Comparing Online and Face-to-Face Presentation of Course Content in an Introductory Special Education Course

Abstract

Instructional content was presented differently in two introductory special education course sections. In a face-to-face (f2f) section, the instructor met with students on regularly scheduled days and times and presented content in person. In the other section, content was presented using enhanced podcasts, consisting of the instructor narrating while PowerPoint slides and other visuals were shown in flash movies that students could download from the Internet at days and times of their choosing. All other aspects of these two class sections were the same. Although data associated with student achievement and student satisfaction were slightly more favorable for the f2f section, the discrepancies may have been related to demographic differences in the student populations of the two sections. Measures of student engagement were slightly higher for the online section. Implications of findings are discussed in relation to teaching and learning in courses with large enrollments that are focused primarily on developing knowledge-based competencies.

Keywords

special education teacher preparation online instruction scholarship of teaching and learning

Professional knowledge standards revised by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC; 2009) for beginning special educators as well as those established for other teacher certification areas (e.g., see National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2008) provide a basis for including an introductory course in special education as part of a teacher education curriculum. Although content related to professional standards can be infused into any number of course structures, a cursory examination of the websites of prominent education textbook publishers reveal that at least nine different textbooks targeted for use in an introductory special education course have been published within the past 2 years. A market supporting so many books with overlapping content suggests that a course focusing on foundational knowledge associated with the field of special education is very common in higher education institutions offering degree programs leading to teacher certification.

Instructors of an introductory course in special education have a unique responsibility to provide learning opportunities that have a long-lasting influence on the future teachers who are enrolled. It may be the only special education course ever taken by teacher candidates pursuing certification in areas other than special education. Therefore, the introductory course offers a unique opportunity to influence the attitudes of future classroom teachers toward students with disabilities, including their understanding of responsibilities of general educators in educating students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Furthermore, the course marks the beginning of professional development for the next generation of special educators. These students not only need to leave the course with a good foundation of knowledge on which to base their future studies, but learning activities should also build on the enthusiasm for learning that naturally accompanies entering their chosen profession.

Survey courses in special education, like those in other fields, tend to include a wide range of topics (e.g., characteristics of children with different types of disabilities, legal responsibilities of schools, beginning information on effective instructional interventions). Due to the breadth of information that must be covered in a single semester, instruction on any single topic rarely goes beyond an introductory level. Foundational courses such as these, which focus on concepts rather than applied skills, are particularly well suited to instruction via technology-mediated or online instruction (Collins, Baird, & Hager, 2009; Spooner & Lo, 2009).

Face-to-Face (f2f) and Online Instruction

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of teacher education programs, along with programs in numerous other disciplines, that use technology-mediated instruction for distance and on-campus classes. Due to critical teacher shortages, special education teacher preparation programs have been especially responsive to using online instruction to reach teacher candidates in rural areas, particularly for preparing teachers for children with moderate to severe disabilities (Jameson & McDonnell, 2007; Spooner & Lo, 2009). After a review of the literature from 1985 to 1999, Ludlow and Brannan (2010) reported that 32 programs were using some type of distance learning to prepare teachers for shortage areas. Nagel (2009) predicted that the numbers of postsecondary students taking online courses would double from 12 to 24 million by 2014. Some of the benefits of online course work include flexibility and convenience, reduced travel costs, and increased opportunities for discussion and reflection (Hurt, 2008).

Several authors have described their efforts at technology-mediated instruction and have thoughtfully considered advantages as well as disadvantages of online teaching and learning (e.g., Collins et al., 2009; Jameson & McDonnell, 2007; Spooner & Lo, 2009). Three studies that focused on student satisfaction via end of course evaluations of distance and on-campus students in graduate special education courses (Beattie, Spooner, Jordan, Algozzine, & Spooner, 2002; Spooner, Jordan, Algozzine, & Spooner, 1999; O’Neal, Jones, Miller, Campbell, & Pierce, 2007) found no differences between student satisfaction of either instruction or the courses in general. O’Neal et al.’s (2007) study was the only investigation where student achievement was examined by comparing students’ pretest and posttest scores. No differences emerged between groups at posttest or pretest; however, students in the online and traditional classes improved their knowledge of course content during the course.

In 2005, Steinweg, Davis, and Thomson compared the achievement of students following online (n = 28) and traditional instruction (n = 26) of a graduate-level introduction to special education course. Posttest measures related to knowledge, skills, and dispositions were collected using a 44-item test related to content knowledge, performance on three projects, and a scale that related to attitudes toward students with disabilities. No significant differences emerged on any of the variables. In this study, the students self-selected their course section based on instructional delivery format.

