Editor’s Note:  Quality of instruction can be improved by a variety of means. In this study, traditional classroom courses in computer science were the baseline for comparison with online learning (5 semester-pairs). In four of five semester pairs, superior results were obtained with online courses enriched with laboratory, additional quizzes and homework.
 

Comparative Analysis of Face-to-Face and Online Course Offerings: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals Experience

S. Junaidu and J. AlGhamdi
 

Abstract

This paper compares face-to-face (F2F) teaching and online facilitation of a Data Structures course at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM). Participants were undergraduate full-time students of our Computer Science and Computer Engineering BS programs. We analyzed final exam grades and the students’ cumulative GPAs over five semester pairs. The results show that the CGPAs of the online students and the corresponding course GPAs were higher in four of the five semester pairs studied. This may be attributed to the students’ ability, the lab component in the online offerings (there was no lab in the F2F offerings), the increased number of quizzes and homework assignments in the online offerings or attributed to a synergy of all these.
 

Introduction

Online education has been a very popular, and somewhat controversial, topic in higher education in recent years. The number of institutions offering some type of online education has risen sharply, and there is no sign that this trend will slow down any time soon [1]. Motivating factors for this include potential for cost efficiency, time and place convenience for students and faculty, and the possibility of pedagogic improvement.

With this growing popularity of online education, there has been considerable debate about the use of information technology in higher education and whether the technology delivers good educational outcomes. While some researchers demonstrate the ‘no significant difference’ phenomenon [2,3,4,5], others have found that there is a significant difference either in favor of F2F or in favor of computer-mediated online offerings [6,7,8,9].

The study conducted in this paper reports result of our own experience in offering a Data Structures course online for full-time on-campus students. Students were required to take the course online and no F2F alternative of the course was available for the past three years. In most cases, this was the only online course among the courses that the students registered for in these semesters. Furthermore, the instructors that facilitate this online course teach other courses concurrently and, in some cases, to a subset of the online students, in the traditional F2F mode. This makes our ‘online experience’ of this Data Structures course quite different from other online course offerings where, typically, the students elect to take the course online and reside off-campus.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section highlights the differences in coverage, delivery and assessment in the course during the F2F and the online offerings. Section 3 compares the exam results over the five semester pairs under study. The paper is summarized in Section 4 and Section 5 concludes with acknowledgement.

Course Coverage, Delivery and Assessment

In this section we highlight the similarities and differences in the course coverage, delivery and student assessment in the F2F and the online modes. Table 1 shows the major topics of coverage in the two offering modes.

Table 1: Major Topics for F2F and Online Offerings
 

There was more depth and breadth coverage in the online course. For example, Trees and Graphs are covered more extensively and the Applications topics, comprising of about 2 weeks of lectures, were not covered at all in the F2F mode.

In the F2F offerings, there were three weekly meetings without a lab component. In the online offering, there was a single weekly meeting for answering students’ questions. No teaching was done in these weekly meetings. However, the weekly lab was conducted with an instructor lead. Additional elements in the online mode include electronic discussion group, chat rooms, e-mail communication and virtual office hours. The programming language of instruction in the F2F offerings was C and the language was Java in the online offerings.

With respect to students’ assessment, there were typically three to four quizzes and homework in the F2F offerings. On the other hand, there were seven homework assignments, seven quizzes in weekly class meetings and four lab quizzes over the semester in the online offerings. There were two major exams and a final exam in both offering modes. However, different instructors had different exams and different cut-points for the final grades in the F2F offering. In the online offerings all exams and cut-points were common in each semester. More details on the online course development, delivery, course and student assessment can be found in other papers [10,11,12,13].

Examination results statistics

We examine the final exam results for five semester pairs in this section. We consider the last five semesters during which the course was delivered F2F and the following five semesters during which the course was offered online. We compared first semesters with first semesters, second semesters with second semesters and summer semesters with summer semesters because we observed that results of summer semesters tend to be better.

Results of the five semester pairs are discussed in the next five subsections. In the results that follow, all calculations were based on the total enrolment including the students who dropped the course. An exception is the course GPA calculations.

3.1 Semester 991 versus 011

In this section we discuss results of the face-to-face offering of the course in the first semester of 1999 (991) and the first semester of 2001 (the first time the course was offered online). There were a total of 101 and 106 students in the F2F and the online course offerings, respectively.

