American Journal of Distance Education

ISSN: 0892-3647 (Print) 1538-9286 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

Online vs. traditional learning in teacher

education: a comparison of student progress

Amanda R. Hurlbut

To cite this article: Amanda R. Hurlbut (2018) Online vs. traditional learning in teacher education:
a comparison of student progress, American Journal of Distance Education, 32:4, 248-266, DOI:
10.1080/08923647.2018.1509265

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1509265

Published online: 18 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9407

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hajd20
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
2018, VOL. 32, NO. 4, 248–266
https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1509265

Online vs. traditional learning in teacher education: a

comparison of student progress
Amanda R. Hurlbut
Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX, USA
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT Online education; teacher
education; traditional vs.
Online education programs are well established in higher education,
online
including graduate level and non-traditional teacher education pro-
grams. However, there is a lack of substantial research into online
programs for undergraduate students in comparable preparation pro-
grams. The purpose of this study was to determine how student pro-
gress in a face-to-face or traditional growth and development course
compares to student performance in an online section taught by the
same instructor, and to determine what factors contributed to perfor-
mance in the course as determined by student grades and responses,
perceived instructional strategies, and participation in online interactive
content. This study used a mixed-method design using both quantita-
tive and qualitative data. Findings from the study suggest that students
enrolled in the traditional class generally received slightly higher grades
and assignment scores than those who participated in the online sec-
tion. Other differences in the courses existed and contributed to overall
performance, but instructor feedback was reported as an important
hallmark of both courses. Students in the online section who reported
they were comfortable with learning in a virtual environment or who
had attended a Blackboard Collaborate session with their instructor
fared better in the course.

Introduction
According to the latest report detailing statistics on distance and online education enrollment,
approximately 28% of students seeking higher education degrees participate in at least one
online course in their program. Furthermore, 14% of higher education students are enrolled
exclusively in distance or online programs (Allen & Seaman, 2016). Online education continues
to gain momentum as a preferable method to access higher education, especially as new
technologies, Web 2.0, and social media tools facilitate and expedite learning processes and
communication with course instructors (Kennedy & Archambault, 2012). Online course offer-
ings are not a new phenomenon; however, virtual learning is emerging in the realm of
traditional pre-service teacher education programs (Thompson, Miller, & Pomykal-Franz,
2013). This study examines how student progress in a traditional teacher education course
compared to the performance in an online section of the same course. This study evaluated
factors contributing to performance in the two courses as determined by student grades on
major assignments, responses to information about the course through a questionnaire, and
reported participation in online interactive content. A review of the existing literature in online

CONTACT Amanda R. Hurlbut amandahurlbut@twu.edu

© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 249

learning formats in higher and teacher education is presented as foundational to understanding

the ramifications of this study.

Review of literature
Online learning
Distance education and more recently, “online education” has been studied extensively in
the last 20 years. Rapid advances in technology have recently made access to higher
education more readily available (Heirdsfield, Davis, Lennox, Walker, & Zhang, 2007).
Traditionally, distance education required the usage of print materials that were mailed or
sent in and required significant time for communication. The development of learning
management systems and web resources has drastically transformed both distance educa-
tion and online education programs by speeding up the rate at which information can be
disseminated and digested (Finger, McGlasson, & Finger, 2007).
Several meta-analytic studies have been completed, closely examining research on the
effectiveness and feasibility of online instruction, including hybrid and blended environments
in higher education learning programs. A report compiled by the U.S. Department of
Education (2009) identified 51 independent effects between 1996 and 2008 that compared
online instructional formats to more traditional face-to-face instruction. Of these 51 effect
sizes, 44 were reported in higher education programs with the rest in K-12 education. The
report identified several key findings relevant to the purposes of this study: (1) On average,
students who participated in all or most of their courses through an online format performed
better than students who took the same course in the more traditional, face-to-face format; (2)
A combination of online with face-to-face elements (often referred to as blended or hybrid
instruction) resulted in stronger overall performance than strictly face-to-face instruction
than when compared with sole online performance; (3) Students that reported more time on
task in online courses reported more benefit for online courses than students in the face-to-
face section in comparable circumstances; and (4) Online learning formats were effective for a
variety of content areas and learner characteristics (i.e. K-12, undergraduates, and graduate
students). Means, Toyama, Murphy, and Baki (2013) concluded in their analysis of the
findings from this study that “purely online learning has been equivalent to face-to-face
instruction in effectiveness, and blended approaches have been more effective than instruction
offered entirely in face-to-face mode” (p. 35).
Furthermore, Shachar and Neumann (2010) found in their review of more than 20
studies comparing course delivery methods, that students taking courses by distance and/
or online courses outperformed their counterparts taking traditional or face-to-face courses.
More recently, meta-analytic data compiled by Wu (2015) evaluated 12 studies completed in
2013–2014 that compared learning in a fully online or hybrid format versus learning in a
traditional or face-to-face environment. Results from this analysis indicate similar conclu-
sions to the U.S. Department of Education report; students in online and hybrid formats
performed as well or better than students in more traditional versions of comparable
courses. Wu recommended several important considerations for future studies including
measuring more consistent short and long-term outcomes overall and studying outcomes in
more online humanities courses. Students participating in online and traditional courses
often experience completely different objectives and characteristics, making it more difficult
250 A. R. HURLBUT

