Pets & Animals

Comparing Biology Grades Based on Instructional Delivery and Instructor at a Community College: Face-to-Face Course Versus Online Course.

of 133
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
University of New Orleans University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations Dissertations and Theses Comparing Biology Grades Based on Instructional Delivery and Instructor
University of New Orleans University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations Dissertations and Theses Comparing Biology Grades Based on Instructional Delivery and Instructor at a Community College: Face-to-Face Course Versus Online Course. Amanda Rosenzweig University of New Orleans, Follow this and additional works at: Recommended Citation Rosenzweig, Amanda, Comparing Biology Grades Based on Instructional Delivery and Instructor at a Community College: Face-to- Face Course Versus Online Course. (2012). University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations. Paper This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at It has been accepted for inclusion in University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The author is solely responsible for ensuring compliance with copyright. For more information, please contact Comparing Biology Grades Based on Instructional Delivery and Instructor at a Community College: Face-to-Face Course Versus Online Course. A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of New Orleans in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Curriculum and Instruction by Amanda H. Rosenzweig B.A. William Woods University, 2000 M.S. University of Louisiana at Monroe, 2003 December, 2012 Acknowledgements I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to those that have encouraged and supported me throughout my journey of my doctorate. I am indebted to all these people for their help and contributions through this experience. First, I would like to thank Dr. Richard Speaker, my major professor, whose guidance and support allowed me to accomplish my dissertation. I am indebted to Dr. Speaker for accepting me as a student in the middle of my doctoral career, allowing me to begin a brand new project and helping me continue on the road to success. Second, I would like to thank Dr. Claire Amy Thoreson, the kindest, and most patient methodologist a doctoral student could be blessed with. Your guidance and weekly meetings allowed me to succeed on my statistical, academic journey. You helped me believe in myself and my research when I felt lost. Third, I would like to thank my committee members Dr. Ivan Gill and Dr. April Bedford Whatley for their time, support, and contributions to my research and doctoral endeavors. Next, I would like to thank Dr. John L. Carr and Dr. Marceau Ratard, who were integral in my success outside of the classroom. Dr. Carr has taught me responsibility, work ethic, but more importantly has helped build my confidence, and shape me as a student. Dr. Ratard has been a friend, a statistical advisor and a cheerleader. He was a shoulder to lean on and always helped with statistics. His words of encouragement and friendship have been security throughout this journey. Finally, I thank my family, Seth, Ethan and especially my husband and my mother, for bearing with me for all these years. Mom and Matt, both of you listened and were patient throughout this long, difficult journey. I appreciate the unwavering support, kind words, love ii and patience as I completed my dream. In closing, I would like to thank my departed father and grandmother, who always encouraged me to pursue my dreams. This journey and work is dedicated to my father, Dennis Steven Rosenzweig. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables... vi List of Figures... vii Abstract... viii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...1 Need for the Study...7 Significance of the Study...9 Theoretical Framework...10 Research Questions...13 Definitions of Terms...14 Overview of Methodology...16 Limitations...17 Other limitations...20 Delimitations...20 Organization of the Study...21 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW...23 Community College Students...25 Demographics...25 Motivation and Pre-knowledge...27 Age and Gender...29 Technology familiarity...32 Instructor Immediacy...34 Instructor, Students and Technology...36 Conclusion...37 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY...38 Pilot Study...41 Population and Sample...44 Data Collection...45 Course Descriptions...47 General Biology I...48 Microbiology of Human Pathogens...48 Human Anatomy and Physiology I...48 Human Anatomy and Physiology II...48 Variables...49 Participants...51 General Biology I...51 Microbiology of Human Pathogens...52 Human Anatomy and Physiology I...52 Human Anatomy and Physiology II...52 Statistical Design...53 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS...55 Purpose of Study...55 General Biology I...57 Microbiology of Human Pathogens...59 iv Human Anatomy and Physiology I...60 Human Anatomy and Physiology II...64 Summary...67 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS...69 