A recent meta-analysis was conducted to determine how to implement quality online instruction as an evidence-based practice (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 2010). A systematic search of the literature from 1996 to 2008 resulted in a pool of 176 possible studies comparing online with f2f instruction. After applying quality controls related to design and requiring measures of learning outcome, only 37 studies were found comprising K-12 education, medical and health fields, teacher education, and numerous other disciplines. The authors were dismayed at the paucity of quality recent studies about this topic, particularly in light of the numbers of students engaging in some form of online learning. Clearly, the relative effectiveness of online learning compared to traditional instruction is a topic that warrants additional systematic research.

In our review of the special education literature, we found no recent studies of students’ achievement and satisfaction following online versus f2f instruction. One study outside of the field of special education teacher preparation was of particular relevance to this project. Rabe-Hemp, Woolen, and Humiston (2010) compared students’ final course grades and students’ self-reported gains in general, personal, and practical knowledge as well as their reports of class preparation time for an introduction to criminal justice course. Participants were 27 students in an online section and 256 students in a traditional f2f section. No differences emerged between groups on final course grades. Nonetheless, students in the online section reported that they spent more time on class preparation, had higher levels of class participation, and had more contact with faculty compared with the traditional course. In contrast, the traditional section had more student-to-student contact and peer discussion outside of class time. These researchers noted two factors that may have influenced findings: Students enrolled for both sections knew the instructional delivery format before enrolling, and students in the online section were older.

Best Practice Guidelines for Higher Education

The Higher Learning Commission (HLC; n.d.) published best practices guidelines for institutions that offer online programs. Prominent among the HLC’s recommendations were assessing student achievement, assessing student satisfaction, and fostering student interaction/engagement through sound pedagogy (student–content, student-to-student, and student–faculty). Although the HLC developed these guidelines with online instruction in mind, the three dimensions of student outcomes are applicable to all courses regardless of format. Therefore, we focused our investigation on collecting data on multiple measures that were relevant to these three dimensions (i.e., satisfaction, achievement, and engagement). Specifically, we sought to determine whether differences existed between students enrolled in different sections of the same course, with the instructor presenting content in an online format in one section and in a traditional, f2f format in the other.

The purpose of this article is to report findings from a study where instructional content in large introductory special education course sections was presented in two distinct ways. In one class section, the instructor met with students in a lecture hall at regularly scheduled days and times and presented content in person (i.e., f2f). In the other class section, content was presented to students using enhanced podcasts that consisted of the instructor narrating while PowerPoint slides and other visuals were shown in flash movies that students accessed through the Internet. All other aspects of the two class sections were the same, including the instructor, course materials, course content schedule, assignments, and tests. In this study, we focused on answering the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What differences, if any, existed in student satisfaction, achievement, and engagement between those who received f2f presentations and those who received online presentations?

Research Question 2: What demographic and student engagement variables are related to student achievement in an introductory special education course?

Method

Participants

Prior to their first class session of the semester, students enrolled in an introductory special education course at a large midwestern public university did not know whether their class section was going to receive information from their instructor through f2f class presentations in a large lecture hall during specific days and times of each week or through enhanced podcasts that could be viewed online at any time. There were 97 students enrolled in the f2f section and 119 students in the online section.

The demographic characteristics of the two class sections are shown in Table 1. The majority of students in the f2f (55%) and online (52%) sections were education majors, although the online section had a smaller percentage of special education majors (6% compared with 14%). More than 80% of students in both sections were female. The online section had proportionately more freshmen (34% vs. 12%) and fewer juniors and seniors (16% vs. 41%) than the f2f section.

Table 1.

Student Demographics by Section

	f2f (n = 97)		Online (n = 119)
Characteristic	n	%	n	%	χ²
Major					5.21
Elementary education	27	28	37	31
Secondary education	20	21	26	22
Early child/middle school	13	13	18	15
Special education	14	14	7	6
Undeclared	18	19	27	23
General student	5	5	4	3
Level
Freshman	12	12	40	34	22.80*
Sophomore	44	45	58	49
Junior	28	29	12	10
Senior	12	12	7	6
Graduate	1	1	1	<1
Gender
Male	15	16	14	12	0.62
Female	82	84	105	88

Note: f2f = face-to-face.

p < .01 (4 × 2 chi-square aggregating seniors and graduate students).

Course Design

Table 2 outlines the course organization for the two sections. The content of both sections was organized into five learning modules that each spanned 3 weeks and were aligned with 3 chapters from a textbook as well as corresponding learning materials (both sections used the same book and had access to the same materials). Each week, students in both sections were assigned to read a book chapter and review supplemental materials, and were also assigned to participate in two online discussions related to the week’s topic. At the end of each learning module, a test was administered over the content.

