UWP 104D: "Online Versus On-Campus: Comparing eLearning and In-Person Delivery in College Classrooms"

Online Versus On-Campus:

Comparing eLearning and In-Person Delivery in College Classrooms

We are submerged in a culture that has embraced the technological age, which has gained momentum, fueling our want for new and exciting technologies. Want has become need, for those things that were only dreams of science fiction writers less than thirty years ago: wireless blue tooth headsets, notebook computers, touch screen cell phones, and wireless internet. Technology has bled over into education subtly, with entire campuses offering wireless internet, hybrid (internet and in-person delivered) courses, and courses entirely online. Online education, or eLearning, has quickly become the solution to recruiting and integrating the untraditional, the working, and the returning adult students into the college the college environment without putting demands on their time for commute and in-person lectures. The flexibility offered by online education is creating new opportunities for students who would not otherwise have the promise of education. However, there are drawbacks that must be considered by institutions before offering online curriculum such as costs, accessibility, effectiveness, the time that must be invested by both student and instructor, and what is lost and gained in the online classroom.

Costs of eLearning, for the institution and student, are one of the first considerations in the development of online curriculum. In the article “Cost Analysis of E-Learning: A Case Study of a University Program,” it is stressed that an institution must look at both the cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of eLearning programs, and that the two considerations are quite different. The author writes “many educators and decision-makers believe that the fact that e-learning can save costs is the major advantage of an e-learning program, because it is assumed that enhanced student enrollment would result in increased revenue and lower cost” (Wentling 2). Though it is true that online offerings have potential to bring in more students, even a larger variety of students, what is not considered is the costs of creating and implementing online curriculum effectively. Wentling goes on to point out that “Because of the high start-up and fixed costs, e-learning programs are more expensive than traditional classroom learning in the case of small enrollment” (3). Another study published by The Journal of Interactive Online Learning finds that for the development of a “3-semester hour online course required in excess of 700 hours of instructor and staff time” and that was not including technical support (Shaw 7). For online curriculum to be cost-effective and self sustaining the classes must have more students to monetarily compensate for the instructor having to spend more time planning and implementation, and to pay for the technical support. It is important for institutions to keep in mind the costs of online curriculum before making a long-term commitment to its implementation.

Costs play an important role in the effectiveness of the online classroom, including those costs to the students. A traditional classroom has desks facing an instructor and a chalk or dry erase board. Compare this to the online classroom which consists of a forum for students to post discussion topics and replies, and perhaps a small online chat room that is monitored by the instructor or a teacher’s assistant. This “classroom” is where most of the student-student and student-teacher interaction is supposed to take place. An institution that wants to create a more realistic online classroom may add live video capabilities, so the instructor may have video chats with students in real time. This technology, which would be very effective, can be expensive and also requires training for the instructor to be able to use it effectively. For a student, access to a computer that is workable and internet capable proves to be another hurdle. Often, institutions that serve a poorer public may have to provide open labs for students to be able to participate effectively in their online classes, but this still it not saving students the cost of transportation to campus.

Compared to the traditional classroom, where the teacher and subject are given most of the attention, and there are minimal distractions from the lecture topics, the online classroom has some drawbacks. For a student who is at home on their computer, distractions can become overwhelming, taking away from the effectiveness of the class: children are crying, dinner is cooking, parents are fighting, friends are calling, and these are psychological hindrances on the student who is trying to become actively involved in the online classroom. Students can also be discouraged if they are not comfortable the technological demands of the online venue. Students from a generation less familiar with home computers, especially older students and returning students, face a struggle to become comfortable in the online world. These students quickly fall behind in their online classes because of the atmosphere, which can be perceived as isolating and intimidating. Soon, feeling they are not welcome in the young, tech-savvy ranks of the computer literate, drop the class, and sometimes out of school altogether. Unfortunately, these are the same students who would benefit most from acclimation in an online environment: often they are returning to school to improve their career, which usually translates into a desire to be more computer literate and technologically oriented.

Online classes have been proven to be useful and effective in several ways. They offer convenience and a source of education for students who have limitations on their travel and time. Moreover, online courses have been proven an effective medium for education of students at college-level. According to a study done by Shujen L. Chang and Kathryn Ley at the University of Houston, Clear Lake, students can adapt to strenuous expectations in the online classroom by modifying techniques already used in traditional classrooms. The authors specifically address student’s use of printed materials, and found that the average test scores “favored the online sections only slightly” and that the two venues produced “comparable levels of student learning” (7). Another article found on eLearnMag.org addresses cheating in the online classroom, pointing out several tips that discourage cheating without the use of a proctor. “The increased risk of candidate cheating [in the online classroom] can be mitigated by a number of factors, including an expanded online test item bank and standardized test item development” as well as “instituting scheduled test-item refreshment policies and processes that ensure candidates do not see the same online items…generally decreasing the likelihood of information-sharing” (Eatchel 1). Students are learning as effectively as students in the traditional classroom, but can also be tested by rigorous standards that discourage cheating and encourage knowledge of the subject. eLearning utilizes different methods of teaching, but supplies students with the tools they need for success as they continue with their education.

Online curriculum in colleges can be an effective way to offer college education to a more diverse group of students who would otherwise see education as out of reach. Creating these opportunities might be time consuming and expensive to implement, but the outcome produces an innovative classroom experience that is comparable to the traditional classroom setting. With proper planning, the internet classroom provides students with the classes they need, with experience with computers and internet that some students are sorely lacking to be successful in our very technological world. eLearning offers the best of both worlds: effective education for students, in a technological forum, that allows students to experience communication in a new and quickly-emerging technology driven environment.

Works Cited

Chang, Shujen and Kathryn Ley. "A Learning Strategy to Compensate for Cognitive Overload in Online Learning: Learner Use of Printed Online Materials." Journal of Interactive Online Learning Vol 5, Num 1: Spring 2006 http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/5.1.8.pdf.

Eatchel, Nikki Shepherd. “Online Testing: Making it Count.” 2001. February 8, 2009 http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=best_practices&article=38-1.

Shaw, Dale and Suzanne Young. “Costs to Instructors in Delivering Equated Online and On-campus Courses.” Journal of Interactive Online Learning Vol 1, Num 4: Spring 2003 http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/1.4.2.pdf.

Wentling, Tim and Ji-Hye Park. “Cost Analysis of E-Learning: A Case Study of a University Program.” University of Illinois at Urbana –Champaign, 2002. February 8, 2009. http://learning.ncsa.uiuc.edu/papers/AHRD2002_wentling-park.pdf.