P1: VENDOR/GFU/FJQ/GCZ P2: GCQ/ QC:

Journal of Science Education and Technology PP177-340588 June 11, 2001 11:34 Style file version Oct. 23, 2000

Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2001

Do No Harm—A Comparison of the Effects of On-Line

Vs. Traditional Delivery Media on a Science Course

Regina Schoenfeld-Tacher,1,2 Sherry McConnell,1 and Michele Graham1

This paper presents the results of a study designed to examine the effects of distance delivery on
student performance and classroom interactions in an upper level science (Histology) course.
Outcomes were assessed by comparing performance on content pre- and posttests for students
enrolled in on-campus and on-line sections of the same course. Interactions were classified
according to initiator, topic, and Bloom’s taxonomy level for content interactions. The resulting
patterns were analyzed to compare behaviors in different settings. It was found that although
the groups were indistinguishable in content knowledge at the outset of the study, by the end
of the semester, students in the on-line group significantly out-performed their peers in the
on-campus section. The on-line settings had a greater proportion of high-level interactions
(according to Bloom’s taxonomy) than the on-campus setting.
KEY WORDS: Distance learning; on-line instruction; interactions; Bloom’s taxonomy; histology.

INTRODUCTION The question of whether or not electronic me-

When a new teaching technique is employed, it
is essential to examine the potential risks associated
with teaching in a different manner. If the new
technique is to be adopted on a permanent basis, an
in-depth assessment must be conducted to verify that
“no harm is done” and students are not suffering any
negative effects as a result of the innovation. On-line
delivery is an example of an innovation whose
effects have been severely criticized in recent times.
College curriculum committees routinely question
the academic rigor of distance-delivered courses,
and there is a prevalent fear that the academic
rigor of courses is being compromised in order to
facilitate use of distance delivery. This concern is
especially directed toward science courses, where
the lack of hands-on laboratory sessions is fre-
quently cited as a potential deficit for learners (Carr,
2000).
1 Anatomy
W102, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical
Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-
1601.
2 To whom correspondence should be addressed; e-mail: reginast@
colostate.edu
dia can influence learning has been a subject of
debate in the literature for over 15 years. Clark
(1983, 1994a,b) argues that “media are mere vehicles
that deliver instruction but do not influence student
achievement . . .” (1983, p. 445). In contrast, Kozma
(1994b) states that “both media and methods influ-
ence learning and they frequently do it by influencing
each other” (p. 11). Based on all the arguments pre-
sented by both parties (Clark, 1983, 1994a,b; Kozma,
1991, 1994a,b), it can be concluded that the media it-
self does not cause differences in learning, but does
facilitate teaching methods that may affect learning.
In accordance with this theoretical perspective, the
current study was designed not to compare the ef-
fects of two different media on learning, but rather to
examine how a new delivery medium affects teaching
methods, as represented by classroom interactions.
A total of 44 students participated in the study.
All were enrolled in an upper level histology course
at a large, land grant university in the Western US. Of
these 44 students, 11 were enrolled in the on-line (dis-
tance delivered) section of the course. These students
completed the entire course, including all examina-
tions at a distance, and did not participate in any type
of on-campus instructional activity. In contrast, the

