Received: 9 May 2017 Revised: 30 November 2017 Accepted: 25 February 2018

DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12258

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effectiveness of learning in online academic courses compared

with face‐to‐face courses in higher education
Tal Soffer | Rafi Nachmias

School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Tel

Aviv, Israel Abstract
Correspondence This study examined the effectiveness of 3 online courses compared with the same 3 courses in a
Tal Soffer, School of Education, Tel Aviv face‐to‐face (F2F) format, which had the same characteristics (e.g., the same instructor and final
University, P.O.B 39040, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv exam content and place). Effectiveness was examined by utilizing a wide range of variables,
69978, Israel.
Email: talsofer@post.tau.ac.il
including 2 objective measures (N = 968): grades and completion rate; and 9 subjective measures
(N = 360): 7 measures include instructional aspects (course structure, learning content, lessons
watched, assignments, communication), engagement, and satisfaction. Findings indicate signifi-
cant differences between online and F2F courses in most of the examined variables. Students
in the online courses reported better understanding of the course structure, better communica-
tion with the course staff, watching the videos lessens more, and higher engagement and satisfac-
tion. Students in the F2F courses reported better contribution of the learning content. Students'
final grades were higher in the online courses, and no differences were found in the completion
rate. The findings suggest that in many of the examined effectiveness aspects, online courses are
as effective as, or more effective than, F2F courses. Interpretations of the findings are discussed.

KEY W ORDS

course effectiveness, learning outcomes, online learning, online courses, students' perceptions

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N curricula in higher education, there is an ongoing debate about the

Online courses are not a new phenomenon in higher education. How-
ever, in recent years, we have witnessed a rapid growth in online aca-
demic courses, which are offered by higher education institutions
(Toven‐Lindsey, Rhoads, & Lozano, 2015). New technologies offer
advanced learning platforms that provide suitable and easier environ-
ments for implementing online courses along with cost savings
(Farinella, Hobbs, & Weeks, 2000; Garbett, 2011; Kim & Bonk,
2006; Pape, 2010), which make them more attractive to university
administrators and students. In fact, students are much more likely
to experience an online learning environment now than they were in
the past (Tichavsky, Hunt, Driscoll, & Jicha, 2015), with 32% of all
enrolled students in 2011 having taken at least one online course
(Allen & Seaman, 2014). Indeed, decision makers at academic institu-
tions consider online academic courses to be a critical long‐term strat-
egy (Allen & Seaman, 2015; Parker, Lenhart, & Moore, 2011) for
improving teaching and providing access to a wide range of audiences
(Macfadyen & Dawson, 2010; Roby, Ashe, Singh, & Clark, 2013). How-
ever, along with the expansion of online courses within academic
quality and effectiveness of such courses compared with face‐to‐face
(F2F) courses (Allen & Seaman, 2015; Hannafin, Hill, Oliver, Glazer, &
Sharma, 2003) and a lack of compelling quantitative evidence of learn-
ing effectiveness (Lack, 2013). Indeed, calls were made to explore and
identify if and how the formats of online courses are different in their
effectiveness in regard to students' learning and satisfaction
(Crawford‐Ferre & Wiest, 2012; Nguyen, 2015), in order to better
address teaching and learning processes (Lim, Morris, & Kupritz,
2007; Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004).
The current study adds to the existing literature in two ways: First,
it examines differences between three F2F and online courses across
various disciplines, which provides a relatively large sample size that
conclusions can be inferred from, and second, it expands the scope
of the term “effectiveness”. Specifically, effectiveness of learning in
this study was examined by a large scope of variables: learning out-
comes (achievements and completion rate), perceived instructional
aspects (e.g., course structure, course content learning contribution,
assignment assessments, and communication perspectives), perceived
engagement, and satisfaction.

