Face-to-face vs. Online Asynchronous Teaching in a Conservation Biology Course

Carrie Wells, Michelle Pass, Jane Walsh

Abstract


In order to be effective, e-learning environments should include a diverse range of pedagogical practices and should focus on active learning student-centered pedagogical. Therefore, it should not be the delivery medium, but rather the instructional methods that facilitate proper learning. Courses that incorporate effective instructional methods will support better learning than courses that do not use effective methods, regardless of the mode of delivery. We compared a traditionally taught face to face Conservation Biology course, Biol 4244/5244, for Biology majors to a fully online asynchronous e-learning course designed using essentially the same materials but varying course delivery. The Biol 4244/4244 course is designated by the University of North Carolina at Charlotte as a “writing-intensive course”, where communication is a significant part of the course learning experience. We found no significant differences in learning outcomes, regardless of the method of course delivery. Overall, we feel that this study indicates that online instruction in this type of course is a viable alternative to face-to-face instruction.


Keywords


face-to-face learning, online learning, asynchronous, STEM

Full Text:

PDF

References


Baker, A. (2003). Faculty development for teaching online: Educational and technological issues. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 34(6), 273-278.

Bernstein, R. (2013). Education Evolving: Teaching Biology Online, Cell, 155: 1443-1445.

Bernard RM, Abrami PC, Lou Y, Borokhovski E, Wade A, Wozney L, Wallet PA, Fiset M, Huang B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of educational research, 74(3), 379-439.

Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Shaw Sullivan, A. V. (2000). The influence of active learning on the college student departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto's theory. The Journal of Higher

Education, 71(5), 569-590. doi:10.2307/2649260

Browne, E. (2005). Structural and pedagogic change in further and higher education: A case study approach. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(1), 49-59

Byrd-Bredbenner, C. & K. Bauer. (1991). The development and evaluation of computer assisted instruction modules for an introductory, college-level nutrition course. Journal of Nutrition Education, 23(6), 275-282.

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.

Dabbagh. N., & NannaRitland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies and application. New Jersey, NJ: Upper Saddle River.

Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of educational research, 68(3), 322-349.

Gibbins S, Sosabowski MH, Cunningham J. (2003). Evaluation of a web-based resource to support a molecular biology practical class – does computer-aided learning really work? Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 31(5):352–355.

Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., et al., (2004). Scientific teaching. Science 304 (5670), 521–522.

Hannay, M., & Newvine, T. (2006). Perceptions of distance learning: A comparison of online and traditional learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2 (1).

Harris, B.N., McCarthy, P.C., Wright, A.M., Schutz, H., Boersma, K.S., Shepherd, S.L., Manning, L.A., Malisch, J.L., and Ellington, R.M. (2020). From panic to pedagogy: Using online active learning to promote inclusive instruction in ecology and evolutionary biology courses and beyond. Ecology and Evolution. 2020:00, 1-32.

Hilton, R., Moos, C., & Barnes, C. (2020). A Comparative Analysis of Students' Perceptions of Learning in Online Versus Traditional Courses. E-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 14(3).

Paul, J., & Jefferson, F. (2019). A comparative analysis of student performance in an online vs. face-to-face environmental science course from 2009 to 2016. Frontiers in Computer Science, 1, 7.

Keengwe, J., Kidd, T. (2010) Towards best practices in online teaching and learning in higher education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6, 2. 533-541.

Magalhães, P., Ferreira, D., Cunha, J., & Rosário, P. (2020). Online vs traditional homework: A systematic review on the benefits to students’ performance. Computers & Education, 152, 103869.

Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222.

Nassoura, A. B. (2020). Measuring students’ perceptions of online learning in higher education. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res, 9, 1965-1970.

Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace. American Journal of Distance Education, 14, 15–35.

O'Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The internet and higher education, 25, 85-95.

Palocsay, S. W., & Stevens, S. P. (2008). A Study of the effectiveness of web-based homework in teaching undergraduate business statistics. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(2), 213–232.

Riffell, S. K., & Sibley, D. F. (2003). Student perceptions of a hybrid learning format: Can online exercises replace traditional lectures? Journal of College Science Teaching, 32, 394–399.

Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science education, 84(5), 566-593.

Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44-49.

Savenye, W., Olina, Z., and Niemczyk, M. (2001). So you are going to be an online writing instructor: Issues in designing, developing, and delivering an online course. Computers and Composition 18: 371–385.

Schwartz et al. (2013). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Routledge.

Sunal, D. W., Sunal, C. S., Odell, M. R., & Sundberg, C. A. (2003). Supported best practices for developing online learning. The journal of interactive online learning, 2(1), 1-40.

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of educational research, 76(1), 93-135.

Zubas, P., Heiss, C., Pederson, M. (2006). Comparing the Effectiveness of a Supplemental Online Tutorial to Traditional Instruction with Nutritional Science Students. The journal of interactive online learning, 5(1), 75-81.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i2.2775



Copyright (c) 2022 Carrie Wells, Michelle Pass, Jane Walsh

License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/