to compare actual outcomes from the two types of courses. Additionally, long-term learning
effects such as impact to the field are unknown at this time, especially in the social sciences
and humanities fields (Wu, 2015).
Additional studies in online education courses and programs of higher education have
shown promising results for comparable learning. Ogunleye (2010) found that online
learning effectively facilitated collaborative and cooperative learning among students that
served to deepen student interest and understanding of course material. Schrum & Hong
(2002) identified several aspects that contributed to student success in online learning as
compared to traditional course formats including access to resources, experience with
learning tools, learning styles and preferences, existing study habits and/or skills, overall
learning objectives and goals, personal life issues, and personal traits and characteristics.
Furthermore, course design and consistency, contact with course instructors, and
dynamic/interactive discussions through online forums were all found to be significant
predictors of a successful online learning experience (Heirdsfield et al., 2007; Swan, Shea,
Fredericksen, Pickett, & Pelz, 2000; Swan et al., 2000).
Regarding online instruction blended with face-to-face interactions, Terras, Chiasson,
and Sansale (2012) reported that blended instruction was perceived as an effective method
for learning among teacher education students in the areas of meeting course objectives,
involvement of the course instructor, media elements, and overall learning experience.
Recent development of learning management systems such as Blackboard or Canvas has
further instigated this type of course delivery by allowing a method for instructors to
house and organize material efficiently. Heirdsfield, Walker, Tambyah, and Beutel (2011)
found that both students and faculty using certain interactive features of the Blackboard
Learn management system responded positively to the system’s ability to provide orga-
nized content, interactive features, and tools to facilitate higher-level discussions and
collaboration among participants. While research has shown great promise in using online
and blended formats in higher education, research is lacking in the best pedagogical
methods for instructors to use in such courses. Prieto-Rodriguez, Gore, and Holmes
(2016) concluded that the use of a Quality Teaching model, often implemented in
traditional teacher education courses, was also effective when used effectively in purpose-
fully designed online learning environments. The authors indicate a stronger need for
research regarding the best pedagogical practices of online teaching since online teaching
requires skillsets for success different from more traditional or face-to-face methods.

Online learning in teacher education

The comparison of traditional and online learning formats has been studied considerably
in the realm of educational research, especially in graduate level and alternative-certifica-
tion programs (Braun, 2008; Ernst, 2008; Mullen & Tallent-Runnels, 2006). Not until
recently did undergraduate programs, specifically programs involving pre-service teacher
preparation, experience this transition to online learning formats and courses (Thompson
et al., 2013; Thornton, 2013). Although traditional and online courses have generally been
found to be comparable in content and experiences, online learning opportunities in
teacher education programs present a unique set of challenges. Huss (2007) discovered
that principals were hesitant to hire teacher candidates from exclusively online certifica-
tion programs and were concerned about teachers’ preparedness for the social side of
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 251

teaching. Harrell and Harris (2006) indicated that despite positive student ratings of the
program, online certification candidates did not necessarily out-perform traditional can-
didates on state-licensure tests and standards-based assessments. Research has also
demonstrated rising hesitations related to the quality of the courses and student respon-
siveness in online programs (Yang & Cornelius, 2004).
Despite these challenges, Chiero and Beare (2010) concluded in their longitudinal study,
that ratings for online preparation programs were consistently higher than for the more
traditional program, suggesting that an online program can be as or more effective at
preparing the next generation of teachers. In one study, students in an online graduate
course focusing on English as a Second Language teaching pedagogy found that students
reported the online course as a successful method to learn about teaching methods.
Specifically, students reported that the online class was more or as rigorous as the traditional
or face-to-face version of the course and that students’ success in the course contributed to
their willingness to register for future online courses in the program (Daniel, Schumacher,
Stelter, & Riley, 2016). In one study, pre-service teachers experiencing more blended and
e-learning opportunities into their teacher preparation program reported that with targeted
instructor support and scaffolding into the online modules, that they felt supported in their
learning during coursework. However, in this same study, a small percentage of students
continued to report that they did not prefer online formats and needed more accountability
by actually attending a face-to-face class (Chigeza & Halbert, 2014). This is an important
consideration as it suggests that students who are most comfortable and benefit the most
from online learning environments are students who are both comfortable and choose to
enroll in online courses over more traditional versions (Jaggers, 2014).
Regarding specific outcomes and the impact of specific online courses and/or programs upon
teaching effectiveness, limited studies exist. In one study, graduates of online teacher courses
were shown to contribute to higher achievement outcomes in their students than similar
graduates of more traditional programs. Weschke, Barclay, and Vandersall (2011) conducted
a longitudinal, three-year study that examined the impact of teachers on their students’ reading
achievement in first through fifth grades as measured by a standardized literacy test. Findings
from this study indicated that teachers who participated in online programs tended to outper-
form graduates from face-to-face or more traditional programs in all but third grade.
Furthermore, results from a study that compared online vs. traditional teacher licensure
programs using the Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) suggest that online program
delivery successfully prepared candidates similarly to the traditional program in candidates’
abilities to effectively plan, deliver instruction, engage learners, and assess student learning. The
authors conclude that “online learning within this teacher education program is an equally
effective platform for preparing teacher candidates as the F2F degree when measuring candi-
date-learning outcomes using edTPA” (Heafner & Petty, 2016, p. 177). More information
regarding teacher knowledge, practices, and outcomes on students after subsequent enrollment
and/or graduation from online and blended learning environments is certainly warranted.