J Comput Assist Learn. 2018;1–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jcal © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
2 SOFFER AND NACHMIAS
2 | LITERATURE REVIEW
Various variables are used in the literature for comparing the quality
and effectiveness of online courses to F2F courses. Specifically,
although some focus on pedagogical and instructional aspects such
as course design, students' interactions, instructor presence, satisfac-
tion, and motivation, others compare the courses in regard to educa-
tional outcomes such as tasks and final grades (Baker, 2010; Balkin,
Buckner, Swartz, & Rao, 2005; Crawford‐Ferre & Wiest, 2012; Dixson,
2012; Lack, 2013; Maki & Maki, 2007; Osman, 2005; Sebastianelli,
Swift, & Tamimi, 2015). The following literature review will therefore
focus on these aspects.
2.1 Instructional aspects' effectiveness in online
| ing (Balkin et al., 2005; Tee & Karney, 2010). In contrast, a lack of
courses versus F2F courses
2.1.1 | Course structure
A suitable learning environment with a well‐established course design is
crucial to the quality and effectiveness of online courses. Indeed, it was
found that students perceived course design as affecting the success of
an online learning experience (Song et al., 2004). In order to improve
course design, studies emphasize the need for a variety of instructional
methods that address various learning styles as well as multiple
methods for content learning and delivery such as synchronous and
asynchronous classes (Osman, 2005; Gaytan & McEwen, 2007; Dixon,
2010; UDI Online Project, 2010; Crawford‐Ferre & Wiest, 2012).
Studies have also stressed the importance of consistency and
modularization in course structure (Swan et al., 2000; Young & Norgard,
2006). For example, Bruckman (2002) recommended the use of a well‐
established, consistent structure, both across and within courses, in
order to achieve a standardized format. Indeed, higher levels of consis-
tency in course structure were found to be related to higher levels of
students' satisfaction (Shea, Swan, Fredericksen, & Pickett, 2002).
Additionally, Peltier, Schibrowsky, and Drago (2007) claim that
course content is the most significant driver in students' perception of
the quality of their learning experience. Thus, course content should
be challenging and delivered in a way that motivates the learner (Drago,
Peltier, & Sorensen, 2002; Jones & Kelley, 2003; Sebastianelli et al.,
2015). In this case, the video lectures, as part of the course design, have
an important role in presenting the information in an attractive and con-
sistent manner and may have an effect on learning outcomes (Squires,
1999). Digital video technology enables students to interact with video
lectures in a non‐linear way—to select parts or play single video lectures
with minimal search time, according to their pace. This may enhance
students' engagement and improve learning effectiveness (Zhang,
Zhou, Briggs, & Nunamaker, 2006). Finally, navigation in the course
structure and ease of use were perceived by students to be beneficial
to their learning in online courses (Palmer & Holt, 2010).
2.1.2 | Communication
Interaction is at the core of the learning experience and is widely cited
as a defining characteristic of successful learning in both traditional
and online learning environments (Picciano, 2002; Wanstreet, 2006).
However, this aspect is more meaningful in online courses due to the
absence of physical meetings. As such, it is important to create
opportunities for instructor‐student and student–student interaction
in online learning environments (Dixson, 2012; Maki & Maki, 2007;
Swan et al., 2000; Young & Norgard, 2006). It is important to provide
various means to facilitate such communication, including discussion
forums, chat rooms, email, and synchronous meetings (Wallace,
2004). Indeed, research has demonstrated that instructor‐student
and student–student communication are strongly correlated with
higher student engagement with the course (Dixson, 2012) and have
a significant and positive impact on students' learning and satisfaction
(Marks, Sibley, & Arbaugh, 2005; Sher, 2009). Communication also has
an effect on students' motivation and learning outcomes (Du, Havard,
& Li, 2005; Lam, Cheng, & McNaught, 2005; Sargeant, Curran, Allen,
Jarvis‐Selinger, & Ho, 2006; Tu, 2005) as well as on collaborative learn-
proper communication might lead to a sense of isolation and an insuf-
ficient sense of community (Song et al., 2004).
Previous studies indicate the importance of a strong instructor
presence for effective online courses. Instructor presence involves fac-
ulty giving feedback to students regarding academic performance and
activities, answering questions, and encouraging discussion about
course‐related and other topics (Dixson, 2012). It also fosters a sense
of connectedness and of being part of an online learning community
(Sebastianelli et al., 2015; Wallace, 2004).
2.1.3 | Tasks and assignments
Integrating interactive activities and inquiry‐based learning pedagogies
within online courses may stimulate students to use higher order skills
and increase their engagement and satisfaction in the course (Chen,
Lambert, & Guidry, 2010; Du et al., 2005; Duderstadt, Atkins, &
Houweling, 2002). Lim et al. (2007) found that the most effective
learning activities for learners are instructional activities such as group
and individual projects, discussion activities, and class assignments.
Previous studies indicated that students in online courses spend much
more time learning and performing tasks compared with F2F courses
(Maki & Maki, 2007; Robertson, Grant, & Jackson, 2005).
2.2 | Students' engagement and satisfaction with
online courses versus F2F course
Students' satisfaction is one of the key elements in determining the
quality of online learning. High satisfaction leads to higher motivation
and persistence in learning (Bekele, 2010; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Online courses are perceived with high satisfaction among students
(Russell et al., 2016; Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, Pelz, & Swan,
2001) due to the variety of interactive and engaging learning envi-
ronments they offer, which encourage satisfaction among the partic-
ipants. Students in online courses perceive learning to be more
convenient and to provide more autonomy and control than F2F
courses. Specifically, the flexibility in terms of time and location
allows for a certain degree of self‐paced study, which gives students
more control over their learning (Northrup, 2002; Polloff & Pratt,
2001; Rodriguez, Ooms, & Montañez, 2008; Young & Norgard,
2006). Researches show that students in online courses may be more
satisfied and motivated in the following conditions: when the instruc-
tors provide clear objectives and requirements for the course, when a
SOFFER AND NACHMIAS
collaborative learning environment is created, when a high level of
interaction between instructors and students is offered, and when
meaningful feedback to the participants is provided (Lao & Gonzales,
2005; Swan et al., 2000; Toven‐Lindsey et al., 2015). Research found
that students' satisfaction could be influenced by consistent course
design, in a course and across courses, and the provision of technical
support and flexibility (Bekele, 2010; Young & Norgard, 2006). This
issue should be carefully examined, because in many cases, online
learning requires more commitment and involvement on the part of
the students, the lack of which could lead to lower satisfaction
(Kuo, Walker, Belland, & Schroder, 2014).
2.3 | Learning outcomes in online courses versus F2F
courses
Learning outcomes are the most popular measure for evaluating
course effectiveness. Positive learning outcomes refer to improved
learning as measured by the completion rate and grades received
by students throughout a course (e.g., quizzes, homework assign-
ments, final exam, project test scores, student engagement with
the class material, and reduction in withdrawal or failure; Nguyen,
2015). Lack (2013), in his meta‐analysis of online learning status,
shows that, overall, hybrid and online learning are more or less as
effective as F2F learning and that most studies had mixed results
when comparing outcomes between the different course formats.
Specifically, although some studies found no significant differences
between the course formats in learning outcomes (Lim et al.,
2007; Neuhauser, 2010), others found that students reported higher
achievements and performance in online learning (Burkhardt, Kinnie,
& Cournoyer, 2008; Connolly, MacArthur, Stansfiled, & McLesslan,
2007; Lim, Kim, Chen, & Ryder, 2008; Navarro & Shoemaker,
2000). Moreover, similar results were found in studies, which exam-
ined differences in final grades and satisfaction among students who
participated in different methods (F2F or online) of the same course.
Some found higher achievements among students who participated
in the online courses (Russell et al., 2016) whereas others found
no differences between the two methods (Abdous & Yoshimura,
2010; Zhan & Mei, 2013). Thus, there is no clear understanding