Table 2.

Content Organization by Section

Unit	Face-to-face (n = 97)	Online (n = 119)
Learning Module 1
Book chapters	1-3	1-3
Face-to-face presentations	1-6
Enhanced podcasts		1-7
Discussion questions	1-6	1-6
Learning Module 2
Book	4-6	4-6
Face-to-face presentations	7-11
Enhanced podcasts		8-15
Discussion questions	7-12	7-12
Learning Module 3
Book	7-9	7-9
Face-to-face presentations	12-16
Enhanced podcasts		16-23
Discussion questions	13-18	13-18
Learning Module 4
Book	10-12	10-12
Face-to-face presentations	17-21
Enhanced podcasts		24-29
Discussion questions	19-24	19-24
Learning Module 5
Book	13-15	13-15
Face-to-face presentations	22-26
Enhanced podcasts		30-35
Discussion questions	25-30	25-30

Students in the f2f section had the opportunity to attend two 75-minute presentations in a lecture hall each week, except on days when the university canceled class meetings for a national holiday, inclement weather, and so on. All of the enhanced podcasts for a 3-week learning module were available to students in the online section the 1st day of each module. For example, the first learning module corresponded to the first 3 weeks of the semester; so, all of the enhanced podcasts for the first learning module were available at the beginning of Week 1 and remained on the course webpage for the rest of the semester. The second learning module began the 4th week of the semester. Therefore, all of the enhanced podcasts for the second learning module were available at the start of the 4th week. There were 35 enhanced podcasts in total, ranging in length from 14 minutes 17 seconds to 54 minutes 1 second (M = 29 minutes 29 seconds), with 30 (86%) of the podcast running between 20 and 40 minutes.

The f2f presentations and the enhanced podcasts covered the same content and were organized using the same PowerPoint slides and sequence. Any paper handouts provided to students in the f2f section (e.g., study guides for exams) were also provided to online section students in the form of PDF files. Likewise, electronic resources (e.g., each module included links to external websites) provided to the online students were posted on the course webpage of the f2f section, and in most cases were previewed by the instructor during the f2f presentations.

Students in both class sections were required to participate in small-group, online discussions throughout the course. In the f2f section, the 97 students were divided into 12 discussion groups, making up approximately 8 to 9 students per group. In the online lecture section, the 119 students were divided into 14 groups for a similar group size of 8 to 9 students.

Data Collection and Analysis

Both course sections met in person the first class session of the semester. A faculty member who was not associated with the course met with students in absence of the course instructor and the course graduate assistant (who was also the same for both sections) to explain the purpose of the study, request consent from students to their achievement data for purposes of data analysis, and assure student confidentiality when reporting aggregate data. All of the students in both sections provided their consent to participate.

Measuring student satisfaction

Students were asked to respond to an end-of-semester course evaluation. The university where this study was conducted has a policy requiring that a course evaluation be administered for each course taught, and the paper survey used in this study was the method of course evaluation that had been adopted by the university’s College of Education. The course evaluation was administered the same way for both sections on the day of their final test, prior to the final test being administered. A faculty member who was not the course instructor administered the course evaluation and neither the course instructor nor the course graduate assistant was present during the administration. In both sections, students had the option of abstaining from the course evaluation.

Measuring student achievement

Data on three types of student achievement were analyzed: test scores, weekly discussion question responses posted on the course website using the Blackboard Learning Management System (LMS), and a library research assignment. There were five tests that corresponded to the five learning modules. Each test covered different material and was worth 30 points, resulting in a combined total of 150 test points.

There were 30 discussion questions for which students had the opportunity to respond, 2 for each chapter/week of the semester. To earn full credit for a question, students needed to contribute to an online discussion group by providing an initial response and one or more follow-up responses within specific time frames that were designated on the course schedule. Students were able to earn a maximum of 2 points for their initial response to a discussion question and 2 points for the follow-up post(s), for a total of 4 possible points per question and 120 possible points for the semester. Discussion points for the initial and follow-up responses were awarded based on timeliness of submission and thoughtfulness/relevance of contribution. Student discussion responses were scored using a rubric with a 3-point scale (0 = unsatisfactory due to missing, irrelevant, or inappropriate information; 1 = needs improvement due to not meeting the time frame of the assignment or a need for more relevant/thoughtful information; 2 = exceptional due to timely and thoughtful/relevant information).

