Journal of Technology in Human Services

ISSN: 1522-8835 (Print) 1522-8991 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wths20

The Art of Online Teaching: Online Instruction

versus In-Class Instruction

Debra M. Harris PhD & Danielle E. Parrish PhD

To cite this article: Debra M. Harris PhD & Danielle E. Parrish PhD (2006) The Art of Online
Teaching: Online Instruction versus In-Class Instruction, Journal of Technology in Human Services,
24:2-3, 105-117, DOI: 10.1300/J017v24n02_06

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1300/J017v24n02_06

Published online: 08 Sep 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 325

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wths20
 The Art of Online Teaching:
Online Instruction
versus In-Class Instruction
Debra M. Harris
Danielle E. Parrish

ABSTRACT. This article examines objective data regarding learning

outcomes of students who participated in asynchronous online (web-
based) instruction versus in-class (traditional) instruction. Data pre-
sented suggests a significant difference in the student’s comfort using a
computer alone, comfort using the internet and learning outcomes be-
tween online and in-class courses. However, no differences were found
related to comfort with word processing or Power Point. There were no
significant differences found between online and in-class students’ in-
ternal locus of control beliefs. The authors suggest how these findings
can be used to improve students’ success; however, these findings
should be considered tentative based on the small sample size in the on-
line group (n = 5). [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth
Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@
haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The
Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Asynchronous online learning, distance education

Debra M. Harris, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Social Work Educa-

tion, California State University-Fresno (E-mail: dharris@csufresno.edu).
Danielle E. Parrish is a PhD student in the Social Work Program, University of
Texas, Austin, TX.
Journal of Technology in Human Services, Vol. 24(2/3) 2006
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JTHS
© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J017v24n02_06 105
106 JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

Time has shown that online teaching and the use of the World Wide
Web has increased in popularity. It has also permeated the educational
arena, including the discipline of social work education. Freddolino and
Sutherland assert that “ . . . distance education technology in social work
education is here to stay” (2000, p. 127). The most recent and fast-grow-
ing format for distance education is that of on-line teaching (Connick,
1999). To avoid having this teaching modality dictated to social work
educators, faculty need to become familiar with this technology and use
it in an appropriate manner. Vernon and Lynch caution the social work
profession to the latter, “If we ignore technology as a profession,
non-social workers are going to do it for us, at us, under us, and over us,
but not with us” (2000, p.12).
The primary difference between online teaching and traditional
in-class teaching is the manner in which the instructor communicates
with the student. Ko and Rossen write, “ . . . what makes teaching online
unique is that it uses the Internet, especially the World Wide Web
(WWW), as the primary means of communication” (2001, p. 2). This
can mean that the teacher spends little, if any, time communicating with
students face-to-face in online classes. This has led to recent research
that has sought to understand what differences may exist between the
two types of courses in regard to student outcomes and characteristics.
Schoech and Helton (2003) studied a course taught using internet
chatroom text as compared to traditional classroom instruction. Internet
students agreed they learned more using the chatroom than the tradi-
tional classroom. However, students were concerned with “technical
problems” in using the chatroom (p. 119).
A variety of course-related issues have been assessed in the research
regarding online courses. Frey, Faul, and Yankelov (2003) assessed the
perceptions of students taking an online course. They found that learn-
ing styles made no difference in the perceptions of students regarding
the course. Students also reported that the most useful online tools they
used included access to their grades, assignment instructions, feedback
regarding how to complete assignments, E-mail, and lecture notes. Gar-
rison (1987) researched student retention in distance education. He
found evidence to advocate for distance education based on retention
rate.
Course grades were used by Harrington (1999) to assess student out-
comes in distance learning courses. This author found that students who
did well academically, as measured by their grade point average, did
well with the online course. However, those who did not do well on
their grade point average did not do well with online instruction.
 Debra M. Harris and Danielle E. Parrish 107

There is a current need, within the social work literature, to examine

objective data regarding learning outcomes of students who participate
in asynchronous online (web-based) instruction versus in-class (tradi-
tional) instruction. This paper intends to answer the following questions
that relate to the need for such an assessment: First, is there a difference
between the technology comfort levels between students who partici-
pate in asynchronous online instruction versus in-class instruction?
Second, is there a difference in the locus of control beliefs between stu-
dents who participate in asynchronous online instruction versus in-class
instruction? Third, is there a difference between the learning outcomes
of students participating in asynchronous online instruction versus
in-class instruction?