257
1059-0145/01/0900-0257$19.50/0 °
C 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: VENDOR/GFU/FJQ/GCZ P2: GCQ/ QC:
Journal of Science Education and Technology PP177-340588 June 11, 2001
258
33 students enrolled in the on-campus (traditional)
section of the course met face-to-face in a classroom
for three, 50-min lecture periods per week and partici-
pated in a 3-hour, on-campus laboratory session each
week. Students in the on-campus section only used
the Internet to complete exams (administered in the
same format as for the on-line section).
The specific objectives of this study were to
1. Determine if there was a difference in con-
tent achievement between students enrolled
in on-campus and on-line sections of Histol-
ogy (learner–content interaction).
2. Investigate the effect of computer-mediated
communication (CMC) on classroom interac-
tions (learner–learner and learner–instructor
interactions).
a) Examine the proportion of time devoted to
content interactions versus other types of
interactions in each setting.
b) Evaluate the quality of interactions based
on depth of thought (Bloom’s taxonomy)
3. Investigate how the presence or absence of
an instructor affected the number and type of
questions that occur in on-line group interac-
tions.
Bloom and Krathwohl (1956) developed a
scheme to classify the levels and types of intellectual
behavior important in learning. The resulting classi-
fication scheme is a taxonomy that consists of three
domains: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. The
cognitive taxonomy classifies questions based on their
level of abstraction. Higher levels of abstraction are
assumed to demonstrate increased depth of learning.
It was therefore important to examine levels of ques-
tioning taking place in the on-line Histology course
in order to ensure the delivery medium did not harm
students’ learning by promoting lower level thinking
at the expense of higher-order reasoning skills such as
synthesis and analysis.
Another concern frequently associated with dis-
tance delivery is the lack of classroom interactions.
Moore and Kearsley (1996) define three essential
types of interaction within distance education envi-
ronments. These are learner–content, learner–learner
and learner–instructor interaction. Learner–content
interaction describes the communication that occurs
between the learner and the subject matter. These
interactions enable the learners to construct their
own knowledge by integrating new information into
their preexisting mental structures. Due to its asyn-
chronous design, on-line Histology was expected to
11:34 Style file version Oct. 23, 2000
Schoenfeld-Tacher, McConnell, and Graham
provide students with a greater opportunity than a lec-
ture class to engage in higher levels of thought, such
as reflection and deep processing, which Vygotsky
(1978) deems as critical to learning and retention.
According to Moore and Kearsley (1996),
learner–instructor interaction is necessary once the
content has been presented in order to facilitate
learner–content interactions. The instructor needs to
provide opportunities for students to practice the con-
cepts they have acquired and give students formative
feedback on their progress, before assessing if instruc-
tional objectives were met. This type of interaction
was supported in the on-line Histology course through
the use of frequent formative quizzes (referred to as
bonehead quizzes) and on-line chat sessions moder-
ated by the instructor (second author). These interac-
tions helped the students assess their own progress in
the course and encouraged further learner–content in-
teractions. Another function of these activities was to
facilitate learner–content interactions by elaborating
on material with which students were having difficulty.
Learner–learner interactions play an important
pedagogical role in distance education, (Slavin, 1996),
as they provide opportunities for students to discuss
the content with others, resulting in improved cog-
nitive processing. During these interactions, student
misconceptions are exposed and remedied during the
negotiation of meaning that takes place while inter-
acting with peers. The unique attributes of on-line en-
vironments lead students to get to know each other
more quickly than they would in a traditional envi-
ronment (Kimbrough et al., 1998), a tendency that
can be harnessed by instructors to promote creation
of support networks and study groups. Students in on-
line Histology demonstrated this tendency when they
unexpectedly formed on-line study groups and orga-
nized their own review sessions without the instruc-
tor’s intervention. Usually, a student spontaneously
assumed the role of moderator (typically fulfilled by
the instructor) by leading with questions and remind-
ing her classmates to stay focused on the content. Sim-
ilar to the instructor-led sessions, students also called
on each other to ask questions, pulling in students who
were watching but not actively participating.
METHODS
This study employed a combination of qualita-
tive and quantitative methods to examine the ef-
fects of computer-mediated communication on stu-
dent learning. Observations were conducted in two
