Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This research sought to compare outcomes and
course experiences in online and face-to-face sections of a
nutrition cultural foods course.
November 3, 2010
METHODS: A survey tool was developed, based on existing
standardized institutional teacher evaluations, to assess
course satisfaction/experiences. At the end of the Fall 2009
semester, the survey was administered online to students in
both sections of NUTR 1010: Cultural Foods. Grades and
course satisfaction/experiences were compared between
sections.
RESULTS: Fifty seven face-to-face students (69%) and 33
online students (71%) completed the survey. Online students
were more likely than face-to-face students to be older,
employed, part-time students, living off-campus,
upperclassmen, and a current or former nutrition, exercise
science, or health promotions major (p< 0.05). Online
students reported more often that “seeing information” was
their preferred way to learn (72.7% versus 39.7%; p=0.008).
Only two questions (on a scale from 1, strongly disagree to 7,
strongly agree) were found to be significantly different between
the two sections. Online students were more likely (p<0.05) to
report that the class was well organized (6.76 ± 0.52 vs. 6.22
± 1.29, respectively) and that they had tried new foods
because of the course (6.64 ± 0.65 vs. 5.97 ± 1.75,
respectively). No statistical differences were found in the other
18 course satisfaction/experiences survey items or in final
course grades.
CONCLUSION/APPLICATION: It appears that the online and
face-to-face courses had overall comparable outcomes and
experiences. Results show that online courses are an
effective teaching method and a possible alternative to
traditional face-to-face courses.
Department of Nutrition
Online vs. Face-to-Face: A Course Comparison
Jessica Bulova, Ashley Person, Brittan Bibb, Sarah Mammarella, Sarah Colby, PhD, RD
Results
There were a total of 83 students enrolled in the face-to-face section of NUTR 1010: Cultural Foods in the Fall 2009 semester and 46 students in the online
section. Of those students, 57 (69%) in the face-to-face section completed the online survey about the course and 33 (71%) completed it in the online
section.
FaceSig.
Online
Survey
Questions
Online
Face-to-Face
Average
Average
to-Face
(2-tailed)
(n=33)
Age:
Age: 19.88
(n=57)
Full-time
student:
90.9%
Upperclassman:
90.9%
Background
Over half of all college students are now classified as nontraditional1. Non-traditional students are those students not
18-24 years of age2. Online students tend to be older and
have related experience and knowledge of the information
being taught3.
Teaching online is very different from teaching in the traditional
face-to-face classroom3. Specific skills and understanding are
necessary to effectively teach and adapt to the online course
environment. New technology and programs are available to
design and teach online courses, which require additional
training and practice.
No dominate learning style has been found among students
enrolled in online courses4. Learning styles include: visual,
auditory, verbal and kinesthetic or any combination of these
types. A previous study of online course enrollment found that:
43% of students took online courses because it was
convenient with their work schedule and 22% chose online
courses because it was convenient to their family
responsibilities6.
Methods
Participants (n=90) were East Carolina University
undergraduate students enrolled in either the online or the
face-to-face section of a nutrition course, NUTR 1010: Cultural
Foods, during the Fall 2009 semester.
A survey tool was developed based on standardized
institutional teacher evaluation forms to assess course
satisfaction/experiences. At the end of the Fall 2009 semester,
the survey was administered online to students in both
sections of Cultural Foods: NUTR 1010. Survey results, exam
scores and overall grades were compared between sections. A
course syllabus comparison was also conducted.
± 3.15
years
23.88±
7.38 years
Employed
>
10hrs/week
: 61.8%
Live
offcampus:
93.8%
NUTR,
EXSS, or
Health
Promotions
major: 49.1%
Full-time
student:
100%
Employed
>
10hrs/week
: 23.2%
Upperclassman:
53.4%
Live
off-campus:
70.7%
NUTR,
EXSS, or
Health
Promotions
major:
24.2%
Figure1. Significantly Different Characteristics Between Online and Face-to-Face Sections; p <0.05
There were no significant differences between students
in the face-to-face and online sections for:
•Race
•Gender
•Relationship status
•Number of children that live with the student
•Participation in a sports team or club
•Number of hours of work spent related to the course per week
•Enjoyment of group work
Online students ranked their favorite/best way to learn as
“seeing information” significantly more often than face-to-face
students (72.7% versus 39.7%; p=0.008). The number one
reported reason for choosing to enroll in the online instead of
the face-to-face section was scheduling (37.5%).
Online
Face-to-Face
Attendance Policy:
• 3 absences allowed
• After that, 10 points
deducted for each
additional absence
Attendance Policy:
• None
Make-Up Work:
• No make-up exams
allowed or make-up or late
assignments
Make-Up Work:
• No make-up exams allowed or
make-up or late assignments
Evaluation:
• 5 exams (lowest one dropped)
= 400 points
• 4 sets of exam questions
= 40 points
• 13 Blackboard discussion
assignments (10 pts each,
lowest 3 dropped)
= 100 points
• 5 page country paper, group
responses, & test questions
= 100 points
Total = 640 points
Evaluation:
• 5 exams (lowest one dropped)
= 400 points
• 7 discussion board group
projects (20 points each, lowest
dropped)
= 120 points
• Country class presentation &
test questions
= 100 points
Total = 620 points
Figure 2. Course Syllabus Comparison
This class was
interesting.
The grading is fair.
The objectives are clear.
The class is well
organized.
Dr. Colby is an
enthusiastic teacher.
I have learned a lot from
this class.
This class has made me
think about things in new
ways.
I have tried new foods
because of this class.
I feel like I understand
more about other cultures
because of this class.
The syllabus is clear and
useful.
Dr. Colby answers any
questions I have.
If I need something, Dr.
Colby would be there for
me.
Dr. Colby respects the
students.
The course material
presented in class is
what is included on tests.
The amount of work for
class is appropriate.
I would like to have more
challenging material
presented.
I have learned from and
interacted with my
classmates.
I found the technology
used in this class easy to
use.
Dr. Colby is a very
effective teacher.
How easy this class was.
5.88 ± 1.219
5.58 ± 1.511
0.328
6.67 ± 0.645
6.61 ± 0.609
6.59 ± 0.967
6.12 ± 1.366
0.697
0.550
6.76 ± 0.520
6.22 ± 1.287
0.024*
6.58 ± 0.830
6.61 ± 1.189
0.833
6.09 ± 1.208
5.85 ± 1.472
0.420
6.12 ± 1.139
5.61 ± 1.520
0.096
6.64 ± 0.653
5.97 ± 1.752
0.037*
6.30 ± 0.847
5.98 ± 1.358
0.224
6.64 ± 0.653
6.44 ± 1.103
0.354
6.73 ± 0.574
6.47 ± 1.223
0.266
6.55 ± 0.711
6.22 ± 1.301
0.188
6.79 ± 0.485
6.47 ± 1.180
0.149
6.52 ± 0.906
6.25 ± 1.385
0.334
6.55 ± 0.711
6.34 ± 1.334
0.412
3.33 ± 1.614
3.36 ± 1.937
0.955
5.64 1.578
5.05 ± 1.665
0.103
6.42 ± 1.370
5.85 ± 1.448
0.065
6.42 ± 1.324
6.34 ± 1.212
0.755
4.39 ± 1.767
4.75 ± 1.979
0.398
Table 1. Results of course satisfaction questions.
•Significant difference between sections, p <0.05; mean scores reflect score on a scale of
1 to 7 (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree)
Table 1 above illustrates all questions asked and average scores for
each. Only two course satisfaction questions were found to be
significantly different between the online and face-to-face sections.
Online students were more likely to report higher scores for:
•“The class is well organized” (p=0.0.24)
•“I have tried new foods because of this class” (p=0.037)
`Figure 3. Evaluation of online and face-to-face courses
(exams, final, and overall)
* Significant difference between sections, p <0.05.
Results from the course syllabus comparison are displayed in
Figure 2, which revealed that there were some slight
differences in class structure and evaluation. Course content
and exam questions were the same for both sections.
After analyzing exam scores and overall course grades, no
statistical differences were found in overall grades, with an
average of about 86% for both sections. Only Exam 4 was
found to be significantly different between the two sections,
with a higher average in the face-to-face course (Figure 3).
Conclusion
Results show that online courses are comparable to traditional
face-to-face courses and they can be an effective alternative
delivery method.
Overall, online students in this study were (p<0.05) older and
more likely to be employed >10 hours per week, a part-time
student, living off-campus, an upperclassman, and a current or
former nutrition, exercise science, or health promotions major.
Face-to-face and online courses had minimal class structure
and evaluation differences. No significant differences were
found for overall grades between the two sections (p=0.903),
with an average of about 86%. Online students were more
likely to report higher scores for: “the class is well organized”
(p=0.0.24) and “I have tried new foods because of this class”
(p=0.037) questions. Online students ranked their best way to
learn as “seeing information” significantly more often than
face-to-face students (p=0.008). Scheduling was the primary
reported reason for choosing online section (37.5%).
References
1. Business Wire (2004). “Interest in online education continuing to grow with more
than half of today’s college students categorized as non-traditional.” DeVry
University: pg 5630.
2. Hermans, C., Haytko, D., & Mott-Stenerson, B. (2009). Student satisfaction in
web-enhanced learning environments. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 18299. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
3. Dykman, C., & Davis, C. (2008). “Online education forum: part two – teaching
online versus teaching conventionally.” Journal of Information Systems Education.
19 (2): 157-164.
4. Mupinga, R., Mora, R., Yaw, D. (2006). “The learning styles, expectations, and
needs of online students.” College Teaching. 54(1): 185-189.
5. Haugen, S., LaBarre, J., & Malrose, J. (2001). “Online course delivery: Issues and
challenges.” Issues in Information Systems. 2:127-131.
6. Schwartzman, R. (2007). “Refining the question: how can online instruction
maximize opportunities for all students?” Communication Education. 56(1): 113117.