Evaluating the Effectiveness of Different Classroom Formats in Distance Education

1. Experienced Faculty Rate Distance Education Most Effective for Achieving Many Student and Administrative Outcomes ePoster Presented Wednesday July 26, 2017 At the Distance Teaching and Learning Conference – University of Wisconsin Madison, WI Kelley A. Conrad, Doctoral Program Faculty for IO Psychology, University of Phoenix School of Advanced Studies, Herman Van Niekerk, Associate Dean of Instruction Doctoral Business Programs, University of Phoenix School of Advanced Studies, and Cornelius Brown, Deputy Sector Navigator for the California Community College Chancellor Office

2. Background • 20.3 Million students in baccalaureate and graduate programs • Three major types of classrooms • Face-to-face • Online • Mixed F-to-F and Online • Limited number of studies • What instructors do • Effect of Classroom type

3. Other Major Studies • Inconsistencies in findings from previous studies - Barr & Tagg (1995) Student centered more effective than teacher or content centered ? Hiebert & Grouws (2006) Effects of teaching on learning “open ended” + Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones (2010) Over 1000 studies students in online learning performed modestly better than those in face-to-face classes + Angiello (2010) Students in online classes performed better than those in F-to-F classes • No studies comparing three major types of classrooms - Neg Effect for online + Positive Effect for online ? Unknown Effect for online

4. Problem:How do experienced college and university instructors rate the three major formats for effects on student and administrative outcomes? Face-to-Face Mixed Online Only

5. Design and Method • Descriptive quantitative design (Part of a larger study by C. Brown) • Explored perceptions of experienced faculty about effects of type of classroom on student and administrative outcomes • Survey • 38 questions on assessment and grading • Ranking of 15 assessment practices • Evaluations of 35 types of assessments • Ratings of 6 factors affecting grades • Ratings of 6 changes in educational environment

6. Sample • 148 Experienced instructors from US • 11 New England • 15 Mid Atlantic • 16 East North Central • 24 West North Central • 40 South Atlantic • 18 Mountain • 22 Pacific • 5 Location Not identified

7. Demographics of Sample

8. Instructors Rated Distance Highest over F-to-F and Mixed When: • Specific learning objects were most influential; • Using group work was common and influential; • The student level of effort was highest; • Student mastery of material was highest; • Grading of all assignments was important; • Standardized tests were most frequently used; • Participation, accuracy, and mastery of content were important in determining student grades; • Student work habits had the most influence; • Instructors felt grades should reflect student effort; • Assignment of zeros for incomplete assignments was important; • Classes were valuable for selecting, identifying, or grouping students; • Classes were used to evaluate school programs; • Criterion referenced grading was used.

9. Instructors Rated Mixed Highest Over F-to-F and Distance When: • Providing feedback to students; • Students needed to be motivated; • The class was challenging to grade; • The objective was to teach student responsibility; • The objective was to motivate students; • It was desired to measure student progress; • Attendance had the greatest influence on grades; • Behavior and attitude in class impacted grades; • Students could use extra credit to improve scores; • Quizzes were used in evaluation and teaching.

10. Instructors Rated F-to-F Highest over Distance and Mixed When: • Level of responsibility was highest; • A greater variety of assessments of student progress were used; • Norm referenced grading was used.

11. Conclusions: Experienced Faculty rated distance teaching MORE effective in achieving 15 of 38 student outcomes Stronger effect than in US Dept of Educ. Meta analytic study (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010) Second most effective were mixed mode classes Least effective were traditional Face-to-Face classes You are invited to participate in the ongoing online survey, Interpreting the Meaning of Grades: An Analysis of Collegiate Assessment and Grading Practices. Please open and complete the survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QD3SKCB

12. References Angiello, R. (2010, October). Study looks at online learning vs. traditional instruction. The Education Digest, 2010, 55-59. Retrieved from www.eddigest.com Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 13-25. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. National Center for Education Statistics (2016). NCES Fast Facts [Web page]. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts Contact Information: Dr. Kelley A. Conrad, 435 Wells Street, Apt 209, Delafield, WI 53018 email: Kelley.Conrad@Phoenix.edu