A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF COURSE GRADES AND RETENTION
COMPARING ONLINE AND FACE-TO-FACE CLASSES
Vickie A. Kelly
B.S. Washburn University, 1980
M.S. Central Michigan University 1991
Submitted to the Graduate Department and Faculty
of the School of Education of Baker University in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Education
In
Educational Leadership
December 2009
Copyright 2009 by Vickie A. Kelly
ii
Clinical Research Study Committee
Major Advisor
iii
ABSTRACT
Since distance education was first introduced in higher education, there has been
controversy attached to whether it is as effective as face-to-face instruction. The
explosion of Internet-driven instruction has only accelerated the discussion. This study
was undertaken in a Midwestern university technology administration program, a
bachelor’s degree completion program for students with an existing occupationally
oriented associate degree. Eight-hundred eighty-five students were identified for the
sample. A two-factor ANOVA was used to answer the first research question: Is there is a
statistically significant difference between students’ grades in online classes and
traditional face-to-face classes? Results showed no significant difference between the
grades of online and face-to-face students. Chi-square analysis was used for Research
Question 2: Is there a statistically significant difference between course retention in
online classes and traditional face-to-face classes? No significant difference was found
between course retention in online classes and face-to-face classes. Last, Research
Question 3 was answered utilizing chi-square analysis. Research Question 3 was, Is there
a statistically significant difference between program retention for students entering the
program enrolled in online classes and students entering the program enrolled in
traditional face-to-face classes? The data showed no significant difference in course
retention of students who began the program in online courses and students who began in
face-to-face courses. Implications for further action include recommendations for
expansion of online courses and programs supported by the research data. Analysis of
existing data of other online courses and programs is recommended. Recommendations
for further research included analyzing different delivery variations and continued study
iv
of bachelor’s degree completion programs. Additional recommendations consisted of
further analysis of specific retention factors affecting students in online education,
including factors such as age, gender, and GPA on entering the program.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are so many to thank for their support and help along this journey, that I ask
forgiveness for not acknowledging everyone. First and foremost, I want to thank my
husband, John Kelly, for his never-ending support as I forged along. I also would like to
thank my daughters, Jennifer and Kathleen, for their understanding when I was
distracted, and for presenting me two beautiful grandsons as part of this process.
I would like to thank my primary advisor, Dr. Susan Rogers, as well as Peg
Waterman, Dr. Carolyn Doolittle, and Dr. Tim Peterson, for their suggestions and
guidance. Dr. Rogers provided more than just encouragement in some very dark times,
and without her help, this degree would never have been completed.
I would like to thank the administration and faculty at Washburn University for
their help and support with this whole process. I cannot forget the faculty in the School of
Education Ed.D. program at Baker University as well; their experiences and
encouragement provided me with a strong foundation to complete this journey and begin
a new one.
Last but not least, I offer thanks for my support group: my sister, Kay, and my
friends, Karmey, Craig, Jill, Karen, David, and Charlsie. Without their shoulders to lean
on, I would never have completed this journey, much less started it. I thank all of you for
your patience with my lack of availability and my moods.
There were others of you along the way who offered words of encouragement,
and for that, I thank you. It is not until I began this process that I realized I had such a
large group of friends and support. For that, I will be eternally grateful.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1
Background ..............................................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................7
Research Questions ..................................................................................................7
Overview of the Methodology .................................................................................8
Delimitations ............................................................................................................9
Assumptions .............................................................................................................9
Definitions................................................................................................................9
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................11
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................12
History of Occupational Transfer Programs ..........................................................13
Distance Education ................................................................................................17
Grades as an Indicator of Student Learning ...........................................................20
Student Retention in Postsecondary Education .....................................................27
Summary ................................................................................................................34
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................35
Research Design .....................................................................................................35
Hypotheses and Research Questions .....................................................................35
Population and Sample ..........................................................................................36
vii
Data Collection ......................................................................................................38
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................39
Limitations of the Study.........................................................................................40
Summary ................................................................................................................41
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ..........................................................................................42
Descriptive Statistics ...............................................................................................42
Hypotheses Testing .................................................................................................45
Summary .................................................................................................................49
CHAPTER FIVE: INTERPRETATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................51
Introduction .............................................................................................................51
Study Summary .......................................................................................................51
Findings Related to the Literature ...........................................................................54
Conclusions .............................................................................................................56
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................59
APPENDIX A: WASHBURN UNIVERSITY IRB APPLICATION ...............................66
APPENDIX B: WASHBURN UNIVERSITY IRB APPROVAL E-MAIL .....................70
APPENDIX C: BAKER UNIVERSITY IRB PROPOSAL ..............................................72
APPENDIX D: BAKER UNIVERSITY IRB APPROVAL LETTER..............................76
APPENDIX E: TECHNOLOGY COURSE ENROLLMENTS 2002-2008 .....................78
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Technology Administration Enrollment Data.......................................................37
Table 2 Participant Age Group by Gender ........................................................................43
Table 3 Average Grades by Gender ...................................................................................44
Table 4 Course Selection by Gender .................................................................................45
Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations by Course Type and Instructor ..........................46
Table 6 Two-Factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of Delivery by Instructor ..............47
Table 7 Course Retention of Online and Face-to-Face TA Students .................................48
Table 8 Program Retention of Online and Face-to-Face TA Students ..............................49
Table E1 Technology Course Enrollments 2002-2008 for TA 300, TA 310,
TA 320 & TA 330 .................................................................................................79
Table E2 Technology Course Enrollments 2002-2008 for TA 390, TA 400, &
TA 420 ..................................................................................................................80
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Historically, postsecondary education in the United States was founded on the
principles of the European system, requiring the physical presence of professors and
students in the same location (Knowles, 1994). From 1626, with the founding of Harvard
University (The Harvard Guide, 2004), to the development of junior colleges and
vocational schools in the early 1900s (Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Jacobs & Grubb, 2003),
the higher education system developed to prepare post-high school students for one of
three separate tiers. The college and university system in the United States developed its
own set of structures designed to prepare students for baccalaureate and graduate degrees.
Junior colleges were limited to associate degrees, while vocational education institutions
offered occupational certificates. In many cases, there was inadequate recognition of the
postsecondary education offered at junior colleges and vocational education institutions,
resulting in the inability of students to transfer to 4-year institutions (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2006).
In the mid-20
th
century, some junior colleges began to provide academic,
vocational, and personal development educational offerings for members of the local
communities. During this same period, junior or community colleges developed a role as
transfer institutions for students who, because of time, preparedness, economics, or
distance, could not begin their postsecondary education at a 4-year institution (Cohen &
Brawer, 1996). Until the mid-1990s, the majority of transfer programs involved Associate
of Arts (AA) and Associate of Science (AS) degrees. Associate of Applied Science
(AAS) degrees were developed during the 1990s. The AAS degree was granted to those
2
who successfully completed the majority of their college program in vocational
education. The creation of a variety of applied baccalaureate degrees allowed students
who had previously thought of the AAS degree as a terminal program to complete a
baccalaureate degree (Kansas Board of Regents, 2002-2003).
Online education also became a strategy for students to access higher education in
the 1990s (Allen & Seaman, 2007b). The proliferation of online courses alleviated some
of the location-bound barriers to higher education, but online education was criticized as
less rigorous than traditional classroom-based course work by traditional academicians.
Russell attempted to address this argument with his 1999 meta-analysis of studies dating
from the 1920s and covering multiple delivery models, including online education.
Russell concluded there was no statistically significant difference in student achievement
between courses offered online and those offered in the traditional classroom setting.
Since the development of correspondence courses in the 1920s, researchers have
attempted to ascertain if students participating in distance education are being
shortchanged in their educational goals. No significant difference in grades has been
found in the majority of studies designed to address this issue. Studies analyzing online
student retention have shown significantly lower retention for online students. In the last
10 years, research studies have expanded to include variations of online education. These
include strictly online, hybrid courses, Web-assisted classroom settings, and the
traditional higher education course offered only as face-to-face instruction (Carmel &
Gold, 2007).
Online education continues to proliferate at the same time the number of
secondary students in the United States overall is projected to increase (National Center
3
for Education Statistics [NCES], 2006). The projected increase of potential postsecondary
students and online postsecondary options provides opportunities for increases in online
education programs and courses. In 2000, NCES reported that over 65% of students in
higher education were participating in online courses. In a 2007 study, Allen and Seaman
estimated only 16% of those enrolled in online education courses are undergraduate
students seeking their first degree, counter to the projected increase in traditional-age
students. The majority of enrollees in online education are adults updating or advancing
their credentials, creating an additional educational market for colleges and universities
seeking to expand enrollment without adding physical space (Allen & Seaman, 2007a).
For states and localities faced with a contradictory traditional-age enrollment decrease,
these figures present an untapped market for higher education courses and programs.
Background
Researchers attempted to analyze the efficacy of distance education as far back as
the 1920s when correspondence courses were created to meet the need of students not
willing to attend a traditional classroom-based higher education setting. A meta-analysis
of these studies resulted in “The No Significant Difference Phenomenon,” reported by
Russell (2001). The results of over 355 studies were compiled, comparing various modes
of delivery including correspondence, audio, television courses, and the newest wave of
computer-facilitated instruction. Following analyses of studies completed prior to 2001,
Russell concluded there was no difference in learning between students enrolled in
distance education and those completing courses in the traditional setting.
Studies completed since then have provided mixed results. Summers, Waigand,
and Whittaker (2005) found there was no difference in GPA and retention between the
4
online and traditional classroom. Arle (2002) found higher achievement by online
students, and Brown and Liedholm (2002) found GPA and student retention better in a
traditional classroom setting.
Student retention is an integral part of the student achievement conversation and
is an issue for all forms of higher education. Degree-seeking students’ overall retention
has been reported as less than 56% by NCES (2001). Long considered a problem in
higher education, attention to the distance education model has shown even lower
retention rates in online students than in students attending at the traditional college
setting (Phipps & Meristosis, 1999). Research on different modalities, such as fully
online and hybrid online courses, has produced mixed results (Carmel & Gold, 2007). No
significant trend toward increased retention of students in any of the online modalities
has been documented.
Retention studies of transfer students have primarily included traditionally defined
students transfering from a community college. Statistics have consistantly shown a
lower retention rate for students transfering from a community college to a 4-year
university than for students who began their post-high school education at a 4-year
institution (NCES, 2006). Townsend’s studies of transfer students at the University of
Missouri-Columbia also showed a lower baccalaureate retention rate for students who
had completed an AAS degree than for students beginning their education at a 4-year
institution (Townsend, 2002).
Occupationally oriented bachelor’s degree completion programs are relatively
new to higher education. Transfer programs in the liberal arts from community colleges
to 4-year institutions were common by the 1990s. Townsend (2001), in her study
5
conducted at the University of Missouri–Columbia, observed the blurring of the lines
between non-transferrable occupationally oriented undergraduate degrees and
undergraduate degrees and certificates that were easily transferred. The study conducted
by Townsend was among the first to recognize that many students who began their
education at community and technical colleges had bachelor’s degree aspirations that
grew after their completion of an occupationally-oriented degree. Laanan proposed that
the increase in institutions offering AAS degrees necessitated new ways to transfer
undergraduate credits (2003).