sections (on-line and on-campus) of the same course,
P1: VENDOR/GFU/FJQ/GCZ P2: GCQ/ QC:
Journal of Science Education and Technology PP177-340588 June 11, 2001
Do No Harm: Effects of On-Line and Traditional Delivery Media on a Science Course
taught by the same instructor during a single semester.
Since the participating instructor had sole responsi-
bility for the on-line section but was part of a teach-
ing team for the on-campus course, this study exam-
ined student achievement only for the instruction she
designed and presented in both modalities. This spe-
cific content was selected to avoid confounding the
results by comparing instruction developed by differ-
ent faculty, as noted by Clark (1983). Clark explains
that a large portion of the favorable results attributed
to media use may be caused by “systematic but un-
controlled differences in content and/or method, con-
tributed unintentionally by different teachers or de-
signers” (p. 448–49).
Participating students in both sections completed
the same pretest, consisting of 25 multiple choice
questions. The instructor presented the same mate-
rial, using the same clinical examples in both situa-
tions. Learning outcomes were assessed by student
achievement on course exams. Identical exam ques-
tions were asked of students in both sections, but at
different times during the semester. A total of 32 mul-
tiple choice questions were used to calculate a posttest
score for each participant. Student scores on pre- and
posttests were compared by t-tests and an analysis of
covariance in order to determine if there were any dif-
ferences in performance between students enrolled in
each of the sections.
Classroom interactions were observed in three
settings: on-campus lecture, on-line chat (instruc-
tor present), and on-line review (instructor absent,
student-organized study sessions). Throughout this
paper, the term “chat” will be used to denote
instructor-led synchronous sessions, while “review”
will indicate the student-run synchronous sessions
(instructor absent). Although student-content inter-
action undoubtedly takes place in more situations,
these settings were selected for their accessibility to
the researchers. As a group, these settings represent
a continuum of environments, from a very familiar
structured setting (traditional lecture), to a novel un-
structured setting (on-line review session organized
and facilitated by students).
The on-line Histology course is structured us-
ing the common concepts of lectures and laborato-
ries as an organizational metaphor. WebCT was se-
lected as the delivery software. At the end of each
lecture, students are led to a quick self-assessment
quiz about content learning. In the laboratories, stu-
dents view microscope images captured at various
powers (low, medium, high and oil immersion) to sim-
ulate the process of moving a microscope objective.
11:34 Style file version Oct. 23, 2000
259
Four multiple-choice and laboratory identification ex-
aminations, each comprehensive, determine student
grades in the course. During the spring semester 2000,
on-line Histology was offered concurrently with the
on-campus course, with the same instructor in both
courses (entirely for the on-line version, and for about
a third of the on-campus course).
Transcripts of interactions in each setting were
independently coded and analyzed by two of the au-
thors who then cross-checked for reliability. An inter-
action was defined as any utterance from a participant
in the form of a question. Each question was coded
into one of four topic categories:
• Content – any question directly pertaining to
course material
• Administrative – questions regarding adminis-
trative details of the course, such as due dates
for assignments
• Management – questions used to manage the
flow of a class, such as prompting to move on
to the next topic.
• Social – all questions of a nonacademic nature.
Content questions were further classified accord-
ing to the demonstrated level of abstraction or depth
of thought, in accordance with the definitions estab-
lished in Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom and Krathwohl,
1956):
• Knowledge – Simple recall or recognition of a
concept.
• Comprehension – Interpretation, translation.
At this level, the student must be able to
demonstrate use of abstraction when asked to.
• Application – Requires application of an ab-
straction to new problem without being shown
how to do it in a new situation.
• Analysis – Breaking down material into con-
stituent parts and detecting relationship of
these parts in the whole.
• Synthesis – Putting together parts and elements
to elucidate a previously poorly defined pattern
or structure.
• Evaluation – Judging the extent to which
ideas, solutions, methods, and materials satisfy
criteria.
Data were statistically analyzed via t-tests,
ANCOVA and ANOVA. When appropriate, posthoc
comparisons were conducted using the LSD test.
An alpha value of .05 was selected as the signifi-
cance level for all tests. The data were analyzed us-
ing each session as an independent observation. For
P1: VENDOR/GFU/FJQ/GCZ P2: GCQ/ QC:
Journal of Science Education and Technology PP177-340588 June 11, 2001 11:34 Style file version Oct. 23, 2000