METHOD

Participants

This study is based on available subjects (Rubin & Babbie, 2001),

who were participating in online instruction and in traditional in-class
instruction. Their responses were anonymous in order to encourage
them to provide answers freely without fear that their grade would be af-
fected by their responses. No class credit was associated with the com-
pletion of the questionnaire.

Instruments

The questionnaire contained 2 groups of questions, the first related to

comfort with technology, while the second intended to identify stu-
dents’ feelings of locus of control. There were four questions asked re-
garding their feelings of comfort with issues believed to be necessary to
be successful in this course. The Internal Control Index (ICI) developed
by Duttweiler (1984) was used to measure student locus of control. The
ICI is a 28-item tool developed to assess “where a person looks for, or
expects to obtain, reinforcement” (Corcoran & Fisher, 1987, p. 198).
An individual’s external locus of control belief would indicate that sup-
port emanates from chance, while an individual’s internal locus of con-
trol belief would indicate that support emanates from their own
behavior. The range of scores obtained from the ICI ranged between 28
(indicating a belief in low internal locus of control) to 140 (indicating a
belief in a high internal locus of control) (Duttweiler, 1984).
108 JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

The ICI was chosen because the internal locus of control personality
trait influences human behavior across many situations, only one of
which is learning (Lefcourt, 1976). This author speculated that self-con-
fidence and autonomous behavior in solving problems is important in
educational settings, such as on-line instruction, where there is little as-
sistance from an outside source to solve these problems. In this specific
situation there would be little personal (i.e., face-to-face) assistance
from the instructor regarding technical computer problems because all
communication with the instructor is asynchronous. Those students
with a high level of locus of control response pattern would be more
likely to succeed at independent learning modalities, such as online in-
struction. Similarly, those individuals with a low level of locus of control
response pattern would likely fail at independent learning modalities.
Finally, student numerical scores for the course (grades) were used to
assess the outcome of the instruction. These scores could range from
0-100. Grades were determined to be the most objective assessment of
student performance.

Procedure

Two social work elective classes in the “Treatment of Chemical De-

pendency” were taught by the same faculty member. Every effort was
made to standardize the content for the two classes. This class was
taught in a lecture format, with videos and student participation as an
adjunct to the lecture. The purpose of the course is for students to learn
the assessment process, treatment options and evaluation of chemical
dependency treatment. It was not intended to teach any theoretical or
technical “clinical” skills, such as the use of an assessment tool in a
clinical interview, implementation of therapeutic interventions, or the
evaluation of practice.
The instructor had previously taught the course four semesters in a
traditional classroom environment at the same four-year university.
First, the instructor translated the traditional materials into an online
course using text material only. This process took approximately 112
hours of the instructor’s time. Three students took this course and pro-
vided feedback to the instructor. Second, this feedback was used to re-
vise the material and the presentation of the material. This process took
about 240 hours of the instructor’s time and 20 hours of technical
computer software professionals.
Similarities Between Courses. Table 1 depicts how the two courses
were similar and dissimilar (see Table 1). The most notable similarities
 Debra M. Harris and Danielle E. Parrish 109

are explained. All students in both groups received 3 units of university

credit upon completion of the course. The course contained 16 classes
or unit’s which were as identical as possible. The online course was re-
ferred to as units and the traditional course was referred to as classes.
The posted syllabus contained hyperlinks to various web sites, which
emanated from federal and state governmental agencies. This was avail-
able to both classes using Blackboard as the web server.
An audio/video lecture presentation was used along with a Power Point
presentation that provided the students with a lecture that addressed the
contents of the class or unit. There was also a manuscript provided that con-
tained, in written form, the contents of the audio/video lecture presentation.
This allowed students to print the manuscript and read it while listening and
watching the presentation. These efforts were made to assure that the con-
tent of the lecture was as similar for both classes as possible.
Each class/unit was accompanied by an identical assignment relevant
to the subject, which measured student understanding of the related
content. Grades were available online for each class and posting of
these grades was completed the week after the assignment was due. Stu-
dents could conveniently view their own grade at any time. E-mail was
also available to all students in both classes.

TABLE 1. Course Features in Online Instruction and In-Class Instruction–Simi-

larities and Differences

Online In-Class
Text X X
Web-sites X X
Syllabus (including grading criteria) X X
Goals and Objectives X X
Lecture Presentation–Power Point with Audio X X
Lecture Presentation–Written Manuscript X X
Videos X X
Assignments X X
Posted Grades X X
Face-to-Face Meetings-3 X
Face-to-Face Meetings-16 X
Discussion Boards-2 X
Face-to-Face Discussions X
Note: X = feature present.
110 JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

Differences Between Classes. Table 1 presents the online features as

compared to the in-class instruction. The major differences are ex-
plained in the following. Each student in the online class completed the
unit material independently of each other. However, the assignments
were due on the same date. Following the assignment due date, the next
unit’s material was made available for completion. This meant that al-
though students were working on the unit content at their own individ-
ual rate, the students were moving through the course requirements at
the same time. There were three “face-to-face” meetings for the online
course. The initial meeting introduced the technical side of the course.
The two subsequent meetings took place in the “middle” and end of the
course to view videos, answer questions and discuss the course.
The online course used two asynchronous discussion boards or fo-
rums. One board was used for students to ask questions or to discuss an
issue related to the course material, providing a forum for other students
and the faculty member to respond to the question or issue. The second
discussion board was a “student only” discussion forum. Students could
use this to discuss any subject they wanted, but the faculty member did
not enter the discussion. This was done in order to foster a sense of
“community” among the students.
In-class students received the course content in a traditional class-
room one time per week for 3 hours, for a total of 16 class hours. Al-
though the lecture presentation and manuscript was available to these
students, they also heard the lecture by the faculty member in the tradi-
tional in-class lecture format, followed by questions and answers. Vid-
eos related to explaining the material were viewed during the class time,
followed by questions and answers.

RESULTS

Participants

The Statistical Package for Social Services (SPSS, Inc., 2001) and an
Effect Size Calculator (Coe, 2000) was used to analyze all the data. In
the online course eleven questionnaires were mailed to students, with
five students responding. It is unknown why six students did not re-
spond. Anonymity was assured; therefore, no follow up contact was
possible with students.
A description of students is located in Table 2. Online students fit the
typical profile of a distance education student who is older and has
 Debra M. Harris and Danielle E. Parrish 111

many responsibilities, such as working full time while taking a course.

In-class students fit the profile of a “traditional” university student who
is in their 20s working less than 29 hours a week (Connick, 1999; Ko &
Rossen, 2001).
Access to “a computer” was not a problem for most of the students
(Table 2). This high rate of computer access among student populations is
also illustrated in a study conducted in 1999 that found that “ . . . 71% had a
computer, 73% had Internet access, 93% had sent an e-mail, and 100% had
browsed the Web” (Hanson & Jubeck, 1999; cited in Meyer, 2003, p. 3).

Questions

Table 3 presents data related to technology. There was a difference

found in comfort using a computer alone and comfort with the Internet
between the online students and in-class students. Surprisingly, in-class
students were more comfortable both using a computer alone and using
the Internet. Although there was not a significant difference between
groups with regard to comfort with the use of Power Point software, the
largest proportion of both the on-line and in-class students reported
“low levels” of comfort with regard to the use of this software.

TABLE 2. Student Characteristics

Online Instruction In-Class Instruction

Number enrolled; number responded 11; 5 40; 31
Number males; females 2; 3 9; 22
Average age 47.60 27.67
Number married/living with 4; 1 9; 22
someone; single/divorced
Number living in urban area; 2; 3 20; 11
rural area
Number taking class for professional 5; 0 25; 6
requirement; personal knowledge
Number whose employment will change; 4; 1 22; 5
will not change
Number who study on the weekend/ 4; 1 14; 17
evenings; daytime/other
Number of hours worked each week; 42; 3.2 21.52; 12.48
number of college credits taking
Number of students who have access 5; 0 29; 2
to a computer at home; do not have access
112 JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

TABLE 3. Chi-Square Results for Comfort Levels Between Students in Online

versus In-Class Instruction

Chi-Square df p
Comfort Using Computer Alone 7.83 2 .02
Comfort with Word Processing Software .485 2 .79
Comfort with Power Point 2.16 2 .34
Comfort with Internet 10.76 2 .00
Note. p < .05, 4 cells (66.7%) of significant findings have an expected count less than 5.

Table 4 presents the findings regarding the ICI and grades. The ICI
effect size of ⫺.20 indicates that 58% of in-class student scores would
be below the average online student’s score. This means there was no
real difference between the online and in-class student scores on the
ICI.
Table 4 also presents data regarding the learning outcome of grades.
The effect size of 1.51 for grades indicates a difference between the
groups. For example, the score of the average in-class student would
rank as the first student in the online class. The in-class students earned
better grades than online students.
It must be noted that out of the 11 students who registered and were
enrolled during the entire course online, five received a passing score.
Six students stopped participating in the online course. This is contrary
to Garrison’s finding related to student retention. Of the five who fin-
ished, three earned between 90-100 and two earned between 80-89.
There were six students who earned 59 or below.
Out of the 40 students who registered for the in-class course initially,
3 students withdrew from the course. Of the remaining 37 students, 21
students earned between 90-100; 8 students earned between 80-89; 5
earned between 70-79; and 3 earned 59 or below.

Student Feedback

Students from the online course provided some of the following in-
formation in the form of written comments at the end of the course.
They indicated that they liked the convenience of taking a course online
as they did not have to drive into an urban area leaving their teenagers at
home and enjoyed the three face-to-face meetings.
Students from the online course did not like the number of assign-
ments and were not pleased that the text chapters were not assigned in
 Debra M. Harris and Danielle E. Parrish 113

TABLE 4. Students in Online Instruction versus In-Class Instruction Regarding

Internal Control Index (ICI) and Grades

Variable Effect Size

Internal Control Index (ICI) –.20
Grades 1.51*
Note. * significant at .05.

order. As in research by Schoech and Helton (2002), there were several

comments regarding problems with the technology required to access
the course. Students wrote that there were problems with the streaming
videos and Power Point with audio lecture. One student stated, “My
computer started smoking, it just blew up!”
Suggestions included needing more frequent face-to-face contact
with the instructor. Students also suggested that the use of a computer
with more technical capabilities would have helped them succeed in the
class. Also, students did not use the discussion boards. Instead they
called each other on the telephone to discuss issues related to the class.
There was no indication how often these telephone contacts were made.
Students from the in-class course stated they liked the videos, discus-
sions, and lecture. They also stated they could not view the streaming
video clips or Power Point presentation with audio lecture. However,
this was not a problem because they could come to class to receive the
same information face-to-face. Students in class wrote that the use of a
computer with more technical capability would have helped them ac-
cess the course content available online.

DISCUSSION

Questions and Limitations

Of the differences explored between the online and in-class

courses, significant differences were found with regard to: (1) comfort
with regard to using a computer alone, (2) comfort using the internet,
and (3) learning outcomes (grades). Limitations regarding these find-
ings include the fact that a very small number of students took the
asynchronous on-line course in comparison with the in-class course.
No differences were found related to comfort with word processing
software or Power Point. It is interesting, however, that the largest pro-
114 JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

portion of students for both groups noted “low comfort” levels when us-
ing Power Point software. This may have implications regarding either
requiring more technical training for social work students or using tech-
nology that is more familiar to students for online presentations. Given
the growing use of technology in all fields, it is suggested that consider-
ation be given to orientating students to a wider variety of technical tools.
There was not a significant difference found between online and
in-class students with regard to Internal Locus of Control beliefs. These
findings may simply highlight the fact that there is still little known
about what qualities predict online student success, albeit findings re-
lated to higher GPA (Harrington, 1999). Further study with a larger par-
ticipant pool and more advanced statistical analysis using the ICI may
yield findings that shed further understanding with regard to how inter-
nal locus of control may relate to success with an online and/or in-class
course.
As mentioned above, there was a difference found between the two
courses with regard to learning outcomes. The in-class course received
significantly higher grades than the online course. Taken at face value,
this would suggest that the human factor (face-to-face contact) is essen-
tial for student success. These findings, however, were also likely im-
pacted by the attrition rate within an already small online group and the
fact that groups could not be randomly assigned or matched. Thus, this
may suggest that these findings’ implications may have more to do with
retention of students who choose to take an online course than with
ability to succeed academically.

Importance to SW Education and Social Work Knowledge Base

This study has several implications for social work education deliv-
ered online. First, online students were found to have more life respon-
sibilities than in-class students and indicated the convenience of the
online course as a primary reason for taking the class. Given this expec-
tation of convenience, it is also possible that these students did not real-
ize the time or work requirement associated with an online course. It is
essential that students understand that “convenient” does not mean “less
work” or “less time.” It is possible that students within this study dropped
out because they did not realize the time or work demands that the
course would require.
Second, many of the online students from this study reported moder-
ate to low comfort rates in the use of most types of computer technol-
ogy. It would be helpful to assess student competencies with computer
 Debra M. Harris and Danielle E. Parrish 115

technology usage prior to enrollment in an online class. It may also be

beneficial to encourage social work students to take courses that focus
on the development of technological skills, as these skills can prepare
students to adapt to rapidly changing technology.
Third, a student must also have access to the necessary technological
capabilities needed to access on-line information in an effective and ef-
ficient manner. Many students in this study did not have access to a
computer with enough random access memory (RAM) to run the power
point lecture with audio. In addition, most students had a dial-up
Internet connection, which affected the speed at which documents could
be viewed and downloaded. It would be helpful for students to assess
their computer technology capabilities prior to enrolling in an online
course. If a course benefits their employment, it is possible that agencies
could provide access to adequate agency computers. Finally, for those
students that do not have the technological capabilities, the information
could be provided on compact disk (CD). This, however, would limit
the interactive qualities of an online course.
It is possible that students performed poorly in the online class be-
cause they did not have enough to gain by passing. These students had
more responsibilities than in-class students outside of this class. When
other responsibilities must be met, the least important commitment may
be a course and the first to ignore. Therefore, it may be helpful to sug-
gest that faculty encourage students to carefully consider their responsi-
bilities before taking a course online.
Students taking the online class were more likely to take an F in the
class because they were not socialized to the academic environment.
In-class students working on a degree are more likely to drop a class be-
cause they know the negative implications an F can have on their GPA.
Instructors may need to communicate the importance of dropping a
class rather than “disappearing.”

Future Research

Most who have developed and taught courses online understand the
time required to produce and maintain a class that is engaging yet intel-
lectually challenging. Future research is needed to understand the stu-
dent outcomes and faculty workload management of courses taught
online and in-class across the curriculum. Social work educators need to
work to understand and respond to the issue of whether technology is
being encouraged in academia to increase the revenues from students,
116 JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

or if the use of technology is to increase student access and learning

possibilities.
Social work educators need to continue to learn the newest technol-
ogy. However, research regarding the use of this new technology is im-
perative to ensure that the pedagogy changes in keeping with the
technology. As technology changes, research is needed to find the best
approach to teaching course content. With this knowledge we must not
ignore technology nor allow others “to do it for us, at us, under us, and
over us” (Vernon & Lynch, 2000). We must use technology for the
student’s success.

REFERENCES

Barnett-Queen, T. (2001). Attitudes and opinions regarding the use of the Internet for
continuing education among social workers. New Advances in Technology for So-
cial Work Education and Practice, 145-169.
Coe, J. A. R., & Elliott, D. (1999). An evaluation of teaching direct practice courses in a
distance education program for rural settings. Journal of Social Work Education, 35
(3), 353-365.
Coe, R. (January 2000). ‘What is an Effect Size?: A guide for users.’ Retrieved November
14, 2004, from http://www.cemcentre.org/ebeuk/research/effectsize/ESguide.html.
Connick, G.P. (1999). The distance learner’s guide. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Dalton, B. (2001). Distance education: A multidimensional evaluation. New Advances
in Technology for Social Work Education and Practice, 101-115.
Duttweiler, P. C. (1984). The Internal Control Index: A newly developed measure of
locus of control. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 209-221.
Freddolino, P. P., & Sutherland, C. A. (2000). Assessing the comparability of class-
room environments in graduate social work education delivered via interactive in-
structional television. Journal of Social Work Education, 36 (1), 115-129.
Frey, A., Faul, A., & Yankelov, P. (2003). Student perceptions of web-assisted teach-
ing strategies. Journal of Social Work Education, 39 (3), 443-457.
Garrison, D. R. (1987). Researching dropout rate in distance education. Distance Edu-
cation, 8(1), 95-101.
Harrington, D. (1999). Teaching statistics: A comparison of traditional classroom and
programmed instruction/distance learning approaches. Journal of Social Work Ed-
ucation, 35 (3), 343-352.
Knowles, A. J. (2001). Implementing web-based learning: Evaluation results from a
mental health course. New Advances in Technology for Social Work Education and
Practice, 171-187.
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2001). Teaching online: A practical guide. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Kreuger, L. W., & Stretch, J. J. (2000). How hypermodern technology in social work
bites back. Journal of Social Work Education, 36 (1), 103-114.
 Debra M. Harris and Danielle E. Parrish 117

Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Macy, J.A., Rooney, R.H., Hollister, C. D., & Freddolino, P. P. (2001). Evaluation of
distance education programs in social work. New Advances in Technology for So-
cial Work Education and Practice, 63-84.
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Quality in distance education. Focus on on-line learning. ASHE-
ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(4).
Quam, J. Q. (1999). Technology and teaching: Searching for the middle ground. Jour-
nal of Social Work Education, 35 (3), 322-326.
Rubin, C., & Babbie, E. (2001). Research methods for social work (4th ed.). USA:
Wadsworth/Thomason Learning.
Schoech, D., & Helton, D. (2002). Qualitative and quantitative analysis of a course
taught via classroom and internet chatroom. Qualitative Social Work, 1(1), 111-
124.
SPSS, Inc. (2001). SPSS Base 10.0: Users guide (Computer software and manual).
Chicago: Author.
Vernon, R., & Lynch, D. (2000). Social work and the web. USA: Thomson Learning.

Get Articles FAST with

the Haworth Document
Delivery Service and Rightslink ®
To request single articles from Haworth, visit
www.HaworthPress.com/journals/dds.asp. You can order
single articles here directly from Haworth or through
Rightslink®. We have over 40,000 articles ready for
immediate delivery, and you can find articles by title,
by author name, by keyword, and more!