September 16, 2008
Study Finds Hybrid Courses Just as Effective as Traditional Ones
Many colleges these days are trying hybrid or blended models of teaching in which students spend some time in a classroom but do some work online, and a new study suggests that students learn just as well as they do in a traditional course.
The study examined two health courses taught at the University of Missouri, one delivered the old fashioned-way and one in a hybrid format. The researcher, Shawna Strickland, director of the Respiratory Therapy Program at the university’s School of Health Professions, said that students in both groups performed equally well.
The students in the traditional class gave more favorable evaluations of the experience than those in the hybrid class, however. Several students in the hybrid course said they were confused about assignments or how to handle the mechanics of the course, according to a report on the study published in the Journal of Allied Health.
Many studies of fully online courses have found that they are just as effective as traditional ones, but less research has been done on hybrid models of teaching, according to the researcher. —Jeffrey R. Young
Posted on Tuesday September 16, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: New Social Network Hopes to Catalog All Researchers and Their Interests
Next: Professor Given $100,000 to Study World of Warcraft
Brian McFarlin, a physiologist from the University of Houston, published results earlier this year in the journal “Advances in Physiology Education” that provided powerful evidence of the efficacy of blended/hybrid learning models. The McFarlin article is available online at http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/32/1/86.
— David Gray Sep 16, 04:39 PM #
Has anyone involved in this study ever heard of “The No Significant Difference” phenomenon? This question was asked and answered years ago – but people keep repeating the studies.
— Al Sep 16, 05:12 PM #
Yep, we linked to the No Significant Difference phenomenon Web site in the post, but it was a bit hidden — here’s that link again: http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/
— wired campus Sep 16, 05:35 PM #
@Al – not sure which question and answer you have in mind.
Perhaps it’s “Does the medium of instructional delivery matter if the instructional design is not optimized for that medium?” Not surprising that the answer to that question is no.
Better questions:
How do we optimize f2f time and online time?
What activities with a high impact on student learning can be done very well f2f but not online?
What activities with a high impact on student learning can be done very well online but not f2f?
— Jim Sep 16, 05:51 PM #
The last paragraph says it all, “Many studies of fully online courses have found that they are just as effective as traditional ones, but less research has been done on hybrid models of teaching, according to the researcher.” It is apparent the researcher barely did any valid research before publishing her findings.
Surveying two health courses taught at the same university does not, under any circumstances, give data that could be deemed valid. Questions to be considered, but not included in the article:
1. How large was each class (i.e. “sample”)? 20 students, 40, 60?
2. Were both classes taught with the same text, same syllabus, assessments, etc.?
3. How was the Web Enhanced material presented? Was the web enhanced material simply put in a Class Management System and left there for the learners to find by themselves, or did the instructor refer to the notes, presentations, research, and other resources found in the CMS?
4. What materials were available in the web enhanced class? Was there media to address diverse learning preferences (auditory, visual, or kinesthetic.)?
Presented correctly, Web Enhancing any course can bring dynamics into the classroom superior to the standard lecture oriented, instructor centered, instruction. Unless the researcher is willing to increase her data sample and answer the questions above, her findings should be dismissed.
-Eli Walker M.Ed.
— Eli Walker, M.Ed. Sep 16, 07:20 PM #
The NSD studies are a farce — please read an article by Phipps and Merisotis (“What’s the Difference”).
Scientifically, the studies mean nothing because
1)the subjects were not randomly assigned to groups
2) in many cases the two groups were not tested using similar teaching materials and
3) the tests were never evaluated to ensure face validity.
4) little is known about the students history of taking distance education courses for example, how would Olympic fare against high-school athletes ?
5) NSD studies never control for reactive effects (i.e. “john Henry,” Hawthorne”) that might influence findings
It only makes sense that with all this bad science, nobody can find a difference. Better questions may result if we first assume that distance ed and traditional classroom are not the same type of learning environment. Given that, we can expect that comparing the two is flawed. Perhaps we need to figure out how to raise the quality of distance education courses as compared to each other.
The recent move by Boeing to evaluate degree programs by the performance of their graduates on the job is heartening. Other studies have examined whether online grads can compete against their traditional counterparts in employment situations. These evaluation are far more telling than NSD studies.
Finally, the perpetuation of the NSD studies really carries us further away from moving distance education forward. Currently, DE degrees are perceived as a 4th-rate education. After 135 years of distance education (Illinois-Wesleyan U., 1872), there are no distance education institutions that have built up a curriculum that could be mentioned in the same sentence as any first-rate traditional public or private program. Why?
— J Lawrence Sep 16, 08:48 PM #
I helped develop a online format to the Respiratory Care program at Ferris State University in Michigan. My experiences was that students often have a problem with following written instructions with online courses. What is odd is that I found the younger, just out of high school, had the most difficulty. I would have thought, they being tech savvy, would have the least issues but I believe these individuals are so conditioned to the podium lecture and teacher reminders that the transition is difficult for them. As a group, students from the upper peninsula of Michigan had the least problem and gave the most positive comments of the online classes. I think that is because access to courses was limited and they had to rely on non-traditional forms of education.
