1. November 3, 2010 Department of Nutrition Online vs. Face-to-Face: A Course Comparison Jessica Bulova, Ashley Person, Brittan Bibb, Sarah Mammarella, Sarah Colby, PhD, RD Abstract OBJECTIVE: This research sought to compare outcomes and course experiences in online and face-to-face sections of a nutrition cultural foods course. METHODS: A survey tool was developed, based on existing standardized institutional teacher evaluations, to assess course satisfaction/experiences. At the end of the Fall 2009 semester, the survey was administered online to students in both sections of NUTR 1010: Cultural Foods. Grades and course satisfaction/experiences were compared between sections. RESULTS: Fifty seven face-to-face students (69%) and 33 online students (71%) completed the survey. Online students were more likely than face-to-face students to be older, employed, part-time students, living off-campus, upperclassmen, and a current or former nutrition, exercise science, or health promotions major (p< 0.05). Online students reported more often that “seeing information” was their preferred way to learn (72.7% versus 39.7%; p=0.008). Only two questions (on a scale from 1, strongly disagree to 7, strongly agree) were found to be significantly different between the two sections. Online students were more likely (p<0.05) to report that the class was well organized (6.76 ± 0.52 vs. 6.22 ± 1.29, respectively) and that they had tried new foods because of the course (6.64 ± 0.65 vs. 5.97 ± 1.75, respectively). No statistical differences were found in the other 18 course satisfaction/experiences survey items or in final course grades. CONCLUSION/APPLICATION: It appears that the online and face-to-face courses had overall comparable outcomes and experiences. Results show that online courses are an effective teaching method and a possible alternative to traditional face-to-face courses. Background Over half of all college students are now classified as non- traditional 1. Non-traditional students are those students not 18-24 years of age 2. Online students tend to be older and have related experience and knowledge of the information being taught 3. Teaching online is very different from teaching in the traditional face-to-face classroom 3. Specific skills and understanding are necessary to effectively teach and adapt to the online course environment. New technology and programs are available to design and teach online courses, which require additional training and practice. No dominate learning style has been found among students enrolled in online courses 4. Learning styles include: visual, auditory, verbal and kinesthetic or any combination of these types. A previous study of online course enrollment found that: 43% of students took online courses because it was convenient with their work schedule and 22% chose online courses because it was convenient to their family responsibilities 6. Methods Participants (n=90) were East Carolina University undergraduate students enrolled in either the online or the face-to-face section of a nutrition course, NUTR 1010: Cultural Foods, during the Fall 2009 semester. A survey tool was developed based on standardized institutional teacher evaluation forms to assess course satisfaction/experiences. At the end of the Fall 2009 semester, the survey was administered online to students in both sections of Cultural Foods: NUTR 1010. Survey results, exam scores and overall grades were compared between sections. A course syllabus comparison was also conducted. `Figure 3. Evaluation of online and face-to-face courses (exams, final, and overall) * Significant difference between sections, p <0.05. Results from the course syllabus comparison are displayed in Figure 2, which revealed that there were some slight differences in class structure and evaluation. Course content and exam questions were the same for both sections. After analyzing exam scores and overall course grades, no statistical differences were found in overall grades, with an average of about 86% for both sections. Only Exam 4 was found to be significantly different between the two sections, with a higher average in the face-to-face course (Figure 3). Conclusion Results show that online courses are comparable to traditional face-to-face courses and they can be an effective alternative delivery method. Overall, online students in this study were (p 10 hours per week, a part-time student, living off-campus, an upperclassman, and a current or former nutrition, exercise science, or health promotions major. Face-to-face and online courses had minimal class structure and evaluation differences. No significant differences were found for overall grades between the two sections (p=0.903), with an average of about 86%. Online students were more likely to report higher scores for: “the class is well organized” (p=0.0.24) and “I have tried new foods because of this class” (p=0.037) questions. Online students ranked their best way to learn as “seeing information” significantly more often than face-to-face students (p=0.008). Scheduling was the primary reported reason for choosing online section (37.5%). References 1.Business Wire (2004). “ Interest in online education continuing to grow with more than half of today ’ s college students categorized as non-traditional. ” DeVry University: pg 5630. 