The library research assignment was also the same for both sections. A university librarian worked with the course instructor to develop this assignment. It included a series of short online presentations and completing it required students to navigate through the university’s library website. The assignment was worth 10 points and required students to search and download two articles from practitioner-oriented journals (e.g., TEACHING Exceptional Children). Students were required to review and summarize the articles they downloaded, and the assignment culminated in an online quiz that could only be attempted once. Students were also required to complete the assignment within a 4-week period but could choose any time they wanted to start and complete different aspects of the assignment.

One related achievement variable was student retention. Student withdrawal rates in both sections were low. During the first 10 days when students may add or drop any class, six students withdrew from the online section; after 10 days, no students dropped from the online section and one student dropped from the f2f section.

Measuring student engagement

Four types of student engagement data were collected and analyzed for each of the five course modules: (a) a record of attendance in class for the f2f section, (b) a record of enhanced podcasts viewed by the online section, (c) the number of responses to online group discussion questions that were read and posted for both sections, and (d) the number of course content questions posed in public for both sections. Course content questions needed to focus on clarifying or expanding subject matter associated with the course. Therefore, questions related to grading procedures, locating course materials, and other logistical matters were not counted. Whereas students in the f2f section had opportunities to orally ask course content questions in public every class session, students in the online section had access to a discussion thread on the course website that was dedicated to questions about course content where they could post their questions (and expect a response from the instructor) at any time.

Data analysis

Data from the multiple sources were combined into a common data file, with the exception of a course satisfaction measure, which was anonymous so it could not be tied to a particular student. Descriptive statistics were calculated separately for the f2f and online sections. Chi-square analyses were computed comparing demographic characteristics across sections. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine the relationship of demographic and student engagement measures with student achievement. Statistical comparisons using independent-samples t test were used to examine 16 satisfaction items between sections. Multivariate comparisons for course satisfaction data were not possible due to the researchers’ access to item summary data only.

Results

Student Satisfaction

Table 3 shows the results of a 16-item course evaluation that was given to both course sections at the end of the semester. Overall, the vast majority of students in both sections rated the course positively, and the response rate was similar for both sections (91% for the online section and 94% for the f2f section). Using a 5-point scale (1 = negative, 5 = positive), the composite mean (i.e., mean of all the item means) for the f2f section (4.71) was slightly higher than the online group (4.51).

Table 3.

Comparison of Student Course Evaluation Responses by Section Ordered by Difference

	f2f (n = 91)		Online (n = 108)		Difference
Question	M	SD	M	SD	f2f—O	T
The instructor provided meaningful answers to questions that were asked in and out of class.	4.56	.71	4.52	.82	.04	ns
The instructor clarified difficult aspects of the course when asked.	4.65	.70	4.60	.78	.05	ns
The instructor demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the subject.	4.89	.38	4.81	.51	.09	ns
I gained some new knowledge as a result of taking this course.	4.84	.43	4.74	.69	.10	ns
The instructor’s assessment/assignments correlated to course objectives.	4.76	.52	4.65	.72	.11	ns
The instructor modeled language, attitudes, and behaviors that demonstrated sensitivity to cultural differences and diversity.	4.74	.57	4.62	.71	.12	ns
The instructor utilized technology appropriately when needed.	4.70	.58	4.58	.87	.12	ns
The instructor set high standards for student performance.	4.59	.59	4.45	.84	.14	ns
The instructor communicated the importance of the subject matter.	4.76	.48	4.50	.76	.16	ns
The instructor was available for consultations with me.	4.54	.73	4.38	.94	.16	ns
The instructor was enthusiastic about the course content.	4.79	.55	4.60	.91	.19	ns
There was considerable agreement between the initially announced objectives and the actual class.	4.65	.65	4.41	.89	.24	3.65*
The instructor clearly communicated the course objectives.	4.69	.55	4.44	.97	.25	3.84*
The instructor’s feedback regarding my performance in class was provided in a timely manner.	4.69	.66	4.43	.90	.26	3.78*
This course provided opportunities to expand my knowledge and experience with diversity.	4.83	.45	4.57	.84	.26	2.65*
The instructor encouraged student participation in class.	4.71	.73	3.94	1.25	.77	5.18*

Note: f2f = face-to-face. Scale ranges from 1 to 5 where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

p < .01.

Although mean scores for 15 of the items were 4.0 or higher for both sections, this was not the case for “The instructor encouraged student participation in class” item. The online section’s mean was 3.94 compared with the f2f section’s mean of 4.71. This item also showed the largest difference (.77) between mean scores for the two sections of any item. For every item, the f2f section’s rating was slightly higher; however, independent-samples t tests were administered to investigate differences between the mean scores for the online and f2f sections for all 16 items. Five of the 16 items had statistically significant differences at the p < .01 level.