Methodology
This mixed-methods study examined the fundamental differences between two sections of
a Growth, Development, and Learning Theory course taught to junior level pre-service
teachers in the elementary teacher education program at one North Texas University. One
252 A. R. HURLBUT

section of the course was taught purely online, and the other section of the course was
taught once a week in a traditional face-to-face format. Enrollment in each section was
relatively similar with 63 in the online section and 53 in the traditional. Participants
ranged in age from 19 to 45 years of age. Participants were primarily female with three
males enrolled in the face-to-face section and two in the online section. The same course
instructor taught both sections of the course. The course instructor used the same text-
book, weekly content, and major assignments in both sections of the course.
The main differences between the two sections were seen in the delivery of content and
interaction between the students and instructor (face-to-face time with the instructor in the
traditional course) and the use of online content (YouTube videos, online discussion boards,
and Blackboard Collaborate interactive sessions for the online section). Online content was
typically organized in sequential modules each week using a structured format consisting of
live “mini-lectures” through Blackboard Collaborate (BBC) that would highlight key com-
ponents of the topic. The BBC link was then made available to students so that students
unable to attend the live session could access the teaching and post questions to the course
instructor during or after the session. Other components of the weekly online modules
included a module introduction, short clips or videos of classroom and/or student demon-
strations, a discussion board prompt that students had to post to, and a mini-assignment in
which students would complete an activity, game, or other assignment relative to the weekly
topic. When comparing content from the online course to the face-to-face course, video clips
and discussion prompts were typically given in class for students to complete in small groups,
whereas in the online section, students had to participate virtually. Students in the online
class completed extra mini-assignments to demonstrate their mastery of the weekly content
while students in the face-to-face section were often exempt from this requirement as they
completed the activities in class, with peers.
The following research questions guided this study:

(1) What differences existed between performance in the face-to-face section and
online section related to major assignments and the overall course grade?
(2) What instructional strategies did students view as most helpful to the online section of the
course as compared to the traditional face-to-face version of the class? What were the
primary reasons for enrolling in one section of the course over the other section?
(3) What differences existed in the rating scores that the course instructor received in
both sections of the course as determined by the rating scale questionnaire?
(4) What additional factors contributed to student performance in the online section of
the course?

Instrument
The instrument was a questionnaire developed by the course instructor and researcher.
Open-ended response items asked students to choose options from a bank or write-in
answers to each of the following questions:

● What was the main factor that influenced your decision to enroll in this course over
the alternate offering (face-to-face or online)?
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 253

● What was a secondary factor that influenced your decision to enroll in this course
over the alternate offering (face-to-face or online)?
● What are the top three instructional strategies that you found most helpful in your
completion of this course?

The second part of the questionnaire used a Likert rating scale to obtain a response from
five choices: Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree and
corresponded to the research questions. Students in both sections answered the open-
ended and first five Likert scale questions. Only students in the online section answered
the remaining Likert scale questions regarding their experiences in the online course.
Sample questions and formats are included in Appendix A. Mean scores were found for
each response choice within the respective domain and converted into the percentage of
respondents and their choices within each domain (reported in the results section).

Data collection
The researcher obtained access to all grades and assignment information through access to
the Blackboard Learn interactive learning format for both the traditional and online
versions of the course following Institutional Review Board approval for the study. The
investigator obtained informed consent by explaining the project in oral and written
format, depending upon the student availability. Students in the face-to-face and online
sections completed the questionnaire during the last week of the course and submitted to
their course instructor. At the completion of the semester, final grades were accessible to
analyze in Blackboard. A total of 76 participants were included in the study. Of the sample
size, over half participants (56.6%) attended the traditional face-to-face version of the
class, whereas the others participated in the online version of the class.

Data analysis
This study followed a mixed-methods design including both quantitative and qualitative
measures. Quantitative, statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS to determine
differences and correlations between: overall grades and individual rubric scores of the
major assignments (overall class average, Child Development Observations, Group
Presentation and Project, and Mini-Research Report); rating scales on the investigator-
created questionnaire; and comparison of performance among students that accessed
interactive material in the online section of the course (Blackboard Collaborate) compared
to overall performance in the course as measured by course grades on major assignments.
The questionnaire asked students to rate course content, communication with the instruc-
tor, communication with classmates, feedback received from the instructor, overall course
structure, comfort in an online class (online only), participation in a Blackboard
Collaborate live session (BBC live – online only), and viewing of a Blackboard
Collaborate recorded session (BBC recorded – online only). Data analysis consisted of
comparing and using inferential statistical tests with SPSS to determine whether signifi-
cant differences existed on assignment scores and questionnaire ratings between the two
course sections (online and traditional).
254 A. R. HURLBUT

Qualitative analyses were conducted using NVIVO 11 to determine overall trends and
themes regarding responses given on student questionnaire about strategies that were seen
as most helpful in each of the courses and reasons for enrolling in one section of the
course versus the other section. Responses to the open-ended questions from the ques-
tionnaire were examined and coded for recurrent themes using grounded theory as the
framework (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Responses to the open-ended questions ranged from
one-word answers to short statements and reflections. Several themes were determined in
the areas of enrollment factors including flexibility, employment, and learning preference.
Themes that emerged regarding instructional strategies were assignments, instructor feed-
back, discussions, course media and tools, and in-class activities. Specific reporting of this
information is in the subsequent results section, under the appropriate research question.

Results
Exploratory analyses were conducted to examine the assumptions of parametric analysis.
Specifically, only categories related to research questions 3 and 4, such as course content,
participation in a live Blackboard Collaborate session (BBC live), and viewing of a
recorded Blackboard Collaborate session (BBC recorded) were normally distributed.
Extreme or outlier values were seen in most dependent variables, including the average
final class score, average observation score, final mini research score, group project score,
instructor communication, classmate communication, feedback, course structure, and
comfort in an online program. Due to the nature of this project and the limited sample
size, however, none of the extreme values was excluded; thereby nonparametric analyses
were used in the primary analyses.