concerning the use of learning outcomes as an effective measure
when comparing online courses to F2F courses.
3 | T HE P R E S E N T S TU D Y
Following the mixed results presented in the literature review regard-
ing the outcome‐related effectiveness of online learning compared
with F2F learning, there is a need for a more comprehensive
approach that examines a wider scope of variables for effectiveness
in courses. This study examined differences between online and
F2F courses by utilizing a holistic perspective that includes data from
several sources: a student attitude survey, learner grades in the
courses, and rate of completion of the course. The purpose of the
study was to examine students' perceived effectiveness of the course
and their learning achievements in online courses compared with F2F
courses.
3
3.1 | Research questions
The research questions were as follows:
1. Are there differences between online and F2F courses in
students' perceived learning effectiveness (instructional aspects,
engagement, and satisfaction)?
2. Are there differences between online and F2F courses in
students' achievements (outcomes and completion rate)?
3. Are there differences between course subjects in the aforemen-
tioned differences between online and F2F formats.
3.2 | Research field
During the 2013 academic year, the university decided to implement a
process for converting F2F courses into online courses. For this pur-
pose, the courses were chosen from a special program called “The
Complementary Studies Program,” which is intended for undergradu-
ate students at the university and offers students the opportunity to
study subjects that fascinate them. The courses are characterized by
a wide range of participants from various disciplines, they are two
credit hours each, and they are taught during one semester.
This study examined the first three courses that were converted.
Two courses (referred to in this research as Course A and Course B)
were studied in the humanities faculty, and the third course (referred
to in this research as Course C) was studied in the medicine faculty.
Each of the three courses was taught once in the F2F format and once
in the online format (a total of six courses).
The pedagogical model of the F2F courses was based on weekly
meetings in class, which were accompanied by a course website on
Moodle learning management system, which mainly included the lec-
tures presentations and additional materials related to the course sub-
jects. Some courses included assignments that were mandatory but did
not affect the final grade. The main communication channel between
the instructor and the students was in class.
The online courses, on the other hand, were delivered fully online
on the Moodle learning management system and were asynchronous.
The pedagogical model was based on a consistent instructional course
model was designed and implemented in all three online courses,
consisting of four main elements:
• Learning units (12 units), which covered the course contents and
consisted of the video lecture of the instructor, presentation of the
lecture, a textual summary of the lecture, materials related to the
unit (e.g., articles and YouTube links), and assignments in some units.
• Additional materials, which were related to the overall course
subjects.
• Communication channels, which included instructor‐to‐student dis-
cussion forums and student‐to‐student discussion forums. The stu-
dents could also contact the course instructors directly via email.
• General information about the course subject, its instructor, and
guidelines regarding learning in an online course.
The online format enabled the implementation of a pedagogical
approach in which all of the course content was made accessible to
the students from the beginning of the semester, in order to provide
4 SOFFER AND NACHMIAS
greater flexibility in the learning process (Mullaney & Reich, 2015).
However, in order to create a learning framework, four scheduled
assignments were set along the semester with fixed deadlines, every
3 weeks. The assignments constituted 15% of the final course grade.
The students were required to submit all assignments on time in order
to receive the full grade. However, submitting the assignments was not
a condition to complete the course. Table 1 presents prominent simi-
larities and differences between the F2F and the online courses
formats.
The students' perceptions were examined via a survey, which was
conducted at the end of the semester. All students, who participated in
the F2F or in the online courses, received an email containing a link to
the questionnaire, with an invitation to fill it out. It was emphasized
that the questionnaire was anonymous and that answers would be
used for research purposes only. The questionnaire was composed
based on the literature and recent studies in the field (Soffer, Kahan,
& Livne, 2017; Sebastianelli et al., 2015; Young & Norgard, 2006).
The questionnaire included items assessing background and
sociodemographic variables, instructional aspects (e.g., comprehension
of the course design), communication aspects, and engagement and
satisfaction aspects. Alpha Cronbach reliabilities were computed only
for variables with more than two items (e.g., assignment assessments),
and correlations were performed for variables with two items.
3.2.1 | Participants
All of the students (N = 968) were enrolled in the courses as part of their
BA degree. Of the 614 students enrolled in the online courses, 240
responded to the questionnaire (39% response rate), and of the 354
students enrolled in the frontal courses, 120 participated in the study
(34% response rate). Frequencies and percentages of participants in
each format for each of the courses are presented in Table 2. Overall,
the sample consisted of 53% women. Participants' mean age was
24.42 years (SD = 4.11). Thirty percent of the sample were in their first
year of studies, 34% were in their second year, and 36% were in their
third year or more. The students came from various disciplines, with
the majority from engineering (22%), exact science (19%), life science
(17%), social science (11%), arts (8%), and humanities (8%). No differ-
ences were found between the F2F and the online courses in any of
the background variables (age, gender, and academic school year).
TABLE 1 Prominent similarities and differences between the F2F and the online courses
Category/course format F2F
Course duration 12 weeks
Instructor The same lecturer
Scope and objectives The same
Final exam The same format, on campus
Lectures Weekly F2F lectures in class
Course contents delivery Presentations of the lectures, additional materials
Assignments Course A = 1; Course B = 3; Course C = 0
Communication with the instructor F2F in class and email
Communication between the students F2F in class
3.3 | Measures
This study included five variables that represented instructional
aspects: course structure, learning content, lessons watched/presence,
assignment assessments, and communication. In addition, it included
two variables that represented learning engagement and satisfaction,
and two variables that represented the objective measures of learning
outcomes: final grades and completion rate. In total, nine groups of
variables were examined in this study.
All responses to the following measures were given on a Likert
scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (in a very high degree), unless oth-
erwise specified. Table 3 presents the instructional, engagement, and
satisfaction variable items as they were presented to students.
3.3.1 | Instructional aspects
Course structure design
Students were asked to indicate the degree of their comprehension of
the course structure with two items. A score was computed by averag-
ing the items (r = .53, p < .001), with higher scores indicating greater
comprehension of the course structure design.
Learning content contribution
Students indicated the degree to which the reading materials and sup-
plementary materials contributed to their understanding of the learn-
ing materials.
Lessons watched/presence
Students in the frontal courses were asked to indicate the frequency of
their class attendance, whereas students in the online courses were
asked to indicate the number of video lectures they watched. Both
items were rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (watched/attended
all of them) to 5 (did not watch any/attend any).
Assignment assessments
Students indicated their level of agreement with seven items assessing
their attitudes towards the assignments in the course. Cronbach's α
was found to be high (α = .88). Therefore, a score for students' assign-
ment assessments was computed by averaging the items, with higher
scores indicating more positive assessments. This score was not
Online
12 weeks
The same lecturer
The same
The same format, on campus
Online lectures—recorded while the course was
delivered in the F2F format
Presentations and summaries of the lectures, materials
related to the unit and additional materials related
to the overall course
Four assignments along the course in all three courses
Discussion forums and email
Discussion forums
SOFFER AND NACHMIAS 5