260 Schoenfeld-Tacher, McConnell, and Graham

each session observed, the percentage of interactions Table II. Analysis of Covariance of Posttest Scores as a Function
in each category was computed. These percentages of Course Section, With Pretest Scores as Covariate
were then weighted according to the total number of Source df MS F η2
interactions taking place in each session. Pretest Score (covariate) 1 1.08 0.12 0.000
Course section 1 542.17 5.95∗ 0.192
Error 25 91.15
DATA SOURCES ∗p < .05.

Subjects for this study were students, enrolled

in two sections (on-campus and on-line) of a Histol-
ogy course at a 4-year university, and their instructor.
Eleven of the students agreeing to participate were
enrolled in the on-line section and 33 in the on-campus
section.
Data were collected from a combination of
course exams, chat transcripts, and direct observa-
tions (lecture). The classroom management software
used to run the course generated chat transcripts
and tracked student performance on both pre- and
posttests. An observer manually recorded data on on-
campus interactions.
RESULTS
Rate of Interactions
The average rate of interactions was computed
by dividing the total number of interactions in each
setting by the total amount of time elapsed over all
sessions. A one-way ANOVA (Table III) proved sig-
nificant (F = 6.07, p < .01), so a posthoc LSD test was
conducted. As expected, the rates of interaction were
significantly higher in both on-line settings (review
and chat) than for the on-campus lectures (Table IV).
However, since the on-campus lectures were intended
to present material, whereas the on-line sessions were
intended to elaborate upon previously covered mate-
rial, the significance of these differences has limited
practical implications.

Academic Outcomes
Originator of Interactions
At the outset of the study, there was no statisti-
A one-way ANOVA (Table V) revealed a signif-
cally significant difference in academic performance
icant difference (F = 6.49, p < .001) in the percentage
between students in either section, as measured by a
of interactions initiated by students and instructor in
content pretest. However, posttest results were signif-
each setting. Posthoc tests showed students initiated
icantly different (t = −2.032, p < .05), with students in
a larger percentage of interactions (weighted aver-
the on-line section outperforming their counterparts
age, calculated using each session as an independent
in the on-campus session by an average of seven per-
observation) during on-line class sessions than in on-
centage points (Table I). Since the on-line group had
campus sessions (Table VI). Within a setting, there
a slightly lower pretest mean, the observed cross-over
was no significant difference in the percentage of in-
effect was further examined through an analysis of co-
teractions initiated by the instructor or the students.
variance (Table II). When the effects of pretest per-
formance are controlled for (by using pretest scores
as a covariate), the effect of instruction type (on-line Topic of Interactions
vs. on-campus) on posttest scores is statistically sig-
nificant (F = 5.95, p < .05), with a small to medium When the topic of interactions was examined,
effect size (η2 = 0.192) according to Cohen (1988). the greatest amount of content interactions oc-
curred during on-campus sessions, whereas the largest