Research question 1 – performance comparison on major assignments

Students’ final class score percentages ranged from 83.46 to 99.81 (M = 95.89, Mdn = 97.02,
SD = 3.32). The average observation scores were calculated from eight different child devel-
opment observations ranging from 47.63 to 80.00 (M = 76.33, Mdn = 78.44, SD = 5.37). Their
mini research final scores ranged from 60.00 to 100.00 (M = 95.29, Mdn = 97.00, SD = 6.24).
The group project scores ranged from 80.00 to 100.00 (M = 97.68, Mdn = 98.00, SD = 3.04).
More detailed statistics can be found in Table 1.
A series of nonparametric Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted to test differences
for class and project related scores between students who attended the traditional class and
those who attended the online class. The results indicated that the mean ranks for the final

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of performance variables.

Continuous variable N M Mdn SD Min Max
Final class average 76 95.89 97.02 3.32 83.46 99.81
Observation average 76 76.33 78.44 5.37 47.63 80.00
Final mini research 76 95.29 97.00 6.24 60.00 100.00
Group project 76 97.68 98.00 3.04 80.00 100.00
Class N %
Online 33 43.4
Traditional 43 56.6
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 255

Table 2. Means, medians, and standard deviations of performance variables by class.

Variable by class n M Mdn SD U p
Final class average 481.50 .017*
Online 33 95.17 95.55 3.16
Traditional 43 96.45 97.61 3.36
Observation average 519.50 .046*
Online 33 76.08 77.63 3.73
Traditional 43 76.53 78.75 6.38
Final mini research 504.50 .029*
Online 33 93.39 97.00 8.40
Traditional 43 96.74 98.00 3.28
Group project 645.50 .479
Online 33 97.06 98.00 4.00
Traditional 43 98.16 98.00 1.95

class average, observation average, and final mini-research scores were slightly higher for
participants who were in the traditional class than were in online class, which was
statistically significant. Differences were not observed between the classes on the group
project grade. This can be attributed to reduced variance in the distribution of grades since
group projects resulted in five to six of the same grade assignments for each group
multiplied by the number of group members in each group. Performance variables by
class can be found in Table 2.
Upon further review of the descriptive statistics for each course section, there did not
appear to be drastic differences in the means in the four reported grade assignments
although data from the nonparametric Mann–Whitney U tests yielded statistically sig-
nificant results in three of the four categories. Thus, the non-parametric test may have
been over-powered and produced a significant effect when one did not actually exist.
Comparable t-tests were run to further examine the differences and are shown in Table 3.
Using this model, only the differences in the mini-research report assignment yielded
statistically significant mean variances between the online and traditional courses; the
traditional group had a significantly higher mean than the online group, t (39.51) = −2.17,
p = .04. Levene’s test for equality of variances was violated so the second (2-tailed) t-value
was used in the reporting.

Research question 2 – instructional strategies & enrollment factors

Differences were seen in the instructional strategies reported as being the most beneficial
or crucial in the learning process among the traditional and online classes. Specifically, the
questionnaire asked students to describe specific instructional strategies or choose from a
bank of listed strategies and then rank their top three choices according to the perceived

Table 3. Independent samples T-Tests.

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Final class average 0.073 0.788 −1.687 74 0.096
−1.700 70.951 0.093
Observation average 0.728 0.396 −0.365 74 0.716
−0.390 69.634 0.698
Final mini-research 6.888 0.011 −2.391 74 0.019
−2.167 39.514 0.036*
Group project 12.053 0.001 −1.581 74 0.118
−1.456 43.645 0.153
256 A. R. HURLBUT

Table 4. Instructional strategies class rankings.

Online
Ranking N Instructional Strategy
1 22 Instructor feedback on assignments
2 18 Course media and videos
3 17 Child Development Observations
assignments
4 14 Course textbook and assigned
readings
5 14 Weekly mini-assignments
Traditional
Ranking N Instructional Strategy
1 33 Instructor lecture/teaching in class
2 29 Activities and hands-on examples
during class
3 16 In-class discussions
4 14 Instructor feedback on assignments
5 10 Small group work in class

indicators most contributing to their learning in the course. The results of a qualitative
frequency response analysis revealed differences between the two types of courses as
reported in Table 4 below. The table includes the top five most reported instructional
strategies from the questionnaire results for each class. Instructor feedback was the only
strategy reported in both sections of the course (N = 22 for the online class and N = 14 for
the traditional class).
Both courses in the program were considered open enrollment, meaning that students
were able to choose the face-to-face or online section of the class according to their
personal schedules and needs. Using the questionnaire, students were asked to provide the
primary and secondary factor that contributed to their enrollment in the online or face-to-
face section of the course. Students chose or wrote in responses such as, “needed a flexible
schedule, prefer online courses, prefer face-to-face courses, conflict in work schedule, etc.”
After analyzing and categorizing the responses, primary and secondary reasons were
counted and combined for reporting purposes. Table 5 below illustrates the most common
primary and secondary factors that students in both sections of the course reported as a
factor for enrolling in their chosen course delivery method.
As evidenced by the data from Table 5, students choosing the online section of the course
more often cited schedule concerns such as a class or other conflict or employment
scheduling issues as reasons that they needed to enroll in the online section. The flexibility
of the online course allowed students to access resources and material when students were
available. However, looking at responses from the traditional students, these participants
more often purposefully chose the face-to-face section due to wanting more physical contact
with the course instructor, peers, or citing a learning preference for face-to-face classes.