TABLE 2 Frequencies (percentages) of participants in each format for each of the courses, according to participation in the study (N = 360) and the
in the course (N = 968)
Course A Course B Course C Total

F2F Participation in the study 30 (8) 34 (9) 56 (16) 120 (33)

Participation in the course 68 (7) 138(14) 148 (15) 354 (36)
Online Participation in the study 86 (24) 73 (20) 81 (23) 240 (67)
Participation in the course 152 (16) 212 (22) 250 (26) 614 (64)
Total Participation in the study 116 (32) 107 (30) 137 (38) 360 (100)
Participation in the course 220 (23) 350 (36) 398 (41) 968 (100)

Note. F2F = face‐to‐face.

TABLE 3 Instructional, satisfaction, and engagement variable items

Course structure The course structure and its requirements were clear to me.
There was a logical and clear learning flow in the learning units.
Reading materials To what degree did the reading materials contribute to your understanding of the learning materials?
Supplementary materials To what degree did the supplementary materials contribute to your understanding of the learning materials?
Lessons watched/Presence To what degree did you watch the course video lectures?/To what degree did you attend the course lessons?
Assignment assessments Combining the assignments in the course contributed to the learning flow.
The course assignments were incorporated in accordance with the course material.
The number of assignments was reasonable.
The level of the tasks suited the material.
The assignments were clear to me.
The feedback I received on my assignments helped me understand the learning materials.
The assignments were good preparation for the final test.
Communication I received responses to my questions.
During the course, collaborative learning occurred between me and other students from the course.
Engagement Motivation, involvement, interest and curiosity, independence, responsibility
Satisfaction The course contributed a lot to my understanding of the subject.
I was satisfied with the course.

computed for Course C because assignments were not given to stu-
dents in the F2F version.
Communication
Students indicated their level of agreement with one item assessing
their attitudes towards communication with the course's staff and
one item assessing communication with other students.
3.3.2 | Satisfaction aspects
Participants indicated their level of agreement with two statements
assessing their satisfaction with the course. A satisfaction score was
computed by averaging the items (r = .77, p < .001), with higher scores
representing higher satisfaction with the course.
3.3.3 | Engagement aspects
Students were asked to rate five different types of engagement‐
related senses invoked during their learning in the course. Perceived
engagement was computed by averaging the items (α = .83), with
higher scores representing greater perceived engagement. An engage-
ment score was not computed for Course C because these items were
not included in the online version.
3.3.4 | Achievements
Students' final course grades and completion rate were used as mea-
surements of achievement (N = 1,039). Because the questionnaire
was filled out anonymously, students' grades could not be matched
to their questionnaire's answers and were therefore analysed sepa-
rately. It should be noted that the final course grades were calculated
based on the assignments grades (15%) and the final exam grade (85%).
3.4 | Data analyses
Frequencies, means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations
were performed using SPSS Statistics 22. Two‐way analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA) were performed to examine the study's questions
regarding differences between online and F2F courses and to assess
the unique and combined effect of course type with course subject.
In these analyses, three effects were reported: (a) a main effect of
course format (the difference between F2F and online courses); (b) a
main effect of course subject (the difference between the three
courses); and (c) a course format—course subject interaction effect
(the combined effect of course format and course subject on the
dependent variable).
4 | RESULTS
4.1 | Differences between F2F and online courses in
instructional aspects
Table 4 presents means and standard deviations for each instructional
aspect according to course format and F statistics for the main effect
6 SOFFER AND NACHMIAS

TABLE 4 Means, standard deviations, and F statistics for the instructional aspects, according to course format and subject
F2F Online Total sample
M SD M SD M SD F(df)1 F(df)2 F(df)3

Course structure design (N = 354) 3.75 1.10 4.24 0.80 4.08 0.94 20.83(1, 348)*** 5.24(2, 348)** 2.13(2, 348)
Reading materials contribution (N = 248) 3.14 1.48 2.77 1.42 2.87 1.45 6.46(1, 242)* 23.70(2, 242)*** 2.32(2, 242)
Supplementary materials contribution (N = 194) 2.75 1.49 2.20 1.34 2.35 1.39 6.19(1, 188)* 0.40(2, 188) 0.90(2, 188)
Lessons watched/presence (N = 334) 3.93 1.14 4.23 1.06 4.11 1.09 10.79(1, 328)** 15.76(2, 328)*** 2.77(2, 328)
Assignment assessments 3.46 0.97 3.56 0.81 3.54 0.85 0.89(1, 197) 13.07(1, 197)*** 2.89(1, 197)
Communication with course staff (N = 282) 3.78 1.18 4.07 1.03 3.97 1.09 4.05(1, 276)* 13.59(2, 276)*** 7.66(2, 276)**
Communication with other students (N = 314) 1.81 1.21 2.10 1.40 2.01 1.35 3.34(1, 308) 2.38(2, 308) 0.80(2, 308)

