Documents

For Social Business go to page 101 of BEA-V6N1-2014-revised .pdf

Categories
Published
of 120
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
Share
Description
CONTENTS Online Versus Face-to-face: Does Delivery Method Matter for Undergraduate Business School Learning? 1 Cassandra DiRienzo & Gregory Lilly Linking the Substitution and Output Effects of Production to Proft Maximization in the Intermediate Microeconomics Course 13 Jeffrey Wolcowitz Lebanese Students’ Awareness Regarding Accreditation in Higher Education Institutions 23 Pierre Al Khourry, Marwan Kotob, Abed El Kader Fare
Transcript
  CONTENTS Online Versus Face-to-face: Does Delivery Method Matter for Undergraduate Business School Learning? 1 Cassandra DiRienzo & Gregory Lilly Linking the Substitution and Output Effects of Production to Prot Maximization in the Intermediate Microeconomics Course 13 Jeffrey Wolcowitz Lebanese Students’ Awareness Regarding Accreditation in Higher Education Institutions 23 Pierre Al Khourry, Marwan Kotob, Abed El Kader Fares, Mohamad Eido, Mustapha Ghandour  Student Views on the Use of a Flipped Classroom Approach: Evidence from Australia 33 Adam Butt Integrating Sustainability into a Goal Programming Exercise 45 Michael Godfrey & Andrew Manikas Integrating Writing Assignments into an Historically Non-writing Intensive Course 55 William E. Bealing, Jr. Evaluation of a Flipped Classroom in an Undergraduate Business Course 63 Sandi Findlay-Thompson & Peter Mombourquette United States Agency for International Development’s Role in Reforming Higher Education in Pakistan 73 Majid Khan, Saquib Yusaf Janjua, Malik Asghar Naeem & Farrukh Nawaz Kayani Fraud Education: A Module-Based Approach for All Business Majors 81 Sean Andre, Aaron Pennington & Becky L. Smith A Social Media Campaign Application in a Marketing Field Experience Course 95 Mine Ucok Hughes Collaborative Education: New Frontier for Future Education and Yunus Social Business 101 Md. Faisal Ibne Wali, Abdul Hannan Chowdhury, Khan Muhammad Saqiful Alam, Muhammad Maruf Ibne Wali & Mohibul Islam VOLUME 6 NUMBER 1 2014 Business Education   & Accreditation B E  Business Education & Accreditation Susan Baxter  Farmingdale State College – SUNYPeter Geczy National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)Linda Naimi Purdue UniversityM.T. Naimi Purdue UniversityManuel Medina Elizondo Universidad Autónoma de CoahuilaBernardo Quintanilla Universidad Autónoma del CarmenFrancis Petit Fordham UniversityPallab Paul University of Denver Marius Potgieter  Tshwane University of Technology-South AfricaWilliam Stahlin Stevens Institute of TechnologyArup K. Sen D’Youville College Editorial Advisory Board Editor in Chief  Terrance Jalbert Managing Editor Mercedes Jalbert Business Education & Accreditation, ISSN: 1944-5903 (print) and ISSN: 2157-0809 (online) publishes high-quality articles in all areas of business education, accreditation and related elds. Theoretical, empirical and applied manuscripts are welcome for publication consideration. The Journal is published twice per year by the Institute for Business and Finance Research, LLC. All papers submitted to the Journal are double-blind reviewed. The Journal is listed in Cabell’s directory and Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory. The Journal is distributed in print, through EBSCO  Host, ProQuest   ABI/Inform and SSRN.The views presented in the Journal represent opinions of the respective authors. The views presented do not necessarily reect the opinion of the editors, editorial board or staff of the Institute for Business and Finance Research, LLC. The Institute actively reviews articles submitted for possible publication. However, the Institute does not warrant the correctness of information provided in the articles or the suitability of information in the articles for any purpose.This Journal is the result of the collective work of many individuals. The Editors thank the members of the Editorial Board, ad-hoc reviewers and individuals that have submitted their research to the Journal for  publication consideration.  ISSN : 1944-5903 (print) and ISSN: 2157-0809 (online) All Rights Reserved . The Institute for Business and Finance Research, LLC  BUSINESS EDUCATION & ACCREDITATION   ♦  Volume 6 ♦  Number 1 ♦  2014 1 ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE: DOES DELIVERY METHOD MATTER FOR UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOL LEARNING? Cassandra DiRienzo, Elon University Gregory Lilly, Elon University ABSTRACT Considering the significant growth in online and distance learning, the question arises as to how this different delivery method can affect student learning. Specifically, this study compares the student learning outcomes on both a “basic” and “complex” assignment given in the same course, but using two different delivery methods of traditional face-to-face and online, across five undergraduate business courses taught at Elon University during the summer 2007 session. This study includes data from over 120 students and, after controlling for other factors known to affect student performance, the results indicate that delivery method has no significant difference in student learning. JEL: A22 KEYWORDS: Learning Outcomes, Online, Face-to-face, Undergraduate, Business   INTRODUCTION   he breadth of online coursework has grown substantially over the past decade. According to Allen and Seaman (2011) who collaborated with the College Board to survey over 2,500 colleges and universities, 65 percent of all reporting institutions indicated that online learning was a critical  piece of their long-term strategy. Further, Allen and Seaman (2011) report that over 6.1 million students took at least one online course during the fall 2010 term, an increase of approximately ten percent over the previous year, and 31 percent of all higher education students now take at least one of their courses online. The recent introduction of ‘massive open online courses’ (MOOCs) offers additional evidence that online learning is growing, massively. Due to their low delivery costs, MOOCs can have exceptionally high enrollments. As Herman (2012) describes, in 2008, George Siemens and Stephen Downes administered an online course for 25 paying students at the University of Manitoba; however an additional 2,300 students enrolled in the course at no charge. According to Hyman (2012), Peter Norvig, Google’s director of research, and Sebastian Thrun, a Google vice president, offered one of the most successful MOOCs, “Introduction to Artificial Intelligence”, in the fall of 2011. They enrolled over 160,000 students and more than 23,000 completed the course. The reasons for the growth in online learning are likely multifaceted; however, it can arguably be explained in terms of student demand for online coursework and the cost-saving incentives institutions have to meet this demand. As Howell et al. (2003) discusses, more and more students require flexibility in their programs to meet work or family needs and thus ‘shop’ for courses and programs that meet their schedules and circumstances; and online learning can be designed such that the marginal cost of enrolling and instructing one more student is essentially zero. If the online delivery method is here to stay, how does student learning and performance vary relative to the traditional brick and mortar classrooms? While Allen and Seaman (2011) report that the majority of academic leaders perceive that the learning outcomes achieved through these two delivery methods are the same, this study empirically tests this hypothesis. Specifically, this study compares the student T  C. DiRienzo & G. Lilly  | BEA  Vol. 6 ♦  No. 1 ♦  2014  2 learning outcomes on both a “basic” and a “complex” assignment given in the same course, but with the two different delivery methods of traditional face-to-face and online, across five undergraduate business courses taught at Elon University during the summer 2007 session.  Note that the design of our study was influenced by two previous studies that have found statistically significant evidence that online students learn less. First of all, student learning outcomes on ‘basic’ and ‘complex’ assignments are considered as Brown and Liedholm (2002) have found that student  performance can differ on these two types on assignments given the course delivery method. Secondly, using performance on the Test of Understanding College Economics (TUCE) as their measure of learning, Coates et al. (2004) found that “students in the online sections correctly answered about two fewer questions on TUCE than students in the face-to-face sections.” However, this result may not be due to deficient online instruction and learning, but rather an outcome of self-selection. According to the Coates et al. (2004) paper, all three colleges that provided the student data for their study have noteworthy  part-time student enrollments (from a low of 26% to a high of 37%) and their online and face-to-face samples have several statistically significant differences. Specifically, the online sample includes older students with less financial aid and greater work commitments relative to the face-to-face students. Thus, it is possible that the results presented in Coates et al. (2004) have more to do with the characteristics of the online students than the nature of online instruction and learning. In contrast, the Elon undergraduates included in this study are full-time, traditional students, and the online courses all occurred during the summer; eliminating possible problems related to self-section. The remainder of the document is organized as follows. The next section provides an overview of the experiment conducted in this analysis in addition to a discussion of the relevant literature and findings. The Data and Methodology summarizes the data and provides a table with the descriptive statistics. The following section, Results and Discussion, presents the analysis results and discusses the empirical findings with an emphasis on the hypothesis test results. Finally, the section Concluding Comments  provides a brief summary of the study and discusses avenues for future research in addition to the limitations of the study. OVERVIEW OF EXPERIMENT AND LITERATURE REVIEW As noted above, most academic leaders would not expect to see learning differences arise due to the course delivery method. Likewise, there is evidence that the majority of students who participated in our 2007 study believe that the two delivery methods are essentially equivalent. Specifically, each student enrolled in one of the five online courses was asked to take an online, anonymous survey at the conclusion of the course. The survey included two questions regarding student perceptions of the difficulty of online courses. The first question asked, Q1: “  Prior to taking this online course, did you perceive online courses to be easier than traditional, ‘face to face’ courses? ” The second question asked, Q2: “  Having taken an online course was your perception correct? In other words, if you perceived online courses to be easier / harder than traditional courses, do you still have the same opinion?”  A total of 89 students across the five online courses responded to both questions, representing a near 100  percent response rate of all students who completed one of the online courses. Table 1 contains the survey results. Of the four possible responses, two (“Yes” to Q1, “Yes” to Q2 and “No” to Q1, “No” to Q2) could be interpreted as a claim that online is easier than face-to-face. The remaining two responses (“Yes” to Q1, “No” to Q2 and “No” to Q1, “Yes” to Q2) could be interpreted as a claim that online and
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Tags
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