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).¶

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 The mean effect size for studies with more time spent by online learners was +0.46, compared with +0.19 for studies in which face-to-face learners spent as much time or more on task; the difference between the two sets was statistically significant (Q = 3.88, p < .05). → 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

Moderator analysis within the 51-contrast meta-analysis comparing studies by relative time on task: mean effect size +0.46 for studies with more online time on task versus mean effect size +0.19 for studies where face-to-face learners spent as much time or more; QBetween = 3.88, p < .05. The contrast fell just short of significance (p < .06) when the five K-12 contrasts were removed.

"The mean effect size for studies with more time spent by online learners was +0.46 compared with +0.19 for studies in which the learners in the face-to-face condition spent as much time or more on task (Q = 3.88, p < .05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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).
• 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