Note. F2F = face‐to‐face. 1= F of the main effect of course format; 2 = F of the main effect of course subject; 3 = F of the course format × course subject
interaction effect.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

of course format, the main effect of course subject, and the interaction
effect between course format and course subject.
4.1.1 | Course structure
On average, students reported high comprehension of the course
structure design. ANOVA indicated significant main effect of course
format, such that regardless of the course subject, course structure
comprehension was higher in the online courses compared with the
F2F courses. In addition, significant main effect of course subject
was found, such that overall, course structure comprehension was
lower in Course B (M = 3.86, SD = 0.87) compared with Courses A
(M = 4.18, SD = 0.83) and C (M = 4.16, SD = 1.04; p = .02).
4.1.2 | Content learning contribution
Overall, students assessed the reading materials as contributing in a low
to moderate level to their understanding and assessed the supplemen-
tary materials at an even lower level. ANOVA for the reading materials
as dependent variable revealed a significant effect of course format, such
that students in the F2F courses rated them as contributing more to their
understanding than students in the online courses. In addition, a signifi-
cant main effect of course subject was found. Tukey post hoc compari-
sons indicated that overall (across course formats), students in Course
A perceived the reading materials as contributing to their understanding
more (M = 3.61, SD = 1.21) than students in Course B (M = 2.20,
SD = 1.32) and students in Course C (M = 2.50, SD = 1.42; p < .001).
Furthermore, similar results were found for the supplementary
materials as dependent variable. Specifically, results revealed that
students in the F2F courses rated the supplementary materials as
contributing more to their understanding than students in the online
courses. No significant main effect of course subject or interaction
effect was found.
lectures or attended class more (M = 4.47, SD = 0.84) than students
in Course A (M = 4.05, SD = 1.06; p = .01) and students in Course B
(M = 3.80, SD = 1.29; p < .001).
4.1.4 | Assignment assessments
Predominantly, students had moderate to high positive attitudes
towards the assignments. ANOVA revealed a significant effect only
of course subject, such that students in Course A assessed the assign-
ments more positively (M = 3.71, SD = 0.79) than students in Course B
(M = 3.34, SD = 0.88).
4.1.5 | Communication
Primarily, students reported that they received responses to their ques-
tions from the course staff at a moderate to high degree. ANOVA revealed
a main effect of course format, a main effect of course subject, and an
interaction effect. Tukey post hoc comparisons indicated that students
in the online course reported better communication with the course staff
than students in the F2F course, but only in Course C (p < .001), whereas
no differences were found between online and F2F formats in Courses A
(p = .62) and B (p = .78). The interaction effect is depicted in Figure 1.
In regard to communication with fellow classmates, students
reported relatively low levels of collaborative learning during the
course. ANOVA revealed no difference in the degree of collaborative

4.1.3 | Lessons watched/presence

In general, students reported watching the video lectures or attending
classes to a high degree. ANOVA revealed a significant effect of course
format, such that students in the online courses watched the video lec-
tures more than students attended the F2F courses. In addition, a sig- FIGURE 1 Communication with the course staff, according to course
nificant main effect of course subject was found. Tukey post hoc format and course subject. F2F = face‐to‐face [Colour figure can be
comparisons indicated that students in Course C watched the video viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
SOFFER AND NACHMIAS 7

TABLE 5 Means, standard deviations, and F statistics of engagement and satisfaction according to course format and course subject
F2F Online Total sample
M SD M SD M SD F(df)1 F(df)2 F(df)3

Engagement (N = 190) 2.98 0.95 3.30 0.93 3.22 0.95 5.59(1, 186)* 15.22(1, 186)*** 0.09(1, 186)
Satisfaction (N = 314) 3.66 1.33 3.97 0.99 3.88 1.10 5.89(1, 303)* 7.56(2, 303)** 1.61(2, 303)

Note. F2F = face‐to‐face. Note: 1= F of the main effect of course format; 2 = F of the main effect of course subject; 3 = F of the course format × course
subject interaction effect.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

learning between the online and F2F courses, between the course sub-
jects, or an interaction effect between course format and course
subject.

4.2 | Differences between F2F and online courses in

engagement and satisfaction aspects
Students rated their engagement and satisfaction from the courses as
relatively moderate‐high. Table 5 presents means, standard devia-
tions, and F statistics of engagement with and satisfaction from the
course, according to course format and course subject. As can be
seen, students in the online courses rated both their engagement FIGURE 2 Grades in the course, according to course type and course
and satisfaction higher than students in the F2F courses. In addition, subject. F2F = face‐to‐face [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
differences between the course subjects were found in both engage-
ment and satisfaction. Specifically, students in Course A reported
higher engagement (M = 3.48, SD = 0.87) than students in Course
TABLE 6 Frequencies (%) of students who finished and did not finish
B (M = 2.92, SD = 0.95). In addition, Tukey post hoc comparisons
their courses, according to course format (N = 968)
indicated that students in Course B reported significantly less satis-
Course type
faction (M = 3.54, SD = 1.16) than students in both Courses A
(M = 4.11, SD = 0.89) and C (M = 3.96, SD = 1.17; p = .001, F2F Online Total

p = .01, respectively). Finished Yes 309 (87) 538 (87) 847 (87)
No 45 (13) 76 (13) 121 (13)

Note. F2F = face‐to‐face.

4.3 | Differences between online and F2F courses in
students' achievements no dependency was found between finishing the course and the for-
4.3.1 | Grades mat of the course, χ2(1) = 0.02, p = .88.