Table I. Academic Performance on Content Tests (Percentage

Table III. One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for Rate of
Scores) for Students in Each Course Section
Interactions by Setting
On-line On-campus
Source df SS MS F
Test N M SD N M SD df t
Between groups 2 6328.51 3164.26 6.07∗∗
Pretest 6 10.67 9.35 22 15.09 11.51 26 0.863 Within group 24 12521.03 521.71
Posttest 11 80.11 10.67 31 72.78 10.15 40 −2.03∗ Total 26 18849.54
∗p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
P1: VENDOR/GFU/FJQ/GCZ P2: GCQ/ QC:
Journal of Science Education and Technology PP177-340588 June 11, 2001
Do No Harm: Effects of On-Line and Traditional Delivery Media on a Science Course
Table IV. Mean Rates of Interactions and Standard Deviations
for Each Setting
Interactions per houra
Setting N M SD
On-line chat 9 54.29 29.36
On-line review 8 41.29 20.31
On-campus lecture 10 18.31 17.45
a Posthoc tests determined that the average rates of interactions
per hour for on-line chat and on-line review sessions were not
significantly different from each other. However, both rates
were found to be significantly higher than the rate of interac-
tions per hour for on-campus lecture sessions.
percentage of social interactions took place during on-
line review sessions (Table VII). A two-way ANOVA
(Table VIII) was then conducted to examine the ef-
fects of initiator (students or instructor) and setting
(review, chat, or lecture) on the percentage of inter-
actions devoted to each topic. Since significant results
were found for all topics at the p < .001 level, posthoc
tests (Table IX) were conducted to examine the pat-
terns for each topic. Students were most likely to initi-
ate content interactions in a lecture setting, followed
by a chat, followed by a review. The instructor was
more likely to initiate a content interaction in a lec-
ture setting than in a chat. In both lecture and chat
environments, students were more likely to initiate
content interactions than the instructor.
It is interesting to note that no social interactions
occurred in a lecture setting. Students and instructor
were equally likely to initiate social interactions dur-
ing chat sessions. When the frequency of social inter-
actions generated by students was examined, it was
found that a significantly larger proportion was ini-
tiated in review sessions than in chat sessions. The
pattern of administrative interactions is unremark-
able. When management interactions were examined,
an interesting trend emerged. Students initiated more
management interactions in review sessions than they
did in chat sessions, and both amounts were greater
than for lecture sessions. The instructor started more
management interactions in chat sessions than in
on-campus lectures. Whenever the instructor and
Table V. One-Way Analysis of Variance Summary for Initiator of
Interactions by Setting, Using Weighted Data
Source df SS MS F Since the main focus of the study was on pat-
Between groups 3 3973.06 1324.35 6.49∗∗∗
Within group 34 6938.75 204.08
Total 37 10991.81
∗∗∗ p < .001.
11:34 Style file version Oct. 23, 2000
261
Table VI. Average Rates of Interactions and Standard Deviations
by Session, Using Weighted Data
Interactions per hour
Setting and initiator M SD LSD Posthoc
On-line chat
a) students 20.79 13.83 a > c; a = b
b) instructor 33.50 20.29 b > d; b = a
On-campus lecture
c) students 6.14 4.34 c < a; c = d
d) instructor 12.17 14.70 d < b; d = c
students were present in the same setting (chat and
lecture), the instructor instigated a significantly larger
amount of management interactions.
Level of Interactions
Further examination of content interactions
showed that students in the lecture section generated
larger percentages of interactions at both the lowest
and highest levels than students in the other environ-
ments (Table X). Approximately 75% of interactions
initiated by students in review sessions were low-level
(knowledge and comprehension). The percentages of
low and medium (application and analysis) questions
asked by students in a class setting (on-line or on-
campus) were similar to each other, but greater than
those for review sessions. The only instance in which
students initiated an appreciable percentage of high
level (synthesis and evaluation) questions was the
on-line class. The instructor asked a slightly greater
percentage of low-level questions in the on-line class
sessions than in the on-campus lectures. The differ-
ences were more striking for medium and high level
questions. The instructor initiated a much greater per-
centage of medium-level questions in the on-campus
environment and high-level questions in the on-line
environment. A two-way ANOVA for level of ques-
tioning by initiator and setting yielded significant F
values for all levels of questioning at the p < .001 level
(Table XI). Posthoc tests were performed for all possi-
ble comparisons, however, only those of any practical
value, such as comparing initiator effects across set-
tings, or setting effect by initiator, are presented in
Table XII.
terns of higher-level interactions, only those will be
discussed further. Students were most likely to gener-
ate questions at the synthesis level in chat sessions.
They were most likely to initiate questions at the
P1: VENDOR/GFU/FJQ/GCZ P2: GCQ/ QC:
Journal of Science Education and Technology PP177-340588 June 11, 2001 11:34 Style file version Oct. 23, 2000

262 Schoenfeld-Tacher, McConnell, and Graham

Table VII. Mean Percentage of Interactions per Session Observed in Each Category, by Environment
and Type of Initiator
Environment and person initiating the interaction
Student Instructor
On-line On-line On-campus On-line On-campus
Topic of interaction review class lecture class lecture
Management 28 20 0 32 18
Social 13 4 0 4 0
Administrative 3 6 2 2 0
Content 56 70 98 62 82

evaluation level during lecture sessions than during
review sessions, and least likely of all during chat ses-
sions. The instructor posed more questions at both lev-
els (synthesis and evaluation) during the chat sessions
than during the lecture sessions. Within the lecture
setting, the instructor was more likely to ask synthesis-
level questions than the students were, but this trend
was reversed for evaluation questions. In chat ses-
sions, students and instructor were equally likely to
pose synthesis questions, but the instructor initiated a
greater amount of evaluation questions.
of an upper division science course, Histology, in an
on-line environment.
When the academic performance of students
receiving the same instruction and given identical
multiple-choice questions was compared, the on-
line students demonstrated improved outcomes com-
pared to their on-campus peers.
Greater levels of instructor–student interaction
were observed in the on-line sessions, as reflected in
the rates of interaction for each setting. Although
the difference in type of participant initiating the