       Figure 1: Results for Semesters 991 vs. 011

The bar chart in Figure 1 shows the comparative exam grades for the F2F and the online offerings of the course. This figure shows that a higher proportion of the online students obtained grades A+ (11%), B+ (12%), B(11%) and D+ (7%) compared to the F2F offering. On the other hand, a higher proportion of the F2F students obtained grades A (11%), C (20%), D (13%) and F (9%) compared to the online offering. Ten students obtained C+ grade in each group and about 16% of the students in each group dropped the course. The cut-points for the letter grades in the F2F and the online offerings are shown in Table 2. The number of students, for all sections in both offerings, that obtained each grade, is also shown in the table.

Table 2: Grades Cut-Points: 991 vs. 011

There were three sections in the F2F offering taught by two instructors with different exams and different cut-points for the letter grades. The cut-points shown in the table are those for the two sections of the course taught by one instructor. The cut-points of the other section were slightly lower for most grades. There were four sections in the online offering facilitated by four instructors. The exams and cut-points were the same in the online offering.

The average student cumulative GPA for the F2F and the online offerings were 2.435 and 2.537 respectively. Finally, the course GPA for the F2F and the online were 2.19 and 2.49, respectively.
 

3.2 Semester 992 versus 012

We compare the examination results for second semester of 1999 (992) and second semester of 2001 (012), for the F2F and the online offerings respectively. A total of 122 students enrolled in the course in the 992 semester. These students were divided into four lecture sections taught by three instructors. On the other hand, 148 students enrolled in the online offering of the course in the 012 semester. The students were divided into five sections facilitated by three instructors.

Table 3: Grades Cut-Points: 992 vs. 012

As in the 991 semester, each of the F2F instructors had a different exam and different cut-points for the letter grade. On the other hand the online offering was closely coordinated with common exams and common cut-points for all sections. Table 3 shows representative cut-points (for two sections taught by the same instructor) for the F2F offering and cut-points for the online offering. This table also shows the total number of students, in both offering modes that got A+, A, etc.

Figure 2: Results for Semesters 992 vs. 012

Figure 2 shows that 11% of the F2F (and 7% of the online) students obtained A grade, 8% (and 5% of the online) students obtained B+ grade, 16% (and 9% of the online) students obtained C+ grade and 6% (and 2% of the online) students obtained a D grade. On the other hand, 8% (and 7% of the F2F) students obtained A+ grade, 11% (and 7% of the F2F) students obtained B grade, about 20% (and 16% of the F2F) students obtained C grade and 6% (and 5% of the F2F) students failed the course.

Furthermore, Figure 2 shows that a much higher percentage of the online students, 26% (compared to 16% of the F2F) of the registered students failed to complete (i.e., dropped) the course. The mean cumulative GPA of the students that took the F2F and the online courses were 2.681 and 2.674 respectively. The course GPA of the F2F and the online offerings based on the examination results were 2.52 and 2.47 respectively. As in the 991 semester, the mean CGPA of the students is reflected in the course GPA of the examination results.

3.3 Semester 001 versus 021

We analyze exam results for the F2F offering during 001 and the online offering during 021. A total of 123 and 122 students, respectively, registered for the course during the F2F and the online offerings. There were four sections in the F2F offering taught by two instructors and five sections in the online offering facilitated by four instructors.

Table 4: Grades Cut-Points: 001 vs. 021
 

Cut-points in Table 4 for F2F offering are for the instructor who taught three of the four sections.

Figure 3: Results for Semesters 001 vs. 021

Figure 3 shows that the highest percentage (about 15%) of the F2F students obtained C+ grade, followed by 13% who dropped the course, followed by 12% who obtained D grade, followed by 11% who obtained B grade and another 11% who failed the course. Then 5% got D+ and 4% got A+. On the other hand, the highest percentage (about 20%) of the online students dropped the course, followed by 13% who obtained B grade, followed by two groups, of 11% each, who obtained C+ grade and D+ grade, followed by four groups of 7% each who obtained grades A+, B+, C and D. The least percentage of students in the online offering was for those who obtained A grade (6%).

The mean students’ cumulative GPA in this pair of semesters were close to each other. So were the corresponding course GPA’s. The mean CGPA was 2.533 and course GPA was 2.29 in the online offering while the mean CGPA was 2.489 and the course GPA was 2.2 in the F2F offering.
 

