There are growing trends in postsecondary education that emphasize the importance of online and technology-enabled learning. This study aims to investigate whether the use of virtual, interactive, real-time, instructor-led (VIRI) online learning can deliver the same student performance and engagement outcomes as a face-to-face (F2F) course. The data consist of 698 participants taught in eight sections, over two semesters, with two different instructors. An analysis of variance was used to compare the differences for both student performance and engagement outcomes. The findings show that a synchronous course delivered using VIRI classroom technology has the same level of student performance outcomes as F2F learning. This study suggests that VIRI technology is an effective synchronous learning environment.
AstinA. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518-529.
2.
AtchleyW.WingenbachG.AkersC. (2013). Comparison of course completion and student performance through online and traditional courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14, 104-116.
3.
BaconD. R. (2003). Assessing learning outcomes: A comparison of multiple-choice and short-answer questions in a marketing context. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 31-36.
BrodieR. J.IlicA.JuricB.HollebeekL. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66, 105-114.
6.
CavanaughJ. K.JacqueminS. J. (2015). A large sample comparison of grade based student learning outcomes in online vs. face-to-face courses. Online Learning, 19(2), 1-8.
7.
CroxtonR. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10, 314-324.
8.
Desire2Learn. (2018). D2L: Creators of the Brightspace Learning Management System (LMS). Retrieved from https://www.d2l.com/
9.
DriscollA.JichaK.HuntA. N.TichavskyL.ThompsonG. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40, 312-331.
10.
DuncanK.KenworthyA.McNamaraR. (2012). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous participation on students’ performance in online accounting courses. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 21, 431-449.
EwellP. T.JonesD. P. (1993). Actions matter: The case for indirect measures in assessing higher educations progress on the national education goals. Journal of General Education, 42, 123-148.
13.
FalloonG. (2011). Making the connection: Moore’s theory of transactional distance and its relevance to the use of a virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology, 43, 187-209.
14.
FrancescucciA.FosterM. (2013). The VIRI (virtual, interactive, real-time, instructor-led) classroom: The impact of blended synchronous online courses on student performance, engagement, and satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(3), 78-91.
15.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059.
16.
GiesbersB.RientiesB.TempelaarD.GijselaersW. (2013). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 30-50.
17.
GoToMeeting. (2018). Online meeting software with HD video conferencing: GoToMeeting. Retrieved from https://www.gotomeeting.com/en-ca
18.
HansenD. E. (2008). Knowledge transfer in online learning environments. Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 93-105.
19.
HaythornthwaiteC. (2002). Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and sustaining distributed learning communities. In RenningerK. A.ShumarW. (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 159-190). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20.
HrastinskiS. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55.
21.
HurtadoS.EngbergM. E.PonjuanL.LandremanL. (2002). Students’ precollege preparation for participation in a diverse democracy. Research in Higher Education, 43, 163-186.
22.
JaggarsS. S.EdgecombeN.StaceyG. W. (2013). What we know about online course outcomes: Online higher education is expanding rapidly. New York, NY: Columbia University, Community College Research Center. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542143.pdf
23.
LoganE.AugustyniakR.ReesA. (2002). Education as different education: A student-centered investigation of distance learning experience. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 43, 32-42.
McfarlandD.HamiltonD. (2005). Factors affecting student performance and satisfaction: Online versus traditional course delivery. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(2), 25-32.
26.
MclarenC. H. (2004). A comparison of student persistence and performance in online and classroom business statistics experiences. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2, 1-10.
27.
MillerF.ChamberlainD.SeayR. (1991). The current status of outcomes assessment in marketing education. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 353-362.
28.
NortheyG.BucicT.ChylinskiM.GovindR. (2015). Increasing student engagement using asynchronous learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 37, 171-180.
29.
NSSE Institute. (2000). National Survey of Student Engagement (survey instrument). Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.
30.
PiccianoA. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.
31.
PorterW. W.GrahamC. R.SpringK. A.WelchK. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185-195.
32.
RichardsonJ. C.MaedaY.LvJ.CaskurluS. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402-417.
33.
SeamanJ. E.AllenI. E.SeamanJ. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
34.
Skype. (2018). Skype: Communication tool for free calls and chat. Retrieved from https://www.skype.com/en/
35.
StrangK. (2013). Cooperative learning in graduate student projects: Comparing synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 24, 447-464.
36.
SuskieL. (2004). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (1st ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker.
37.
Torrisi-SteeleG.DrewS. (2013). The literature landscape of blended learning in higher education: The need for better understanding of academic blended practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 4, 371-383.
38.
WattsL. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(1), 23-32.
XuD.JaggarsS. S. (2013). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. Economics of Education Review, 37, 46-57.
41.
Zoom. (2018). Video conferencing, web conferencing, webinars, screen sharing: Zoom. Retrieved from https://www.zoom.us/