Overall, students' grades in the courses were moderate‐high (grade

range across course formats and subjects was 68.98–90.08), and mean
grade score was 80.09 (SD = 14.80). ANOVA revealed a significant dif-
ference between the online and F2F courses in students' grades, F(1,
841) = 22.56, p < .001; a significant difference between the course
subjects, F(2, 841) = 48.77, p < .001; and an interaction effect between
course format and subject, F(2, 841) = 19.72, p < .001. Post hoc com-
parisons indicated that grades were higher in the online courses com-
pared with the F2F courses, but this difference was mainly significant
in Course C (p < .001) and marginally significant in Course A
(p = .05). In Course B, there were no significant differences between
grades in the online and F2F courses (p = .32). Figure 2 presents the
interaction effect.
4.3.2 | Completion rate
Frequencies and percentages of students who finished the courses,
according to the course format, are presented in Table 6. As can be
seen, no differences were found in completion rate regarding the
course format. In both the F2F and online formats, most of the stu-
dents (87%) finished their courses, whereas only 13% did not. Indeed,
5 | DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This study aimed to examine differences between traditional F2F
courses and online courses (designed and developed based on previ-
ous research recommendations), using students' achievements and
perceived effectiveness.
Nine groups of variables were used to examine the effectiveness
of online courses compared with F2F courses; of them, seven were
subjective measures (perceptions and attitudes) and two were objec-
tive measures. The findings indicated that there were significant differ-
ences between online and F2F courses in seven variables relating to
instructional aspects: course structure, reading materials, complemen-
tary materials, lessons watch/presence, communication with course
staff, engagement and satisfaction, and learning outcomes (final
grades, completion rate). A lack of significant differences was found
in only three variables: assignment assessments, communication with
other students, and completion rate. Specifically, students in the online
courses reported better understanding of the course structure, and
watching the video lectures more than students in the F2F courses
8 SOFFER AND NACHMIAS
reported attending class. In addition, students in the online courses
reported better communication with the course staff compared with
students in the F2F courses. Interestingly, students in the online
courses reported higher engagement and satisfaction compared with
students in the F2F courses. These findings are consistent with previ-
ous studies indicating the beneficial potential of online courses com-
pared with F2F courses (Lao & Gonzales, 2005; Swan et al., 2000;
Toven‐Lindsey et al., 2015).
Moreover, these benefits are also reflected in a more objective
measurement—students' grades, which were higher, in general, in the
online courses compared to the F2F courses. These findings support
those of previous studies, which found higher outcomes in online
courses compared with F2F courses (Burkhardt et al., 2008; Connolly
et al., 2007; Lim et al., 2008). However, it should be noted that the
findings of this study are not in line with previous studies that indi-
cated no differences between F2F and online courses (Lim et al.,
2007; Neuhauser, 2010; Russell, 1999), or even greater benefits for
the F2F courses regarding learning outcomes, engagement, and satis-
faction (Summers, Waigandt, & Whittaker, 2005).
The null effect of course format in communication with other stu-
dents may actually be another indication of the success of online
courses. Specifically, because good communication is harder to achieve
in online courses than in F2F courses due to the absence of any phys-
ical meetings, the lack of difference in communication with other stu-
dents (and better communication with the course staff) suggests that
online courses do not fail in comparison with F2F courses even when
considering their main limitation. Thus, this study supports previous
studies that recommend the provision of various means to facilitate
communication, such as discussion forums and emails (Wallace,
2004), as was applied in the study's examined online courses. This
way, students' perceived communication in online courses can be at
least as good as it is in F2F courses. The same rational is applicable
for the null effect of course format in completion rate. Although com-
pletion rate is predicted to be lower in online courses than in F2F
courses (Dutton, Dutton, & Perry, 2001; Terry, 2001), this prediction
does not hold in this study. In both course formats, the completion rate
was relatively high (87%). Finally, the null effect of course format in
assignment assessments suggests that although students in online
courses spend more time learning and performing tasks compared with
students in F2F courses (Maki & Maki, 2007; Robertson et al., 2005),
they do not necessarily perceive it to be more positive.
On the other hand, students in the F2F courses reported that the
reading and supplementary materials contributed to their understand-
ing more than students in the online courses. These findings may be
explained by the possibility that students in the online and F2F courses
rely on different learning tools. For example, it is possible that students
in the online courses mainly use the video lectures in their learning and
therefore see the reading and supplementary materials as contributing
less. Furthermore, students in the F2F courses attend classes less
often and therefore may rely more on reading and supplementary
materials, which they rate as contributing more to their understanding.
It is important to indicate that these differences were independent
of the course subject, except for the difference between online and
F2F courses in communication with course staff and grades, which
were found only in Course C and not in Courses A and B. Thus, these
results suggest that although differences between online and F2F
courses exist, sometimes they may be derived by the course subject
and/or its unique characteristics. For example, the difference in com-
munication with the course staff in this case can be attributed to the
speed at which the lecturer and teaching assistant responded. Like-
wise, the difference in grades in Course C (and not in A and B) can
be explained by the fact that the frontal format of Course C was the
only one in which assignments were not given to students during the
course. Assignments, as an interactive activity, may better motivate
students and engage them with course content as well as better pre-
pare them to get higher grades on the final exam (Chen et al., 2010;
Lim et al., 2007). Therefore, the difference that was found may also
be attributed to course structure (with/without assignments) and not
only to format.
In summary, this study provides essential information regarding
the effectiveness of online academic courses compared with F2F
courses, based on a designed, instructional course model. According
to the findings of this study, in many of the examined effectiveness
aspects, online courses are as effective as or more effective than F2F
courses. These findings support Nguyen's (2015) study, which claimed
that online learning is “at least as effective as” the F2F courses and
suggested to move beyond the assumption that there are “no signifi-
cant differences”. One possible explanation for these effects is that this
study tested online courses that were designed and developed based
on research recommendations. Mainly, these courses were developed
with the purpose of maximizing flexibility by enabling student access
to all the course content from the beginning of the semester (Mullaney