Student Achievement

Table 4 shows findings from seven measures of student achievement. Overall, students in the f2f section had slightly higher levels of performance than students in the online section. For example, course grade point average (GPA) for the f2f section was 3.11 and it was 2.92 for the online section, which corresponds to the average total points earned. With the exception of one test, test means were slightly lower for the online section in comparison with the f2f section. The pattern of higher achievement for the f2f section also held true for the library research assignment, even though this assignment was completely online for both sections and would not have been influenced by the format used by the instructor to deliver course content.

Table 4.

Student Achievement by Section

	f2f (n = 97)		Online (n = 119)
Characteristic	M		M
Discussion grades (4.0 max)	3.62		3.50
Library assignment (10 max)	8.58		8.31
Test 1 (30 max)	23.11		22.95
Test 2 (30 max)	23.76		24.59
Test 3 (30 max)	25.08		24.58
Test 4 (30 max)	25.06		24.05
Test 5 (30 max)	24.18		23.49
Course total point (280 max)	238.27		232.90
Mean GPA (4.0 max)	3.11		2.92
Final grade distribution
	n	%	n	%
A	35	36	37	31
B	44	46	49	42
C	12	13	23	19
D	3	3	3	3
F	2	2	6	5
Drop course before 10 days	0	0	6	4^a
Drop course after 10 days	1	1	0	0

Note: GPA = grade point average.

4% of 125 originally enrolled.

Student Engagement

Attendance and podcast views

Table 5 shows the percentage of students who attended class in the f2f section and viewed the enhanced podcasts in the online section. Attendance per learning module for the f2f section ranged from 77% of classes to 88%. For online-enhanced podcasts, the percentage of students watching the required podcasts for each module ranged from 68% to 79%. For many of the podcasts, students watched multiple times in short periods, but the viewing was counted only once per student. Any viewing session less than a minute was not counted. If students exited the LMS (Blackboard) directly from the podcast, the system recorded the viewing time as exactly 1 minute no matter how long students actually watched. For this reason, 1-minute sessions were considered as adequate viewing time. The percentage of students viewing the enhanced podcasts was fairly consistent throughout the semester with a slight downward trend as the semester progressed. The variability was high; inspecting the raw data showed that students either tended to watch practically all of the podcasts or very few. It is important to mention that there were anecdotal reports by some students that they watched the podcasts with one another using the same computer. Although this did not appear to be such a widespread practice to render the data invalid, data may not fully reflect the extent of engagement for students who watched some of the podcasts on another student’s computer. It is also important to note that online and f2f students had access to online study guides and PowerPoint slides associated with the podcasts and online presentations. Thus, basic information could be obtained without watching the podcasts or attending the class presentations.

Table 5.

Student Engagement by Section

	f2f	(n = 97)	Online	(n = 119)
Unit	M (SD)	n	M (SD)	n
Learning Module 1
% attendance f2f (6)/podcasts viewed O (7)	87.5% (25.7)		78.8% (29.6)
Course content questions asked publicly		7		18
Discussion items posted and replied	11.95 (2.72)		12.57 (4.36)
Learning Module 2
% attendance f2f (5)/podcasts viewed O (8)	84.8% (25.1)		71.7% (38.0)
Course content questions asked publicly		5		8
Discussion items posted and replied	10.71 (1.83)		11.82 (2.34)
Learning Module 3
% attendance f2f (5)/podcasts viewed O (8)	76.5% (26.3)		71.5% (39.6)
Course content questions asked publicly		8		9
Discussion items posted and replied	11.11 (1.96)		11.75 (3.16)
Learning Module 4
% attendance f2f (5)/podcasts viewed O (6)	81.9% (26.5)		71.8% (41.0)
Course content questions asked publicly		4		8
Discussion items posted and replied	10.87 (2.45)		11.07 (2.80)
Learning Module 5
% attendance f2f (5)/podcasts viewed O (6)	81.0% (28.6)		67.5% (41.0)
Course content questions asked publicly		6		8
Discussion items posted and replied	11.19 (2.15)		11.43 (3.17)

Note: f2f = face-to-face.

Content questions asked in public

Online students asked more content questions about the book chapters per module than those attending the f2f section. For the first module, the online group posed noticeably more content questions (18 vs. 9), but over time the numbers decreased although they were always slightly more than the f2f section.

Online discussion participation

Online section students participated in online discussions slightly more than f2f students. Although both groups were required to complete the same online discussions, the online students averaged slightly more posts and replies than did their f2f counterparts. The differences ranged between 0.33 to 1.09 posts per module.