3.4 Semester 002 versus 022

A total of 165 students registered for the F2F offering in 002 and 184 students registered during the online offering in 022. F2F students were grouped into six sections taught by two instructors and the online students were also grouped into six sections facilitated by four instructors.

Table 5: Cut-Points for 002 and 022 Semesters

The cut-points shown in Table 5 are for four of the six sections taught by the same instructor; those for the other two sections were similar.

Figure 4: Results for Semesters 002 vs. 022

Table 5 and Figure 4 show that there were about the same numbers of students who obtained A grade (12 in F2F, 13 in online), B grade (22 in F2F, 21 in online), C+ grade (17 in F2F, 18 in online) and C grade (24 in F2F, 25 in online). Figure 4 also shows that 10% of the online (and 6% of the F2F) students obtained A+ grade, 12% of the F2F (and 6% of the online) students obtained B+ grade, 16% (and 7% of the online) students obtained D+ and 7% (and 4% of the online) students failed the course. About 30% of the online students dropped the course in the 022 semester compared to only 5% of the F2F students who dropped the course in the 002 semester.

The mean student CGPA, 2.656, in the 022 semester was higher than that of the 002 semester, 2.56. The corresponding course GPA’s in these semesters were consistent with a course GPA of 2.62 in 022 semester and a course GPA of 2.32 in the 002 semester.

 

3.5 Semester 003 versus 023

In this section we compare results for Summer 2000 (003) offered F2F and Summer 2002 (023) offered online. There was one section of 28 students in 003 and two sections with a total of 55 students in 023.

The cut-points for the letter grades of Figure 5 are shown in Table 6 for both offering forms.

Table 6: Grades Cut-Points: 003 vs. 023
 

Figure 5: Results for Semesters 003 vs. 023

The results depicted in Figure 5 show that no students failed the course in both modes. 25% of the F2F (and 5% of the online) students obtained C grade and about the same students’ proportions obtained B and C+ grades in both modes. The percentage of online students that obtained each of the grades B+, D+ and D was about twice that number of those who obtained the same grades in the F2F offering. There was no A+ in 003 and 7% of the students obtained an A grade whereas 9% got A+ and 11% got A in 023.

As in the 991 semester, there were comparatively more dropouts in the F2F offering (32%) than in the online offering (22%). The mean students’ CGPAs were, respectively, 2.669 and 2.103 for 023 and 003. This gives the highest difference (0.556) among the five semester pairs under study. The corresponding course GPAs were 2.7 and 2.39 for 023 and 003, respectively. These results seem to indicate that the batch of students in 003 is weaker than that in 023.

 

Summary and Conclusions

Over the five semester pairs under study, there was a total of 539 students in the F2F semesters and 605 students in the online semesters. The mean CGPA of the online students, 2.617, was slightly higher than that of the F2F students, 2.524. The corresponding course GPAs also followed the same trend for the online and F2F offerings, which were respectively, 2.49 and 2.32.

Table 7: Average Cut-Points over the Five Semester Pairs

 As discussed in Sections 3.1 to 3.5, the letter-grade cut-points for the F2F offerings differed from instructor to instructor. Table 7 shows the averages of the different cut-points for the different letter grades. Although the cut-points were the same in each semester in the online offering, they varied from semester to semester and the average over the five semesters is shown in Table 7.

The summarized results in Figure 6 show that a relatively higher percentage of the F2F students obtained most grade types. The percentage differences, however, were small ranging between 2% to 4%. An exception was the A+ grade where the percentage of the online students was relatively higher by about 4%.

The dropout rate was also generally higher in the online offerings (24%) compared to the F2F offerings (13%). Considering the staggering eLearning dropout rates quoted by industry experts, which is as high as 80% [16,14,15], the dropout rate we recorded in our course is acceptable. Our course delivery model and students’ evaluation regime addresses this problem extremely well.

Figure 6: Comparative Results for the Five Semester Pairs

Although the these results may not provide sufficient information for making definitive inferences, because of varying exams difficulty level from semester to semester and from instructor to instructor (in the F2F case) etc, we make the following general observations regarding the study reported in this paper:

• There was about 25% more coverage content (covering both depth and breadth) in the online offerings than in the F2F offerings.

• The online version of the course was four-credit (with a lab component) while the F2F version was a three-credit course with no lab component.

• There were twice as many quizzes and homework assignments in the online offerings than in the F2F offerings.

• The dropout rate was generally higher in the online offerings compared to the F2F offerings.