Table 5. Enrollment factors by class.

Online Traditional
Ranking N Enrollment Factor Ranking N Enrollment Factor
1 27 Needed a flexible 1 38 Face to face time with course instructor
schedule
2 17 Employment 2 22 Course schedule allowed face-to-face
enrollment
3 9 Online learning 3 10 Face to face time with peers
preference
4 6 Class conflict 4 7 Face to face learning preference
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 257

Research questions 3 & 4 – instructor ratings & online factors

To answer the third and fourth questions, the researcher-created questionnaire was
distributed to consenting students in both sections to determine potential differences in
overall course facilitation. The questionnaire evaluated areas such as instructor commu-
nication with the class, communication with other classmates, feedback received from the
instructor, and overall course structure. Additionally, rating scores were used for the
online section of the class to determine comfort in an online class, participation in a
live Blackboard Collaborate session with the course instructor (BBC live), and viewing of a
recorded BBC session (BBC recorded) and how these variables contributed to student
performance. Table 6 details the descriptive statistics of these variables.
Findings indicate that communication with classmates was reported better in the
traditional class than in the online class using nonparametric Mann–Whitney U tests,
U = 457.50, p = .002. Independent samples t-tests confirmed this finding with similar
statistically significant results. This outcome was anticipated since students in the online
section of the course did not encounter planned face-to-face interactions as part of the
course. There were no other significant differences between the reporting in the two
classes according to the statistics reported in Table 7.
A final analysis was conducted to determine how additional factors influenced student
performance in the online class. The analysis sought to determine correlations between

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of instructor rating and online variables.

Continuous variable N M Mdn SD Min Max
Content 76 3.76 4.00 .75 2.00 5.00
Instructor communication 76 4.82 5.00 .39 4.00 5.00
Classmates communication 76 4.59 5.00 .61 2.00 5.00
Feedback 76 4.95 5.00 .22 4.00 5.00
Course structure 76 4.80 5.00 .49 2.00 5.00
Online comfort 33 4.39 5.00 .79 2.00 5.00
BBC live 33 2.03 2.00 1.24 1.00 5.00
BBC recorded 33 4.33 5.00 .82 2.00 5.00
Class N %
Online 33 43.4
Traditional 43 56.6

Table 7. Means, medians, and standard deviations of instructor rating variables by class.
Variable by class n M Mdn SD U p
Content 578.00 .137
Online 33 3.64 3.00 .74
Traditional 43 3.86 4.00 .74
Instructor communication 636.50 .255
Online 33 4.76 5.00 .44
Traditional 43 4.86 5.00 .35
Classmates communication 457.50 .002*
Online 33 4.33 4.00 .74
Traditional 43 4.79 5.00 .41
Feedback 661.50 .193
Online 33 4.91 5.00 .29
Traditional 43 4.98 5.00 .15
Course structure 617.50 .140
Online 33 4.70 5.00 .64
Traditional 43 4.88 5.00 .32
258 A. R. HURLBUT

Table 8. Frequencies and percentages of online reports.

Variable n %
Online Comfort
2 2 6.1
4 14 42.4
5 17 51.5
BBC Live
1 13 39.4
2 14 42.4
3 1 3.0
4 2 6.1
5 3 9.1
BBC Recorded
2 1 3.0
3 4 12.1
4 11 33.3
5 17 51.5

Table 9. Spearman correlations of online grades.

Online Comfort BBC Live BBC Recorded
Final class average score .397* .464** .151
Observation .452** .245 .335
Final mini research .059 .123 −.072
Group project .124 −.079 .023
* p < .05, ** p < .01

students’ self-reported comfort with taking an online class, attendance of at least one live BBC
session, and/or viewing of at least one recorded BBC session with student performance on the
major assignments in the course, including the overall course average. Table 8 illustrates the
frequencies with which students in the online section reported each of the areas.
Nonparametric Spearman’s rank correlations were then used to examine the relationships
between online comfort, BBC Live, and BBC Recorded and assignment scores of online
students. As shown in Table 9, there was a weak positive correlation between the final class
average score and online comfort, p < .05, suggesting that students who had a higher reported
degree of comfort in an online course had a higher final class average. There was a moderate
positive correlation between final class average score and attendance at a BBC Live session,
p < .01, indicating that students who had attended at least one BBC Live session also had
higher final class average scores. Finally, there was also a moderate positive correlation
between the average observation score and reported online comfort, p < .01, suggesting that
students who had higher comfort levels in online classes performed better in the observation
assignments. Other correlations were not significant, ps > .05.
Reanalyzing the data through parametric independent t-tests yielded similar results
(Table 10). Pearson correlations indicated that students who reported they were comfor-
table in an online environment tended to perform better when compared to students who
did not report such comfort. In this analysis, this was seen in all four grade categories with
the overall course average having the strongest correlation. Additionally, students who
participated in at least one of the BBC Live sessions also tended to receive a higher overall
course average, although participation in the sessions was not significantly linked to
performance on the other assignments in the course. Participation in recorded BBC
sessions was not related to grade performance among students in the online class.
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 259

Table 10. Parametric correlations between academic variables and online variables.
Online Comfort BBC Live BBC Recorded
Final class Average Pearson Correlation .684a .378b 0.172
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.030 0.338
N 33 33 33
Observation average Pearson Correlation .501a 0.241 0.307
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003 0.176 0.082
N 33 33 33
Final mini research Pearson Correlation .448a 0.233 0.067
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.009 0.191 0.712
N 33 33 33
Group project Pearson Correlation .399b 0.025 0.137
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.022 0.891 0.447
N 33 33 33
aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
bCorrelation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Discussion
For the most part, course grade analysis and responses to the questionnaire supported the
online course format as an effective method for pre-service teachers to gain knowledge
and experience in child development and learning theory. It is noteworthy that although
course delivery occurred through the same course instructor in two different formats,
responses to the questionnaire indicated that students were satisfied with both formats due
to a variety of enrollment and instructional factors.