Prediction of achievement

Tables 3 through 5 show the differences in satisfaction, achievement, and engagement by section in detail. To obtain a “big picture” view, we used the overall semester total points earned as a dependent variable and selected demographic and engagement measures as predictor variables to see if section differences remained when controlling for other variables. The demographic variables used were section (f2f vs. online), gender (male vs. female), class level (lower division vs. upper division), and two dummy variables (Major 1 = education, Major 2= noneducation, the excluded category was no declared major). In addition, two engagement measures were added that did not directly compute into the final point total: attendance (% of classes attended or podcasts viewed) and discussion messages read. The relationship between this variable set and course achievement was statistically significant, F(7, 207) = 18.56, p = .000. More than 36% of the variation in total points earned was related to demographic and engagement measures. Table 6 shows that three variables were statistically significant at the p < .01 level in relation to total points earned: attendance (β = .445), class level (β = .214), and gender (β = .165). On average, female upper division students who had higher attendance rates tended to earn more points than others. It is notable that when controlling for the demographic and engagement variables, differences between sections were not statistically significant. Course satisfaction may also be related to some of these variables, but because course evaluations were anonymous, it could not be correlated to the other items.

Table 6.

Relationship of Achievement to Demographic and Engagement Measures

Variable	b	SE	β	t	p
Attendance % (f2f classes or podcasts viewed)	0.48	0.06	.445	7.54*	.000
Class level (freshman and sophomore = 1; junior, senior, and graduate = 2)	7.33	2.05	.214	3.57*	.000
Gender (male = 1; female = 2)	15.26	5.33	.165	2.85*	.005
Discussion messages read	0.02	.006	.152	2.52	.013
Section (f2f = 1; online = 2)	1.20	1.87	.038	0.64	.521
Major 2 (noneducation = 1; education and general education = 0)	0.57	5.80	.006	0.09	.921
Major 1 (education = 1; noneducation and general education = 0)	0.25	4.06	.004	0.06	.951

Note: f2f = face-to-face.

p < .01.

Discussion

As an increasing amount of instruction occurs in virtual classrooms, it is important for instructors to reflect on what might be gained and/or lost when teaching in different formats. Both course sections studied in our investigation included online components (e.g., 30 discussion assignments, a library research assignment, materials to access and download such as PowerPoint slides, links to external websites) as well as f2f components (e.g., five paper-and-pencil examinations were administered on campus at scheduled days and times, office hours were held on campus twice each week for the purpose of meeting with students in person). The only difference in the two sections was the way in which the instructor presented course content to students. One section received online podcast presentations whereas the other section received f2f presentations.

There would appear to be some inherent advantages to both types of presentations. For the online podcasts, students never have to miss a content presentation due to circumstances beyond their control (e.g., illness, scheduling conflict, university cancellation). Students can access and review content presentations at days and times that are convenient for them, whereas days and times for f2f presentations are inflexible. On the other hand, f2f teaching allows students and faculty members to directly observe one another and spontaneously interact. Although physical proximity in a classroom does not assure that students will be meaningfully engaged with the instructor and/or with one another, it would seem self-evident that people who are regularly in the same physical space are more likely to form a closer bond than those who do not gather together and see one another in person. Yet, the size of course section enrollment would certainly affect the extent of student–faculty as well as student–student engagement. For example, in a class of 12 students, an instructor and students are likely to get to know one another quite well, especially if the instructor makes efforts to engage the class in interactive activities. In large course sections such as those with 120 students, discussions that truly involve the entire class are logistically impossible, and it is likely that an instructor will get to know only a handful of the students well. Therefore, when considering the pros and cons of online and f2f class presentations, one mediating factor is the number of students enrolled. For course sections with large enrollments, the potential loss of personal connections is less of a concern.

In a perfect world, all teacher education courses would be offered in small class settings; however, the reality of finite resources requires many teacher education programs to organize course offerings and faculty staffing patterns in a manner that maximizes instructional benefits to its teacher candidates. One way to stretch resources to allow for smaller class sections where skill standards are the focus is to design instruction in courses based on knowledge standards, such as an “Introduction to Special Education” course, to accommodate relatively larger numbers of students per class section. Because large course sections are here to stay, their limitations should be acknowledged and practical ways to maximize learning in them should be researched and implemented.

Another mediating factor is the course content and objectives. Introductory courses in special education are overwhelmingly aligned with knowledge standards, in contrast to skill standards. The CEC (2009), which prepared the standards on which the NCATE bases its accreditation of special education teacher education programs, indicates that knowledge standards refer to information that beginning teachers must know, whereas skill standards refer to the application of knowledge (e.g., demonstrating that one can implement instructional methods with competence). For instance, recalling components of an IEP and the justifications that underlie different components would be competencies consistent with a knowledge standard, whereas writing annual goals and behavioral objectives that are suitable for an IEP would be competencies associated with a skill standard.

