Google Scholar Articles:

David P. Diaz and Ryan B. Cartnal, Students Learning Styles in Two Classes, Online DistanceLearning and
Equivalent OnCampus,http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/87567559909595802?journalCode=vcol20
, 2010
KayDee Caywood and Jane Duckett, Online vs. On-Campus Learning in Teacher
Education,http://tes.sagepub.com/content/26/2/98.full.pdf+html, 2003
Debbie E. McGhee and Nana Lowell, Psychometric Properties of Student Ratings of Instructionin Online
and on-Campus Courses,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tl.121/epdf, 2003
Addison Scroggins
Google Scholar Assignment
CIED 10032Online vs. On-Campus Learning in Teacher Education
Summary: Online education has been a large topic for many educators lately, and it only getting to be a
bigger topic. Many major corporations have discussed the controversy over the accreditation of
distance education programs (pg. 99), and most have come to the conclusion that student ratings of
instruction and learning did not differ significantly between on campus and off campus settings (pg.
99). In fact, most peoples concern today is that teachers arent well enough prepared to teach others
due to the fact that younger children know how to use technology better than they do. In one study, it
was found that online students scored significantly higher than in-class students while there were no
significant differences for the posttest scores between the two groups. Results suggested that even
though students who selected the online courses may be better prepared for the course materials than
the students who selected in class courses, this preparedness did not necessarily lead to greater learning
(pg. 100).In the experiment discussed in this article, a group of students chose to take an online course,
and another group chose to take an on-campus course. This study [was] chosen to look at performance
on campus and online during one specific course considered instrumental for the development of theory
and methods in training teachers (pg. 100). In the online group, seventy-six adult male and female
students from multi-cultural backgrounds ranging from approximate ages 18 to 50 (mean age 36.29)
started (pg. 100) the class. Seventy-five similarly configured adult students started the same course
on-campus (mean age 35.76) (pg. 100). This course was the exact same for both groups of students,
and was supposed to teach them behavior management (pg. 101). Each group of students was given a
list of course objectives, and each group had the same syllabus, and similar unit quizzes3and tests. All
these assignments were designed by the same instructor, and at the end of the experiment, online and
on-campus students scores were compared. The results were that there was no significant differences
(pg. 103), this suggests that a course in the area of conceptual methods could and probably should be
available to students both on campus and through the internet (pg. 103). According to McKenzie, Kirby,
Newbill, and Davidson, courses like this should be offered online because the need for more
educational opportunities for more people in more places will become epidemic. Effective distance
education programs led by effective instructional design specialists will have to one of the cures (pg.
103).Because there was no differences found between the two groups of students, this suggests that
there is no actual difference that can be measured in regards to learning. Given the benefits of online

teaching and the extended proximity reached to students taught, online teaching is a viable alternative
to those from rural areas and students with nontraditional schedules (pg. 103). Though a difference in
learning cannot be measured, from a qualitative point of view, online teaching and learning does
provide additional documentation on learning and the development of the thinking processThis
documentation along with saved e-mail correspondence allows for further qualitative analysis that
might show the levels of learning and development taking place within the course (pg. 103-104).