Article Critique #2
Article title and source:
King, P. and Hildreth, D.P., (2001). Internet courses: are they worth the effort? Journal of
College Science Teaching, 31(2), 112. Retrieved March 12, 2006 from ProQuest
Education Journals database. (Document ID: 86850248).
Background or introduction:
In their article, Internet Courses: Are They Worth the Effort, Peter King and David Hildreth present their research pertaining to distance education used in a college biology course. Having previously surveyed students’ attitudes about college science courses, King and Hildreth found that college-level biology is quite often perceived to be an intimidating experience for college students. Therefore, the researches wondered how the students would react after given the opportunity to take the same biology class as a distance course and, more importantly, if this particular distance course could present an effective learning environment. They offered freshmen students the options of taking an intro-biology course traditionally, as in a classroom setting, or nontraditionally over the Internet.
Research questions:
Literature review:
King and Hildreth read the following: Teaching and Learning on the World Wide Web (Alexander, 1996), Using Technology in Education: When and Why, Not How (Kussmaul, 1996), Telecommunications, Student Teaching, and Methods Instruction: An exploratory Investigation (Thomas, Clift, Sugimoto, 1996), Wave of the Future or a Waste? UCLA Requires Web Pages for Every Class (Young, 1997).
Method:
The participants of the study consisted of 12 freshmen (8 female, 4 male) out of 83 who were signed up for the Introduction to Life Science course at Marion University; 2 later dropped out. These students covered the exact same material over the Internet as their counterparts in the classroom; the latter met 3 hours a week. Weekly assignments were given only to the on-line course to assure that these students were keeping up with the regular class. E-mail was used for communication such as questions, submitting assignments, and feedback. Also, there was an associated laboratory class that went with the course in which everyone attended. As for the examinations, the 10 students completed these with the others in the regular classroom.
Following the traditional and on-line courses, quantitative research was used as final grades/scores were compared between the two classes using unpaired t-test procedures. Furthermore, the on-line students were given surveys asking about their perceptions of on-line learning. Answers to these questions provided the researchers with qualitative data.
Findings:
Using an unpaired t-test, King and Hildreth found there to be no significant difference between the means of the raw scores of the traditional and on-line learners. An Internet student even scored the highest on 3 of the 5 examinations. The researchers concluded that students taking a distance course could perform well, or at least as well, as those students enrolled in the same traditional class.
King and Hildreth also followed the Internet class up with a survey asking those particular students about their perception about an on-line course having then taken one. All students indicated that they would take another online course and tried to dispel the rumor that the Internet course was easier. Their main reason for taking the course was the flexibility with time. The students were satisfied with their learning.
Article conclusion:
Distance education can be effective, in other words—distance education and traditional education alike can foster learning. It’s not for everyone however. In order for distance education to be truly effective, it helps if the student is an active learner. There are also benefits of on-line learning that include the following: one gains technology experience, one is offered more flexibility, and the communication with the professor can be much less threatening. King and Hildreth believe that on-line learning can be a good alternative to some traditional classes.
Good points of article:
King and Hildreth included a copy of their survey, the t-test showing the scores of the two classes, as well as an example of an on-line assignment that had been given.
I really liked that the researchers included what the on-line students had to say in their follow-up survey. They talked about their perceptions of on-line learning and the benefits of distance education—I agreed with them all. Also, I am glad that King and Hildreth are quick to point out that while on-line learning does occur, it is not for everyone, nor should it be thought of as a complete replacement for each and every traditional course. There is still a need for the traditional setting in education; distance education has its place as well.
Poor points of article:
Additional resources were provided to the on-line course, creating another variable that could have affected grades; only the environments should be different and not the learning material. Of course, discussions and other means of communication would look different in the online setting, but those are included in the definition of distance education; whereas, the materials used to present the class information should not. I believe the two courses should have been as similar as possible in a research experiment.
Furthermore, the size of this experiment was very small—ten people is far too small for an experiment. Plus, it is hard to compare 10 students’ grades to 73 others. This hurts the research, in my opinion, and was the first thing that stuck out to me. Plus, these students were all from the same school, and likely had similar backgrounds. It would be a good idea to run similar experiment in various schools in a larger area. Also, King and Hildreth never did include a complete description of the students’ personal backgrounds other than genders and year in school. It would have been interesting to know what kinds of learners the online students perceived themselves to be prior to the study, as well as the students’ success rates in school up until that point, such as their average GPA.
Finally, my biggest concern about this experiment lies in the chosen course. This biology course came with an associated lab that all students attended. I believe that this factor makes the research weak, as it is hard to know what all was covered in the labs. Did they review topics presented in the traditional classes? Were the on-line students presented with even more assistance in addition to the extra material they were already receiving? In my opinion, King and Hildreth should have not only chosen a different course to run their study, but they should have also tried harder to change only the main variable: the learning environments. More people involved would definitely help as well. I agree with their results, especially with the comments made in the follow-up interviews, but only based on my own experiences with distance education—not from King and Hildreth’s research unfortunately.