Clearly, different course objectives require different instructional delivery designs and formats. Courses that are based mostly on knowledge standards would seem to be better suited to relatively larger class sections with online presentations than courses that are based on skill standards. Demonstrating competencies associated with skill standards often requires that preservice teachers have access to students with IEPs and requires that instructors make observations in practicum settings. Moreover, skill competencies often need to be developed over time and require instructors to provide formative feedback (such as is accomplished through grading multiphase projects). Therefore, findings from this investigation have important implications for introductory teacher preparation courses based on knowledge standards but do not generalize to teacher preparation courses based on skill standards.

Satisfaction, Achievement, and Engagement

The research questions guiding this investigation focused on differences in satisfaction, achievement, and engagement between students who received f2f presentations and those who received online presentations. Consistent with prior investigations by Beattie et al. (2002), O’Neal et al. (2007), and Spooner et al. (1999), we measured student satisfaction by student responses to course evaluation survey items. Although our survey items were different from those used in prior studies, our findings were consistent in that the online and f2f students expressed similar levels of satisfaction. Although the f2f students tended to rate the course slightly higher across the 16 survey items, the differences were quite small on most items, and both groups were satisfied with their instructor and learning experiences. The major differences related to the perception about how much the instructor encouraged student participation, provided opportunities to expand knowledge, provided feedback on assignments in a timely manner, communicated objectives, and the concordance between learning objectives that were presented at the start of the class and the learning objectives that were actually addressed during the course of the semester. Ironically, feedback on student assignments was provided at the same time for both groups, and the course content in the online presentations and class lectures was identical. An important implication of this finding may be that instructors who teach 100% online may need to more consciously specify objectives, clearly stipulate timelines, and explicitly communicate what constitutes participation in an online environment.

Results indicated that in terms of achievement, online students scored slightly lower than f2f students on both specific assignments and final grades. Controlling for demographic and engagement variables, section differences in overall achievement (i.e., total points earned) were not significant. Instead, gender, class level, and attendance were the best predictors of overall achievement for both sections. This finding was consistent with results reported by Steinweg et al. (2005), where no significant differences were evident on achievement measures related to knowledge, skills, and disposition. Steinweg et al.’s students selected their course section, but in our study, students did not have a choice of instructional format (i.e., they registered for their course section not knowing which format was going to be offered). Although test scores were not affected by instructional format in our study, future researchers may wish to analyze test questions by levels (e.g., recall, analysis, interpretation) to determine whether achievement on tests varies based on the type of questions that are asked.

The only prior study to measure student engagement was completed by Rabe-Hemp et al. (2010), where students in an online section reported that they spent more time preparing for class sessions. Although we did not measure student engagement by self-report like Rabe-Hemp et al. did, the variables that we used to gauge student engagement (i.e., attendance in class and number of podcasts viewed, questions asked in public in class or online, and participation in online discussion through postings and messages read) were certainly rough proxies of engagement and future researchers need to seek out more refined, sensitive measures of this important construct. Because engagement is often overlooked in research on teaching and learning in higher education (Umbach & Wawrynski, 2005), in our study, we provide a reasonable starting point for future teacher education researchers.

There were not extensive differences in the extent of student engagement in the two sections; however, in both sections, the engagement measures proved to be good predictors of achievement. It is noteworthy that only one of our rough proxies of engagement was graded (i.e., discussion messages posted) and therefore the other measures were completely left to the students’ discretion in both sections. Attendance (i.e., number of classes attended or number of podcasts viewed) was the best predictor of achievement of all variables and “discussion messages read” was also positively related to achievement, although it was not statistically significant at the .01 level.

Although much of the information for large introductory courses can be gleaned from texts and study guides, faculty should reinforce to students the potential “added value” of reading or listening to other students’ comments and attending to instructor presentations that provide additional insights, stories, and personal connections. Despite the fact that data from the online section may have underestimated student engagement because some students watched the podcasts together, data from both sections show that students with higher levels of engagement tended to also show higher levels of achievement.