● Research Question 1 – What differences were apparent between pre-service

teachers in the face-to-face section and online section related to performance
on the major assignments in the course?

Overall, findings for this research question suggest that students who participated in the
online class generally performed relatively similar to students who participated in the
traditional class. Means between the two courses were statistically different using the non-
parametric tests in three of the four grading categories (final class average, observations
average, mini-research report).
However, upon further review of the descriptive statistics, the difference in mean scores
between the two groups was approximately only one grade point in both the overall class
average and observation average and three points in the mini-research report. Thus, while
yielding statistically significant results, overall, mean scores indicate that students in both
sections of the course performed consistently to pass and exceed expectations according to
the course requirements. When the data was re-run using parametric t-test models, only
the mini-research project yielded significant differences. Despite the traditional class
performing slightly better on the mini-research project, it did not affect the overall course
average enough to yield a statistically significant result in this grading category. Limited
sample sizes and inflated grading is potentially an important limitation that yielded
variances in the reporting of these results. This finding also raises the question on how
face-to-face time and interaction with the course instructor potentially affected the fidelity
with which the grading scheme was implemented with each of the courses. Larger sample
260 A. R. HURLBUT

sizes and additional exploration into the fidelity and strategy of the grading system is
needed.
While the results indicate consistent findings with previous studies on how students in
online courses fare as well or better than students in more traditional face-to-face versions
(Harrell & Harris, 2006; Means et al., 2013; Shachar & Neumann, 2010; Wu, 2015), it did
not measure future progress and success in the teaching program, internship, and teaching
practice such as the study completed by Weschke et al. (2011). In this study, researchers
found that teachers who had graduated from an online program were as or more capable
than teachers who had graduated from traditional programs as measured by their stu-
dents’ achievement on a literacy assessment. Further exploration into the impact of online
programs upon teaching practice is needed to examine this potential.

● Research Question 2 – What instructional strategies did students view as most

helpful to the online section of the course as compared to the traditional face-to-
face version of the class? What were the primary reasons for enrolling in one
section of the course over the other section?

Students in the traditional class reported in-class interactions such as face time with the
instructor, participation in hands-on activities, class discussions, and small group work as
the most beneficial instructional strategies that contributed to their success. However,
students in the online class rated alternate strategies such as course media, the textbook,
and outside assignments as most helpful. Both the online and the traditional class reported
feedback from the instructor in the top five most helpful strategies suggesting that the
instructor played a significant part in driving the learning of both sets of students. This is
important because it is consistent with findings from previous studies suggesting that
purposeful and meaningful interaction in online courses, including specific feedback on
student progress is required for students to experience success in online environments
(Norton & Hathaway, 2008; Ravenna, Foster, & Bishop, 2012; Sheridan & Kelly, 2010).
Regardless of the instructional format, communication, interaction, and specific feedback
from the course instructor were key to perceived student success.
Enrollment factor data from the questionnaire indicated that students who chose the
online section of the course more often cited scheduling concerns such as a class or
employment conflict as reasons that they needed to enroll in the online section. The
flexibility of the online course allowed students to access instructional material whenever
personal schedules allowed them to. However, when examining responses from the
traditional students, these participants more often purposefully chose the face-to-face
section due to wanting more physical contact with the course instructor, peer interaction,
or citing a learning preference for face-to-face classes. This is important because this data
suggests that students’ decision to enroll in the face-to-face section was purposeful and
that students are successful when they participate in courses that align with their own
preferred learning methods (Chigeza & Halbert, 2014; Jaggars, 2014). Teacher education
programs can benefit from this information by structuring programs that offer a wide
variety of formats and offerings to cater to students’ schedules, but also accommodate
specific student learning needs. This is something that teacher education purports in their
own programs as they prepare pre-service teachers to implement the same practices of
differentiation and flexibility with K-12 students in the educational realm.
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 261

● Research Question 3 – What differences existed in the rating scores that the
course instructor received in both sections of the course as determined by the
rating scale questionnaire?

Students in the traditional class reported stronger communication with classmates

than students in the online class. This was to be expected since students in the online
section of the course did not experience any planned face-to-face interactions. Students
in both sections were expected to collaborate on a group project, but only students in
the face-to-face section were given in class time for meeting and discussion purposes.
Students in the online section were expected to use email, Google platforms, message
boards, or other selected methods of interaction to complete the project, but it was
never a required expectation that students meet physically to discuss the project.
Future studies could benefit by exploring peer communication and collaboration in
both synchronous and asynchronous online environments as compared to traditional
forms of learning (Daniel et al., 2016; Heafner & Petty, 2016). All other rating score
indicators including communication with the course instructor, course content, and
feedback were relatively consistent between both versions of the class.

● Research Question 4 – What additional factors contributed to student perfor-

mance in the online section of the course?