• There were relatively smaller class sizes in the online offerings than in the F2F offerings.

• There were consistently more A+ grade earners in the online offerings compared to the F2F offerings.

• Based on the students’ average CGPA, weaker students were the ones that always dropped the course in both offering modes. The difference in the students’ average CGPA between those who completed and those who dropped the course, in both offering modes, each semester was about 0.5 except in the summer semesters.

• The mean CGPA of the students in each pair of semesters was reflected consistently in the course GPA for that pair of semesters. That is, whenever the students’ mean CGPA was higher, the corresponding course GPA was also higher and vice-versa.

• The overall results suggest that the performance of the students was a function of the students’ ability (reflected by their mean CGPA) more than it was a function of the course-offering mode (F2F or online). Results of our surveys, reported in [13], show that our frequent quizzes and homework helped the students greatly due to their general low time management skills. The results in this paper support and add weight to the findings of other researchers elsewhere [2,3,4,5].

Acknowledgement

We commend the University (KFUPM) for initiating the online project and the college of computer sciences & engineering for pioneering this effort in the University. Without this initiative, this work would not have been possible.
 

We acknowledge the support of our colleagues with whom the online courses were
developed and delivered.

 

References

[1]     G. H., Hislop, Does Teaching Online Take More Time? 31^st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 10 – 12, 2001 Reno, NV.

[2]     Thomas L. Russell, No Significant Difference Phenomenon (NSDP). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 1999. ISBN 0-9668936-0-3.

[3]     Johnson, M., Introductory Biology Online: Assessing Outcomes of Two Student Populations, Journal of College Science Teaching – February 2002, XXXI, number 5, pp 312-317.

[4]     Carlisle, R., A Four Year Study Comparing English Classes Online, via Television, and Face-to-Face. California State University, 2002.

[5]     Carey J. M., Effective Student Outcomes: A Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face Delivery Modes. DEOSNEWS Vol.11 No. 9, ISSN 1062-9416.  http://www.ed.psu.edu/ascde/deos/deosnews/deosarchives.asp

[6]     Maki, R. H., Maki, W. S., Patterson, M., & Whittaker, P. D. Evaluation of a Web-based Introductory Psychology Course: Learning and Satisfaction in on-line versus Lecture Courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 32, 230-39, 2000.

[7]     Brown, B. W. & Liedholm, C. E., Can Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles of Microeconomics? American Economics Review – May 2002.

[8]     Shachar, M., Differences Between Traditional and Distance Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Approach, ProQuest, 2002. ISBN 0-493-87403-8

[9]     Thomas, P. Y., Effect of Computer-Based Instruction on Performance in Physics. Unpublished M.Ed. Dissertation, 2001.  University of Botswana, Gaborone.

[10]    S. Junaidu and J. Al-Ghamdi, Developing an Online Data Structures Course using Authorware, Journal of the United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA), Volume 16, No. 10, October 2002

[11]   S. Junaidu and J. Al-Ghamdi, Tips for Developing Media-rich Online Courses, Journal of the United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA), Volume 16, No. 12, December 2002.

[12]   J. Al-Ghamdi and S. Junaidu, Emulating F2F for Distance Learning Students, International Journal of Applied Computing & Informatics. Submitted.

[13]   S. Junaidu, Use of Internet for Online Course Delivery: A Case study, Australian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET). Submitted.

[14]   K. Frankola, Why Online Learners Drop Out, Workforce Magazine at URL: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/22/26/22/index_printer.php

[15]    K. Frankola, Tips for Increasing E-learning Completion Rates, Workforce Magazine at URL: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/22/26/22/index_printer.php

[16] Electronic document downloaded from URL: http://www.online-learning.com/consult_home.html

About the Authors

Sahalu Junaidu – Sahalu Junaidu is an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia. He received his Ph.D. from St. Andrews University, Scotland in 1998. His areas of interest include parallel computing, programming languages and e-Learning. He has been actively involved in the development and delivery of online course material for the past four years. Contact Sahalu at sahalu@ccse.kfupm.edu.sa

Jarallah AlGhamdi - Jarallah AlGhamdi is the Dean of the College of Computer Sciences and Engineering at King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.  He received his Ph.D. in Computer Science from Arizona State University in 1994.  He worked in research in software engineering and in particular in software metrics.  He worked in computer science curriculum development and is working in e-Learning extensively in the past few years.  Contact Jarallah at jaralla@kfupm.edu.sa