Effect sizes were larger in studies where online and face-to-face conditions differed in curriculum materials and instructional approach (+0.42) than where curriculum and instruction were nearly identical (+0.20; Q = 5.40, p < .05).¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Of six methodological variables tested as moderators, only equivalence of curriculum and instruction was significant (Q = 5.40, p < .05): studies with identical or almost identical curriculum and instruction across conditions had smaller effects (+0.20) than studies where conditions varied in multiple instructional aspects (+0.42). → Means 2009

Evidence¶

Means 2009¶

Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Methodological-moderator analysis of the 51 contrasts testing six variables: sample size, type of knowledge tested, study design strength, unit of assignment, instructor equivalence, and curriculum/instructional equivalence. Only the last was significant, with effect sizes of +0.20 versus +0.42; differences could include activity organization or inclusion of resources such as simulations or lectures in one condition only.

"Only equivalence of curriculum and instruction emerged as a significant moderator variable (Q = 5.40, p < .05). Studies in which analysts judged the curriculum and instruction to be identical or almost identical in online and face-to-face conditions had smaller effects than those studies where the two conditions varied in terms of multiple aspects of instruction (+0.20 compared with +0.42, respectively)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Studies in which online learners spent more time on task than face-to-face learners showed a greater benefit for online learning (+0.46 vs. +0.19; Q = 3.88, p < .05).
• Students in online learning conditions performed better on average than those receiving face-to-face instruction (mean effect size +0.24, p < .01, across 51 contrasts). — related
• A systematic search found almost no rigorous studies contrasting online and face-to-face instruction for K–12 students: none with computable effect sizes through 2006, and only five meeting meta-analysis criteria through July 2008. — related
• Blended online-plus-face-to-face instruction showed a larger advantage over face-to-face instruction (+0.35, p < .001) than purely online instruction did (+0.14, p < .05). — related