DISCUSSION Table IX. Posthoc Test of Means and Standard Deviations

for Comparison for Five Types of Initiation on Four Topics
When using a new or unique teaching medium, of Interaction
it is important to assess that medium and determine Topic and initiation
its effect on learners. Particularly important is to de- conditions Ma SD LSD Posthoc
termine if the medium provides at least an equivalent Content
learning experience to the current methods, and to a) students review 56.41 16.44 a<b<c
discontinue its use if it has potential of “doing harm” b) students chat 70.43 13.29 b>d
c) students lecture 98.04 6.79
(providing lesser or lower quality learning opportuni-
d) instructor chat 62.28 17.04 d<e
ties). This study assessed the delivery and outcomes e) instructor lecture 82.14 10.02 e<c
Social
f) students review 12.45 10.77 f>g>h
Table VIII. Analysis of Variance Summary for Topic by Initiator g) students chat 4.40 4.83 g=i
and Setting h) students lecture 0.00 0.00
i) instructor chat 4.38 4.75 i>j
Variable (topic)
j) instructor lecture 0.00 0.00 j=h
and source df SS MS F
Administrative
Content k) students review 2.95 1.41 l > k, m
between groups 4 109738.57 27434.64 123.23∗∗∗ l) students chat 5.67 4.42 l>n
within groups 807 179665.86 222.63 m) students lecture 1.96 6.79
Social n) instructor chat 1.75 3.72 n>o
between groups 4 17773.61 4443.40 88.85∗∗∗ o) instructor lecture 0.00 0.00 o<m
within groups 807 40358.28 50.01 Management
Administrative p) students review 28.18 12.70 p>q>r
between groups 4 2385.22 596.30 53.02∗∗∗ q) students chat 19.48 13.79 q<s
within groups 807 9075.73 11.25 r) students lecture 0.00 0.00
Management s) instructor chat 31.58 12.16 s>t
between groups 4 54168.00 13524.00 92.99∗∗∗ t) instructor lecture 17.86 10.02 t>r
within groups 807 117526.14 145.63 a The means are the average percentage of interactions per
∗∗∗ p < .001. session in each category.
P1: VENDOR/GFU/FJQ/GCZ P2: GCQ/ QC:
Journal of Science Education and Technology PP177-340588 June 11, 2001 11:34 Style file version Oct. 23, 2000

Do No Harm: Effects of On-Line and Traditional Delivery Media on a Science Course 263

Table X. Mean Percentage of Content Interactions per Session at Each Level, by Environment and Type
of Initiator, Using Weighted Data
Environment type and person initiating the interaction
Student Instructor
On-line On-line On-campus On-line On-campus
Question level and type review class lecture class lecture
Low
knowledge 44.2 36.3 52.3 28.3 27.0
comprehension 33.1 26.0 16.3 34.6 28.6
Medium
application 9.6 16.8 15.7 14.4 25.5
analysis 3.6 10.6 13.7 6.3 15.6
High
synthesis 1.2 10.2 0 10.3 3.3
evaluation 0.6 0 2.0 0.8 0

interactions in each setting is not statistically signif-
icant (Table XIII), students did generate a greater
number of interactions in the on-line sessions, and
did so without as much prompting as in the lecture
sessions. Direct observations revealed that students
in the on-campus lecture were reluctant to pose ques-
tions even when prompted to do so by the instruc-
tor. Though lesser in number, the interactions that
occurred in the on-campus environment consisted of
a greater percentage of content questions. There were
no social interactions observed in the lecture setting,
but the instructor was as likely to initiate a personal in-
teraction as the students were during an on-line class.
This demonstrates that face-to-face contact does not
automatically foster interpersonal relationships be-
tween students and instructors. These patterns, along
with the sense of “bonding” reported by the distance
students and the instructor, illustrate the importance
of learner–instructor interactions and how these can
be used to encourage student participation. The in-
structor influenced the level of questions asked dur-
ing on-line sessions. Her presence shifted the bulk of
the questions from the lower levels seen in the review
sessions to the more balanced distribution seen in the
on-line class sessions.
CONCLUSIONS