Instructional Time and Energy

To get the best of both worlds, it could be argued that instructors should develop content presentations in online and f2f formats and leave the choice up to each student’s discretion. Conversely, it would likely not be a good use of an instructor’s time and energy to develop and deliver course instruction in two formats as was done for this study. Just as a f2f course development requires an instructor to spend time preparing in-class presentations and activities, an online course requires investing time in preparing virtual presentations and activities. Good teachers strive to improve their course instruction with each subsequent offering, reflecting on what worked well and areas for improvement. Although there are teaching methods and strategies that are applicable to online and f2f instruction, the two formats differ in important ways. Therefore, the skills and competencies needed to be a successful f2f instructor and a successful online instructor are not the same. Ascough (2002) pointed out that online instruction requires different technical skills (e.g., proficiency in using a web-based course platform such as Blackboard) as well as different pedagogical skills. Although simply recording oneself teaching in a classroom and putting the recording on the web may be a helpful resource to students in a f2f course, such a practice is not the same as developing and delivering learning modules that provide multimedia presentations and sequential learning activities, and then refining the modules over time.

Data from this investigation showed that the content presentation format yielded only small differences in measures of student achievement, engagement, and satisfaction. Put another way, both formats provide legitimate avenues to teaching and learning. It would appear that course quality has more to do with the skills and commitment of the instructor than the presentation format.

Conclusion

It is not unusual to find relatively large numbers of students enrolled in sections of a course focusing on introductory information in the field of special education at colleges and universities with teacher preparation programs. In this study, we compared measures of student achievement, student engagement, and student satisfaction for students in two sections of such a course, with one group receiving instruction from their professor online and the other group receiving instruction from their professor f2f. Data showed similar outcomes in both sections, suggesting that both instructional formats provide a credible means to teach content in knowledge-based courses with sections that have a large student enrollment.

Special education is a relatively small field that encompasses a diverse range of areas of emphasis (e.g., behavior disorders, school to adult life transition, life-skills instruction). The future has arrived in terms of online instruction. It is likely that most current and future special education teacher educators will need to develop instructional competencies in online and f2f formats because they will be teaching in both formats. Future research is needed to examine how different instructional formats, and components of instructional formats such as presentation of course content, affect teaching and learning in courses with diverse student characteristics, enrollment sizes, and learner objectives.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

James R. Thompson, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Special Education at Illinois State University. His research centers on support needs assessment and planning with children and adults with intellectual disability.

Patricia H. Klass is a professor in Educational Administration and Foundations at Illinois State University. She specializes in quantitative research methodology.

Barbara M. Fulk is a professor in the Department of Special Education at Illinois State University. Her research interests include teaching methods that increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities.

References

Ascough

(2002). Designing for online distance education: Putting pedagogy before technology. Teaching, Theology and Religion, 5, 17-29.

Beattie

Spooner

Jordan

Algozzine

Spooner

(2002). Evaluating instruction in distance learning classes. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 124-132.

Collins

B. C.

Baird

C. M.

Hager

K. D.

(2009). The University of Kentucky Distance Education Program in Moderate and Severe disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28, 30-40.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2009). What every special educator must know: The international standards for the preparation and certification of special education teachers (6th ed., rev.). Arlington, VA: Author.

Higher Learning Commission. (n.d.). Best practices for electronically offered degree and certificate programs. Retrieved from http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/commadap.pdf

Hurt

(2008). The advantages and disadvantages of teaching and learning on-line. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 5-11.

Jameson

J. M.

McDonnell

(2007). Going the distance to training teachers for students with disabilities: The University of Utah Distance Teacher Education Program. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 26, 26-32.

Ludlow

B. L.

Brannan

S. A.

(2010). Distance education program preparing personal for rural areas: Current practices, emerging trends, and future directions. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 29, 4-15.

Nagel

(2009). Most college students to take courses online. Campus Technology. Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/10/28/most-college-students-to-take-classes-online-by-2014.aspx

10.

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Washington, DC: Author.

11.

O’Neal

Jones

W. P.

Miller

S. P.

Campbell

Pierce

(2007). Comparing web-based to traditional instruction for teaching special education content. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 34-41.

12.

Rabe-Hemp

Woolen

Humiston

(2010). Student engagement and learning in lecture hall and online learning settings. In McKinney

Jarvis

(Eds.), Gauisus: Selected scholarship on teaching and learning at Illinois State University (pp. 45-53). Normal, IL: Illinois State University.

13.

Spooner

Jordan

Algozzine

Spooner

(1999). Student ratings of instruction in distance learning and on campus classes. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 132-141.

14.

Spooner

Y.-Y.

(2009). Synchronous and asynchronous distance delivery experiences from two faculty members in special education at UNC Charlotte. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28, 23-29.

15.

Steinweg

S. B.

Davis

M. L.

Thomson

W. S.

(2005). A comparison of traditional and on-line instruction in an introduction to special education course. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 62-73.

16.

Umbach

P. D.

Wawrynski

M. R.

(2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 153-184.

17.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: Author.