Quantitative Research Article Critique: Comparing Web-Based and Classroom-Based

Learning

This paper is an academic critique of a quantitative research article written by Stephen

Sussman and Lee Dutter (2010) titled: Comparing Student Learning Outcomes in Face-To-
Face and Online Course Delivery. In their articles, the authors conducted a research to
compare the achievement of students enrolled in two different sections of the same course in
English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). One section was taught in the classroom
while the other was web-based. My critique of the article focuses on different aspects in
terms of the hypothesis, sampling, choice of variables, instrumentation, discussion, and
conclusion.
The general purpose of their study is to make a small contribution to the research-
based dialogue regarding student achievement in Web-based courses as Compared to student
achievement in traditional courses (Thirunarayanan, & Perez-Prado, 2002, p. 132). One
particular purpose of the study is to compare student achievement between those enrolled in
in the classroom-based (offline) section and those enrolled in the web-based (on-line)
section (Thirunarayanan, & Perez-Prado, 2002, p. 132).
Given the purpose of the research study, the authors present their problem more as a
statement than as a question. The problem statement suggests that many researches have been
conducted to measure the achievement of students in non-web-based instruction (Barry &
Runyan, 1995; Chu & Schramm, 1975; Schramm, 1962; Whittington, 1987; Wilkinson,
1980). The research article offers one null hypothesis stating there is no significant
difference in the achievement of students enrolled in distance education courses when
compared with the achievement of students enrolled in traditional or classroom-based
courses (Thirunarayanan, & Perez-Prado, 2002, p. 131).
To test the hypothesis, the authors employed a quasi-experimental approach with a
pretest-posttest design (Thirunarayanan, & Perez-Prado, 2002). Identifying the independent
and dependent research variables is an essential task in any experimental, or quasi-
experimental, research. In their article, the authors have not explicitly identified these
variables as such. Principles and Practices II (TSL 4141) course (Thirunarayanan, & Perez-
Prado, 2002, p. 132). The dependent variable is the performance of the students taking this
course.
The authors of the article assume that the only parameters are the independent
variables, despite their discussion of a multitude of extraneous variables. Did the authors
ignore extraneous variables on purpose? The authors admitted that the two sections featured
differences in the instruction methods, beyond what is intended to be compared. For instance,
study groups were not constant in the web-based section. The classroom students met the
instructor weekly while the other section met her three times during the semester. The authors
dismissed these variables, however their arguments were frail in my opinion (see
Thirunarayanan, & Perez-Prado, 2002, p. 133).
For the purpose of conducting their research, Thirunarayanan, & Perez-Prado (2002)
chose the students of one particular instructor who teaches the TSL4141 course. The total
sample consists of 60 students and divided into two sections, classroom-based (n=31) and
Web-based (n=29). The choice of either the course or the instructor was not justified by the
authors, which may suggest convenience sampling. The authors employed a pretest-posttest,
no control group, instrument to measure the performance of the sample. The instructor ruled
any disagreement (Thirunarayanan, & Perez-Prado, 2002).
Moreover, the authors were not clear regarding the format of the pretest and posttest.
Were the tests administered in pen and paper format for the offline group and online for the
web-based group? A student who took all tests during the semester online would be more
comfortable taking the posttest online as well.
The results of this research study were in favor of the authors null hypothesis. The
authors averaged the results of each test for both sections and used the means to compute a t-
test value for both the pre- and post-test (Thirunarayanan, & Perez-Prado, 2002). The
statistical results were presented in one single table showing the mean M for each test and
section, and it associated t-test value. One may argue that, if the online group performed
significantly less than the offline group before instruction, then performed equally well after
instruction, then the online group have performed better than the offline group in comparison.
The authors briefly discussed this notion but dismissed it as insignificant (Thirunarayanan, &
Perez-Prado, 2002).
In my opinion, the results of the research are neither conclusive nor valid. The
sample was too small to represent the intended population. The variables were not clearly
defined and the extraneous variables were ignored.
 References

Barry, M., & Runyan, G. B. (1995). A review of distance-learning studies in the U.S.
military. American journal of Distance Education, 9(3), 37-47.

Chu, G. C., & Schramrn, W. (1975). Learning from television: What the research says
(rev. ed.). Stanford, CA: Institute for Communication Research. (ERIC No. ED 109 985)

Schramm, W (1962). What we know about learning from instructional television:

Educational television: The next ten years. Stanford, CA: Institute for Communication
Research.

Thirunarayanan, M. O. & Perez-Prado, A. (2002). Comparing web-based and

classroom-based learning: A quantitative study. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 34(2), 131-137. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals database.

Wilkinson, G. L. (1980). Media in instruction: 60 years of research. Washington, DC:

Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Whittington, N. (1987). Is instructional television educationally effective? A research

review. American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 47-57