No harm was done! The on-line delivery medium

Table XI. Analysis of Variance Summary for Bloom’s Taxonomy
and teaching techniques it promoted led to improved
Level of Questioning by Initiator and Setting
academic outcomes relative to those observed in the
Variable (topic) and
lecture section, when measured by a content test.
source df SS MS F
Based on these findings, it can be postulated that on-
Level 1 – Knowledge
line delivery was a more effective method of facilitat-
between groups 4 52987.22 13246.80 41.56∗∗∗
within groups 807 257215.69 318.73 ing learner–content interaction and creating content
Level 2 – Comprehension learning opportunities at least equivalent to those
between groups 4 19474.39 4868.60 20.25∗∗∗ available in the on-campus course. The design of this
within groups 807 193997.49 240.39 study did not allow for direct measurement of other
Level 3 – Application
types of outcomes, such as incidental learning, which
between groups 4 19600.88 4900.22 38.89∗∗∗
within groups 807 101677.97 126.00 may not have been reflected in content test perfor-
Level 4 – Analysis mance. However, the content findings alone are suf-
between groups 4 14589.19 3647.30 29.53∗∗∗ ficient to justify continued delivery of the course and
within groups 807 99670.33 123.51 to counteract fears about the efficacy and validity of
Level 5 – Synthesis
on-line course delivery.
between groups 4 15787.53 3946.88 157.01∗∗∗
within groups 807 20286.02 25.14 The value of learner–learner interactions cannot
Level 6 – Evaluation be dismissed. Students generated more social interac-
between groups 4 195.00 48.75 6.57∗∗∗ tions during review sessions than during on-line class
within groups 807 5983.26 7.41 sessions. These interactions enhanced camaraderie
∗∗∗ p < .001. and fostered the creation of a community of learners,
P1: VENDOR/GFU/FJQ/GCZ P2: GCQ/ QC:
Journal of Science Education and Technology PP177-340588 June 11, 2001 11:34 Style file version Oct. 23, 2000