& Reich, 2015). In addition, in order to create a consistent learning
framework (Swan et al., 2000; Young & Norgard, 2006), units were
taught according to a defined structure along with scheduled assign-
ments. Moreover, the structure consisted of recommended communi-
cation channels (Wallace, 2004) and provided general information and
guidelines about different aspects of the course (e.g., materials and
instructor). However, it is important to note that these findings reflect
certain types of courses in a special program for undergraduate stu-
dents. Thus, in order to generalize the results for other types of
courses, additional research of other contexts is needed.
6 | L I M I TA T I O N S A N D F U T U R E R E S E A R CH
Several possible limitations should be noted in this study. First, despite
the differences that were found between online and F2F courses, con-
clusions regarding causality should not be derived. That is, because
participants were not randomly assigned to course format, the differ-
ences that were found can be explained by other things such as the dif-
ferences between students in various characteristics. For example,
students who chose online courses may have had better technological
orientation and looked for flexible courses, and thus, online courses fit
them better. In addition, differences in the instructors' characteristics
may have biased the results (e.g., personality, technological skills, and
teaching strategy). Nevertheless, it should be noted that the courses
that were selected for this study (F2F vs. online) were similar in regard
to most of their characteristics (e.g., the same instructor, their final
exam content and place, and duration). Moreover, sociodemographic
SOFFER AND NACHMIAS
variables were not found to be related to the outcome variables; thus,
the possibility that they can explain the differences that were found
can be ruled out.
Because the questionnaire was anonymous, we could not corre-
late between students' responses and their achievements (in the final
exam and in the assignments), this could be explored in future
research. Notwithstanding, future research should examine a larger
sample of courses from diverse disciplines and a heterogeneous stu-
dent population. Moreover, further examination of the role of the
instructional model in relation to students' engagement and satisfac-
tion would enable a better understanding of the factors that influence
effectiveness of online academic courses and assist in their future
development. Students' satisfaction could further be explored by inte-
grating qualitative study (e.g., interviews) to better understand the rea-
sons behind the positive or negative satisfaction of the online learners
as compared with the F2F learners.
ORCID
Tal Soffer http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3339-0394
RE FE R ENC E S
Abdous, M. H., & Yoshimura, M. (2010). Learner outcomes and satisfaction:
A comparison of live video‐streamed instruction, satellite broadcast
instruction, and face‐to‐face instruction. Computers & Education, 55(2),
733–741.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change. In Tracking online education in
the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog
Research Group, LLC.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J., 2015. Grade level: Tracking online education in the
United States. Retrieved from: http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/
read/survey‐reports‐2014/
Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for
online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of
Educators Online, 7(1), n1.
Balkin, R. S., Buckner, D., Swartz, J., & Rao, S. (2005). Issues in classroom
management in an interactive distance education course. International
Journal of Instructional Media, 32(4), 363–372.
Bekele, T. A. (2010). Motivation and satisfaction in internet‐supported
learning environments: A review. Educational Technology & Society,
13(2), 116–127.
Bruckman, A. (2002). The future of e‐learning communities. Communica-
tions of the ACM, 45(4), 60–63.
Burkhardt, J. M., Kinnie, J., & Cournoyer, C. M. (2008). Information literacy
successes compared: Online vs. face to face. Journal of Library Adminis-
tration, 48(3–4), 379–389.
Chen, P. S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online
learners: The impact of web‐based learning technology on college stu-
dent engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222–1232.
Connolly, T. M., MacArthur, E., Stansfiled, M., & McLesslan, E. (2007). A
quasi‐experimental study of three online learning courses in computing.
Computers & Education, 49, 345–359.
Crawford‐Ferre, H. G., & Wiest, L. R. (2012). Effective online instruction in
higher education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(1), 11.
Dixson, M. D. (2012). Creating effective student engagement in online
courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.
Drago, W., Peltier, J., & Sorensen, D. (2002). Course content or the instruc-
tor: Which is more important in on‐line teaching? Management Research
News, 25(6/7), 69–83.
9
Du, J., Havard, B., & Li, H. (2005). Dynamic online discussion: Task‐oriented
interaction for deep learning. Educational Media International, 42(3),
207–218.
Duderstadt, J., Atkins, D., & van Houweling, D. (2002). Higher education in
the digital age. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Dutton, J., Dutton, M., & Perry, J. (2001). Do online students perform as
well as lecture students? Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 131–
136.
Farinella, J. A., Hobbs, B. K., & Weeks, H. S. (2000). Distance delivery: The
faculty perspective. Financial Practice and Education, 10, 184–194.
Garbett, C. (2011). Activity based costing models for delivering online
courses. Formamente Rivista Internazionale di Ricerca Sul Futuro Digitale.
Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and
assessment strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education,
21(3), 117–132.
Hannafin, M., Hill, J. R., Oliver, K., Glazer, E., & Sharma, P. (2003). Cognitive
and learning factors in web‐based distance learning environments.
Handbook of Distance Education, 2, 245–260.
Jones, K. O., & Kelley, C. A. (2003). Teaching marketing via the Internet:
Lessons learned and challenges to be met. Marketing Education Review,
13(1), 81–89.
Kim, K., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in
higher education: The survey says. Educause Quarterly, 29(4), 22.
Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2014). Interac-
tion, Internet self‐efficacy, and self‐regulated learning as predictors of
student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher
Education, 20, 35–50.
Lack, K. A. (2013). Current status of research on online learning in postsec-
ondary education. Ithaka S+ R, zuletzt geprüft am, 3. 2013
Lam, P., Cheng, K. F., & McNaught, C., 2005. Asynchronous online discus-
sion: Empirical evidence on quantity and quality. In G. Richards & P.
Kommers (Eds.). ED‐MEDIA 2005 (pp. 3209–3215), Proceedings of
the 17th annual World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hyper-
media & Telecommunications, Montreal, Canada, 27 June ‐ 2 July.
Norfolk VA: Association for the Advancement of Computers in
Education.
Lao, T., & Gonzales, C. (2005). Understanding online learning through a
qualitative description of professors and students' experiences. Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 459.
Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online vs. blended learn-
ing: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27–42.
Lim, J., Kim, M., Chen, S. S., & Ryder, C. E. (2008). An empirical investigation
of student achievement and satisfaction in different learning environ-
ments. [Electronic version]. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(2).
Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an
“early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers
and Education, 54(2), 588–599.
Maki, R. H., & Maki, W. S. (2007). Online courses. In Handbook of applied
cognition (Second ed.) (pp. 527–552).
Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). A structural equation
model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management
Education, 29, 531–563.
Mullaney, T., & Reich, J., 2015. Staggered versus all‐at‐once content
release in massive open online courses: Evaluating a natural experi-
ment. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning
@ Scale (pp. 185–194). ACM.
Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of dis-
tance learners in cyberspace. American Journal of Distance Education,
14(2), 15–35.
Neuhauser, C. (2010). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face‐
to‐face instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education..
10
Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no signifi-
cant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 11(2), 309–319.
Northrup, P. T. (2002). Online learners' preferences for interaction. Quar-
terly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 219–226.
Osman, M. E. (2005). Students' reaction to WEBCT: Implications for
designing on‐line learning environments. International Journal of Instruc-
tional Media, 32(4), 353.
Palmer, S., & Holt, D. (2010). Students' perceptions of the value of the ele-
ments of an online learning environment: Looking back in moving
forward. Interactive Learning Environments, 18, 135–151.
Pape, L., 2010. Blended Teaching & Learning. School Administrator, 67(4),
16–21.
Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The digital revolution and higher
education: College presidents, public differ on value of online Learning.
Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Peltier, J. W., Schibrowsky, J. A., & Drago, W. (2007). The interdependence of
the factors influencing the perceived quality of the online learning expe-
rience: A causal model. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 140–153.
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction,
presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications (Second ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Polloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The
realities of online teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Robertson, J. S., Grant, M. M., & Jackson, L. (2005). Is online instruction
perceived as effective as campus instruction by graduate students in
education? The Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 73–86.
Roby, T., Ashe, S., Singh, N., & Clark, C. (2013). Shaping the online experi-
ence: How administrators can influence student and instructor
perceptions through policy and practice. The Internet and Higher Educa-
tion, 17, 29–37.
Rodriguez, M. C., Ooms, A., & Montañez, M. (2008). Students' perceptions
of online‐learning quality given comfort, motivation, satisfaction, and
experience. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(2), 105–125.
Russell, J.E., Van Horne, S., Ward, A.S., III, E.A.B., Sipola, M., Colombo, M.
and Rocheford, M.K., 2016. Large lecture transformation: Adopting evi-
dence‐based practices to increase student engagement and
performance in an introductory science course. Journal of Geoscience
Education, 64(1), pp.37–51.
Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative
research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education: As
reported in 355 research reports, summaries and papers. Raleigh, NC:
North Carolina State University.
Sargeant, J., Curran, V., Allen, M., Jarvis‐Selinger, S., & Ho, K. (2006). Facil-
itating interpersonal interaction and learning online: Linking theory and
practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(2),
128–136.
Sebastianelli, R., Swift, C., & Tamimi, N. (2015). Factors affecting per-
ceived learning, satisfaction, and quality in the online MBA: A
structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Education for
Business, 90(6), 296–305.
Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2001). Measures
of learning effectiveness in the SUNY Learning Network. Online Educa-
tion, 2, 31–54.
Shea, P., Swan, K., Fredericksen, E., & Pickett, A. (2002). Student satisfac-
tion and reported learning in the SUNY learning network. Elements of
Quality Online Education, 3, 145–156.
SOFFER AND NACHMIAS
Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student‐instructor and stu-
dent‐student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web‐
based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learn-
ing, 8, 102–120.
Soffer, T., Kahan, T., & Livne, E. (2017). E‐assessment of online academic
courses via students' activities and perceptions. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 54, 83–93.
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online
learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics.
The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70.
Squires, D. (1999). Educational software for constructivist learning environ-
ments: Subversive use and volatile design. Educational Technology,
39(3), 48–54.
Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison
of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a tradi-
tional face‐to‐face statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3),
233–250.
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000).
Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and
communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Comput-
ing Research, 23(4), 359–383.
Tee, M. Y., & Karney, D. (2010). Sharing and cultivating tacit knowledge in
an online learning environment. International Journal of Computer‐Sup-
ported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 385–413.
Terry, N. (2001). Assessing enrollment and attrition rates for the online
MBA. THE Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 28(7), 64.
Tichavsky, L. P., Hunt, A. N., Driscoll, A., & Jicha, K. (2015). “It's just nice
having a real teacher”: Student perceptions of online versus face‐to‐
face instruction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, 9(2), 2.
Toven‐Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. B. (2015). Virtually unlimited
classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open online courses. The
Internet and Higher Education, 24, 1–12.
UDI Online Project (2010). Student perceptions of online/blended learning
(Technical Brief # 03). Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Post-
secondary Education and Disability. Retrieved from http://www.udi.
uconn.edu
Wallace, R. M. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the
Internet. American Education Research Journal, 41, 447–489.
Wanstreet, C. E. (2006). Interaction in online learning environments: A
review of the literature. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
7(4), 399–411.
Young, A., & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses
from the students' perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2),
107–115.
Zhan, Z., & Mei, H. (2013). Academic self‐concept and social presence in
face‐to‐face and online learning: Perceptions and effects on students'
learning achievement and satisfaction across environments. Computers
& Education, 69, 131–138.
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006). Instructional
video in e‐learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learn-
ing effectiveness. Information Management, 43(1), 15–27.
How to cite this article: Soffer T, Nachmias R. Effectiveness
of learning in online academic courses compared with face‐
to‐face courses in higher education. J Comput Assist Learn.
2018;1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12258