2.Hermans, C., Haytko, D., & Mott-Stenerson, B. (2009). Student satisfaction in web-enhanced learning environments. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 182- 99. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database. 3.Dykman, C., & Davis, C. (2008). “Online education forum: part two – teaching online versus teaching conventionally.” Journal of Information Systems Education. 19 (2): 157-164. 4.Mupinga, R., Mora, R., Yaw, D. (2006). “The learning styles, expectations, and needs of online students.” College Teaching. 54(1): 185-189. 5. Haugen, S., LaBarre, J., & Malrose, J. (2001). “Online course delivery: Issues and challenges.” Issues in Information Systems. 2:127-131. 6.Schwartzman, R. (2007). “Refining the question: how can online instruction maximize opportunities for all students?” Communication Education. 56(1): 113- 117. Results There were a total of 83 students enrolled in the face-to-face section of NUTR 1010: Cultural Foods in the Fall 2009 semester and 46 students in the online section. Of those students, 57 (69%) in the face-to-face section completed the online survey about the course and 33 (71%) completed it in the online section. Figure1. Significantly Different Characteristics Between Online and Face-to-Face Sections; p <0.05 There were no significant differences between students in the face-to-face and online sections for: Race Gender Relationship status Number of children that live with the student Participation in a sports team or club Number of hours of work spent related to the course per week Enjoyment of group work Online students ranked their favorite/best way to learn as “seeing information” significantly more often than face-to-face students (72.7% versus 39.7%; p=0.008). The number one reported reason for choosing to enroll in the online instead of the face-to-face section was scheduling (37.5%). Average Age: 23.88± 7.38 years Online (n=33) Average Age: 19.88 ± 3.15 years Employed > 10hrs/week : 23.2% Full-time student: 100% Live off-campus: 70.7% Upper- classman: 53.4% NUTR, EXSS, or Health Promotions major: 24.2% Face- to-Face (n=57) Employed > 10hrs/week : 61.8% Full-time student: 90.9% Live off- campus: 93.8% Upper- classman: 90.9% NUTR, EXSS, or Health Promotions major: 49.1% Survey QuestionsOnlineFace-to-Face Sig. (2-tailed) This class was interesting. 5.88 ± 1.2195.58 ± 1.511 0.328 The grading is fair. 6.67 ± 0.6456.59 ± 0.967 0.697 The objectives are clear. 6.61 ± 0.6096.12 ± 1.366 0.550 The class is well organized. 6.76 ± 0.5206.22 ± 1.287 0.024* Dr. Colby is an enthusiastic teacher. 6.58 ± 0.8306.61 ± 1.189 0.833 I have learned a lot from this class. 6.09 ± 1.2085.85 ± 1.472 0.420 This class has made me think about things in new ways. 6.12 ± 1.1395.61 ± 1.520 0.096 I have tried new foods because of this class. 6.64 ± 0.6535.97 ± 1.752 0.037* I feel like I understand more about other cultures because of this class. 6.30 ± 0.8475.98 ± 1.358 0.224 The syllabus is clear and useful. 6.64 ± 0.6536.44 ± 1.103 0.354 Dr. Colby answers any questions I have. 6.73 ± 0.5746.47 ± 1.223 0.266 If I need something, Dr. Colby would be there for me. 6.55 ± 0.7116.22 ± 1.301 0.188 Dr. Colby respects the students. 6.79 ± 0.4856.47 ± 1.180 0.149 The course material presented in class is what is included on tests. 6.52 ± 0.9066.25 ± 1.385 0.334 The amount of work for class is appropriate. 6.55 ± 0.7116.34 ± 1.334 0.412 I would like to have more challenging material presented. 3.33 ± 1.6143.36 ± 1.937 0.955 I have learned from and interacted with my classmates. 5.64 1.578 5.05 ± 1.665 0.103 I found the technology used in this class easy to use. 6.42 ± 1.3705.85 ± 1.448 0.065 Dr. Colby is a very effective teacher. 6.42 ± 1.3246.34 ± 1.212 0.755 How easy this class was.4.39 ± 1.7674.75 ± 1.9790.398 Table 1. Results of course satisfaction questions. Significant difference between sections, p <0.05; mean scores reflect score on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree) Table 1 above illustrates all questions asked and average scores for each. Only two course satisfaction questions were found to be significantly different between the online and face-to-face sections. Online students were more likely to report higher scores for: “The class is well organized” (p=0.0.24) “I have tried new foods because of this class” (p=0.037) Figure 2. Course Syllabus Comparison Online Attendance Policy: None Make-Up Work: No make-up exams allowed or make-up or late assignments Evaluation: 5 exams (lowest one dropped) = 400 points 4 sets of exam questions = 40 points 13 Blackboard discussion assignments (10 pts each, lowest 3 dropped) = 100 points 5 page country paper, group responses, & test questions = 100 points Total = 640 points Face-to-Face Attendance Policy: 3 absences allowed After that, 10 points deducted for each additional absence Make-Up Work: No make-up exams allowed or make-up or late assignments Evaluation: 5 exams (lowest one dropped) = 400 points 7 discussion board group projects (20 points each, lowest dropped) = 120 points Country class presentation & test questions = 100 points Total = 620 points