Results from the questionnaire data suggest that course enrollment was purposeful and
that students chose the course delivery method according to their own preferred learning
styles and instructional needs. Several of the online students reported their own comfort
with taking an online class, which supports this previous finding. Statistically, students
who also reported comfort with online environments tended to perform better as evi-
denced by higher assignment scores and overall course grades. Results comparing the
overall course average in the online class were also positively correlated with attendance in
a BBC Live session. However, upon further inspection of the frequency table and review of
recorded sessions with student identifiers, only three students attended all BBC live
sessions, two students attended most (3–4), and two students attended at least one. All
other students either did not attend live or only attended part of the live session
(evidenced by early-sign offs in the system). A brief review of these students’ course
grades and averages does affirm findings that these students tended to score higher in the
course; the three students attending all five sessions had the three of the higher final
course averages in the online section. Instructor grading criteria and grading bias (see
limitations below) is an important consideration when interpreting these findings. None-
the-less, there does appear to be an important link between synchronous communication
with the course instructor and student performance in online environments (Heirdsfield
et al., 2011; Prieto-Rodriguez et al., 2016).
Participation in the recorded BBC session was not correlated with a higher course
average. The instructor was able to provide the recorded session and monitor whether
or not students accessed the link, but due to the limitations of the course management
system, there was no way to know whether or not the student actually viewed the
recording in full. Students could simply click on the link to show that it had been
viewed, but were on their own when it came to actually accessing the content
262 A. R. HURLBUT

appropriately. This might be a potential reason why only the live BBC viewing was an
indicator of higher performance than the recording. This conclusion again brings up
the need for further evaluation into the benefits of synchronous vs. asynchronous
learning environments when using online education formats.

Limitations
There were several key limitations that impacted the generalizability of this study. First,
this study was purely observational and did not allow for random sampling. Students
chose the section of the course that they wanted to participate in and performance in the
course was studied using this authenticity. Future studies intending to truly evaluate the
quality of course delivery methods in teacher education should consider sampling where
students desiring traditional settings are randomly placed in online courses and students
desiring online courses are randomly placed in traditional ones. Performance under these
conditions might tell more about the impact of the course delivery method upon student
performance and perceived instructor effectiveness.
Second, descriptive statistics of the academic grading variables indicate that this course
instructor was a relatively easy grader since the distribution of grades lacked the assumptions
for normal distribution. The conjecture in this study is that if students showed up and did the
work, they earned maximum credit most of the time. The researcher’s personal impression
with the course instructor was that she valued learning, feedback, mastery, and growth in
learning rather than course grades. This was evident in the findings as students in both sections
of the course rated the instructor high in the area of providing feedback in learning.
Additionally, one of the course assignments (the mini-research paper) used the final grade
determination in the statistical analyses. However, these students had multiple opportunities to
turn in drafts of their papers to receive feedback for improvement. The grade percentages on
these submissions were relatively minimal while the final research paper grade held the most
weight in the final course average. There was also the potential for grader bias in both studies
since the course instructor knew her face-to-face students and was also aware of students who
attended the BBC live sessions. Further review of fidelity in both course delivery and grading
could increase the impact that these findings could have upon the existing literature.
Finally, a key question in any study evaluating the effectiveness of online settings vs.
traditional settings in teacher preparation is: are these students prepared to become good
teachers? This study did not necessarily set out to answer this question, but should
certainly be a consideration for all future research when looking at teacher preparation
for the next generation.

Conclusions
Analysis of data from course-generated assignments, grades, and responses to the ques-
tionnaire demonstrates evidence that supports learning in teacher education through both
the online and face-to-face course format. Although course delivery occurred through the
same course instructor in two different formats, responses on the questionnaire indicate
students were satisfied with both structures due to a variety of enrollment and instruc-
tional factors, led by student choice. Students enrolling in the traditional course did not
demonstrate a significant advantage over students in the online section in overall
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 263

performance through grades and averages. Students were allowed enrollment preference
and responses on the questionnaire indicate that students enrolled in courses that they
perceived as compatible with their personal learning styles. Similarly, students who
reported comfort with taking online classes tended to perform better overall in the course
as evidenced by course assignments and overall averages which is supported in prior
studies (Chigeza & Halbert, 2014; Jaggars, 2014). Students in both classes reported feed-
back from the course instructor as one of their top five instructional strategies that
facilitated success in the course. Furthermore, students in the online section of the course
who participated in at least one live BBC session with the course instructor tended to fare
better. Regardless of the course format delivery, instructor presence, interaction, and
feedback were important hallmarks of perceived course success and learning among
students (Heirdsfield et al., 2007; Swan et al., 2000, 2000). More studies are needed that
explore the various features of synchronous learning that make interaction and collabora-
tion among peers feasible. Additionally, long-term studies should evaluate the effects of
online programs and preparation programs upon teacher effectiveness as practices trans-
late to future generations of students.