Summary...69 Review of Methodology...69 Discussion of Research Findings...71 General Biology I...71 Microbiology of Human Pathogens...73 Human Anatomy and Physiology I...74 Human Anatomy and Physiology II...78 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research...80 Conclusion...85 References...87 Appendices Appendix A: Consent letter for faculty participation Appendix B: Use of Blackboard in Face-to-Face Courses Questionnaire Vita v List of Tables Table 3.1 Summary of ANOVA for Ages Effect on GPA Average (4.0 scale) in Pilot Study Table 3.2 Tukey-HSD Analysis for Differences in Grades with Age in Pilot Study Table 3.3 Main Campus Enrollment, Completion and Success Rate for Face-to-face and Online Courses Table 3.4 Demographic Makeup of Population in Study Compared to the Main Campus which the Study was Conducted Table 3.5 Student Majors within Each Course over the Span of the Study Table 4.1 Grade Distribution Among Classes in the Study Table 4.2 Mean GPA Differences Between General Biology I Teachers for Face-to-Face and Online Courses Table Cumulative Grade Point Average as a Predictor of Course Grade in a Biology Class Table 4.4 Mean Percentage Differences in Drop Rates Between General Biology I Teachers and Course Type Table 4.5 Mean GPA Differences Between Microbiology of Human Pathogen Teachers for Faceto-Face and Online Courses Table 4.6 Mean Percentage Differences in Drop Rates Between Microbiology of Human Pathogens Teachers and Course Type Table 4.7 Mean GPA Differences Between Human Anatomy & Physiology I Teachers for Faceto-Face and Online Courses Table 4.8 Mean Differences in GPA Between Human Anatomy & Physiology I Teachers for Face-to-face and Online Courses and Course Type Table 4.9 GPA Means for Groups in Homogeneous Subsets in Human Anatomy & Physiology I Based on observed means Table 4.10 Mean Percentage Differences in Drop Rates Between Human Anatomy & Physiology I Teachers and Course Type Table 4.11 Post Hoc Test Subset Comparison for Human Anatomy & Physiology I Mean Percentage Drop Rates Table 4.12 Mean Differences in GPA Between Human Anatomy & Physiology II Teachers for Face-to-face and Online Courses and Course Type Table 4.13 GPA Means for Groups in Homogeneous Subsets in Human Anatomy & Physiology II Based on observed means Table 4.14 Mean GPA Differences Between Human Anatomy & Physiology II Teachers for Face-to-Face and Online Courses Table 4.15 Mean Percentage Differences in Drop Rates Between Human Anatomy & Physiology II Teachers and Course Type Table 4.16 Post Hoc Test Subset Comparison for Human Anatomy & Physiology II Mean Percentage Drop Rates vi List of Figures Figure 4.1 Frequency distribution of studies age based on biology class compared to main campus Figure 4.2 Frequency distribution of ethnicities in study based on biology class compared to main campus vii Abstract Through distance learning, the community college system has been able to serve more students by providing educational opportunities to students who would otherwise be unable to attend college. The community college of focus in the study increased its online enrollments and online course offerings due to the growth of overall enrollment. The need and purpose of the study is to address if there is a difference in students grades between face-to-face and online biology related courses and if there are differences in grades between face-to-face and online biology courses taught by different instructors and the same instructor. The study also addresses if online course delivery is a viable method to educate students in biology-related fields. The study spanned 14 semesters between spring 2006 and summer Data were collected for 6,619 students. For each student, demographic information, cumulative grade point average, ACT, and data on course performance were gathered. Student data were gathered from General Biology I, Microbiology of Human Pathogens, Human Anatomy and Physiology I, and Human Anatomy and Physiology II courses. Univariate analysis of variance, linear regression, and descriptive analysis were used to analyze the data and determine which variables significantly impacted grade achievement for face-to-face and online students in biology classes. The findings from the study showed that course type, face-to-face or online, was significant for Microbiology of Human Pathogens and Human Anatomy and Physiology I, both upper level courses. Teachers were significant for General Biology I, a lower level course, Human Anatomy and Physiology I, and Human Anatomy and Physiology II. However, in every class, there were teachers who had significant differences within their courses between their face-to-face and online courses. viii This study will allow information to be concluded about the relationship between the students final grades and class type, face-to-face or online, and instructor. Administrators, faculty and students can use this information to understand what needs to be done to successfully teach and enroll in biology courses, face-to-face or online. biology courses, online courses, face-to-face courses, class type, teacher influence, grades, CGPA, community college ix Chapter 1: Introduction With the proliferation of web technologies, as well as information and communication technologies, online teaching is becoming more prevalent in educational institutions. Online learning is a synchronous and asynchronous facilitation of Internet learning, thus allowing students to access information anywhere and anytime, thereby promoting active and independent learning (Cole, 2000; Poe & Stassen, n.d.). Online teaching is accessible, flexible and convenient for most of the learning population (Jursi & Lim, 2003; Lundberg, Castillo-Merino, & Dahmani, 2008). Online teaching increases learning experiences to individuals who cannot or choose not to attend face-to-face classes; it can potentially be more cost efficient and, in some instances, can allow instructors to handle larger class sizes (Means, Toyama, Murohy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009). In Fall 2008, more than 4.6 million students were enrolled in at least one online class; that is one out of every four students (Allen, & Seaman, 2010). This was a 17% increase in online course enrollment compared to the 1.2% increase in the overall higher education student population (Sloan Consortium, 2007). In Fall 2010, over 6.1 million students were taking at least one online course (31% of all higher education students). This is an increase of 560,000 students from the previous year. This was a 10% growth rate from Fall Yet, it was the second lowest since 2002 (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Even though the growth rate of online education has mired, it far exceeds the less than 1% growth rate in overall higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Unfortunately, much of the existing research does not provide a great understanding of the relationship between the unique characteristics of community college students compared to 1 traditional university students, and their ability to succeed in the online course environment (Adams & Corbett, 2010; Muse, 2003). A study performed by Adams & Corbett (2010) concluded that non-traditional and traditional students preferred face-to-face learning, and no non-traditional students reported wanting a solely online-based class. Therefore, this study will examine if there are differences in biology grades between courses taught face-to-face and online, and whether there are differences in grades between course types among different instructors and within the same instructor at a community college. Online learning is a subset of distance education. Distance education has been present for 150 years. In earlier times, distance education was accomplished by individuals mailing letters back and forth with teachers (Watkins, 1991). However, in the last four decades, a rapid development of technology has allowed distance education to grow. Mass media, television and radio, video and audio conferencing, and the emergence of database learning known as Web 2.0 has allowed each generation to have access to materials more quickly (Anderson, 2008). Online courses are the most popular method for delivering information in postsecondary education due to the accessibility of information (Allen & Seaman, 2008; Instructional Technology Council, 2009). Community colleges in the United States grew rapidly in the 1960s (Zeidenberg & Bailey, 2010). Today, about 1,000 community colleges exist throughout the United States. The mission of the community college system is to serve all segments of society through a flexible and open admissions policy (Vaughn, 1999). The community colleges are designed to provide education to students who do not take the traditional route from high school to four-year institutions or to students that lack the typical solid educational background. Community colleges have an open access admission policy and low tuition costs, which results in their 2 attracting a higher amount of low-income and minority students than four-year institutions. Community colleges can meet three main goals: (a) to teach vocational skills, (b) to provide the first two years of a four-year bachelor s degree program, and (c) to provide continuing education and enhancement for community residents (California Council on Science and Technology [CCST], 2007; Zeidenberg & Bailey, 2010). Since community college students come from a variety of backgrounds and may have personal issues that can impede their ability to attain a traditional college education, the structure of the online environment provides non-traditional students with an opportunity to access higher education through a flexible format at practically any time or place (Allen & Seaman, 2008; George Mason University, 2001); this allows the students an opportunity to focus on issues such as career and family. The popularity of online education among these students has created a rapidly changing mission for community colleges. In 2001, 90% of community colleges offered online courses (Waits & Lewis, 2003), and in 2008 that number rose to 92%, with 41% offering degree programs entirely online (American Association of Community Colleges [AACC], 2008). According to Allen and Seaman (2008), more than half of the enrollments in online courses are through community colleges. Cox (2006) reviewed online instructional approaches at community colleges and interviewed staff from 15 community colleges, who were selected to be representative of the U.S. population. Most staff members felt they must expand to online teaching to compete with larger online corporations such as Capella and University of Phoenix (Cox, 2006). Faculty concerns need to be addressed. Many faculty members have concerns with increased work load, and they do not necessarily have the technological knowledge or the skills to use the programs (Mills, Yanes, & Casebeer, 2009). Allen and Seaman (2011) report that less 3 than one-third of academic officers believe their faculty accept and value online education. The perceived acceptance rate varies extensively between institutions with and without online course and program offerings. Faculty perception of acceptance and value is higher at institutions with online offerings (21%-44% compared to 13%, respectively), but that could reflect hiring teachers specifically for online instruction (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Cox (2006) reported that the rapid growth of online instruction at community colleges might negate the community colleges mission of offering education to all, regardless of socio-economic and demographic status because courses are aimed for students that are more computer literate. The biggest concern is the quality of student performance and learning in online courses compared to face-to-face classes (Parsons-Pollard, Diehl Lacks, & Grant, 2008). Online learning should provide the same level of educational effectiveness as face-to-face classroom learning (Rovai & Baker, 2005). Despite concerns, online programs within community colleges are continuing to flourish. Many classes considered face-to-face now have online components such as , viewing web pages, and online homework. Quality of discussion and teacher-student immediacy are similar when specific contentrelated questions are posed to students (O Neal, 2009). Criticism of face-to-face classrooms has been common because teaching styles encourage passive learning, ignore individual needs of learners, and do not develop critical and analytical thinking skills (Banathy, 1994; Black, 2005; Choy & Cheah, 2009; Hannum & Briggs, 1982; O Neal, 2009). Due to the rapid development of technology, online instruction also has issues; many students have an unstable online learning environment and a lack of commitment and understanding from both student and teacher of how much is needed to successfully participate in online classrooms, which poses problems for success in the online environment (Johnson, Aragon, Shaik, & Palma-Rivas, 2000). Clark s 4 (1983) meta-analysis study on media research showed that students gain significant learning benefits from audiovisual or computer media, as opposed to conventional instruction. However, the same study also suggested that the reason for those benefits is not the medium of instruction, but the instructional strategies built into the learning materials. Similarly, other studies have suggested that learning is influenced more by the content and instructional strategy in the learning materials than by the type of technology used to deliver instruction (Bernard, Abrami, Lou, Borokhovski, Wade, Tamin, Surkes, & Bethel, 2009; Kozma, 2001; Means et al., 2009). It is not the computer that makes students learn, but rather the design of the activities provided by the teacher, as well as the interactions between the students, the material and the teacher (Bernard et al., 2009; Kozma, 2001; Means et al., 2009). The computer is merely the vehicle that provides the processing capability and delivers the instruction to learners (Clark, 2001). Much of the success of the instruction is accomplished through the presentation from the teachers (Bernard et al., 2009; Means et al., 2009). Aragon, Johnson, and Shaik (2002) stated that students success in either type of class is comparable as long as the course is developed around concrete learning objectives. Learners can develop a liking for concrete experiences when learning or a preference for engaging in abstract or conceptual analyses when acquiring knowledge. However, it is most often assumed that online students will be more independent than face-to-face students (Lundberg, Castillo-Merino, & Dahmani, 2008), therefore will perform as well as their face-to-face counterparts. Although a study in 2010 (Sussman & Dutter) also concluded that there was no significant difference in the performance of students in the same online and face-to-face course, the U.S. Department of Education s recent meta-analysis concluded that students favor online conditions with an average effect size of +.24 when comparing learning outcomes for students in 5 online environments compared to students in face-to-face instruction (Means et al., 2009, p. xiv). Freeman and Capper (1999) found no differences in learning outcomes betwee
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks