Comparing Student Assessments and Perceptions of Online and Face-to-Face Versions of an Introductory Linguistics Course

Authors

  • David Johnson Kennesaw State University
  • Chris C Palmer Kennesaw State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i2.449

Keywords:

linguistics, face-to-face, online, student perceptions, GPA, disciplines

Abstract

This article examines the issue of whether linguistics is better suited for a face-to-face (F2F) environment than an online teaching environment. Specifically, it examines assessment scores and student perceptions of the effectiveness of an introductory linguistics course at an undergraduate state university that has been taught multiple times in both online and F2F modes. To study this issue data was collected about the types of students enrolled in either version of the course, including their GPAs and course grades. A survey with both closed- and open-ended questions was also used to ask students about their experiences and perceptions of the two environments. Students responded to questions on factors such as procrastination, engagement with socially sensitive discussion topics, preferences for discussion modality, and motivations for course enrollment. Results of the data problematize the notion that linguistics (and perhaps other disciplines) is equally suited for an online and F2F environment since students fare better academically and engage more with the F2F linguistics course. Results also show that students with higher GPAs gravitate toward F2F classes. Regarding the course itself, convenience is the primary category that students consistently noted as a reason for selecting the online linguistics course versus its F2F counterpart. Even so, results do show some effectiveness in treating linguistic content online. Suggestions and strategies are offered to further strengthen online delivery of linguistic material to overcome some of the structural hurdles presented by student enrollment patterns and (dis)engagement.

Author Biographies

David Johnson, Kennesaw State University

Professor of English

Chris C Palmer, Kennesaw State University

Assistant Professor of English

References

Baron, D. (2011). Language and education: The more things change. In M. Adams & A. Curzan (Eds.), Contours of English and English language studies (pp. 17-33). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Baugh, J. (1999). Out of the mouths of slaves: African American language and educational malpractice. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Blake, R. (2009). From web pages to distance learning: Technology in the foreign language curriculum. In I. Lancashire (Ed.), Teaching literature and language online (pp. 23-37). New York, NY: The Modern Language Association of America.

Clark-Ibáñez, M., & Scott, L. (2008). Learning to teach online. Teaching Sociology, 36, 34-41.

Cluskey, G. R., Craig Elhen, C., & Raiborn, M. (2011). Thwarting online test cheating. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 4, 1-7.

Curzan, A. (2002). Teaching the politics of standard English. Journal of English Linguistics, 30, 339-352.

Curzan, A. (2009). Says Who? Teaching and questioning the rules of grammar. PMLA, 124, 870-879.

Curzan, A. (2013). Linguistics matters: Resistance and relevance in teacher education. Language, 89, e1-e10. Retrieved from

http://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/19_89.1e_Curzan.pdf

Durian, D., Papke, J., & Sampson, S. (2009). Exploring social, regional, and ethnic variation in the undergraduate classroom. American Speech, 84, 227-238.

Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40, 312-331. Retrieved from http://tso.sagepub.com/content/40/4/312

Elvers, G. C., Polzella, D. J., & Graetz, K. (2003). Procrastination in online courses: Performance and attitudinal differences. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 159-162.

Helms, J. (2014). Comparing student performance in online and face-to-face delivery modalities. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18, 147-160. Retrieved from

http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main

Huberman, M.A., & Miles, M. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 429-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hull, D., & Saxon, T. (2009). Negotiation of meaning and co-construction of knowledge: An experimental analysis of asynchronous online instruction. Computers & Education, 52, 624-639.

Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21, 117-132.

Keramidas, C. (2012). Are Undergraduate Students Ready for Online Learning? A Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face Sections of a Course. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31, 25-32.

Lancashire, I. (2009). Introduction: Perspectives on online pedagogy? In I. Lancashire (Ed.), Teaching literature and language online. (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: The Modern Language Association of America.

Lasnik, H. (2013). Teaching introductory graduate syntax. Language, 89, e11-e17. Retrieved from http://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/20_89.1e_Lansik.pdf

Leong, P. (2010). Role of social presence and cognitive absorption in online learning environments. Distance Education, 32, 5-28.

Logan, E., Augustyniak, R., & Reese, A. (2002). Distance education as different education: A student-centered investigation of distance learning experience. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 43, 32-42.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Preston, D. (2011). Michigander talk: God’s own English. In M. Adams & A. Curzan (Eds.), Contours of English and English language studies (pp.17-33). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Rickford, J., & Rickford, R. (2000). Spoken soul: The story of black English. New York: John Wiley.

Russel, T. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, University of North Carolina.

Smart, K., & Cappel, J. (2006). Student perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 201-219. Retrieved from www.jite.org/documents/Vol5/v5p201-219Smart54.pdf

Smitherman, Geneva. (1986). Talkin and testifin: The language and culture of black America. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

Summers, J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. (2005). Comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 233-250.

Tschudi, S., Hiple, D., & Chun, D. (2009). Fostering cohesion and community in asynchronous online courses. In I. Lancashire, Teaching literature and language online (pp.121-146). New York, NY: The Modern Language Association of America.

Urtel, M. (2008). Assessing academic performance between traditional and distance education course formats. Educational Technology & Society,11, 322-330. Retrieved from www.ifets.info/journals/11_1/23.pdf

Downloads

Published

2014-12-23

Issue

Section

Comparisons Between Traditional and Online Environments