,\u201d \u201cbetter in the classroom,\u201d \u201cbetter with technology\u201d and \u201cmixed results.\u201d<\/p>\n

Our intention is for users to engage with the database and make their own determinations of the outcomes of a study without the bias of an outcome label. In particular, we found the studies in the database vary considerably in terms of study design and rigor, which could significantly impact how a user would perceive the study outcome.<\/p>\n

We leave the assessment of the value of each study\u2019s outcomes to individual database users.<\/p>\n

Blended\/hybrid<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

When compiling citations for the database, we have included studies that explore the efficacy of hybrid\/blended courses (that is, courses that combine face-to-face and online instruction). These studies are only minimally included in the No Significant Difference database.<\/p>\n

Dissertations<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

Dissertations are included in the No Significance Difference database along with all other citations, but they are not currently searchable in our database. When compiling citations for the database, dissertations were often not available for review to make determinations about many of the variables used to search the database entries.<\/p>\n

However, because dissertations represent important contributions to the field of online education efficacy research, we have created a downloadable pdf\u00a0of all of the dissertation citations we have discovered on the topic of online efficacy research.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Why doesn\u2019t the database categorize items by outcome of the study?<\/h3>\n
\n

Our intention is for users to engage with the database and make their own determinations of the outcomes of a study without the bias of an outcome label. In particular, we found the studies in the database vary considerably in terms of study design and rigor, which could significantly impact how a user would perceive the study outcome.<\/p>\n

We leave the assessment of the value of each study\u2019s outcomes to individual database users.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

How were each of the variables determined?<\/h3>\n
\n

Sample size<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

Sample sizes were retrieved from the text of each published article and include the total N for the study. If a publication reported results from more than one study, we combined the Ns. Some larger scale studies included ranges of sample sizes, and we chose to list the highest number in those ranges. We intend the sample size field to be used as a guide for users to seek out larger or smaller scale studies, as appropriate.<\/p>\n

Discipline<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

The discipline field represents the specific discipline of the course(s) under study in each of the articles. As some of the articles examined outcomes from very specific or highly specialized fields, we did not attempt to collapse disciplines into larger categories.<\/p>\n

Education level<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

This field indicates if the courses being studied were at the undergraduate or graduate level, or both. The database also includes articles from the medical field that often do not fit these categories. For those studies, we categorized courses for medical residents, or those in advanced medical courses, in the category of graduate.<\/i><\/p>\n

The database also includes many studies conducted outside of the United States. In some of these studies, were were unable to categorize the courses as graduate or undergraduate, and these studies are marked with the label \u201cunknown.\u201d<\/p>\n

Modality<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

Definitions of modality vary, particularly in regard to hybrid\/blended courses. Whenever possible, we have defined modality by the terms used by the study author. Database entries are categorized into four main categories with the following definitions:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Traditional, or courses that are primarily taught face-to-face<\/li>\n
  2. Web-facilitated, or courses that integrate technology, but not in a way that replaces face-to-face instruction<\/li>\n
  3. Hybrid\/blended, or courses that integrate technology for the purpose of replacing some, but not all, face-to-face instruction<\/li>\n
  4. Fully online, or courses that are primarily taught in the online modality.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In cases where terminology such as \u201ce-learning\u201d is used by the author, we have determined the closest category using the definitions described above.<\/p>\n

    Peer review<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

    For each citation in the database, the Ulrichsweb<\/a> tool was utilized to determine whether the journal where the study was published was peer reviewed.<\/p>\n

    Date<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

    The date field includes the year that the article was published, as determined by Google Scholar.<\/p>\n

    Publication<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

    This field shows the full name of the journal in which the article was published. Two journals that we know of underwent a name change within the database date range.<\/p>\n