ORCID
Amanda R. Hurlbut http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9838-6025

References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card tracking online education in the United States.
Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
Braun, T. (2008). Making a choice: The perceptions and attitudes of online graduate students.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 63–92.
Chiero, R., & Beare, P. (2010). An evaluation of online versus campus-based teacher preparation
programs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 780.
Chigeza, P., & Halbert, K. (2014). Navigating E-learning and blended learning for pre-service
teachers: Redesigning for engagement, access and efficiency. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 39(11), n11.
Daniel, M. C., Schumacher, G., Stelter, N., & Riley, C. (2016). Student perception of online learning
in ESL bilingual teacher preparation. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(3), 561–569.
Ernst, J. V. (2008). A comparison of traditional and hybrid online instructional presentation in
communication technology. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 331–343.
Finger, G., McGlasson, M., & Finger, P. (2007). Information and communication technologies:
Towards a mediated learning context. In Y. Inoue (Ed.), Technology and diversity in higher
education: New challenges (pp. pp. 81–102). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Harrell, P. E., & Harris, M. (2006). Teacher preparation without boundaries: A two-year study
of an online teacher certification program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14
(4), 755–774.
Heafner, T., & Petty, T. (2016). Using edTPA to compare online and face to face teacher prepara-
tion programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 24(2), 153–186.
Heirdsfield, A., Davis, J., Lennox, S., Walker, S., & Zhang, W. (2007). Online learning environments:
What early childhood teacher education students say. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 28(2), 115–126.
Heirdsfield, A., Walker, S., Tambyah, M., & Beutel, D. (2011). Blackboard as an online learning
environment: What do teacher education students and staff think? Australian Journal of Teacher
Education (Online), 36(7), 1.
264 A. R. HURLBUT

Huss, J. A. (2007). Attitudes of middle grades principals toward online teacher preparation
programs in middle grades education: Are administrators pushing “delete”? RMLE Online:
Research in Middle Level Education, 30(7), 1–13.
Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: Community College
students. The American Journal of Distance Education, 28(1), 27–30.
Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experiences in K-12
online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education,
63(3), 185–200.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R. F., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended
learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.
Mullen, G. E., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2006). Student outcomes and perceptions of instructors’
demands and support in online and traditional classrooms. The Internet & Higher Education, 9
(4), 257–266. Doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.005
Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2008). Exploring two teacher education online learning designs: A
classroom of one or many? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 475–495.
Ogunleye, A. O. (2010). Evaluating an online learning programme from students’ perspectives.
Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 79.
Prieto-Rodriguez, E., Gore, J., & Holmes, K. (2016). Exploring quality teaching in the online
environment using an evidence-based approach. Australian Journal of Teacher Education
(Online), 41(8), 22.
Ravenna, G., Foster, C., & Bishop, C. (2012). Increasing student interaction online: A review of
the literature in teacher education programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20
(2), 177–203.
Schrum, L., & Hong, S. (2002). Dimensions andstrategies for online success: Voices from experi-
enced educators. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1),57–67.
Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2010). Twenty years of research on the academic performance of
differences between traditional and distance learning: Summative meta-analysis and trend exam-
ination. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 318–334.
Sheridan, K., & Kelly, M. A. (2010). The indicators of instructor presence that are important to
students in online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 767.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures, and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge
building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359–383.
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2000). Course design factors
influencing the success of online learning. In WebNet 2000 World Conference on the WWW and
Internet Proceedings (pp. pp. 513–518). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
Terras, K., Chiasson, K., & Sansale, A. (2012). Mirror mirror on the wall, is blended instruction the
best of all? Students’ perceptions of blending face-to-face and online instruction. The Journal of
Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(1), 5.
Thompson, N. L., Miller, N. C., & Pomykal-Franz, D. (2013). Comparing online and face-to-face
learning experiences for nontraditional students: A case study of three online teacher education
candidates. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(4), 233–251.
Thornton, H. (2013). Middle level professors’ perspectives regarding online teacher education:
Middle level teacher educators report their view of online teacher preparation. Middle School
Journal, 44(4), 30–38.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (2009).
Evaluation of evidence-basedpractices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review ofonline
learning studies. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://repository.alt.ac.uk/629/1/US_
DepEdu_Final_report_2009.pdf
 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION 265

Weschke, B., Barclay, R. D., & Vandersall, K. (2011). Online teacher education: Exploring the
impact of a reading and literacy program on student learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 15(2), 22–43.
Wu, D. D. (2015). Online learning in postsecondary education: A review of empirical literature
(2013–2014). Ithaka S+R. Retrieved from http://www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/online-learning-
in-postsecondary-education/
Yang, Y., & Cornelius, L. F. (2004). Students perceptions towards the quality of online education: A
qualitative approach. Published proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications
and Technology Conference, Chicago, IL.

Appendix A: Questionnaire
(1) What was the main factor that influenced your decision to enroll in the __________ course over
the ______________ section of this course?
(2) What was a secondary factor that influenced your decision to enroll in the _____________
course over the ____________________ section of this course?
(3) Please list 3 resources or strategies that you found helpful in your completion of this course
(textbook, readings, course media, discussions, assignments, etc.) Rank the top 3 strategies that
you found most helpful in your success of this course by putting the corresponding number next
to the appropriate strategy. (1 – most helpful, 2 – next, 3 – etc.)

Please rate each statement below as to your level of agreement

(4) The same content was covered in the online course as in the face-to-face course.

5 4 3 2 1
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree

(5) I had the ability to effectively communicate with the instructor.

5 4 3 2 1
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree

(6) I had the ability to effectively communicate with my classmates.

5 4 3 2 1
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree

(7) I received feedback from the course instructor on course assignments.

5 4 3 2 1
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree

(8) The structure of the course effectively facilitated my learning.

5 4 3 2 1
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree
266 A. R. HURLBUT

(The following questions were only given to students in the Online Section of
the course)
(9) I feel comfortable in an online educational environment.

5 4 3 2 1
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree

(10) I participated live in at least one of the Blackboard Collaborate sessions.

5 4 3 2 1
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree

(1) (11) I accessed recorded sessions via the Blackboard Collaborate link.

5 4 3 2 1
Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree