Article Review Worksheet
Your Name:
Janel Simonsen
Article title and source (include all identifying information):
Hauck, W.E., (2006). Online versus traditional face-to-face learning in a large
introductory course. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 98(4), 27-29.
Retrieved from Proquest Jan. 19, 2007. (Proquest ID #1179473921)
Background or introduction:
The introduction discussed that students are increasingly participating in online
courses; therefore, many questions arise. “Pedagogically…is learning compromised in
online courses? What is the level of student satisfaction with online versus traditional
courses? Is online delivery of introductory courses an effective strategy for student
success and retention?” The author cites past studies that have tried to answer these
questions.
Hauck states that “The purpose of this study was to examine differences between
online and traditional classroom learning for a large introductory FCS undergraduate
course.”
Research question:
“Is there a difference between learning (measured by final course grades) and
student satisfaction (measured by student evaluation of instruction ratings)?”
Literature review:
The author of this article did not include a review of the literature, but there were
some previous findings mentioned in the introduction. One citation was from Russell
(1999) in which they “found no significant differences between the effectiveness of
distance education and that of face-to-face classes in 355 comparison studies.” Another
was from Summers et al (2005). They “found no significant difference in grades between
online and traditional classes; however, students in the online course were significantly
less satisfied with the course on several dimensions.” Finally, Johnson, Burnett, &
Rolling (2002) found that “Students enrolled in an online section of an FCS
undergraduate consumer economics course scored higher on the achievement posttest
than did the students enrolled in a traditional classroom setting.”
Method:
The study was completed with two separate classes of fashion merchandising
students in a Midwest university. One group participated in the spring 2004 semester in a
traditional face-to-face classroom setting. The other participated in the spring 2005
semester online. Hauck states that the student profiles were approximately the same.
The students that withdrew from the course in either semester were excluded from the
study.
Data was viewed using descriptive statistics and t-tests as well as a Likert-type
scale “Student Evaluation of Instruction” used by the university. Cronbach’s alpha
reliability was used to show that both instruments were reliable.
Findings:
The differences were not statistically significant between the two classes in
either their mean final course grade or their overall evaluation of the instructor. The
mean final grades were 85.52% for the face-to-face students and 84.79% for the online
students. The instructor evaluation was 1.72 for the face-to-face students and 1.81 for the
online students. The overall course evaluation was 2.06 for the face-to-face students and
1.85 for the online students.
Article conclusion:
Hauck state that “Predictably, students in the online class felt they had not learned
a great deal from the instructor compared to the students in the traditional class.” He also
states that “The results support the literature that online classes are as effective as
traditional face-to-face classes on student achievement.” Finally, he included that
“Anecdotal comments from students in the online class…provided both positive and
negative insight regarding satisfaction with the experience.” He suggests that the
comments be researched more thoroughly. He also suggests that “Future research and
debates should center on the merits of using online instruction in introductory courses
and the impact on learning.”
Good points of article:
I felt that the article was very easy to read. It was well organized with headings
and contained a table with the descriptive statistics and t-tests results. It was interesting
and contained pertinent information about distance education. The author listed some of
the positive and negative feedback given by the students. I also enjoyed that Hauck
ended his article by stating that there are limitations on his findings. Hauck writes, “The
use of online instruction may not be appropriate for some introductory courses. Perhaps
a hybrid format that uses both online and traditional face-to-face delivery methods in
introductory courses can create a sense of community, foster relationships, and help with
student success and retention. Future research and debates should center on the merits of
using online instruction in introductory courses and the impact on learning.”
Poor points of article:
Hauck did not include any literature review which would have given his findings
more reliability. It could have shown whether his findings supported or contradicted
others. He should have also included a table showing the “Student Evaluation of
Instruction” that was used in this study. I personally would like to have seen the types of
questions asked on this Likert-type scale.
Another item that I felt needed some attention was not in the article but in the
study itself. I felt that that way the classes were chosen was not random and may not
have compared two similar groups. It was more quasi-experimental. The course was
delivered in a face-to-face traditional classroom setting in 2004 and online in 2005. The
classes consisted of students who chose to enroll in that course during each particular
semester. The article does not go on to articulate whether they all had the same
backgrounds, experiences, or technology know-how.