— David Zobeck Sep 17, 07:15 AM #
Thanks to David Gray, who posted the link above to a valuable study (McFarland’s). I wonder why this study didn’t get more attention? Its results seem much more useful than the one reported here.
— MDR Sep 17, 07:17 AM #
As a recent graduate, I have experienced the hybrid or blended classes and the completely online classes.
I feel that the concept is in the beginning stages and will require growth and improvement over time. It’s called ‘trial and error’.
I enjoyed both types of classes, but do prefer the hybrid in that it does allow for the social connection between the classmates.
I believe it will become a preferred method after some adjustments.
— Jackie Sep 17, 08:21 AM #
I wonder who, if anyone, really cares about studies like this. By that I mean that I wonder who is persuaded by this kind of evidence? As a professor in online and hybrid courses, I employ networked formats because they allow me to do different things not b/c they allow me to do the same things just as well. I think faculty choose alternate formats b/c they fit their purposes and/or disciplinary identity. Institutions that stress online education do so b/c they think online courses will help them attract students or improve their reputation or be more efficient.
In education, you can always find a study or some intellectual argument to legitimate your decision, but I don’t think anyone makes their decision based on such findings.
— Alex Reid Sep 17, 08:45 AM #
I question whether the results would have been the same in other academic departments. In my department, fully half routinely drop out and many show up to the F2F lectures or labs never having done the online work.
— Community College Instructor Sep 17, 09:00 AM #
“. . .students spend some time in a classroom but do some work online, and a new study suggests that students learn just as well as they do in a traditional course.”
That’s not saying much.
— Robert Sep 17, 09:21 AM #
J Lawrence writes, “After 135 years of distance education … there are no distance education institutions that have built up a curriculum that could be mentioned in the same sentence as any first-rate traditional public or private program. Why?”. Er, what about the UK Open University? I think that qualifies.
— Mark Sep 17, 09:47 AM #
Anyone that has actually taught realizes that different teaching modalities are preferable to help students learn. Why would it be suprising that a hybrid courses, one that gives students a chance to both deal with other face-to-face and in an asynchronous setting, would provide opportunities for learning greater than that experience in a class where discussion must take place in one format?
— M. Phillips Sep 17, 10:19 AM #
Studies like this make me very cranky. First, they seem to be based on the implicit assumption that one mode of class delivery is going to be “better” than another. Second, for all the reasons already mentioned in the comments (plus many more), the science is flawed. The research is uninterpretable. Third, many of the findings are not generalizable. For example if students in the hybrid class are “confused about assignments or how to handle the mechanics of the course,” this tells me nothing about whether I am likely to find similar confusion in other online or hybrid courses. To me this finding suggests that the assignment instructions and course design were inadequate, as a truly well-designed course will help prevent confusion. Yet uninformed people will point to findings like this as evidence that students are easily confused in online / hybrid classes.
The harder, but far more meaningful questions pertain to how best to design and run a hybrid class. But even so, when this kind of research is suggested, there seems to be an implicit assumption that we will be able devise a set of magical rules or guidelines for course design that we will be able to apply uniformly. (a more sophisticated, but still flawed variant is the notion that we will define a set of class types and guidelines for running each of these kinds of classes.)
I feel that we are working at the wrong level of analysis, and using the wrong kind of research paradigms. I’m not sure what the right approach is, but it strikes me that we need to get away from an emphasis on product (the design of a course, student learning measured by a test) and think more about process For example, what design process leads to good learning environments? What actions do students take when faced with a novel course environment? How do they find material, how do they understand (or misunderstand) instructor’s expectations? Can changes be made that help the students avoid mistakes?
— CK Sep 17, 10:22 AM #
I am really tired of academics splitting hairs over the methods of study and deciding to do more and more studies of classroom vs. distance. It has been done, the question has been answered, and it works. Get over it, stop poking distance ed with a stick and just DO IT. I agree that the judgments about distance programs should be made by outcomes and competencies, not by inputs. Forget the control groups and the other classic comparative junk that people use to confuse the issue – study the competencies of the graduates and you’ll get at something that matters. Any distinction between hybrid and complete distance courses…or campus courses…is extremely unlikely to matter. Stop nit-picking about irrelevant details of the studies, admit that online and disance study are where we’re going, and start doing it. Industry figured this out years ago, but academics are still prancing around making meaningless arguments.
— Al Sep 17, 12:09 PM #
I’m just waiting for a clueless administrator to ask why my department doesn’t offer online versions of seminars.
BTW, Al of posting #16, are you really saying that all issues of quality have been settled and no studies of them are worth doing from now on? If so, see my previous paragraph.
— dionysos Sep 17, 02:25 PM #
This kind of study has been done for so many years. F2F, fully Internet dependent, hybird, or even the ITV/hybird are not an issue any more.
Those are just delivery methods and all can be effective based on the certain well design strageties/effort and situation. Who are the students, who is the instructor, the design of the cousre, the delivery of the course, the interaction among the course members, support, platform,…etc; all that are factors that changes any minute during the instruction process based on different situation. Simply, not an “effective of not effective” question will do.
— FID Sep 17, 02:31 PM #
I thought that you might want to share this with the rest of MET.
Carla
— zlateva@bu.edu Sep 18, 08:10 PM #