The setting of this study is a medium-sized Midwestern campus located in
Topeka, Kansas. Washburn University enrolls approximately 6000 students a year in
undergraduate and graduate programs, including liberal arts, professional schools, and a
law school (Washburn University, 2008). The Technology Administration (TA) program
selected for the present study began in the 1990s as a baccalaureate degree completion
program for students who had received an occupationally oriented associate degree at a
Kansas community college or through Washburn’s articulation agreement with Kansas
vocational-technical schools. This program provided students who previously had
obtained an Associate of Applied Science degree in an occupational area an opportunity
to earn a bachelor’s degree.
Peterson, Dean of Continuing Education, Washburn University, stated that in
early 1999, Washburn University began online courses and programs at the behest of a
neighboring community college (personal communication, April 18, 2008). Washburn
was asked to develop an online bachelor’s degree completion program for students
graduating from community colleges and technical colleges with an Associate of Applied
6
Science degree. The TA program was among the first programs to offer the online
bachelor’s degree completion option. The TA program offered its first online courses in
Spring 2000.
Online education at Washburn expanded to other programs and courses, to
include over 200 courses (Washburn University, 2008). The original online partnership
with two community colleges expanded to include 16 additional community colleges and
four technical colleges in Kansas, as well as colleges in Missouri, California, Wisconsin,
South Carolina, and Nebraska (Washburn University, 2008).
An initial study in 2002 of student’s course grades and retention in online courses
offered at Washburn showed no significant difference between students enrolled in online
courses and students enrolled in traditional face-to-face course work (Peterson, personal
communication, April 18, 2008). No studies of program retention have been completed.
In 2008, Atkins reported overall enrollment at Washburn University decreased
6.7% from Fall 2004 to Fall 2008, from 7400 to 6901 students. During the same period,
online course enrollment patterns increased 65%, from 3550 students to 5874 in 2007-
2008 (Washburn University, 2008). Atkins also reported that between 1998 and 2008, the
ratio of traditional post-high school age students to nontraditional students enrolling at
Washburn University reversed from 40:60 to 60:40. The shift in enrollment patterns
produced an increase in enrollment in the early part of the 21
st
century; however,
Washburn University anticipated a decrease in high school graduates in Kansas through
2016, based on demographic patterns of the state. The state figures are opposite the
anticipated increase of traditional-age students nationally (NCES, 2008). The increase in
7
distance education students in relation to the anticipated decline in traditional-age
students provided the focus for the study.
Purpose of the Study
Online education has become an important strategy for the higher education
institution that was the setting of this study. First, the purpose of the study was to
determine if there was a significant difference between the course grades of students
participating in TA online courses and their traditional classroom-based counterparts. The
second purpose of the study was to determine if there was a significant difference
between course retention of students participating in TA online courses and their
traditional classroom-based counterparts. The second part of the study was a replication
of studies comparing modes of online course delivery to traditional classroom-based
instruction (Carmel & Gold, 2007; Russell, 1999). A third purpose of the study was to
determine if there was a significant difference between program retention of students who
began the TA program in online courses and those who began the program enrolled in
traditional face-to-face courses. The study’s purpose was to expand the knowledge base
concerning online education to include its efficacy in providing baccalaureate degree
completion opportunities.
Research Questions
Roberts (2004) stated research questions guide the study and usually provide the
structure for presenting the results of the research. The research questions guiding this
study were:
8
1. Is there is a statistically significant difference between students’ grades in
online classes and traditional face-to-face classes?
2. Is there a statistically significant difference between course retention rates
in online classes and traditional face-to-face classes?
3. Is there a statistically significant difference between program retention for
students entering the program enrolled in online classes and students
entering the program enrolled in traditional face-to-face classes?
Overview of the Methodology
A quantitative study was utilized to compare grades by course, course retention,
and program retention of students enrolled in the online and traditional face-to-face TA
program at Washburn University. Archival data from the student system at Washburn
University were utilized from comparative online and traditional face-to-face classes in
two separate courses. In order to answer Research Question 1, a sample of 885 students
enrolled in online and traditional face-to-face courses was identified. The sample
included students entering the program in the Fall semesters of 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
and 2006 in both the online and traditional face-to-face classes. Two instructors were
responsible for concurrent instruction of both the online and face-to-face classes for the
period analyzed. A two-factor analysis of variance was used to analyze for the potential
difference in the dependent variables, course grades due to delivery method (online and
face-to-face), instructor (instructors A and B), and the potential interaction between the
two independent variables (Research Question 1). A chi-square test for differences
among proportions was used to analyze course and program retention (Research
Questions 2 and 3).
9
Delimitations
Roberts (2004) defined delimitations as the boundaries of the study that are
controlled principally by the researcher. The delimitations for this study were
1. Only data from 2002 through 2008 from Technology Administration
online and face-to-face courses were utilized.
2. The study was confined to students enrolled at Washburn University in the
Technology Administration program.
3. Only grades and retention were analyzed.
Assumptions
Assumptions are defined as those things presupposed in a study (Roberts, 2004).
The study was based on the following assumptions:
1. Delivery of content was consistent between online and face-to-face
courses and instructors,
2. Course objectives were the same for paired online and traditional face-to-
face courses,
3. All students enrolled in the TA program met the same criteria for
admission to the University,
4. All data entered in the Excel spreadsheets were correct,
5. All students enrolled in the TA program met the same criteria for grade
point average and program prerequisites.
10
Definitions
The following terms are defined for the purpose of this study:
Distance education. Education or training courses delivered to remote locations
via postal delivery, or broadcast by audio, video, or computer technologies (Allen, 2007).
Dropout. A dropout is defined as a student who has left school and discontinued
studies (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1998).
Face-to-face delivery. This is a course that uses no online technology; content is
delivered in person, either in written or oral form (Allen, 2007).
Hybrid course. This course is a blend of the online and face-to-face course. A
substantial proportion of the content is delivered online, typically using some online
discussions and some face-to-face meetings (Allen, 2007).
Online course. This defines a course where most or all of the content is delivered
online via computer technologies. Typically, there are no face-to-face meetings (Allen,
2007).
2+2 PLAN. The Partnership for Learning and Networking is a collaborative set of
online 2+2 baccalaureate degree programs developed by Washburn University. The
programs require completion of an associate degree from one of the partner community
or technical colleges (Washburn University, 2008).
Retention. This term refers to the completion of a course by receiving a letter
grade in a course, or a certificate of completion or degree for program completion
(Washburn University, 2008).
Web-assisted. A course that uses Web-based technology to facilitate what is
essentially a face-to-face course (Allen, 2007).
11
Organization of the Study
This study consists of five chapters. Chapter One introduced the role of distance
education in higher education. Chapter One included the background of the study, the
research questions, overview of the methodology, the delimitations of the study, and the
definition of terms. Chapter Two presents a literature review, which includes the history
of occupational postsecondary education, distance education, and studies relating to
grades and retention of students involved in distance education. Chapter Three describes
the methodology used for the research study. It includes the selection of participants,
design, data collection, and statistical procedures of the study. Chapter Four presents the
findings of the research study. Finally, Chapter Five provides a discussion of the results,
conclusions, and implications for further research and practice.
12
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents the background for research into the efficacy of distance
education in the delivery of higher education. Research studies have focused primarily on
grades as a measure of the quality of distance education courses as compared to
traditional face-to-face instruction. Utilizing grades has produced a dividing line among
education researchers concerning the use of distance education as a delivery model.
Retention in distance education has focused primarily on single courses, with little
program retention data available. Data from retention studies in higher education have
focused primarily on the traditional 4-year university student. Retention studies of
community college students have produced quantitative results; however, these studies
have been directed at community college students who identify themselves as transfer
students early in their community college careers. Retention studies of students enrolled
in occupationally oriented programs are limited.
Statistical data of higher education shows an increased use of distance education
for traditional academic courses as well as occupationally oriented courses. The increase
in distance education courses and programs has provided a new dimension to studies of
both grades and retention. The recognition of this increase, as well as questions
concerning its impact on student learning and retention, produced the impetus for this
study.
The following review of the literature represents the literature related to this
research study. Through examination of previous research, the direction of the present
study was formulated. Specifically, the chapter is organized into four sections: (a) the
13
history of occupational transfer programs; (b) the history and research of distance
education, including occupational transfer programs utilizing distance education; (c)
research utilizing grades as an indicator of student learning in online education; and (d)
research focusing on student retention in higher education, including student retention
issues in transfer education and online transfer courses and programs.
History of Occupational Transfer Programs
The measure of success in higher education has been characterized as the
attainment of a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year university. Occupationally oriented
education was considered primarily a function of job preparation, and until the 1990s was
not considered transferrable to other higher education institutions. Occupational transfer
programs are a recent occurrence within the postsecondary system that provides an
additional pathway to bachelor’s degree completion.
Historically, the postsecondary experience in the United States developed as a
three-track system. Colleges were established in the United States in 1636 with the
founding of Harvard College (The Harvard Guide, 2004). Junior colleges were first
founded in 1901 as experimental post-high school graduate programs (Joliet Junior
College History, 2008). Their role was initially as a transfer institution to the university.
When the Smith-Hughes Act was passed in 1917, a system of vocational education was
born in the United States (Jacobs & Grubb, 2003), and was designed to provide further
education to those students not viewed as capable of success in a university setting.
Vocational education, currently referred to as occupational or technical education,
was not originally designed to be a path to higher education. The first programs were
designed to help agricultural workers complete their education and increase their skills.
14
More vocational programs were developed during the early 20
th
century as
industrialization developed and as increasing numbers of skills were needed by workers
in blue-collar occupations (Jacobs & Grubb, 2003).
In the mid-20
th
century, some junior colleges expanded their programs beyond
academic selections to provide occupational development and continuing education.
Because of the geographic area from which they attracted students, junior colleges
developed a role as “community” colleges. They also solidified their role as transfer
institutions for students who, because of time, preparedness, economics, or distance,
could not begin their postsecondary education at a 4-year institution (Cohen & Brawer,
1996). Until the mid-1990s, the majority of transfer programs to 4-year universities
involved traditional academic degrees, including the Associate of Arts (AA) and
Associate of Science (AS) degrees. Occupational programs and continuing education
were viewed as terminal and non-transferrable.
In 1984, Congress authorized the Carl Perkins Vocational and Technical
Education Act (P.L. 98-524). In the legislation, Congress responded to employers’
concerns about the lack of basic skills in employees by adding academic requirements to
vocational education legislation. Vocational program curriculum was expanded to include
language arts, mathematics, and science principles, and the curriculum reflected the
context of the program. The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills
(SCANS) was created in 1990 to determine the skills young people need to succeed in the
world of work (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000). In the second Carl Perkins
reauthorization in 1990 (P.L. 105-332), Congress responded to the report, which targeted
academic and job skills, by outlining a seamless system of vocational and academic
15
education to prepare vocational students to progress into and through higher education.
This emphasis led to the development of Associate of Applied Science (AAS) degrees
during the 1990s. Granted to those who have successfully completed programs in the
applied arts and sciences for careers, AAS degrees were seen as terminal (Kansas Board
of Regents, 2002-2003).
But as one goal was attained, conversation turned to creating a pathway from
occupational associate degrees to bachelor’s degree completion. The desire of students to
continue from technical degrees to a baccalaureate was not a new idea. In a paper
presented in 1989 to the American Technical Association national conference, Troutt-
Ervin and Morgan’s overview of 2+2 programs showed acceptance of AAS degrees at
traditional universities was generally non-existent. Their suggestion for an academic
bridge from early technical education to baccalaureate programs highlighted programs
accepting AAS degrees toward baccalaureate completion were an exception rather than a
rule (Troutt-Ervin & Morgan, 1989). It was not until the late 1990s that applied
baccalaureate degrees recognized credits from technical degree students who had
previously thought of themselves in a terminal program to complete their baccalaureate
degree (Wellman, 2002).
Despite the advance of recognition of AAS degrees, standard definitions of
transfer students continued to exclude students who completed technical programs. The
U.S. Department of Education did not include students receiving an Associate of Applied
Science degree in the definition of students preparing for transfer to 4-year colleges
(Bradburn, Hurst, & Peng, 2001; Carnevale, 2006). Most states had comparable policies
in place concerning core academic curriculum, articulation agreements, transfer of credit,
16
and statewide transfer guides. There was no general recognition of occupational credit
transfer. Only a few states, including Kansas, Missouri, and Washington, allowed credits
earned in occupationally oriented degrees to transfer to 4-year institutions (Townsend,
2001). No state had set clear goals for the transference of occupational credits between
institutions or for the state as a whole (Wellman, 2002).
Despite the lack of recognition of occupational transfer credit at the federal level,
a new definition of transfer education had emerged. Initially defined as the general
education component of the first 2 years of a baccalaureate, the definition of transfer
education now included any courses that transferred to a 4-year college, regardless of the
nature of the courses (Townsend, 2001).
The line between vocational schools, community colleges, and 4-year institutions
blurred in the United States as employers and students increasingly made business
decisions regarding education and workforce development. Employers increasingly asked
for employees with academic and technical skills, as well as critical thinking skills and
personal responsibility (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000). Returning students themselves
were more attuned to the demands of the 21
st
century workforce. Their desire to return to
higher education, coupled with the economy and the variety of options available to them,
required a more adaptive higher education system (Carnevale, 2006). There was growing
demand among new and returning students for higher education opportunities responsive
to their needs. The expanding needs of the returning student provided opportunities for
higher education to respond by utilizing different delivery models.
17
Distance Education
Online education became a strategy for postsecondary institutions when the first
correspondence courses were initiated with the mail service in the early 20
th
century
(Russell, 1999). As various technologies emerged, distance education utilized television
and video models, in addition to paper-based correspondence courses. The expansion of
distance education utilizing computer technologies renewed academic debate over the
efficacy of the delivery model.
Online education utilizing the Internet became a significant factor in the 1990s,
prompting renewed evaluation of the use of distance learning opportunities (Russell,
1999, Phipps & Meristosis, 1999). In 1999–2000, the number of students who took any
distance education courses was 8.4% of total undergraduates enrolled in postsecondary
education (NCES, 2000). In 2000, the report of the Web-Based Education Commission to
the President and Congress concluded that the Internet was no longer in question as a tool
to transform the way teaching and learning was offered. The Commission recommended
that the nation embrace E-learning as a strategy to provide on-demand, high-quality
teaching and professional development to keep the United States competitive in the
global workforce. They also recommended continued funding of research into teaching
and learning utilizing web-based resources (Web-Based Education Commission, 2000).
The acceptance of the importance of the Internet for delivery of higher education opened
new opportunities for research and continued the academic debate of the quality of
instruction delivered in online education courses and programs.
In a longitudinal study from 2002-2007, The Sloan Consortium, a group of higher
education institutions actively involved in online education, began studies of online
18
education in the United States over a period of 5 years. In the first study, researchers
Allen and Seaman (2003) conducted polls of postsecondary institutions involved with
online education and found that students overwhelming responded to the availability of
online education, with over 1.6 million students taking at least one online course during
the Fall semester of 2002. Over one third of these students took all of their courses
online. The survey also found that in 2002, 81% of all institutions of higher education
offered at least one fully online or blended course (Allen & Seaman, 2003).
In their intermediate report in 2005, Allen and Seaman postulated that online
education had continued to make inroads in postsecondary education, with 65% of
schools offering graduate courses and programs face-to-face also offering graduate
courses online. Sixty-three percent of undergraduate institutions offering face-to-face
courses also offered courses online. From 2003 to 2005, the survey results showed that
online education, as a long-term strategy for institutions, had increased from 49% to 56%.
In addition, core education online course offerings had increased (Allen & Seaman,
2005).
In Allen and Seaman’s final report (2007b) for the Sloan Consortium, the
researchers reported that almost 3.5 million students participated in at least one online
course during the Fall 2006 term, a nearly 10% increase over the number reported in the
previous year. Allen and Seaman also reported a 9.7% increase in online enrollment,
compared to the 1.5% growth in overall higher education. They found by 2007, 2-year
institutions had the highest growth rates and accounted for over the half the online
enrollments in the previous 5 years. The researchers concluded, based on a survey
19
conducted as part of the research, institutions believed that improved student access was
the top reason for offering online courses and programs (Allen & Seaman, 2007b).
Community colleges began embracing distance education in the 1920s as part of
their mission to provide low-cost, time-effective education. Community colleges initially
provided correspondence courses by mail, but later switched to television and video
courses as technology improved (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). In 2001, over 90% of public 2-
year colleges in the United States provided distance education courses over the Internet
(NCES, 2001).
Vocational education, by the nature of its instructional format, was among the last
of the educational institutions to participate in distance education. Because of the
kinesthetic nature of instruction, vocational education leaders began investigating
distance education opportunities in the 1990s, relying on the method to provide only the
lecture portion of instruction. By 2004, only 31% of students enrolled in vocational
schools had participated in some form of distance education during their program of
study (NCES, 2005). In 2008, hands-on instruction in programs such as automobile
mechanics and welding, and the clinical portion of health occupations programs,
continued to be taught in the traditional classroom setting (NCES, 2008).
Analysis of data reported by the NCES indicated that distance education had
become a staple for higher education institutions. At both the 4-year and 2-year university
level, over 65% of institutions offered more than 12 million courses in 2006-2007 by
distance education. While vocational education had traditionally been more hands-on,
distance education had become more prevalent in providing opportunities for students to
participate in components of the system over the Internet (NCES, 2008).
20
Distance education became the prevalent strategy for higher education institutions
to expand their services to new and returning students, without the financial implications
of capital expansion. Higher education utilized the strategy to market to students outside
their traditional geographic reach by utilizing the power of the Internet. The increasing
demand from students of all ages for online opportunities provided new ground for the
expansion of higher education opportunities.
Grades as an Indicator of Quality of Student Learning
The grading system in the United States educational system has served as an
indicator of knowledge for over 100 years. Educators have utilized high school grades as
a sorting mechanism in American schools to determine postsecondary opportunities.
Modern society has accepted honors attainment, graduation honors, and course grades as
an indicator of knowledge acquisition in postsecondary education. Stray (2001) reported
that the use of grading in schools can be traced to the industrial revolution and the
development of factories.
William Farish of Cambridge University developed the first grading system in
higher education in 1792 (Stray, 2001). Farish mimicked the system established by
factories of the time: grade A being the best. The thought was that Farish employed the
grading system in order to teach more students, an aberration at that time when
instructors rarely had more than a few. The demand for more higher education
opportunities prompted Farish to open his class to more students, and as such, led to his
use of a sorting system. This was the first known record of grading utilized in classrooms
to measure student achievement (Stray, 2001).
21
Smallwood (1935) reported the first grading in higher education at Yale
University in 1792. Stiles, President of Yale University, directed the use of the scale in
the late 18
th
century. However, Smallwood noted it was not until 1813 that any record of
grades or marking appeared.
Using a scale of 100, philosophy and mathematic professors instituted the first use
of a marking instrument in the 1800s at Harvard. Smallwood noted early systems were
experimental, utilizing different numerical scales, with no standardized system in place
between higher education institutions. It was not until the late 1800s that faculty began
using descriptors, such as A and B, to rank students according to a predetermined
numerical scale (Smallwood, 1935).
Experimentation with evaluation of achievement continued into the early 20
th
century, when educational psychologists, including Dewey and Thorndike, attempted to
compare grading scales with intelligence testing. Thorndike’s philosophy of standardized
testing and grading survived the 20
th
century, and his quote, “Whatever exists at all exists
in some amount” (Thorndike, 1916, as cited in Ebel & Frisbie, p. 26) has been utilized in
educational measurement textbooks as a validation of the use of standards of
measurement to measure achievement (Ebel & Frisbie, 1991).
The use of grades expanded to community colleges, high schools, and elementary
schools in the early 1900s (Pressey, 1920). The use of grades throughout the educational
system is fairly standardized today with the 4.0 scale. It is this standardization that allows
comparison of grades as achievement between educational levels and institutions (Ebel &
Frisbie, 1991) and allows grades to be utilized as a measure for comparison of
educational achievement.
22
Researchers analyzing the success of community college transfer students have
traditionally studied the grades of the traditional transfer student with an AA or AS
degree. Keeley and House’s 1993 study of sophomore and junior transfer students at
Northern Illinois University analyzed “transfer shock” (p. 2) for students matriculating
from community colleges. The researchers found students who transferred from a
community college obtained a grade point average significantly lower in their first
semester than did students who began their college career at a 4-year institution.
However, the results of the longitudinal studies showed that transfer students who
persisted to graduation showed an equivalent GPA at baccalaureate completion (Keeley
& House, 1993).
Students who transferred from occupationally oriented degree programs typically
were not included in traditional studies of transfer students. While the research in general
does not include AAS students in traditional transfer data, limited conclusions were
available comparing AAS students to traditional 4-year college attendees. Townsend’s
study at the University of Missouri-Columbia (2002) showed no difference in grades at
baccalaureate graduation between students with an AA/AS degree and students with an
AAS degree.
The use of grades as an indicator of the level of student achievement has been
relied upon by studies comparing traditional classroom instruction and distance
instruction. Research analyzing the effectiveness of student learning in distance education
began with the first correspondence courses offered utilizing the mail service (Russell,
1999). The study of effectiveness of correspondence courses expanded to include new
technologies, such as television and video courses, and increased with the proliferation of
23
online educational offerings. Researchers continued to challenge the effectiveness of
learning methods not delivered in traditional higher education settings.
In 1991, Russell reviewed over 355 studies, dating from the 1930s and continuing
through the late 1980s, and found no significant difference in student learning using any
form of distance education, as compared with students in classroom-based instruction
(Russell, 1999). Russell’s conclusion formed the basis for a series of works collectively
known as “No Significant Difference.” Russell’s conclusion from his studies follows:
The fact is the findings of comparative studies are absolutely conclusive; one can
bank on them. No matter how it is produced, how it is delivered, whether or not it
is interactive, low tech or high tech, students learn equally well with each
technology and learn as well as their on-campus, face-to-face counterparts even
though students would rather be on campus with the instructor if that were a real
choice. (p. xviii)
Overwhelmingly, studies have supported Russell’s conclusions, including
Neuhauser’s (2002) study of traditional face-to-face education and online education in a
business communications class at a large urban university in North Carolina. Neuhauser
concluded there was no significant difference in pre- and post-test scores of students
enrolled in online and traditional communications classes. In addition, Neuhauser found
no significant difference in final grades, homework grades, and grades on research
papers, even though learners in the online course were significantly older than were
learners in the traditional face-to-face section.
The Summers et al. (2005) research included a comparison of student
achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class.
24
The study, conducted at the University of Missouri-Columbia, included undergraduate
nursing students who were tested on both their pre- and post-course knowledge of
statistics. Their results indicated that utilizing grades as an indicator of knowledge
showed no significant difference between the online and traditional classroom students.
In their meta-analysis, Machtmes and Asher (2002) reviewed 30 studies and concluded
there did not appear to be a difference in achievement, as measured by grades, between
distance and traditional learners.
As technology use continued to evolve in online education, various studies were
conducted to determine whether different delivery methods created a difference in the
grades of online students compared to their face-to-face counterparts. A study conducted
by Carmel and Gold (2007) supported Russell’s original conclusion by analyzing specific
types of online platforms and delivery models. Carmel and Gold’s study included hybrid
and traditional classroom-based instruction. They analyzed results from 164 students in
110 courses and found no significant difference in student achievement based on grades
between students enrolled in either delivery method.
Additional studies supporting Russell’s theory have crossed multiple content
areas and delivery models. Brown and Liedholm’s (2002) study at Michigan State
University included microeconomics students in virtual, hybrid, and traditional
classroom-based instruction. The study included 389 students in the traditional setting,
258 in the hybrid delivery section and 89 students enrolled in online education. No
significant difference in student learning as measured by end of course grades was found.
Research also showed type of course discipline is not affected by the online
delivery model. Schulman and Simms (1999) compared pretest and posttest scores of
25
students enrolled in an online course and a traditional course at Nova Southeastern
University. The researchers compared 40 undergraduate students enrolled in online
courses and 59 undergraduate students enrolled in the classroom setting of the same
course. Results indicated that the students who select online courses scored higher than
traditional students scored on the pretest results. However, posttest results showed no
significant difference for the online students versus the in-class students. Schulman and
Simms concluded that online students were learning equally as well as their classroom-
based counterparts. Reigle’s (2007) analysis across disciplines at the University of San
Francisco and the University of California found no significant difference between online
and face-to-face student grade attainment.
Shachar and Neumann (2003) conducted a meta-analysis that estimated and
compared the differences between the academic performance of students enrolled in
distance education compared to those enrolled in traditional settings over the period from
1990-2002. Eighty-six studies containing data from over 15,000 participating students
were included in their analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that in two-thirds
of the cases, students taking courses by distance education outperformed their student
counterparts enrolled in traditionally instructed courses.
Lynch, during the use of the “Tegrity” system, a brand-specific online platform at
Louisiana State University, found that students’ grades were slightly better after utilizing
the technology than when the traditional approach was used (Lynch, 2002). Initial results
of a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee study of 5000 students over 2 years indicated
that the U-Pace online students performed 12% better than their traditional Psychology
101 counterparts on the same cumulative test (Perez, 2009). Arle’s (2002) study found
26
students enrolled in online human anatomy courses at Rio Salado College scored an
average of 6.3% higher on assessments than the national achievement average. Students
were assessed using a national standardized test generated by the Human Anatomy and
Physiology Society, whose norming sample is based entirely on traditional classroom
delivery (Arle, 2002).
In a study conducted by Stephenson, Brown, and Griffin (2008), comparing three
different delivery styles (traditional, asynchronous electronic courseware, and
synchronous e-lectures), results indicated no increased effectiveness of any delivery style
when all question types were taken into account. However, when results were analyzed,
students receiving traditional lectures showed the lowest levels on questions designed to
assess comprehension.
Research found supporters in higher education academic leaders. In a 2006 survey
of Midwestern postsecondary institutions concerning their online offerings, 56 % of
academic leaders in the 11 states rated the learning outcomes in online education as the
same or superior to those in face-to-face instructional settings. The proportion of higher
education institutions believing that online learning outcomes were superior to those for
face-to-face outcomes was still relatively small, but had grown by 34% since 2003, from
10.2 to 13.7 % (Allen & Seaman, 2007b). This belief added merit to the conclusions
supported by Russell and others.
Russell’s (1999) “no significant difference” conclusion had its detractors. The
most commonly cited is Phipps and Merisotis (1999), who reviewed Russell’s original
meta-analysis (1999) and reported a much different conclusion. They concluded that the
overall quality of the original research was questionable, that much of the research did
27
not control for extraneous variables, and therefore it could not show cause and effect.
They included in their findings evidence that the studies utilized by Russell (2000) in the
meta-analysis did not use randomly selected subjects, did not take into effect the
differences among students, and did not include tests of validity and reliability.
The Phipps and Merisotis (1999) analysis included the conclusion that research
has focused too much on individual courses rather than on academic programs, and has
not taken into account differences among students. They postulated that based on these
conclusions, there is a significant difference in the learning results, as evidenced by
grades, of students participating in distance education as compared to their classroom-
based peers. Their analysis of Russell’s original work questioned both the quality and
effectiveness of research comparing distance and traditional education delivery.
While there has been ongoing conjecture that online education students are not
receiving an equivalent learning experience compared to their traditional classroom
counterparts, studies utilizing grades as an indicator of student learning have produced
little evidence of the disparity. The incidence of studies showing significant negative
differences in grades of online learners is small. Higher education institutions have
indicated their support for online education, and its continued growth has allowed studies
such as the present research to contribute to ongoing dialogue.
Student Retention in Postsecondary Education
Persistence and retention in higher education is an issue that has intrigued
researchers for over 50 years. Quantitative studies conducted in the mid-20
th
century
produced data that caused researchers to look at low retention rates in higher education
28
and search for answers. This question has continued to consume researchers and higher
education institutions.
In 1987, Tinto attempted to summarize studies of individual student retention in
higher education by proposing a theory to allow higher education administrators to
predict success and support students (Tinto, 1987). Tinto’s model of student engagement
has been in use for over 20 years as higher education administrators and faculty attempt
to explain student retention issues at universities and colleges. Tinto’s model primarily
focused on factors of student engagement: How students respond to instructors, the
higher education community itself, and students’ own engagement in learning are the
primary factors Tinto theorized as determining the student’s retention. In the concluding
remarks to his 1987 treatise on retention, Tinto acknowledged that persistence in higher
education is but one facet of human growth and development, and one that cannot
necessarily be attributed to a single factor or strategy.
Tinto’s (1987) original study of student retention included the observation that
student retention is a complicated web of events that shape student leaving and
persistence. He observed that the view of student retention had changed since the 1950s,
when students were thought to leave due to lack of motivation, persistence, and skills,
hence the name dropout. In the 1970s, research began to focus on the role of the
environment in student decisions to stay or leave. In the 1990s, Tinto proposed that the
actions of the faculty were the key to institutional efforts to enhance student retention
(Tinto, 2007). This was a significant addition to his theory, placing the cause on the
instructor instead of the student, and it has done much to influence retention strategies
29
utilized in higher education institutions (Tinto, 2007). Tinto’s studies have driven
research in both traditional retention studies and those involving distance education.
Studies of the persistence of the postsecondary student routinely focus on 4-year
postsecondary education. It is only within the last 20 years that persistence studies have
included community college students and occupational students, acknowledging that their
reasons for entering the postsecondary community are different from the traditional 4-
year higher education participant (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). With different avenues to a
baccalaureate degree more prevalent, the research into college persistence has expanded
to include other types of programs and students.
Postsecondary student retention rates routinely utilize data from longitudinal
studies of students entering in a Fall semester and completing a bachelor’s program no
more than 6 years later (NCES, 2003). The National Center for Education Statistics
reported that 55% of those seeking a baccalaureate degree would complete in 6 years
(NCES, 2003). The report acknowledged institutions are unable to follow students who
transfer to other institutions; they are able to report only the absence of enrollment in
their own institution.
Research has also found a large gap between community college entrants and 4-
year college entrants in rates of attaining a bachelor’s degree. Dougherty (1992) reported
that students entering community college receive 11 to 19% fewer bachelor’s degrees
than students beginning at a 4-year university. Dougherty postulated that the lower
baccalaureate attainment rate of community college entrants was attributable to both their
individual traits and the institution they entered (Dougherty, 1992).
30
Studies of student retention of community college also vary based on the types of
students. Community college retention rates are routinely reported as lower than
traditional 4-year institutions (NCES, 2007). Cohen and Brawer (1996) attributed the
differences in retention to the difference in the mission. In many instances, students did
not enroll in a community college in order to attain a degree (Cohen & Brawer, 1996).
The most recent longitudinal study in 1993 showed a retention rate of 55.4% of students
after 3 years (NCES, 2001).
Of community college students, only 60.9% indicated a desire to transfer later to a
baccalaureate degree completion program (NCES, 2003). While retention data collected
by the federal government (NCES, 2003) did not include students with an AAS degree,
Townsend’s studies of the transfer rates and baccalaureate attainment rates of students in
Missouri who had completed an Associate of Arts and students who had completed an
Associate of Applied Science degree was 61% compared to 54% (Townsend, 2001).
Vocational or occupational programs have reported retention rates as “program
completion,” a definition involving completion of specific tasks and competencies
instead of grades and tied to a limited program length. This state and federal requirement
indicates program quality and ensures continued federal funding. In 2001, the U.S.
Department of Education reported a 60.1% completion rate of postsecondary students
enrolled in occupational education (NCES, 2007). Until 1995, the reasons for students
leaving was neither delineated nor reported; it was not until federal reporting
requirements under the Carl Perkins Act of 1994 that institutions were required to explore
why students were not retained in vocational programs (P.L. 105-332).
31
Distance education provided a new arena for the study of student persistence.
Theorists and researchers have attempted to utilize Tinto’s model of student persistence
to explain retention issues involved with distance education. However, Rovai (2003)
analyzed the differing student characteristics of distance learners as compared to the
traditional students targeted by Tinto’s original models and concluded that student
retention theories proposed from that population were no longer applicable to distance
education learners. Rovai proposed that distance educators could address retention in
ways that traditional higher education has not. He suggested that distance educators
utilize strategies such as capitalizing on students’ expectations of technology, addressing
economic benefits and specific educational needs to increase student retention in courses
(Rovai, 2003).
The expanded use of technology created a distinct subset of research into student
retention issues. In 2004, Berge and Huang developed an overview of models of student
retention, with special emphasis on models developed to explain the retention rates in
distance education. Their studies primarily focused on the variables in student
demographics and external factors, such as age and gender, which influence persistence
and retention in online learning. Berge and Huang found that traditional models of
student retention such as Tinto’s did not acknowledge the differences in student
expectations and goals that are ingrained in the student’s selection of the online learning
option.
Other researchers have attempted to study retention issues specifically for online
education. In a meta-analysis, Nora and Snyder (2009) found the majority of studies of
online education focused on students’ individual characteristics and individual
32
perceptions of technology. Nora and Snyder concluded that researchers attempt to utilize
traditional models of student engagement to explain student retention issues in distance or
online learning courses, with little or no success. This supported Berge and Huard’s
conclusions. Nora and Snyder (2009) also noted a dearth of quantitative research.
Few quantitative studies exist that support higher or equal retention in online
students compared to their classroom-based counterparts. One example is the Carmel and
Gold (2007) study. They found no significant difference in student retention rates
between students in distance education courses and their traditional classroom-based
counterparts. The study utilized data from 164 students, 95 enrolled in classroom-based
courses and 69 enrolled in a hybrid online format. Participants randomly self-selected and
were not all enrolled in the same course, introducing variables not attributed in the study.
The majority of quantitative studies instead concluded there is a higher retention
rate in traditional classrooms than in distance education. In the Phipps and Merisotis
(1999) review of Russell’s original research, which included online education, results
indicated that research has shown even lower retention rates in online students than in
students attending classes in the traditional college setting. The high dropout rate among
distance education students was not addressed in Russell’s meta-analysis, and Phipps and
Merisotis found no suitable explanation in the research. They postulated that the
decreased retention rate documented within distance education studies skews
achievement data by excluding the dropouts.
Diaz (2002) found a high drop rate for online students compared to traditional
classroom-based students in an online health education course at Nova Southeastern.
Other studies have supported the theory that retention of online students is far below that
33
of the traditional campus students. In 2002, Carr, reporting for The Chronicle of Higher
Education, noted that online courses routinely lose 50 % of students who originally
enrolled, as compared to a retention rate of 70-75% of traditional face-to-face students.
Carr reported dropout rates of up to 75% in online courses as a likely indicator of the
difficultly faced in retaining distance education students who do not routinely meet with
faculty. The data have not been refuted.
As community colleges began utilizing distance education, retention rates were
reported as higher than traditional students (Nash, 1984). However, the California
Community College System report for Fall 2008 courses showed inconsistent retention
results for distance education learners, varying by the type of course. Results indicated
equivalent retention rates for online instruction compared to traditional coursework in the
majority of courses. Lower retention rates were indicated in online engineering, social
sciences, and mathematics courses as compared to traditional classroom instructional
models (California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, 2009).
Due to the limited number of vocational/technical or occupational courses taught
in the online mode, there was little data on student retention. In 1997, Hogan studied
technical course and program completion of students in distance and traditional
vocational education and found that course completion rates were higher for distance
education students. However, program completion rates were higher for traditional
students than for students enrolled in distance education (Hogan, 1997).
In summary, studies of retention have focused primarily on student characteristics
while acknowledging that postsecondary retention rates vary according to a variety of
factors. Research showed mixed results concerning the retention rate of online students,
34
though quantitative data leans heavily toward a lower course retention rate in online
students. Data from 4-year universities have shown lower retention rates for online
students than for traditional face-to-face students, while community colleges have shown
inconsistent results. Data from vocational-technical education has been limited, but
course retention rates are higher for online students, while program retention rates are
lower. No significant research factor affecting retention has been isolated between
students in online baccalaureate completion programs and students participating in
traditional classroom-based settings.
Summary
Research studies have been conducted analyzing student retention in higher
education, transfer and retention of students from community colleges to universities, the
impact of distance education, and student achievement and retention factors related to
distance education. However, no comparative research was identified that compared the
achievement and retention of students participating in an occupationally oriented transfer
program utilizing both online education and traditional classroom-based instruction.
Chapter Three addresses the topics of research design, hypotheses, and research
questions. Additionally, population and sample, data collection, and data analysis are
discussed.
35
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a significant difference
between course grades of students enrolled in online Technology Administration courses
and their traditional classroom-based counterparts. The study also examined if there is a
significant difference between course retention and program retention of students
enrolled in online Technology Administration courses and their traditional classroom-
based counterparts. The methodology employed to test the research hypotheses is
presented in this chapter. The chapter is organized into the following sections: research
design, hypotheses and research questions, population and sample, data collection, data
analysis, and summary.
Research Design
A quantitative, quasi-experimental research design was selected to study grades,
course retention, and program retention in students enrolled in the Technology
Administration program. The design was chosen as a means to determine if significant
differences occur between online and face-to-face students by examining numerical
scores from all participants enrolled, and retention rates in both courses and programs in
the Technology Administration program.
Hypotheses and Research Questions
This study focused on three research questions with accompanying hypotheses.
The research questions and hypotheses guiding the study follow.
36
Research Question 1: Is there is a statistically significant difference between
students’ grades in online classes and traditional face-to-face classes?
H1: There is a statistically significant difference in course grades of students
participating in online courses and students enrolled in a traditional classroom setting at
the 0.05 level of significance.
Research Question 2: Is there a statistically significant difference between course
retention rate of students in online classes and traditional face-to-face classes?
H2: There is a statistically significant difference in student course retention
between students participating in online courses and students enrolled in face-to-face
courses at the 0.05 level of significance.
Research Question 3: Is there a statistically significant difference in program
retention between students who entered the program in online classes and students who
entered the program in traditional face-to-face classes?
H3: There is a statistically significant difference in program retention between
students who begin the Technology Administration program in online courses and
students who begin in face-to-face courses at the 0.05 level of significance.
Population and Sample
The two populations selected were students enrolled in online and face-to-face
courses. The sample included students enrolled in Technology Administration courses.
Student enrollment was analyzed for all Technology Administration courses in the
program sequence to determine the number of samples available in online and face-to-
face classes. The course enrollment data for the sample are outlined in Table E1. The
subsample of the data utilized for the study is presented in Table 1.
37
Table 1
Technology Administration Enrollment Data
Year Instructor
TA 300 TA310
FTF OL FTF OL
Spring 02 A 14 25
Fall 02 A 11 20 9 26
Spring 03 A 29 38
Fall 03 A 20 29 13 34
Spring 04 B 32 25
Fall 04 B 18 32 10 28
Spring 05 B 23 31
Fall 05 B 15 28 11 28
Spring 06 B 13 30
Fall 06 B 14 24 24 32
Spring 07 B 15 33
Fall 07 B 16 23 27 30
Spring 08 B 22 3529
TOTAL 94 156 242 395
Note: TA 300 Evolution and Development of Technology, TA 310 Technology and Society
The subsample for hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 included all students enrolled in
two entry-level courses required for completion of the Technology Administration
program: TA 300 Evolution and Development of Technology, and TA 310 Society and
38
Technology. The university offered the courses in online and face-to-face formats during
the period of the study. Two instructors, identified as A and B, were involved with
teaching the online and face-to-face courses. Two courses were selected that met the
following criteria: (a) the same faculty member taught both courses, (b) the courses were
offered over the period of the study consistently in online and face-to-face instruction,
and (c) the syllabi for simultaneous online and face-to-face sections were identical.
For hypothesis 3, data included records of all students enrolled in TA 300
Evolution and Development of Technology for the Fall semesters of 2002, 2003, 2004,
2005, and 2006. The course was selected for inclusion in the study based on the
following criteria: (a) student enrollment in the course was the result of declaration of the
Technology Administration program major and (b) parameters of the study allowed
students 2 or more years to complete the program requirements. For the purpose of the
study, all student names were removed.
Data Collection
An Institutional Review Board (IRB) form was prepared for Washburn University
approval prior to data collection. The study was designated as an exempt study. The
Washburn University IRB form is provided in Appendix A. Approval of the IRB was
transmitted by e-mail. A copy is located in Appendix B. In addition, an IRB was
submitted to Baker University. The form is located in Appendix C. The Baker IRB
approval letter is located in Appendix D.
Washburn University had two types of data collection systems in place during the
period identified for the study, Spring 2002 through Spring 2008. The AS 400 data
collection system generated paper reports for 2002 and 2003. The researcher was allowed
39
access to paper records for 2002 and 2003. Enrollment results for all technology
administration sections for 2002-2003 were entered manually into an Excel spreadsheet.
In 2004, the University transferred to the Banner electronic student data
management system. All records since 2004 were archived electronically and were
retrieved utilizing the following filters for data specific to students enrolled in the
identified Technology Administration courses: TA course designation and specific
coding for year and semester to be analyzed (01 = Spring semester, 03 = Fall semester,
200X for specified year). Results retrieved under the Banner system were saved as an
Excel spreadsheet by the researcher. The course enrollment data for the sample are
presented in Tables E1 and E2.
Student transcripts and records were analyzed to determine program completion
or continued enrollment in the program for program retention analysis. Documents
examined included paper student advising files located within the Technology
Administration department and specific student records housed within the Banner
reporting system. Technology Administration course TA 300 was selected based on the
following: (a) It is a required entry course only for Technology Administration majors,
and (b) TA 310 is a dual enrollment course for business department majors.
Data Analysis
Data analysis for all hypothesis testing was conducted utilizing SPSS software
version 16.0. The software system provided automated analysis of the statistical
measures.
To address Research Question 1, a two-factor analysis of variance was used to
analyze for a potential difference in delivery method (online and face-to-face), potential
40
difference in instructor (instructors A and B), and potential interaction between the two
factors. When the analysis of variance reveals a difference between the levels of any
factor, Salkind (2008) referred to this as the main effect. This analysis produces three F
statistics: to determine if a difference in grades of online students as compared to their
classroom based counterparts was affected by a main effect for delivery, a main effect for
instructor, and for interaction between instructor and delivery.
Chi-square testing was selected to address research questions 2 and 3. The
rationale for selecting chi-square testing was to observe whether a specific distribution of
frequencies is the same as if it were to occur by chance (Salkind, 2008). If the obtained
chi-square value is greater than the critical value, it indicates there is sufficient evidence
to believe the research hypothesis is true. For research question 2, a chi-square test for
differences between proportions analyzed course retention of online and face-to-face
students at the end of semester. For Research Question 3, a chi-square test for differences
between proportions analyzed program retention comparing students who began the
program in the online section of TA 300 to the students who began in the face-to-face
section.
Limitations of the Study
Roberts (2004) defined the limitations of the study as those features of the study
that may affect the results of the study or the ability to generalize the results. The
limitations of this study included (a) potential for data entry error, (b) curriculum
modifications not reflected in the syllabi made by instructors over the period of the study,
(c) behavior of the instructors during delivery in the two different formats, and (d)
41
rationale of students for selecting one course delivery method over another. These may
affect the generalizability of this study to other populations.
Summary
This chapter described the research design, population and sample, hypotheses,
data collection, and analysis used in this research study. Statistical analysis using two-
way analysis of variance and chi-square were used to determine if there are significant
statistical differences in the course grades, course retention, and program retention of
students enrolled in online classes as compared to their face-to face counterparts. The
results of this study are presented in Chapter Four.
42
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
The study had three main purposes. The first purpose was to determine if there
was a difference in grades between students in online classes and students in traditional
face-to-face classes in the Technology Administration program. In addition, the study
was designed to examine the difference in course retention rates of students in the online
classes as compared to the face-to-face classes. The third part of the study was designed
to examine program retention rates of students who began the program in online classes
and students who began the program in traditional face-to-face classes.
This chapter begins with the descriptive statistics for the sample: gender, age,
grades by gender, and course selection of students in online or face-to-face courses by
gender. From the three research questions, research hypotheses were developed, and the
results of statistical analyses used to test each hypothesis are presented.
Descriptive Statistics
Demographic data for the sample was collected from the student data system for
2002 through 2009. The descriptive statistics presented below include gender (n = 884),
age (n = 880), grades by gender (n = 884) and course selection online or face-to-face by
gender (n = 884).
Table 2 describes the cross-tabulation of the frequencies for gender and of the
sample selected for the study. The mean age for the sample tested was 31.06 years, with a
standard deviation of 9.46 years. The age range of the sample was from 18 to 66 years.
One participant did not report gender. Age was not available for three participants.
43
Table 2
Participant Age Group by Gender (n=880)
Age Range By Years
< 20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69
Female 0 198 121 62 29 3
Male 5 281 104 53 19 5
Note: Gender not reported for one participant; Age not reported for four participants
Females = 413 Males = 467
Table 3 presents the frequency of course grades by gender and total number of
students receiving each grade. Grades were distributed across the continuum, with
slightly more females than males receiving A’s, more males than females receiving B’s,
C’s and F’s, and an equal distribution of students receiving D’s. More males withdrew
from classes than did females.
44
Table 3
Average Grades by Gender (n=884)
Grades Female Male Total
A 245 208 453
B 53 79 132
C 32 70 102
D 17 16 33
F 37 55 92
No Credit 1 0 1
Passing 0 1 1
Withdraw 25 42 67
Withdraw Failing 3 0 3
Total 413 471 884
Note: Gender not reported for one participant
Table 4 presents the course selection patterns of male and female students.
Overall, more students selected online courses than face-to-face courses. Females and
males enrolled in online courses in equal numbers; however, proportionally more females
(68.7%) chose the online instructional format instead of face-to-face compared with
males (60.1%).
45
Table 4
Course Selection by Gender (n=884)
Course Type Female Male Total
Face-to-face 129 184 313
Online 284 287 571
Total 413 471 884
Note: Gender not reported for one participant
Hypothesis Testing
H1: There is a statistically significant difference in the course grades of students
enrolled in online classes and students enrolled in a traditional classroom setting at the
0.05 level of significance. The sample consisted of 815 students enrolled in online and
face-to-face Technology Administration courses at Washburn University. A two-factor
analysis of variance was used to analyze for the potential difference in course grades due
to delivery method (online and face-to-face), the potential difference due to instructor
(instructors A and B), and the potential interaction between the two independent
variables.
Mean and standard deviation for grades were calculated by delivery type and
instructor. Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics. The mean of grades by delivery
showed no significant difference between online and face-to-face instruction.
Additionally, no significant difference in mean grade was evident when analyzed by
instructor.
46
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations by Course Type and Instructor
Course type Instructor Mean Standard
Deviation
n
Face-to-face A 3.0690` 1.41247 29
B 2.9586 1.39073 266
Total 2.9695 1.39084 295
Online A 2.9024 1.52979 41
B 3.0271 1.35579 479
Total 3.0271 1.36911 520
Total A 2.9714 1.47414 70
B 3.0027 1.36783 745
Total 3.000 1.37635 815
The results of the two-factor ANOVA, presented in Table 6, indicated there was
no statistically significant difference in grades due to delivery method (F = 0.078, p =
0.780, df = 1, 811). This test was specific for hypothesis 1. In addition, there was no
statistically significant difference in grades due to instructor (F = 0.002, p = .967, df = 1,
811), and no significant interaction between the two factors (F = 0.449, p = 0.503, df = 1,
811). The research hypothesis was not supported.
47
Table 6
Two-Factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of Delivery by Instructor
df
F p
Delivery 1 0.148 0.780
Instructor 1 0.003 0.967
Delivery*Instructor 1 0.449 0.503
Error 811
Total 815
H2: There is a statistically significant difference in student course retention
between students enrolled in online courses and students enrolled in face-to-face courses
at the 0.05 level of significance. The sample consisted of 885 students enrolled in TA 300
and TA 320 online and face-to-face courses. The hypothesis testing began with the
analysis of the contingency data presented in Table 7. The data are organized with course
selection (online or face-to-face) as the row variable and retention in the course as the
column variable. Data were included in the retained column if a final grade was reported
for participant. Participants who were coded as withdraw or withdraw failing were
labeled as not retained. Chi-square analysis was selected to observe whether a specific
distribution of frequencies is the same as if it were to occur by chance (Roberts, 2004).
The result of the chi square testing (X
2
= 2.524, p = .112, df = 1, 884) indicated
there was no statistically significant difference between retention of students enrolled in
online courses compared to students enrolled in face-to-face courses in the TA program.
Additional results indicated that 93.92% (294/313) of the online students were retained,
48
compared to 90.89% (519/571) of the face-to-face students. The research hypothesis was
not supported.
Table 7
Course retention of online and face-to-face TA students
Retained Not retained Total
Face-to-face students 294 19 313
Online students 519 52 571
Total 813 71 884
H3: There is a statistically significant difference in program retention between
students who begin the Technology Administration program in online courses and
students who begin in face-to-face courses at the 0.05 level of significance. The sample
consisted of 249 students enrolled in TA 300 in the online and face-to-face courses from
Fall 2002 through Fall 2008. The hypothesis testing began with the analysis of the
contingency data located in Table 8. The table is organized with course selection (online
or face-to-face) as the row variable and program retention as the column variable. Data
were included in the retention column if students had successfully met requirements for a
Bachelors of Applied Science in Technology Administration or if they were enrolled in
the program in Spring 2009. Data were included in the non-retained column if students
had not fulfilled degree requirements and they were not enrolled in Spring 2009. Chi-
square analysis was selected to observe whether a specific distribution of frequencies is
the same as if it were to occur by chance (Roberts, 2004).
49
The result of the chi-square testing (X
2
= .132, p = .717, df = 1, 249) indicated
there was no statistically significant difference between the program retention rate of
students who began the TA program in the online courses compared to the students who
began the program in the face-to-face courses. Additional results showed that 91.57%
(163/178) of students who began in online courses were retained compared to 92.96%
(66/71) of students who began the TA program in face-to-face courses. The research
hypothesis was not supported.
Table 8
Program retention of online and face-to-face TA students
Retained Not retained Total
Face-to-face 66 5 71
Online 163 15 178
Total 229 20 249
Summary
In this chapter, an introduction provided a summary of the analysis and statistical
testing and in the order in which it was presented. This was followed by descriptive
statistics of the sample, including age range of participants, grades by gender, and course
selection by gender.
Results from testing of H1 revealed no significant difference between course
grades of online students and students enrolled in traditional face-to-face classes. Chi-
square testing was utilized for testing of H2. Results indicated there was no significant
50
difference in course retention of students enrolled in online courses and students enrolled
in traditional face-to-face courses. H3 was also tested utilizing chi-square testing. The
results indicated no significant difference in program retention of students who began the
TA program in online courses and students who began in traditional face-to-face courses.
Chapter Five provides a summary of the study, discussion of the findings in relationship
to the literature, implications for practice, recommendations for further research, and
conclusions.
51
CHAPTER FIVE
INTERPRETATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
In the preceding chapter, the results of the analysis were reported. Chapter Five
consists of the summary of the study, an overview of the problem, purpose statement and
research questions, review of the methodology, major findings, and findings related to the
literature. Chapter Five also contains implications for further action and
recommendations for further research. The purpose of the latter sections is to expand on
the research into distance education, including implications for expansion of course and
program delivery and future research. Finally, a summary is offered to capture the scope
and substance of what has been offered in the research.
Study Summary
The online delivery of course content in higher education has increased
dramatically in the past decade. Allen and Seaman (2007a) reported that almost 3.5
million students participated in at least one online course during the Fall 2006 term, a
nearly 10% increase over the number reported in the previous year. They also reported a
9.7% increase in online enrollment compared to the 1.5% growth in overall higher
education. As online delivery has grown, so has criticism of its efficacy.
Online delivery of education has become an important strategy for the institution
that is the setting of this study. The purpose of this study was three-fold. The first purpose
of the study was to determine if there was a significant difference between the course
grades of students participating in TA online courses and their traditional classroom-
based counterparts. The second purpose of the study was to determine if there was a
52
significant difference between course retention of students participating in TA online
courses and their traditional classroom-based counterparts. A third purpose of the study
was to determine if there was a significant difference between program retention of
students who began the TA program in online courses and those who began the program
enrolled in traditional face-to-face courses. The study was designed to expand the
knowledge base concerning online education and its efficacy in providing baccalaureate
degree completion opportunities.
The research design was a quantitative study to compare course grades, course
retention, and program retention of students enrolled in the online and traditional face-to-
face TA program at Washburn University. Archival data from the student system at
Washburn University was utilized to compare online and traditional face-to-face students.
In order to answer Research Question 1, a sample of students enrolled in TA 300 and TA
310 online and traditional face-to-face courses was analyzed. The sample included
students entering the program in the Fall semesters of 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
Two instructors were responsible for concurrent instruction of both the online and face-
to-face classes for the period analyzed. A two-factor analysis of variance was used to
analyze for a potential difference in the dependent variable, course grades, due to
delivery method (online and face-to-face), the instructor (instructors A and B), and the
potential interaction between the two independent variables (Research Question 1).
A chi-square test for differences among proportions was used to analyze both
course and program retention (Research Questions 2 and 3). For Research Question 2,
archived data from the Washburn University student system was analyzed for students
enrolled in TA 300 and TA 310. Additional variables identified for this sample included
53
course selection and instructor (A or B). For Research Question 3, archived data from the
Washburn University system was used, which identified students with declared
Technology Administration majors who began the TA program enrolled in online and
face-to-face courses. A single gatekeeper course (TA 300) was identified for testing. Two
instructors (A and B) were responsible for instruction during the testing period.
A two-factor ANOVA was utilized to test H1: There is a statistically significant
difference in course grades of students participating in online courses and students
enrolled in a traditional classroom setting at the 0.05 level of significance. ANOVA
testing was utilized to account for the two delivery methods and two instructors involved
for the period of the study. The results of the test indicated there was no statistically
significant difference in grades due to delivery method. The results of the testing also
indicated no statistically significant difference in grades due to instructor and no
interaction between the two independent variables. The research hypothesis was not
supported.
To test the next hypothesis, chi-square testing was utilized. H2: There is a
statistically significant difference in student course retention between students
participating in online courses and students enrolled in face-to-face courses at the 0.05
level of significance. The result of the chi-square testing indicated there was no
statistically significant difference in course retention of students enrolled in online
courses and students enrolled in face-to-face courses in the TA program. The research
hypothesis was not supported.
To test the final hypothesis, chi-square testing was also used. H3: There is a
statistically significant difference in program retention between students who begin the
54
Technology Administration program in online courses and students who begin in face-to-
face courses at the 0.05 level of significance. The result of the chi-square testing
indicated there was no statistically significant difference in the program retention rate of
students who began the TA program in the online courses and students who began the
program in the face-to-face courses. The research hypothesis was not supported. Testing
found that course retention was high in both formats, leading to interpretation that higher
results may be due to the age of participants or prior degree completion.
The results found no significant difference in grades, course, or program retention
for students in online TA courses and students enrolled in traditional face-to-face
instruction. The implication of these results compared to current literature is discussed in
the next section.
Findings Related to the Literature
Online education has become a strategy for higher education to provide
instruction to students limited by distance or time, or who, for other reasons, do not wish
to attend traditional classroom-based university classes. Additionally, online education
allows higher education institutions to expand their geographic base. Institutions have
utilized distance education for over a century to provide instruction, but it was only
within the last two decades that instruction over the Internet had replaced
correspondence, television, and video courses as the method of choice for delivery
(Russell, 1999).
Utilizing grades as a measure of achievement, meta-analyses conducted by
Russell (1999), Shachar and Neumann (2003), and Machtmes and Asher (2002) found no
significant difference in grades of online students and traditional classroom-based
55
students. These analyses utilized multiple studies of course information, comparing
grades of online students and traditional face-to-face students, primarily utilizing t tests
as the preferred methodology. The results of previous research were supported by the
present study. Additionally, this study went further, analyzing data over more than one
semester, controlling for the effect of different instructors. These results were contrary to
the conclusion reached by Phipps and Merisotis (1999).
The second purpose of the study was to determine if a significant difference
existed between the course retention of students enrolled in online TA courses and
students enrolled in face-to-face courses. Meta-analyses conducted by Phipps and
Merisotis (1999) and Nora and Snyder (2009) concluded a much lower course retention
rate in online students as compared to their face-to-face counterparts. The previous meta-
analyses examined retention of online students and traditional face-to-face students in
distinct courses, utilizing t tests as the primary methodology. The chosen method of t
tests was used instead of the chi square testing due to the limitations of the studies to one
course taught by one instructor, limited to one semester or cycle. Carr (2002) reported in
The Chronicle of Higher Education that retention of online students was 50% less than
that of traditional face-to-face students. Carr’s results were based on the examination of
longitudinal retention data from universities as reported to the United States Department
of Education.
The results of the present study found no significant difference in the course
retention rates. These results are supported by the findings of Carmel and Gold (2007) in
which they reported no significant difference in course retention rates of online students
compared to traditional face-to-face students in their analysis of students in multiple
56
courses in disciplines across a 4-year university. The present study expanded those
results, examining course data in the same discipline over a 6-year period and controlling
for delivery by two separate instructors.
Research into program completion rates of AAS students has been conducted
primarily in traditional university settings, including Townsend’s (2002) studies at the
University of Missouri-Columbia. Townsend’s results showed a lower baccalaureate
completion rate for students entering with an AAS than students who transferred to 4-
year universities with an AA degree. Studies by Hogan (1997) of vocational-education
programs also found a lower program completion rate for online students compared to
students in traditional delivery vocational education programs. Analysis of the data in the
current study showed no significant difference in program completion rate of students
who began in online TA courses as compared to students who began the program in face-
to-face courses.
Conclusions
The use of distance education for postsecondary instruction, primarily in the form
of the Internet, has both changed and challenged the views of traditional university-based
instruction. Multiple studies have been designed in an effort to examine whether online
students have the same level of academic achievement as their traditional higher
education peers. The present study agrees with the research indicating there is no
statistically significant difference in the grades of online students and their face-to-face
counterparts. In addition, with student retention an issue for all postsecondary
institutions, the data from previous studies indicated a lower retention rate for online
students than for their traditional face-to-face classmates. The current study contradicted
57
those arguments. In the following sections, implications for action, recommendations for
research, and concluding remarks are addressed.
Implications for Action
As postsecondary institutions move into the 21
st
century, many have examined
issues of student recruitment and retention in an effort to meet the demands of both their
students and their communities. The majority of postsecondary institutions have initiated
online education as a strategy to recruit students from beyond their traditional geographic
areas. This study supported existing research utilizing grades as a measure of
achievement and should alleviate doubt that online students are shortchanged in their
education. The transition of existing face-to-face to courses to an online delivery model
can be accomplished without sacrificing achievement of course and program goals.
The study also examined course and program retention data, finding no significant
differences between online and traditional students in the TA program. The findings of
this study support the expansion of additional online courses and programs within the
School of Applied Studies.
Finally, this study can provide the basis for further action, including analyzing
other programs and courses offered in the online format by the University. The analysis
of other programs offered in an online delivery model would enhance further
development of online courses and programs.
Recommendations for Future Research
Distance education delivery has expanded dramatically with the use of the
Internet for online instruction. The present study could be continued in future years to
measure the effects of specific curriculum delivery models and changes made to online
58
delivery platforms. In addition, the study could be expanded to include specific
characteristics of student retention named in the literature, such as examining whether the
age and entering GPA of students provides any insight into course and program retention.
The study could also be expanded to include other universities with similar
baccalaureate-degree completion programs and other disciplines. Because the body of
research is limited concerning the baccalaureate-degree completion of students who begin
their postsecondary education in career-oriented instruction, there is value in continuing
to study baccalaureate completion rates, both in an online format and in more
traditionally based settings.
Concluding Remarks
The current study examined a Technology Administration program that has been
offered in both online and face-to-face format, utilizing data from Fall 2002 through
Spring 2008. The TA program was developed to allow students who had completed an
occupationally oriented AAS degree to complete a bachelor’s degree program. Three
hypotheses were tested in this study, examining course grades, course retention, and
program retention of students enrolled in online and face-to-face courses in Technology
Administration. No significant difference was found for the three hypotheses.
These results form a strong foundation for expanding online courses and
programs at Washburn University. By addressing two of the major concerns of educators,
achievement and retention, the study results allow expansion of online courses and
programs to benefit from data-driven decision-making. Other institutions can and should
utilize data to examine existing online course and program data.
59
REFERENCES
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Seizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of
online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Needham, MA: The Sloan
Consortium.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United
States, 2005. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007a). Making the grade: Online education in the United
States. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007b). Online nation: Five years of growth in online
learning. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Arle, J. (2002). Rio Salado College online human anatomy. In C. Twigg, Innovations in
online learning: Moving beyond no significant difference (p. 18). Troy, NY:
Center for Academic Transformation.
Atkins, T. (2008, May 13). Changing times bring recruiting challenges at WU. Retrieved
May 15, 2008, from CJOnline Web site at http://cjonline.com/stories/
051308/loc_278440905.shtml
Berge, Z., & Huang, L. P. (2004, May). A model for sustainable student retention: A
holistic perspective on the student dropout problem with special attention to e-
learning. American Center for the Study of Distance Education. Retrieved April
17, 2009, from DEOSNEWS Web site at
http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosarchives.asp
60
Bradburn, E., Hurst, D., & Peng, S. (2001). Community college transfer rates to 4-year
institutions using alternative definitions of transfer. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Brown, B. W., & Liedholm, C. (2002, May). Can Web courses replace the classroom in
principles of microeconomics? The American Economic Review, 92, 444-448.
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. (2009, April 20). Retention rates for
community colleges. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from
https://misweb.cccco.edu/mis/onlinestat/ret_suc_rpt.cfm?timeout=800
Carmel, A. & Gold, S. S.. (2007). The effects of course delivery modality on student
satisfaction and retention and GPA in on-site vs. hybrid courses. Retrieved
September 15, 2008, from ERIC database. (Doc. No. ED496527)
Carnevale, D. (2006, November 17). Company's survey suggests strong growth potential
for online education. The Chronicle of Higher Education , p. 35.
Carr, S. (2000, February 11). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is
keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education , pp. 1-5.
Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (1996). The American community college. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Diaz, D. (2002, May-June). Online drop rates revisited. Retrieved April 8, 2008, from
The Technology Source Archives Web site at
http://www.technologysource.org/article/online_drop_rates-revisited/
Dougherty, K. J. (1992). Community colleges and baccalaureate attainment. The Journal
of Higher Education, 63, 188-214.
61
Ebel, R., & Frisbie, D. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement. Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
The Harvard guide. (2004). Retrieved May 20, 2008, from
http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide
Hogan, R. (1997, July). Analysis of student success in distance learning courses
compared to traditional courses. Paper presented at Sixth Annual Conference
on Multimedia in Education and Industry, Chattanoga, TN.
Jacobs, J., & Grubb, W. N. (2003). The federal role in vocational education. New York:
Community College Research Center.
Joliet Junior College history. (2008). Retrieved May 20, 2008, from Joliet Junior College
Web site at http://www.jjc.edu/campus_info/history/
Kansas Board of Regents. (2002-2003). Degree and program inventory. Retrieved May
14, 2008, from http://www.kansasregents.org
Keeley, E. J., & House, J. D. (1993). Transfer shock revisited: A longitudinal study of
transfer academic performance. Paper presented at the 33
rd
Annual Forum of the
Association for Institutional Research, Chicago, IL.
Knowles, M. S. (1994). A history of the adult education movement in the United States.
Melbourne, FL: Krieger.
Laanan, F. (2003). Degree aspirations of two-year students. Community College Journal
of Research and Practice, 27, 495-518.
Lynch, T. (2002). LSU expands distance learning program through online learning
solution. T H E Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 29(6), 47.
62
Machtmes, K., & Asher, J. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses
in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 27-41.
Gilman, E. W., Lowe, J., McHenry, R., & Pease, R. (Eds.). (1998). Merriam-Webster’s
collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam.
Nash, R. (1984, Winter). Course completion rates among distance learners: Identifying
possible methods to improve retention. Retrieved April 19, 2009, from Online
Journal of Distance Education Web site at
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter84/nash84.htm
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Distance education statistics 1999-2000.
Retrieved March 13, 2008, from at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/tables_listing
National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Percentage of undergraduates who took
any distance education courses in 1999-2000. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from
National Center for Education Statistics at
http://nces.gov/das/library/tables_listings/show/nedrc.asp?rt+p&tableID=180
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Postsecondary persistance and
retention. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/section3/indicator20.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Career/technical education statistics
table A 26. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from National Center for Education
Statistics at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/tables/A26.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved
January 15, 2008, from National Center for Education Statistics:
http://nces.ed.gov/digest/d06/tables/dt06_215.asp
63
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Students entering and leaving
postsecondary occupational education 1995-2001. Retrieved February 22, 2009,
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007041.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Projections of education statistics to
2016. Retrieved May 15, 2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2016/sec3c.asp
Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face
instruction. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99-113.
Nora, A., & Snyder, B. P. (2009). Technology and higher education: The impact of e-
learning approaches on student academic achievement, perceptions, and
persistence. Journal of College Student Retention, 10(1), 3-19.
Perez, E. (2009, February 1). UWM online psych students outperform those in lecture
hall class. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Web site
at http://www.jsonine.com/news/education/38786917.html
Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education.
Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Pressey, S. L. (1920). An attempt to measure the comparative importance of general
intelligence and certain character traits in contribution to success in school. The
Elementary School Journal, 21, 220-229. Available at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/994351
Reigle, R. (2007). Online students get higher course grades: An educational myth.
Retrieved February 9, 2009, from ERIC database. (Doc. No. 497943)
64
Roberts, C. M. (2004). The dissertation journey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rovai, A. (2003). In search of higher persistance rates in distance education progams.
The Internet and Higher Education,6(1), 1-16.
Russell, T. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC:
International Distance Education Certification Center.
Salkind, N.J. (2008). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics. Los Angeles:
Sage Publications
Schulman, A. H., & Sims, R. (1999, June). Learning in an online format versus an in-
class format: An experimental study. T H E Journal (Technological Horizons in
Education), 26(11), 54-56.
Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2003, October). Differences between traditional and
distance education academic performances: A meta-analytic approach.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 1-20.
Smallwood, M. L. (1935). Examinations and grading systems in early American
universities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stephenson, J., Brown, C., & Griffin, D. (2008). Electronic delivery of lectures in the
university environment: An empirical comparison of three delivery styles.
Computers & Education, 50, 640-651.
Stray, C. (2001). The shift from oral to written examination: Cambridge and Oxford
1700-1900. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 8, 33-50.
Summers, J. J., Waigand, A., & Whittaker, T. (2005). A comparison of student
achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face
statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 233-250.
65
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cure of student attrition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of
College Student Retention 8, 1-19. (ERIC Doc. No. EJ738877)
Townsend, B. (2002, April). "Terminal" students do transfer. Paper presented at the
American Association of Community Colleges 82
nd
Conference, Seattle, WA.
(ERIC Doc. No. ED464696)
Townsend, B. (2001, Fall). Blurring the lines: Transforming terminal education to
transfer education. New Directions for Community Colleges, 115, 63-71.
Troutt-Ervin, E., & Morgan, F. (1989, March). Bridging from technical to academic
degrees. Paper presented at the American Technical Education Association 24th
National Conference, Fort Worth, TX. (ERIC Doc. No. ED307915)
U. S. Department of Labor. (2000). Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary
Skills (SCANS). Retrieved April 6, 2009, from
http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork/
Washburn University higher learning commission self-study. (2008, April 30). Retrieved
April 29, 2008, from Washburn University Web site at http://www.
washburn.edu/self-study
Web-Based Education Commission. (2000). The power of the Internet for learning:
Moving from promise to practice. Washington, DC: United States Congress.
Available at http://www.ed.gov/offices/AC/WBEC/FinalReport/WBECReport.pdf
Wellman, J. V. (2002). State policy and community college: Baccalaureate transfer.
Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
66
APPENDIX A: WASHBURN UNIVERSITY IRB APPLICATION
67
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB)
Application for Project Approval
PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM IN ITS ENTIRETY
NOTE: Click on Text Boxes (http://www.washburn.edu/main/academics/academic-
catalog/index.html ) and begin typing to provide written information.
1. Name of Principal Investigator: Vickie A. Kelly
2. Name of Additional Investigators:
3. Departmental Affiliation and Location: Office, Legal & Technology Benton
312C
4. Phone Number: (a) Campus, 2280 (b) Home/Cell, 215-1748
5. Name of Faculty Member(s) Responsible for Project:
6. Title of Project: A Quantitative Study of Course Grades and Retention
Comparing Online and Face-to-Face Clases
7. Funding Agency (if applicable): N/A
8. Project Purpose(s) and Benefits: As part of a comprehensive program review,
course grades and retention in Technology Administration online and face-to-face
courses will be analyzed.Results may be published.
9. Describe the proposed subjects:
a. Number – 346
b. Age –
c. Sex –
d. Race –
e. Other characteristics –
10. Which of the following groups will you be using in your study? Check ALL that
apply.
Children (individuals under the age of 18)
Prisoners
Individuals with developmental disabilities
Pregnant women, fetuses, and/or neonates
None of the above will be used in the proposed study
11. Describe how subjects are to be selected/recruited.
Historical program data available in the Banner system will be utilized for the
study.
12. Describe the proposed procedure in the project. Any proposed experimental
activities that are included in evaluation, research, development, demonstration,
instruction, study, treatments, debriefing, questionnaires, and similar projects
must be described.
Use simple language; avoid jargon.
68
Data will be collected from Banner including student data from Fall 2002
through Spring 2008 from students enrolled in online and face-to-face
Technology administration courses. Data will be analyzed utilizing two factor
ANOVA for comparison of course grades and Chi-square analyzis to determine
the difference in course and program retention. No individual student identifical
will be used in the study.
13. If questionnaires, tests, or related research instruments are to be used, attach a
copy of the instrument(s). If other agencies, institutions, etc. are used, a scanned
letter of approval written on the agency letterhead must accompany the proposal.
An email of approval is also acceptable.
14. The data will be analyzed in:
Individual form
Aggregate form
Both individual and aggregate forms
15. Attach the informed consent statement. If participants are under 18 years of age, a
consent form must be created for parental signature. If information other than that
provided on the informed consent form is provided, attach a copy of such
information. Explain how the identifying data (research findings) are to be either
anonymous or confidential. The consent statement cannot include exculpatory
(absolving from fault) language through which the subject is made to waive, or
appear to waive, any legal rights, or to release the institutions or agent from
liability for negligence.
Have you attached a copy of the informed consent statement?
Yes
No
16. Will electrical or mechanical devices be applied to subjects?
Yes – If “Yes,” use the box that follows to provide a detailed description of
the steps that will be taken to safeguard the rights, safety, and welfare of
subjects.
No
17. Participants in the proposed study will be:
Audio recorded
Video recorded
Both audio and video recorded
None of the above apply to the proposed study
18. Does this research entail more than “minimal risk” (the risk of harm anticipated in
the proposed research is not greater, considering probability and magnitude, than
69
that ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine
physical or psychological examinations or tests.)?
Yes
No
If the primary investigator is a student, then (1) type your name below and (2) forward
this application to your faculty supervisor so that the next item can be completed. ONLY
faculty can submit an IRB application.
TO BE COMPLETED BY FACULTY SUPERVISING STUDENT RESEARCH: “I
have reviewed this IRB application and deem it acceptable for IRB review.”
Yes
No
Not a student project.
I agree to conduct this project in accordance with Washburn University’s policies and
requirements involving research.
Name(s) of Principal Investigator(s) (type your full name above)
Vickie A. Kelly
70
APPENDIX B: WASHBURN UNIVERSITY APPROVAL E-MAIL
71
----- Original Message -----
From
Michael Russell <[email protected]>
Date
Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:29:39 -0500
To
Vickie Kelly <[email protected]>
Subject
Re: Question Concerning IRB Approval
Vickie,
Thank you for the additional information. You IRB application entitled,
"A Quantitative Study of Course Grades and Retention Comparing Online
and Face-to-Face Clases" [sic] (09-29) has been approved. You may being [sic] at
your leisure. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me
know. Good luck with your project!!!
Dr. Mike Russell
IRB Chair
72
APPENDIX C: BAKER UNIVERSITY IRB PROPOSAL
73
Date: April 6, 2009
School of education IRB PROTOCOL NUMBER __________________
Graduate department (irb USE ONLY)
IRB Request
Proposal for Research
Submitted to the Baker University Institutional Review Board
I. Research Investigator(s) (Students must list faculty sponsor first)
Department(s) School of Education Graduate Department
Name Signature
1 Dr. Susan Rogers __________________, X Major Advisor
2. _Dr. Carolyn Doolittle __________________, Check if faculty sponsor
3. __ __________________, Check if faculty sponsor
4. __________________ __________________, Check if faculty sponsor
Principal investigator or faculty sponsor contact information:
Name: Vickie A. Kelly __________________________________
Mailing address of Principal Investigator
8620 SW 85
th
Street
Auburn, KS 66402
Phone: 785-256-2161
Email: vakelly@spgsmail.bakeru.edu
Expected Category of Review: _X
__ Exempt __ _ Expedited ____Full
II: Protocol Title
A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF COURSE GRADES AND RETENTION
COMPARING ONLINE AND FACE-TO-FACE CLASSES
Summary
The following summary must accompany the proposal. Be specific about exactly what
participants will experience, and about the protections that have been included to
safeguard participants from harm. Careful attention to the following may help facilitate
the review process:
In a sentence or two, please describe the background and purpose of the research.
Washburn University has been involved in online education delivery for nine years.
Online courses were reviewed at the end of year one of implementation, but have not
been analyzed in depth for student retention and achievement factors. The Technology
Administration program was the first fully online degree offered by Washburn
74
University. The purpose of the study is to examine the difference in GPA and course
retention of students enrolled in online Technology Administration courses and program
versus their traditional classroom based counterparts for a period of 6 years, 2002-2008.
Briefly describe each condition or manipulation to be included within the study.
There are no manipulations in the study. The delivery method is the independent variable
in the study.
What measures or observations will be taken in the study? If any questionnaire or
other instruments are used, provide a brief description and attach a copy.
Historical student data will be analyzed for grades, course retention and program
retention for Technology Administration students enrolled in TA 300 and TA 310 for the
period from Fall 2002 through Spring 2008. The data will be retrieved from the Banner
Data Management System utilized by Washburn University. Student data prior to 2004 is
stored in paper archives.
Will the subjects encounter the risk of psychological, social, physical or legal risk? If
so, please describe the nature of the risk and any measures designed to mitigate that
risk.
There is no risk to subjects. Subjects will not be identified in the study or contacted.
Will any stress to subjects be involved? If so, please describe.
There is no stress to the subjects involved. All data is historical and subjects of the study
will not be identified or contacted.
Will the subjects be deceived or misled in any way? If so, include an outline or script
of the debriefing.
Subjects will not be deceived or misled. All data will be historical and subjects will not
be identified or contacted during the study.
Will there be a request for information that subjects might consider to be personal
or sensitive? If so, please include a description.
No personal or sensitive information will be requested.
Will the subjects be presented with materials that might be considered to be
offensive, threatening, or degrading? If so, please describe.
Subjects will not be contacted during the course of the study.
Approximately how much time will be demanded of each subject?
No time will be required of any subject. All data is historical and currently available from
Washburn University.
Who will be the subjects in this study? How will they be solicited or contacted?
Provide an outline or script of the information which will be provided to subjects
prior to their volunteering to participate. Include a copy of any written solicitation
as well as an outline of any oral solicitation.
The subjects of the study are students who enrolled in online and face-to-face
Technology Administration courses from Fall 2002 through Spring 2008. All data is
historical and contained in university records at Washburn University.
75
What steps will be taken to ensure that each subject’s participation is voluntary?
What if any inducements will be offered to the subjects for their participation?
Not applicable.
How will you ensure that the subjects give their consent prior to participating? Will
a written consent form be used? If so, include the form. If not, explain why not.
All data collected is currently in Washburn University records.
Will any aspect of the data be made a part of any permanent record that can be
identified with the subject? If so, please explain the necessity.
No individual identification will occur as part of the study.
Will the fact that a subject did or did not participate in a specific experiment or
study be made part of any permanent record available to a supervisor, teacher or
employer? If so, explain.
Not applicable.
What steps will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of the data?
All data collected will be aggregated by the principal researcher. No individual
identification will occur in any final reports. Any published reports resulting from this
study will utilize aggregate data. All paperwork and preliminary reports containing
student identification will only be handled by the principal investigator and will be
destroyed at the completion of the study.
If there are any risks involved in the study, are there any offsetting benefits that
might accrue to either the subjects or society?
There are no risks involved with the study.
Will any data from files or archival data be used? If so, please describe.
Aggregate data will be retrieved from the Banner data management system at Washburn
University utilizing university protocol for data retrieval. Only data from students
enrolled from Fall 2002 to Spring 2008 in Technology Administration courses will be
analyzed. Student files will be utilized to examine program retention, but will not be
identified with individual data.
76
APPENDIX D: BAKER UNIVERSITY IRB APPROVAL LETTER
77
78
APPENDIX E: TECHNOLOGY COURSE ENROLLMENTS 2002-2008
79
Table E1
Technology Enrollments 2002-2008 for TA 300, TA 310, TA 320 & TA 330
TA 300 TA 310 TA 320 TA 330
Semester FTF OL FTF OL FTF OL FTF OL
S02 14 25 9 19
F02 11 20 9 26 8 15
S03 29 38 15 20
F03 20 29 13 34 10 26
S04 32 25 9 26
F04 18 32 10 28 10 24
S05 23 31 28
F05 15 28 11 28 9 25
S06 13 30 20 10
F06 14 24 24 32 9 21
S07 15 33 15 9
F07 16 23 27 30 7 18
S08 22 35 10 9
TOTAL 94 156 242 395 51 145 56 129
Note: S = Spring F = Fall
TA 300 – Evolution and Development of Technology
TA 310 – Technology and Society
TA 320 – System Design, Assessment & Evaluation
TA 330 – Safety Analysis and Quality Assurance
80
Table E2
Technology Course Enrollments 2002-2008 for TA 390, TA 400, & TA 420
TA 390 TA 400 TA 420
Semester FTF OL FTF OL FTF OL
S02 7 9 3 11
F02 6 16
S03 7 14 4 13
F03
S04
F04 26 1
S05 23 22
F05 23 1 1
S06 24 21
F06 23
S07 23 19 20
F07 27 2
S08 16 12 12
TOTAL 6 154 15 101 8 202
Note: S = Spring F = Fall
TA 390 – Technology and Ecology
TA 400 – Technology Planning
TA 420 – Technology Project