264 Schoenfeld-Tacher, McConnell, and Graham

Table XII. Posthoc Test of Means and Standard Deviations Table XIII. Frequency Counts and Total Percentages of
for Comparison for Five Types of Initiation on Six Levels of Interactions Initiated by Students and Instructor in On-Line
Questioning Classes vs. On-Campus Lectures
Level of questioning and Instructor Students
initiation conditions Ma SD Posthoc
Section Number Percentage Number Percentage
Knowledge
On-line 229 59.0 159 41.0
a) students review 44.18 17.05 c>a>b
On-campus 101 66.4 51 33.6
b) students chat 36.36 23.99 b>d
c) students lecture 52.28 22.10 χ 2 = 2.54, p > .05, no significant difference.
d) instructor chat 28.34 14.85 d=e
e) instructor lecture 27.05 11.30 c>e
Comprehension on-line sessions. This demonstrates that computer-
f) students review 33.06 10.67 f>h>g mediated communication led to a shift towards high-
g) students chat 25.95 13.53 i>g
h) students lecture 16.34 13.98
level questions in a class-type environment. The use of
i) instructor chat 34.58 19.83 i>j computer-mediated communication created a more
j) instructor lecture 28.59 18.73 j>h relaxed atmosphere in both of the on-line settings,
Application where students were able to ask questions about a
k) students review 9.64 6.25 l, m > k variety of topics. This greater freedom of expression
l) students chat 16.84 12.86 l>n
m) students lecture 15.68 8.33
may have been caused by the feeling of anonymity
n) instructor chat 14.43 10.61 o>n associated with participation in a chat room, or sim-
o) instructor lecture 25.52 18.95 o>m ply because the communication protocols allowed the
Analysis students more time to think about their questions than
p) students review 3.55 1.97 q, r > p they would normally have in an on-campus situation.
q) students chat 10.62 17.54 q>s
r) students lecture 13.73 19.92
s) instructor chat 6.28 4.58 t>s EDUCATIONAL IMPORTANCE OF THE
t) instructor lecture 15.55 15.94 t=r STUDY
Synthesis
u) students review 1.22 0.89 v > u, w
v) students chat 10.24 5.67 v=x
While the literature is replete with studies
w) students lecture 0.00 0.00 demonstrating no significant difference when two de-
x) instructor chat 10.28 7.39 x>y livery media are compared, (Russell, 1999), this study
y) instructor lecture 3.29 5.08 y>w makes a valuable contribution to the body of knowl-
Evaluation edge about distance education by considering the ef-
z) students review 0.62 0.84 bb > z > aa
aa) students chat 0.00 0.00 cc > aa
fects of a delivery system on classroom interactions as
bb) students lecture 1.96 9.80 opposed to simply comparing two media. This study
cc) instructor chat 0.80 2.09 cc > dd also documents improved academic outcomes and
dd) instructor lecture 0.00 0.00 bb > dd motivation in the on-line environment consistent with
a The means are the average percentage of interactions per Kozma’s (Kozma, 1994a,b) claim that media does in-
session in each category. fluence learning. Kulik’s (Kulik et al., 1980) findings
that computer-based instruction made significant con-
as supported by student comments in end-of-course tributions to academic achievement among college
surveys. A greater percentage of management inter- students and improved their attitudes toward the sub-
actions were observed during the review sessions, ject matter being studied also support the results of
when the instructor was absent. During these sessions, the present study.
a student spontaneously assumed the instructor’s Research from the International Data Corpora-
role and acted as a facilitator/moderator, ensuring tion (2000) predicts that there will be at least 2.2 mil-
that personal interactions were kept to a reasonable lion college students enrolled in distance learning
level, and that review sessions primarily focused on courses by the year 2002. However, the impact of
content. distance delivery, particularly on learning in the sci-
The overall trend in the distribution of questions ences, is not yet clear. There is apparent need for
among lower and higher levels was comparable for asynchronously delivered science courses to meet the
both the on-campus lectures and on-line classes, al- demands of students who cannot attend on-campus
though the percentage of high-level questions asked laboratories during the day. The issue of whether or
by both students and instructor was greater in the not it is possible to teach science at a distance without
P1: VENDOR/GFU/FJQ/GCZ P2: GCQ/ QC:
Journal of Science Education and Technology PP177-340588 June 11, 2001
Do No Harm: Effects of On-Line and Traditional Delivery Media on a Science Course
compromising academic rigor has been a topic of re-
cent debate in publications such as the Chronicle of
Higher Education (Carr, 2000). While various sugges-
tions have been offered (O’Bannon et al., 2000) for
integrating laboratories into on-line courses, the aca-
demic outcomes of these innovations have not been
assessed. This study demonstrates that it is possible
to teach a science course (including laboratories) en-
tirely on-line without any adverse effects on academic
outcomes.
REFERENCES
Bloom, B. S., and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educa-
tional Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, by
a Committee of College and University Examiners. Handbook
I: Cognitive Domain, Longmans, New York.
Carr, S. (2000, March 10). Science instructors debate the efficacy
of conducting lab courses online. The Chronicle of Higher
Education [On-line]. Available at: http://chronicle.com/
free/2000/03/2000031001u.htm/ (June, 2000).
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from me-
dia. Review of Educational Research 53: 445–459.
Clark, R. E. (1994a). Media will never influence learning.
Educational Technology, Research and Development 42(2):
21–29.
Clark, R. E. (1994b). Media and method. Educational Technology,
Research and Development 42(3): 7–10.
11:34 Style file version Oct. 23, 2000
265
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power and Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences (2nd ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
International Data Corporation (2000). Distance Learning Takes
Off, Fueled by Growth in Internet Access [On-line].
Available at: http://www.idc.com/Data/Consumer/content/
CSB020999PR.htm (July, 2000).
Kimbrough, D. R., Hochgurtel, B. D., and Smith, S. S. (1998). Using
internet relay chat to provide on-line tutorials in a distance-
learning chemistry course. Journal of College Science Teaching
27: 132–136.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational
Research 61(2): 179–211.
Kozma, R. B. (1994a). Will media influence learning? Reframing
the debate. Educational Technology, Research and Develop-
ment 42(2): 7–19.
Kozma, R. B. (1994b). A reply: Media and methods. Educational
Technology, Research and Development 42(3): 11–14.
Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. L. C., and Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectiveness of
computer-based college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings.
Review of Educational Research 50: 525–544.
Moore, M. G., and Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Sys-
tems View, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
O’Bannon, D., Scott, J., Gunderson, M. S., and Noble, J. (2000).
Integrating laboratories into online distance educa-
tion courses. Technology Source [On-line]. Available at:
http://horizon.unc.edu/ts/cases/2000-01a.asp (February, 2000).
Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenome-
non [On-line]. Available at: http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/
nosignificantdifference/(July, 2000).
Slavin, R. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achieve-
ment. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21: 43–69.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Mental Processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.