Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.79.6.360-366
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Distance Learning in an Accounting Principles
Course—Student Satisfaction and Perceptions of
Efficacy
Alexander R. Vamosi , Barbara G. Pierce & Michael H. Slotkin
To cite this article: Alexander R. Vamosi , Barbara G. Pierce & Michael H. Slotkin (2004)
Distance Learning in an Accounting Principles Course—Student Satisfaction and Perceptions of
Efficacy, Journal of Education for Business, 79:6, 360-366, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.79.6.360-366
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.6.360-366
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 53
View related articles
Citing articles: 13 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 12 January 2016, At: 23:34
CYBER DIMENSIONS
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
Distance Learning in an Accounting
Principles Course—Student
Satisfaction and Perceptions
of Efficacy
ALEXANDER R. VAMOSI
BARBARA G. PIERCE
MICHAEL H. SLOTKIN
Florida Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Florida
D
istance learning, and in particular
the virtual classroom, has fundamentally altered the business education
landscape. According to data collected
from nationally representative surveys
conducted during the 1997–1998 academic year, slightly fewer than 50,000
college-level, credit-granting courses
were offered via distance learning,
supporting enrollments of about
1,400,000 students (NCES, 1999). In
addition, the number of postsecondary
institutions offering distance-learning
classes increased by 33% between
1995 and 1998, primarily because of
the advent of asynchronous, Internetbased courses. And more than half a
decade later, the proliferation of virtual
enrollments remains unabated as universities continue to forge an Internetbased presence.
This transition in higher education
clearly makes economic sense. With a
sizable and increasing number of nontraditional students comprising the
higher education clientele, university
administrators are modifying the delivery of their product to adjust to a changing marketplace. Accessibility is of primary concern to this education cohort,
and the virtual classroom, with its ability to circumvent the lifestyle constraints of time, family, and location,
360
Journal of Education for Business
ABSTRACT. In this study, the
authors employed a novel, dual
approach toward the delivery of
course material to assess students’ satisfaction with distance learning and
their perceptions of its efficacy. Students in two sections of an Introduction to Financial Accounting course
received instruction that alternated
between traditional, live lectures and
live lectures captured for viewing over
the Internet. Thus, the course moved
from synchronous to asynchronous
modes of learning, and vice versa.
Results show that the students reported a lower relative level of satisfaction
with the distance-learning component,
as well as diminished effectiveness in
mastering the distance-learning course
material.
offers the flexibility needed for continuing education. In this respect, distance
learning may serve to increase the overall number of students rather than move
enrollees from one form of curriculum
delivery to another.
Whether distance learning compromises student classroom learning and/or
satisfaction with learning is a subject of
continuing and healthy debate. To illustrate, Sonner (1999) and Dellana,
Collins, and West (2000) found that distance learning was at least as effective, if
not more so, than traditional classroom
learning, but Terry, Owens, and Macy
(2001) provided results suggesting that
students perform better in traditional
MBA courses than in virtual ones. With
respect to satisfaction, Russell (1999)
hosted a Web-based compendium of
distance-learning research showing no
significant differential between distance
learning and its traditional, classroom
counterpart. Other studies yielding similar favorable student satisfaction outcomes include Navarro and Shoemaker
(2000) and Ryan (2000); however,
Ponzurick, France, and Logar (2000)
found that students in marketing management courses believed that distance
learning was the least satisfying and
effective method of course delivery and
used it solely for the time flexibility that
it afforded. Terry, Owens, and Macy
(2000) echoed similar themes, highlighting a possible trade-off made by
many cyberlearners: acceptance of the
perceived qualitative drawbacks of distance learning in exchange for the benefits bestowed by its accessibility and
convenience.
In this article, we explore student satisfaction and perceptions of efficacy and
extend the literature by conducting a
distance-learning experiment using a
novel, dual approach toward the delivery of course material. We had students
in two sections of an Introduction to
Financial Accounting course alternate
between receiving course instruction
through traditional, live lectures and
receiving live lectures captured over the
Internet. Unlike traditional education
experiments that employ previous or
concurrent control groups, this study
involved students serving as their own
control group, which mitigated reactive
and self-selection biases. In addition, the
dual approach allowed control for differences in course instructors/teaching
style, course materials, and the time
period of instruction.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
Background
Methodological criticisms of the scientific literature on distance learning
involve (a) the lack of control of extraneous variables, (b) the lack of randomly
selected participants, (c) the use of
instruments that are questionable in
terms of their validity and reliability,
and (d) the lack of control for reactive
effects (Institute for Higher Education
Policy, 1998). Self-selection, for example, presents a particularly troubling
issue. If sections are designated as distance learning and traditional learning,
students will self-select into either section, nonrandomizing the sample. Suppose, however, that only one section is
offered that alternates between a traditional learning framework and a distance learning framework. Self-selection
would be eliminated, and each student
would experience both modes of delivery. This is the approach adopted in a
pilot study by Cudmore, Lease, Pierce,
Slotkin, and Vamosi (2002).
This framework also serves to mitigate
reactive effects. The John Henry effect
arises when either the control group or
the teachers perform at a higher level
because they feel threatened by a new
program or approach. It assumes an
implicit competition among students
and/or teachers in different sections of a
course. Without a control group, and
with only one teacher involved in the
experiment, the implicit competition fails
to materialize; consequently, such a
study mitigates the John Henry effect.
A criticism of the pilot study involves
the relatively small numbers comprising
the population sample size. To rectify
this deficiency, in this study we enlarged
the dual experiment by using two sections of an Introduction to Financial
Accounting course taught by the same
instructor and alternating in delivery
mode between distance and traditional
learning. The sections were staggered so
that one section was in distance-learning
mode and the other in traditional format
and vice versa. None of the students was
made aware of the dual approach to
course delivery before the first day of
class, and student movement from class
to class was restricted by capacity
enrollment in each section (although students could drop the course altogether,
which very few did). In short, we randomized sample populations according
to typical student scheduling concerns.
Method
We conducted our within-group
experiments in two sections of an Introduction to Financial Accounting course
taught during fall 2001 at a private,
southeastern engineering university. For
the experimental sections, the only
aspect of the class that distinguished it
from a regularly offered section was the
distance-learning components. Both
sections of the course covered the same
amount of material (12 chapters) from
the same textbook, Accounting (5th
ed.), by Horngren, Harrison, and Bamber (2002).We list the chapters covered
and their topics in Table 1.
The first six chapters were taught in
the classroom; the last six chapters were
taught through alternating delivery
modes. For section 1, chapters 7, 10,
and 11 were delivered on VHS or
streamed video on computer; whereas
chapters 8, 9, and 12 were taught via
traditional live lecture. The delivery
modes occurred in reverse order for section 2. We taped distance-learning segments during a live class in spring 2001
and then edited and transferred them to
VHS. We also compressed these lectures for streaming video, and students
could watch them on their computers
through the Internet using RealPlayer.
Lectures delivered live were not available in distance-learning mode to the
sections experiencing the live lecture.
For all chapters, students had access
through Blackboard to PowerPoint
slides (and rich text format outlines),
the professor’s typed lecture notes, and
online quizzes. For all the material, students had the option of sending questions and receiving answers by e-mail.
To simulate an asynchronous distancelearning experience, we informed students at the beginning of the semester
that they would not be allowed to use live
class time or in-person office hours to
ask questions about the material delivered by distance-learning mode or to
address any related problems. We
thought this rule would not affect students much, because they typically ask
TABLE 1. Topic Coverage Grouped by Delivery System and Examination
Chapter
Chapter title
Examination
Standard course material taught in the classroom
1
2
3
4
5
6
Accounting and the Business Environment
Recording Business Transactions
Measuring Business Income: The Adjusting Process
Completing the Accounting Cycle
Merchandising Operations and the Accounting Cycle
Accounting Information Systems
#1
#1
#2
#2
#3
#3
Course material taught in alternating delivery modes
7
8
9
10
11
12
Internal Control, Managing Cash, and Making Ethical
Judgments
Accounts and Notes Receivables
Plant Assets & Intangible Assets
Merchandise Inventory
Current Liabilities and Payroll
Corporations: Paid-In Capital and the Balance Sheet
#4
#4
#5
#5
#6
#6
July/August 2004
361
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
questions about material as it is being
covered in class; the professor in the
classroom is rarely approached with
questions regarding material that was
presented in earlier sessions. During the
experiment, we noted this behavior: The
students expected to move on to new
material and did not ask questions
regarding material already presented in
previous sessions.
In addition to holding regularly
scheduled office hours, the professor
held virtual office hours at designated
times to correspond with the students
about the material delivered by distancelearning mode. During the virtual office
hours, students in the appropriate section could, at their option, participate in
a synchronous chat on Blackboard; at a
later time, students in the appropriate
sections also could read the archived
chat. Students also could post messages
to an asynchronous discussion board,
and in fact received participation credit
for doing so.
Testing occurred through six, noncumulative exams, designated by the
chapters boxed in Table 1. Each exam
covered two chapters. All exams were
given in class at the regularly scheduled
time. The first three exams covered the
initial six chapters in the text, all taught
in a traditional, live lecture mode.
Exams 4 through 6 covered two chapters each; accordingly, each of the last
three exams covered one chapter delivered in distance-learning mode and one
chapter covered in live lecture. All
exams were in multiple-choice format,
with about 70% covering concepts and
definitions and 30% covering problems,
and all exam questions were selected
randomly from the course text’s accompanying Test Manager database.
At the beginning and end of fall
2001, we surveyed the students to
obtain their impressions of distance
learning and analyze their learning
styles. We designed the attitudes and
perceptions survey to gauge the students’ overall satisfaction with each
delivery mode as well as his or her satisfaction with specific elements that
may have aided or hindered his or her
“learning experience.” We measured
the responses on a 7-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
362
Journal of Education for Business
In Table 2, we list the elements analyzed in this study. To facilitate the discussion, we placed the individual statements into four categories: learning
attributes, time management, personal
interaction, and technology. We examined each statement by comparing
presurvey and postsurvey responses. We
interpreted the presurvey responses as
an ex ante expectation or prediction and
interpreted the postsurvey responses as
an ex post realization. Unexpectedly
low scores or high scores can generate
meaningful differences in the satisfaction of distance learning (DL) and traditional learning (TL) course components.
Results and Analysis
Our purpose in this study was to assess
the relative efficacy of a distance-learning
delivery system by comparing students’
precourse expectations about the individual delivery modes with their postcourse attitudes. The dual delivery nature
of the accounting course allowed for the
construction of a survey instrument that
produced paired comparisons across surveys and paired comparisons within the
individual surveys. To obtain a sufficiently large number of observations, we combined the two sections that used the dual
delivery system into one large sample.
Thus, each item from the survey had
between 47 and 50 usable observations.
We analyzed our results in three
stages. In the first stage, we did not distinguish between the two delivery modes
and evaluated the overall satisfaction with
this accounting course. In the second
stage, our focus was on paired comparisons of the DL and TL delivery modes.
We evaluated differences in overall satisfaction between the two course components with respect to the 10 individual
items that may have affected the learning
experience of the students (see Table 2).
Finally, we considered the reactive effects
that stemmed from the significantly
lower satisfaction associated with the DL
course component.
Overall Satisfaction with the
Accounting Course
In Table 3, we provide data on a small
set of cross-survey paired statements
and include statistics on the mean scores
TABLE 2. Classification of
Students’ Attitudes and
Perceptions
1. Overall satisfaction
2. Learning attributes
a. Interest level
b. Ease of learning
c. Effectiveness in learning
3. Time management
a. Flexibility with personal
schedule
b. Efficient use of studying time
4. Personal interaction
a. Accessibility of instructor
b. Degree of dialogue with the
instructor
c. Degree of dialogue with other
students
5. Technology
a. Effectiveness in using
technology
b. Comfort in using technology
for the individual surveys, the mean
paired difference in scores (postsurvey
minus presurvey), and the p values corresponding to the two-tailed t tests. The
null hypothesis stated that there would
be no significant difference between the
mean paired values on the two surveys,
whereas the alternative hypothesis stated that there would be a significant difference in the mean paired values.
Because postsurvey attitudes may rank
higher or lower than presurvey expectations, the test was two tailed.
We first considered the overall satisfaction with the accounting course. The
data in Table 3 show that for each student there was an average decrease of
0.58 points (p < .025) between post- and
presurvey tabulations. Thus, the overall
satisfaction with this course was significantly lower than the students had
anticipated. Further inspection of Table
3 shows that the decline in satisfaction
cannot be attributed to changes in attitude toward the course instructor (row
2) or the idea of distance learning (row
3). Neither can the decline be ascribed
to “nervousness” about learning in a
new format (row 4). The degree of nervousness, in fact, was less pronounced
than expected (-0.86, p < .004), primarily because the anticipated novelty of
the DL course components (row 5) did
not materialize (-0.70, p < .002).
In Table 3, we also report on the preand postsurvey assessments related to
the available technology for the
accounting course. Statistically, there
were no significant differences in the
mean attitudinal scores regarding the
quality of the available technology (row
6), satisfaction with the technology (row
7), or technology support (row 8) available for the distance-learning components of the course.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
Relative Comparison of
Delivery Modes
In Table 4, we summarize four sets of
mean paired difference t tests associated
with the within-survey paired statements for specific course attributes
(e.g., effectiveness in learning, flexibility afforded). To help facilitate the discussion, we denote the mean paired difference in satisfaction presented in the
columns as follows:
Col. 1. dpost = postsurvey, difference in
satisfaction, DL– TL;
Col. 2. dpre = presurvey, difference in satisfaction, DL – TL;
Col. 3. dDL = distance learning, difference
in satisfaction, postsurvey – presurvey;
Col. 4. dTL = traditional learning, difference
in satisfaction, postsurvey – presurvey.
The first two columns, respectively,
show postsurvey and presurvey differences in satisfaction between DL and TL
components, along with corresponding p
values in parentheses. Negative values
indicate a lower relative satisfaction with
DL. The last two columns consist of
cross-survey comparisons that measure
the difference between actual and
expected satisfaction for the individual
course components. Positive values indicate higher-than-expected satisfaction,
whereas negative values indicate lowerthan-expected satisfaction.
TABLE 3. Students’ Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding the Overall
Accounting Course
Col. 1:
Mean value
postsurvey
Col. 2:
Mean value
presurvey
Col. 3:
Mean paired
difference
1. Overall satisfaction with the
accounting course
3.98
4.56
–0.58*
(0.025)
2. Overall rating of the accounting
professor
4.70
4.44
3. Idea of distance learning is great
3.68
3.96
0.26
(0.334)
–0.28
(0.312)
4. Nervous about learning in a new
format such as distance learning
2.98
3.84
–0.86**
(0.004)
5. Distance learning component very
novel to me
3.28
3.98
–0.70**
(0.002)
6. Quality of technology available for
this accounting class is great
5.12
5.53
–0.41
(0.133)
7. Very satisfied with the technology
available for the distance-learning
component of the accounting class
4.86
5.24
–0.39
(0.121)
8. Very satisfied with technology
support available for the distancelearning component of the
accounting class
4.62
4.80
–0.18
(0.437)
Survey statement
Note. The mean values were tabulated on a 7-point Likert scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
The postsurvey difference in satisfaction between delivery modes can be
broken into the three remaining elements, as follows:
dpost = dpre = dDL = dTL
The above equation states that significant differences in postsurvey satisfaction between DL and TL can be ascribed
to presurvey differences in satisfaction
(dpre) and/or to significant changes in
postsurvey attitudes toward the individual delivery modes (dDL and dTL).
The results shown in Table 3 indicate
a significant postsurvey drop in overall
course satisfaction, a drop that cannot
be attributed to unexpected changes in
attitude toward the professor or the
technology used during the DL components of the course. Nor can the drop be
attributed to unexpectedly high anxiety
or novelty associated with distance
learning. What then is the primary cause
of the postsurvey drop in overall satisfaction? An examination of the data in
Table 4 reveals that student satisfaction
with the DL portion of the course was
significantly lower than that regarding
its TL counterpart for many of the
course attributes (col. 1). The cumulative effect in favor of the TL delivery
mode was a 1.58-point difference in
overall satisfaction (p < .01). The students in this sample correctly anticipated a lower level of satisfaction with the
DL delivery mode, but the actual
decrease (dpre = -0.98) was more pronounced than was expected. Using the
information from the last two columns,
we see that the larger spread in overall
satisfaction between the sets of
responses regarding the DL and TL
modes was caused by an unexpectedly
low satisfaction with the DL delivery
mode (dDL = -0.60, p < .05). There was
no unexpected difference in satisfaction
with respect to the TL delivery mode
(dTL = 0, p = 1.0).
In Table 4, we summarize the attitudes and perceptions concerning four
groups of course attributes that may
account for the relative dissatisfaction
with DL. We evaluated three learning
attributes in this study: (a) the interest
level associated with course content, (b)
the ease of learning the course material,
and (c) the effectiveness in learning the
course material (see rows 2a, 2b, and 2c,
July/August 2004
363
TABLE 4. Students’ Relative Satisfaction With Delivery Modes: Distance Learning Versus Traditional
Col. 1:
DL–TL(post)
(dpost)
Course attribute
1. Overall satisfaction
2a. Interest level
2b. Ease of learning
2c. Effectiveness in learning
3a. Flexibility with personal schedule
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
3b. Efficient use of time studying
4a. Accessibility of instructor
4b. Degree of dialogue with instructor
4c. Degree of dialogue with other students
5a. Effectiveness in using technology
5b. Comfort in using technology
6. Novelty effect will inspire a greater interest in learning
–1.58***
(0.000)
–0.80***
(0.033)
–1.86***
(0.000)
–2.06***
(0.000)
1.96***
(0.000)
–1.18***
(0.009)
–0.18
(0.470)
–0.76**
(0.034)
–1.39***
(0.002)
–1.06***
(0.000)
–0.60***
(0.004)
–1.72***
(0.000)
Col. 2:
DL–TL(pre)
(dpre )
–0.98***
(0.002)
0.08
(0.785)
–1.06***
(0.001)
–1.55***
(0.000)
1.90***
(0.000)
0.20
(0.565)
0.16
(0.595)
–1.04***
(0.001)
–0.98***
(0.007)
–0.52***
(0.013)
–0.44***
(0.002)
–0.48
(0.116)
Col. 3:
DL post–pre
(dDL )
–0.60**
(0.044)
–1.08***
(0.002)
–0.66**
(0.016)
–0.98***
(0.000)
–0.08
(0.775)
–1.16***
(0.001)
0.33
(0.218)
–0.37
(0.215)
–0.78**
(0.022)
0.02
(0.934)
0.52**
(0.048)
–1.22***
(0.000)
Col. 4:
TL post–pre
(dTL )
0.00
(1.000)
–0.20
(0.417)
0.14
(0.593)
–0.47*
(0.090)
–0.14
(0.621)
0.22
(0.388)
0.67***
(0.004)
–0.65***
(0.005)
–0.37
(0.132)
0.56***
(0.009)
0.68***
(0.000)
0.02
(0.924)
Note. The mean values were tabulated on a 7–point Likert scale.
*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
respectively). In all three instances, the
DL component received significantly
lower satisfaction ratings than did its TL
counterpart (col. 1). Thus, in relative
terms, the DL component of the course
was deemed less interesting (dpost =
-0.80, p < .05) and harder to learn from
(dpost = -1.86, p < .01), and the students
thought that it lowered their effectiveness (dpost = -2.06, p < .01) in mastering
the course material. The data in column
2 show that students were able to partially anticipate the results associated
with ease of learning (dpre = -1.06, p <
.01) and effectiveness in learning (dpre =
-1.55, p < .01). Finally, the difference in
satisfaction between postsurvey and
presurvey responses for the DL course
components (dDL) was negative and significant for all three learning attributes.
As a consequence, the divergence in satisfaction between DL and TL responses
rose significantly on the postsurvey
evaluations.
One of the benefits of distance learning is the perceived greater flexibility in
364
Journal of Education for Business
students’ schedules (Arbaugh, 2000). A
more flexible schedule, however, does
not mean a more efficient use of time. It
is likely that both attributes are important to students, but a priori it is not clear
which attribute they value more. In this
study, the expectation of a more flexible
schedule during DL course components
was fully realized (row 3a). Students
expected more flexibility (dpre = 1.90, p
≈ zero) and realized more flexibility
(dpost = 1.96, p ≈ zero). Moreover, there
was no significant difference in satisfaction between pre- and postsurvey evaluations for either learning mode (dDL =
-0.08, p = .775; dTL = -0.14, p = .621).
Despite having more flexible schedules,
students felt less efficient in their use of
time (row 3b) during DL components
(dpost = -1.18, p < .01); they had predicted no significant difference (dpre = 0.20,
p = .565). The result regarding less efficient use of time was driven entirely by
lower postsurvey satisfaction with DL
components (dDL = -1.16, p < .01).
Professors are encouraged to interact
with their students and to promote interaction among them. Faculty members
generally believe that interaction
enhances a student’s learning experience
and that more interaction is preferable to
less. In this study, we evaluated interaction in accordance with the instructor’s
accessibility and degree of student dialogue with both the instructor and other
students. In relative terms, both of the
dialogue attributes yielded lower postsurvey scores for the DL delivery mode.
As with many of this study’s findings,
the presurvey assessments of distance
learning were overly optimistic vis-àvis dialogue with other students (row
4c). It is interesting that, in contrast, the
postsurvey difference between the
response sets regarding individual delivery modes was smaller than expected
for the “dialogue with instructor”
attribute (row 4b: dpost = -0.76, p < .05;
dpre = -1.04, p < .01). This represents a
positive shift in relative satisfaction in
favor of the DL delivery mode. But the
finding is fashioned from a lower-than-
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
expected level of satisfaction with TL
(dTL = -0.65, p < .01) rather than a positive change in attitude toward DL. We
also found no significant differences
between individual components on
either survey, regarding satisfaction
with instructor accessibility (row 4a).
But there is evidence, in the form of a
significant 0.67-point swing, that students were overly pessimistic in their
expectation of instructor accessibility
for the TL component of the course (p <
.01). Unfortunately, the better-thananticipated access to the instructor did
not produce a high degree of dialogue.
The last set of attributes focuses on
the technological aspects of the course.
The presurvey evaluations reveal that
the students expected to be relatively
less effective in using the available DL
technology (dpre = -0.51, p < .05). This
gap in perceived effectiveness widened
on the postsurvey (dpost = -1.06, p < .01),
but not because students were less effective in using DL technology (dDL = 0.02,
p = .934). Rather, an unexpectedly high
level of effectiveness with use of the TL
technology caused the wider gap on the
postsurvey (dTL = 0.56, p < .01). These
findings are consistent with those
reported in Table 3, which show no significant difference between pre- and
postsurvey attitudes concerning the
quality, availability, and technical support related to the DL technology used
in this course.
With respect to comfort in using technology (row 5b), the postsurvey scores
were relatively lower for the DL delivery
mode (dpost = -0.60, p < .01; dpre = -0.44,
p < .01). It is noteworthy that students
significantly underestimated their comfort level for both sets of technology
(dDL > 0 and dTL > 0), but with a larger
error with respect to the TL technology
(dDL = 0.52, p < .05; dTL = 0.68, p < .01).
In summary, in this study we found
that student satisfaction with the available TL technology was, on average,
higher than anticipated. Consequently,
we concluded that the gap in overall satisfaction between DL and TL responses
may be partly attributable to higherthan-expected scores for both effectiveness and comfort in using technology
during TL components of the course.
At this point, we can draw several
conclusions from this study:
• The overall satisfaction with this
accounting course was significantly
lower than students had anticipated; this
primarily reflects lower relative satisfaction with the DL delivery mode.
• Cross-survey comparisons for specific course attributes indicate that students were often overly optimistic about
DL but unduly pessimistic about TL.
Both factors contributed to the lowerthan-anticipated overall level of satisfaction with this accounting course.
• The DL component of the course
scored poorly on all three learning
attributes that were surveyed. DL hindered mastery of the course material,
diminished student effectiveness in
learning the material, and made the
course material less interesting to learn.
• Students felt “less efficient” in
their use of time during DL components, and DL produced less dialogue
between other students than expected.
• Students were more effective and
comfortable than they had expected in
using the available TL technology.
Reactive Effects
Studies that pit a traditional learning
control group against an experimental
distance-learning group tend to be
plagued by various reactive effects that
bias the survey results. The reactive
effects most often discussed are the
John Henry and the novelty effects. By
definition, the design of this experiment
eliminated the John Henry effect
because the students were not in competition with another control group.
The novelty effect suggests that students work harder because of an
increased level of motivation fostered
by the newness of a technology such as
distance learning. When students were
asked whether a novelty effect would
inspire a “greater interest in learning,”
they overwhelmingly indicated that DL
components fostered less interest than
TL components (Table 4, row 6: dpost =
-1.72, p < .01). This result is driven primarily by low ex post satisfaction with
the DL delivery mode (dDL = -1.22, p <
.01).
It would be reasonable to expect that
the negative perceptions associated with
the distance-learning delivery mode
would affect student motivation and
effort adversely during DL components
of the course. In Table 5, we summarize
perceptions with respect to relative motivation, time spent learning DL component
chapters, and relative effort expended in
the traditional over the distance-learning
component of the accounting class. Students mildly disagreed with the notion
that they would be more motivated
when studying the DL component chapters (mean = 3.34; Likert midpoint = 4).
Their response was even more forceful
TABLE 5. Reactive Effects Associated With Distance Learning
Col. 1:
Mean value
postsurvey
Col. 2:
Mean value
presurvey
Col. 3:
Mean paired
difference
Overall satisfaction with the
accounting course
3.98
4.56
–0.58*
(0.025)
More motivated when studying the
distance-learning component
chapters
2.54
3.34
–0.80**
(0.002)
Spend less time on the distancelearning component chapters
4.53
3.31
1.22**
(0.001)
Give more effort to the TL over the
DL component of the accounting
class
4.76
4.44
0.32
(0.300)
Survey statement
Note. The mean values were tabulated on a 7-point Likert scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
July/August 2004
365
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
on the postsurvey, which showed a
mean score of 2.54. Thus, there was a
significant (p < .01) 0.80 postsurvey
shift in attitude that implies less motivation during DL components. A consequence of this diminished motivation
was that students spent relatively less
time on DL components; the postsurvey
mean jumped by 1.22 points (p < .01)
for this factor.
Finally, we note a surprising result.
Students expected to exert relatively
more effort on TL course components
(mean = 4.44). This is probably a byproduct of their anticipation of a more
satisfying learning experience via the
TL delivery mode (see Table 4, row 1,
col. 2). Ex post, students did make a relatively greater effort with TL components, but the 0.32-point increase from
presurvey levels was not statistically
significant. In sum, higher-than-expected
relative satisfaction with TL did not produce greater effort relative to that expended for the DL components of this
accounting course.
Discussion
The overall satisfaction experienced
by students in the accounting course
under study was significantly lower than
they had anticipated, primarily because
of their lower relative satisfaction with
the DL delivery mode. The students
thought that the DL components were
less interesting and less efficient for
learning and that they lowered student
effectiveness in mastering the course
material compared with the traditional
366
Journal of Education for Business
delivery system. Thus, the difference in
satisfaction between response sets
regarding delivery modes reflects lowerthan-expected satisfaction with the three
aforementioned learning attributes. We
also reached this conclusion in an earlier
pilot study, but the sample data were too
small for discernment of any noticeable
shifts from pre- to postsurvey scores in
the other course attributes. In the present
study, which involved a much larger sample, we detected noticeable differences in
each of the course attribute categories
that we studied. We found a less efficient
use of time, less dialogue between students, and less effectiveness in using the
available technology during DL components. Thus, we conclude that issues
related to time management, interaction,
and technology may also contribute to
the significant difference in satisfaction
in the comparison of distance-learning
and traditional-learning delivery modes
of instruction.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Alexander R. Vamosi, School of
Management, Florida Institute of Technology,
Melbourne, FL, 32901-6975. or to the following
e-mail address: avamosi@fit.edu.
REFERENCES
Arbaugh, J. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with Internet-based
MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 32–54.
Cudmore, B. A., Lease, T. M., Pierce, B. G.,
Slotkin, M. H., & Vamosi, A. R. (2002). Student
perceptions on distance versus traditional classroom based learning: Survey results from a dual
taught accounting course. Journal of Accounting and Finance Research, 10(3), 1–14.
Dellana, S., Collins, W., & West, D. (2000). Online education in a management science
course—Effectiveness and performance factors. Journal of Education for Business, 76(1),
43–47.
Horngren, C. T., Harrison, W. T., Jr., & Bamber, L.
S. (2002). Accounting (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1998,
April). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Retrieved
March 19, 2004, from http://www.ihep.com/
Pubs/PDF/Difference.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education. (1999, December).
Distance education at postsecondary education
institutions: 1997–98. (Publication No. NCES
2000013). Retrieved March 19, 2004, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000013.pdf
Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Policy issues
in the teaching of economics in cyberspace:
Research design, course design, and research
results. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18(3),
359–366.
Ponzurick, T. G., France, K. R., & Logar, C. M.
(2000). Delivering graduate marketing education: An analysis of face-to-face versus distance
education. Journal of Marketing Education,
22(3), 180–187.
Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference
phenomenon. Office of Instructional Telecommunications, Chapel Hill, NC. North Carolina
State University. Articles retrieved March 19,
2004, from http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/
nosignificantdifference/
Ryan, R. (2000). Student assessment and comparison of lecture and online construction equipment and methods classes. T.H.E. Journal,
27(6), 78–83.
Sonner, B. S. (1999). Success in the capstone
business course—Assessing the effectiveness
of distance learning. Journal of Education for
Business, 74(4), 243–248.
Terry, N., Owens, J., & Macy, A. (2000). Student
and faculty assessment of the virtual MBA: A
case study. Journal of the Academy of Business
Education, 1(2), 33–38.
Terry, N., Owens, J., & Macy, A. (2001). Student
performance in the virtual versus traditional
classroom. Journal of the Academy of Business
Education, 2(1), 1–4.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Distance Learning in an Accounting Principles
Course—Student Satisfaction and Perceptions of
Efficacy
Alexander R. Vamosi , Barbara G. Pierce & Michael H. Slotkin
To cite this article: Alexander R. Vamosi , Barbara G. Pierce & Michael H. Slotkin (2004)
Distance Learning in an Accounting Principles Course—Student Satisfaction and Perceptions of
Efficacy, Journal of Education for Business, 79:6, 360-366, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.79.6.360-366
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.6.360-366
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 53
View related articles
Citing articles: 13 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 12 January 2016, At: 23:34
CYBER DIMENSIONS
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
Distance Learning in an Accounting
Principles Course—Student
Satisfaction and Perceptions
of Efficacy
ALEXANDER R. VAMOSI
BARBARA G. PIERCE
MICHAEL H. SLOTKIN
Florida Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Florida
D
istance learning, and in particular
the virtual classroom, has fundamentally altered the business education
landscape. According to data collected
from nationally representative surveys
conducted during the 1997–1998 academic year, slightly fewer than 50,000
college-level, credit-granting courses
were offered via distance learning,
supporting enrollments of about
1,400,000 students (NCES, 1999). In
addition, the number of postsecondary
institutions offering distance-learning
classes increased by 33% between
1995 and 1998, primarily because of
the advent of asynchronous, Internetbased courses. And more than half a
decade later, the proliferation of virtual
enrollments remains unabated as universities continue to forge an Internetbased presence.
This transition in higher education
clearly makes economic sense. With a
sizable and increasing number of nontraditional students comprising the
higher education clientele, university
administrators are modifying the delivery of their product to adjust to a changing marketplace. Accessibility is of primary concern to this education cohort,
and the virtual classroom, with its ability to circumvent the lifestyle constraints of time, family, and location,
360
Journal of Education for Business
ABSTRACT. In this study, the
authors employed a novel, dual
approach toward the delivery of
course material to assess students’ satisfaction with distance learning and
their perceptions of its efficacy. Students in two sections of an Introduction to Financial Accounting course
received instruction that alternated
between traditional, live lectures and
live lectures captured for viewing over
the Internet. Thus, the course moved
from synchronous to asynchronous
modes of learning, and vice versa.
Results show that the students reported a lower relative level of satisfaction
with the distance-learning component,
as well as diminished effectiveness in
mastering the distance-learning course
material.
offers the flexibility needed for continuing education. In this respect, distance
learning may serve to increase the overall number of students rather than move
enrollees from one form of curriculum
delivery to another.
Whether distance learning compromises student classroom learning and/or
satisfaction with learning is a subject of
continuing and healthy debate. To illustrate, Sonner (1999) and Dellana,
Collins, and West (2000) found that distance learning was at least as effective, if
not more so, than traditional classroom
learning, but Terry, Owens, and Macy
(2001) provided results suggesting that
students perform better in traditional
MBA courses than in virtual ones. With
respect to satisfaction, Russell (1999)
hosted a Web-based compendium of
distance-learning research showing no
significant differential between distance
learning and its traditional, classroom
counterpart. Other studies yielding similar favorable student satisfaction outcomes include Navarro and Shoemaker
(2000) and Ryan (2000); however,
Ponzurick, France, and Logar (2000)
found that students in marketing management courses believed that distance
learning was the least satisfying and
effective method of course delivery and
used it solely for the time flexibility that
it afforded. Terry, Owens, and Macy
(2000) echoed similar themes, highlighting a possible trade-off made by
many cyberlearners: acceptance of the
perceived qualitative drawbacks of distance learning in exchange for the benefits bestowed by its accessibility and
convenience.
In this article, we explore student satisfaction and perceptions of efficacy and
extend the literature by conducting a
distance-learning experiment using a
novel, dual approach toward the delivery of course material. We had students
in two sections of an Introduction to
Financial Accounting course alternate
between receiving course instruction
through traditional, live lectures and
receiving live lectures captured over the
Internet. Unlike traditional education
experiments that employ previous or
concurrent control groups, this study
involved students serving as their own
control group, which mitigated reactive
and self-selection biases. In addition, the
dual approach allowed control for differences in course instructors/teaching
style, course materials, and the time
period of instruction.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
Background
Methodological criticisms of the scientific literature on distance learning
involve (a) the lack of control of extraneous variables, (b) the lack of randomly
selected participants, (c) the use of
instruments that are questionable in
terms of their validity and reliability,
and (d) the lack of control for reactive
effects (Institute for Higher Education
Policy, 1998). Self-selection, for example, presents a particularly troubling
issue. If sections are designated as distance learning and traditional learning,
students will self-select into either section, nonrandomizing the sample. Suppose, however, that only one section is
offered that alternates between a traditional learning framework and a distance learning framework. Self-selection
would be eliminated, and each student
would experience both modes of delivery. This is the approach adopted in a
pilot study by Cudmore, Lease, Pierce,
Slotkin, and Vamosi (2002).
This framework also serves to mitigate
reactive effects. The John Henry effect
arises when either the control group or
the teachers perform at a higher level
because they feel threatened by a new
program or approach. It assumes an
implicit competition among students
and/or teachers in different sections of a
course. Without a control group, and
with only one teacher involved in the
experiment, the implicit competition fails
to materialize; consequently, such a
study mitigates the John Henry effect.
A criticism of the pilot study involves
the relatively small numbers comprising
the population sample size. To rectify
this deficiency, in this study we enlarged
the dual experiment by using two sections of an Introduction to Financial
Accounting course taught by the same
instructor and alternating in delivery
mode between distance and traditional
learning. The sections were staggered so
that one section was in distance-learning
mode and the other in traditional format
and vice versa. None of the students was
made aware of the dual approach to
course delivery before the first day of
class, and student movement from class
to class was restricted by capacity
enrollment in each section (although students could drop the course altogether,
which very few did). In short, we randomized sample populations according
to typical student scheduling concerns.
Method
We conducted our within-group
experiments in two sections of an Introduction to Financial Accounting course
taught during fall 2001 at a private,
southeastern engineering university. For
the experimental sections, the only
aspect of the class that distinguished it
from a regularly offered section was the
distance-learning components. Both
sections of the course covered the same
amount of material (12 chapters) from
the same textbook, Accounting (5th
ed.), by Horngren, Harrison, and Bamber (2002).We list the chapters covered
and their topics in Table 1.
The first six chapters were taught in
the classroom; the last six chapters were
taught through alternating delivery
modes. For section 1, chapters 7, 10,
and 11 were delivered on VHS or
streamed video on computer; whereas
chapters 8, 9, and 12 were taught via
traditional live lecture. The delivery
modes occurred in reverse order for section 2. We taped distance-learning segments during a live class in spring 2001
and then edited and transferred them to
VHS. We also compressed these lectures for streaming video, and students
could watch them on their computers
through the Internet using RealPlayer.
Lectures delivered live were not available in distance-learning mode to the
sections experiencing the live lecture.
For all chapters, students had access
through Blackboard to PowerPoint
slides (and rich text format outlines),
the professor’s typed lecture notes, and
online quizzes. For all the material, students had the option of sending questions and receiving answers by e-mail.
To simulate an asynchronous distancelearning experience, we informed students at the beginning of the semester
that they would not be allowed to use live
class time or in-person office hours to
ask questions about the material delivered by distance-learning mode or to
address any related problems. We
thought this rule would not affect students much, because they typically ask
TABLE 1. Topic Coverage Grouped by Delivery System and Examination
Chapter
Chapter title
Examination
Standard course material taught in the classroom
1
2
3
4
5
6
Accounting and the Business Environment
Recording Business Transactions
Measuring Business Income: The Adjusting Process
Completing the Accounting Cycle
Merchandising Operations and the Accounting Cycle
Accounting Information Systems
#1
#1
#2
#2
#3
#3
Course material taught in alternating delivery modes
7
8
9
10
11
12
Internal Control, Managing Cash, and Making Ethical
Judgments
Accounts and Notes Receivables
Plant Assets & Intangible Assets
Merchandise Inventory
Current Liabilities and Payroll
Corporations: Paid-In Capital and the Balance Sheet
#4
#4
#5
#5
#6
#6
July/August 2004
361
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
questions about material as it is being
covered in class; the professor in the
classroom is rarely approached with
questions regarding material that was
presented in earlier sessions. During the
experiment, we noted this behavior: The
students expected to move on to new
material and did not ask questions
regarding material already presented in
previous sessions.
In addition to holding regularly
scheduled office hours, the professor
held virtual office hours at designated
times to correspond with the students
about the material delivered by distancelearning mode. During the virtual office
hours, students in the appropriate section could, at their option, participate in
a synchronous chat on Blackboard; at a
later time, students in the appropriate
sections also could read the archived
chat. Students also could post messages
to an asynchronous discussion board,
and in fact received participation credit
for doing so.
Testing occurred through six, noncumulative exams, designated by the
chapters boxed in Table 1. Each exam
covered two chapters. All exams were
given in class at the regularly scheduled
time. The first three exams covered the
initial six chapters in the text, all taught
in a traditional, live lecture mode.
Exams 4 through 6 covered two chapters each; accordingly, each of the last
three exams covered one chapter delivered in distance-learning mode and one
chapter covered in live lecture. All
exams were in multiple-choice format,
with about 70% covering concepts and
definitions and 30% covering problems,
and all exam questions were selected
randomly from the course text’s accompanying Test Manager database.
At the beginning and end of fall
2001, we surveyed the students to
obtain their impressions of distance
learning and analyze their learning
styles. We designed the attitudes and
perceptions survey to gauge the students’ overall satisfaction with each
delivery mode as well as his or her satisfaction with specific elements that
may have aided or hindered his or her
“learning experience.” We measured
the responses on a 7-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
362
Journal of Education for Business
In Table 2, we list the elements analyzed in this study. To facilitate the discussion, we placed the individual statements into four categories: learning
attributes, time management, personal
interaction, and technology. We examined each statement by comparing
presurvey and postsurvey responses. We
interpreted the presurvey responses as
an ex ante expectation or prediction and
interpreted the postsurvey responses as
an ex post realization. Unexpectedly
low scores or high scores can generate
meaningful differences in the satisfaction of distance learning (DL) and traditional learning (TL) course components.
Results and Analysis
Our purpose in this study was to assess
the relative efficacy of a distance-learning
delivery system by comparing students’
precourse expectations about the individual delivery modes with their postcourse attitudes. The dual delivery nature
of the accounting course allowed for the
construction of a survey instrument that
produced paired comparisons across surveys and paired comparisons within the
individual surveys. To obtain a sufficiently large number of observations, we combined the two sections that used the dual
delivery system into one large sample.
Thus, each item from the survey had
between 47 and 50 usable observations.
We analyzed our results in three
stages. In the first stage, we did not distinguish between the two delivery modes
and evaluated the overall satisfaction with
this accounting course. In the second
stage, our focus was on paired comparisons of the DL and TL delivery modes.
We evaluated differences in overall satisfaction between the two course components with respect to the 10 individual
items that may have affected the learning
experience of the students (see Table 2).
Finally, we considered the reactive effects
that stemmed from the significantly
lower satisfaction associated with the DL
course component.
Overall Satisfaction with the
Accounting Course
In Table 3, we provide data on a small
set of cross-survey paired statements
and include statistics on the mean scores
TABLE 2. Classification of
Students’ Attitudes and
Perceptions
1. Overall satisfaction
2. Learning attributes
a. Interest level
b. Ease of learning
c. Effectiveness in learning
3. Time management
a. Flexibility with personal
schedule
b. Efficient use of studying time
4. Personal interaction
a. Accessibility of instructor
b. Degree of dialogue with the
instructor
c. Degree of dialogue with other
students
5. Technology
a. Effectiveness in using
technology
b. Comfort in using technology
for the individual surveys, the mean
paired difference in scores (postsurvey
minus presurvey), and the p values corresponding to the two-tailed t tests. The
null hypothesis stated that there would
be no significant difference between the
mean paired values on the two surveys,
whereas the alternative hypothesis stated that there would be a significant difference in the mean paired values.
Because postsurvey attitudes may rank
higher or lower than presurvey expectations, the test was two tailed.
We first considered the overall satisfaction with the accounting course. The
data in Table 3 show that for each student there was an average decrease of
0.58 points (p < .025) between post- and
presurvey tabulations. Thus, the overall
satisfaction with this course was significantly lower than the students had
anticipated. Further inspection of Table
3 shows that the decline in satisfaction
cannot be attributed to changes in attitude toward the course instructor (row
2) or the idea of distance learning (row
3). Neither can the decline be ascribed
to “nervousness” about learning in a
new format (row 4). The degree of nervousness, in fact, was less pronounced
than expected (-0.86, p < .004), primarily because the anticipated novelty of
the DL course components (row 5) did
not materialize (-0.70, p < .002).
In Table 3, we also report on the preand postsurvey assessments related to
the available technology for the
accounting course. Statistically, there
were no significant differences in the
mean attitudinal scores regarding the
quality of the available technology (row
6), satisfaction with the technology (row
7), or technology support (row 8) available for the distance-learning components of the course.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
Relative Comparison of
Delivery Modes
In Table 4, we summarize four sets of
mean paired difference t tests associated
with the within-survey paired statements for specific course attributes
(e.g., effectiveness in learning, flexibility afforded). To help facilitate the discussion, we denote the mean paired difference in satisfaction presented in the
columns as follows:
Col. 1. dpost = postsurvey, difference in
satisfaction, DL– TL;
Col. 2. dpre = presurvey, difference in satisfaction, DL – TL;
Col. 3. dDL = distance learning, difference
in satisfaction, postsurvey – presurvey;
Col. 4. dTL = traditional learning, difference
in satisfaction, postsurvey – presurvey.
The first two columns, respectively,
show postsurvey and presurvey differences in satisfaction between DL and TL
components, along with corresponding p
values in parentheses. Negative values
indicate a lower relative satisfaction with
DL. The last two columns consist of
cross-survey comparisons that measure
the difference between actual and
expected satisfaction for the individual
course components. Positive values indicate higher-than-expected satisfaction,
whereas negative values indicate lowerthan-expected satisfaction.
TABLE 3. Students’ Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding the Overall
Accounting Course
Col. 1:
Mean value
postsurvey
Col. 2:
Mean value
presurvey
Col. 3:
Mean paired
difference
1. Overall satisfaction with the
accounting course
3.98
4.56
–0.58*
(0.025)
2. Overall rating of the accounting
professor
4.70
4.44
3. Idea of distance learning is great
3.68
3.96
0.26
(0.334)
–0.28
(0.312)
4. Nervous about learning in a new
format such as distance learning
2.98
3.84
–0.86**
(0.004)
5. Distance learning component very
novel to me
3.28
3.98
–0.70**
(0.002)
6. Quality of technology available for
this accounting class is great
5.12
5.53
–0.41
(0.133)
7. Very satisfied with the technology
available for the distance-learning
component of the accounting class
4.86
5.24
–0.39
(0.121)
8. Very satisfied with technology
support available for the distancelearning component of the
accounting class
4.62
4.80
–0.18
(0.437)
Survey statement
Note. The mean values were tabulated on a 7-point Likert scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
The postsurvey difference in satisfaction between delivery modes can be
broken into the three remaining elements, as follows:
dpost = dpre = dDL = dTL
The above equation states that significant differences in postsurvey satisfaction between DL and TL can be ascribed
to presurvey differences in satisfaction
(dpre) and/or to significant changes in
postsurvey attitudes toward the individual delivery modes (dDL and dTL).
The results shown in Table 3 indicate
a significant postsurvey drop in overall
course satisfaction, a drop that cannot
be attributed to unexpected changes in
attitude toward the professor or the
technology used during the DL components of the course. Nor can the drop be
attributed to unexpectedly high anxiety
or novelty associated with distance
learning. What then is the primary cause
of the postsurvey drop in overall satisfaction? An examination of the data in
Table 4 reveals that student satisfaction
with the DL portion of the course was
significantly lower than that regarding
its TL counterpart for many of the
course attributes (col. 1). The cumulative effect in favor of the TL delivery
mode was a 1.58-point difference in
overall satisfaction (p < .01). The students in this sample correctly anticipated a lower level of satisfaction with the
DL delivery mode, but the actual
decrease (dpre = -0.98) was more pronounced than was expected. Using the
information from the last two columns,
we see that the larger spread in overall
satisfaction between the sets of
responses regarding the DL and TL
modes was caused by an unexpectedly
low satisfaction with the DL delivery
mode (dDL = -0.60, p < .05). There was
no unexpected difference in satisfaction
with respect to the TL delivery mode
(dTL = 0, p = 1.0).
In Table 4, we summarize the attitudes and perceptions concerning four
groups of course attributes that may
account for the relative dissatisfaction
with DL. We evaluated three learning
attributes in this study: (a) the interest
level associated with course content, (b)
the ease of learning the course material,
and (c) the effectiveness in learning the
course material (see rows 2a, 2b, and 2c,
July/August 2004
363
TABLE 4. Students’ Relative Satisfaction With Delivery Modes: Distance Learning Versus Traditional
Col. 1:
DL–TL(post)
(dpost)
Course attribute
1. Overall satisfaction
2a. Interest level
2b. Ease of learning
2c. Effectiveness in learning
3a. Flexibility with personal schedule
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
3b. Efficient use of time studying
4a. Accessibility of instructor
4b. Degree of dialogue with instructor
4c. Degree of dialogue with other students
5a. Effectiveness in using technology
5b. Comfort in using technology
6. Novelty effect will inspire a greater interest in learning
–1.58***
(0.000)
–0.80***
(0.033)
–1.86***
(0.000)
–2.06***
(0.000)
1.96***
(0.000)
–1.18***
(0.009)
–0.18
(0.470)
–0.76**
(0.034)
–1.39***
(0.002)
–1.06***
(0.000)
–0.60***
(0.004)
–1.72***
(0.000)
Col. 2:
DL–TL(pre)
(dpre )
–0.98***
(0.002)
0.08
(0.785)
–1.06***
(0.001)
–1.55***
(0.000)
1.90***
(0.000)
0.20
(0.565)
0.16
(0.595)
–1.04***
(0.001)
–0.98***
(0.007)
–0.52***
(0.013)
–0.44***
(0.002)
–0.48
(0.116)
Col. 3:
DL post–pre
(dDL )
–0.60**
(0.044)
–1.08***
(0.002)
–0.66**
(0.016)
–0.98***
(0.000)
–0.08
(0.775)
–1.16***
(0.001)
0.33
(0.218)
–0.37
(0.215)
–0.78**
(0.022)
0.02
(0.934)
0.52**
(0.048)
–1.22***
(0.000)
Col. 4:
TL post–pre
(dTL )
0.00
(1.000)
–0.20
(0.417)
0.14
(0.593)
–0.47*
(0.090)
–0.14
(0.621)
0.22
(0.388)
0.67***
(0.004)
–0.65***
(0.005)
–0.37
(0.132)
0.56***
(0.009)
0.68***
(0.000)
0.02
(0.924)
Note. The mean values were tabulated on a 7–point Likert scale.
*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
respectively). In all three instances, the
DL component received significantly
lower satisfaction ratings than did its TL
counterpart (col. 1). Thus, in relative
terms, the DL component of the course
was deemed less interesting (dpost =
-0.80, p < .05) and harder to learn from
(dpost = -1.86, p < .01), and the students
thought that it lowered their effectiveness (dpost = -2.06, p < .01) in mastering
the course material. The data in column
2 show that students were able to partially anticipate the results associated
with ease of learning (dpre = -1.06, p <
.01) and effectiveness in learning (dpre =
-1.55, p < .01). Finally, the difference in
satisfaction between postsurvey and
presurvey responses for the DL course
components (dDL) was negative and significant for all three learning attributes.
As a consequence, the divergence in satisfaction between DL and TL responses
rose significantly on the postsurvey
evaluations.
One of the benefits of distance learning is the perceived greater flexibility in
364
Journal of Education for Business
students’ schedules (Arbaugh, 2000). A
more flexible schedule, however, does
not mean a more efficient use of time. It
is likely that both attributes are important to students, but a priori it is not clear
which attribute they value more. In this
study, the expectation of a more flexible
schedule during DL course components
was fully realized (row 3a). Students
expected more flexibility (dpre = 1.90, p
≈ zero) and realized more flexibility
(dpost = 1.96, p ≈ zero). Moreover, there
was no significant difference in satisfaction between pre- and postsurvey evaluations for either learning mode (dDL =
-0.08, p = .775; dTL = -0.14, p = .621).
Despite having more flexible schedules,
students felt less efficient in their use of
time (row 3b) during DL components
(dpost = -1.18, p < .01); they had predicted no significant difference (dpre = 0.20,
p = .565). The result regarding less efficient use of time was driven entirely by
lower postsurvey satisfaction with DL
components (dDL = -1.16, p < .01).
Professors are encouraged to interact
with their students and to promote interaction among them. Faculty members
generally believe that interaction
enhances a student’s learning experience
and that more interaction is preferable to
less. In this study, we evaluated interaction in accordance with the instructor’s
accessibility and degree of student dialogue with both the instructor and other
students. In relative terms, both of the
dialogue attributes yielded lower postsurvey scores for the DL delivery mode.
As with many of this study’s findings,
the presurvey assessments of distance
learning were overly optimistic vis-àvis dialogue with other students (row
4c). It is interesting that, in contrast, the
postsurvey difference between the
response sets regarding individual delivery modes was smaller than expected
for the “dialogue with instructor”
attribute (row 4b: dpost = -0.76, p < .05;
dpre = -1.04, p < .01). This represents a
positive shift in relative satisfaction in
favor of the DL delivery mode. But the
finding is fashioned from a lower-than-
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
expected level of satisfaction with TL
(dTL = -0.65, p < .01) rather than a positive change in attitude toward DL. We
also found no significant differences
between individual components on
either survey, regarding satisfaction
with instructor accessibility (row 4a).
But there is evidence, in the form of a
significant 0.67-point swing, that students were overly pessimistic in their
expectation of instructor accessibility
for the TL component of the course (p <
.01). Unfortunately, the better-thananticipated access to the instructor did
not produce a high degree of dialogue.
The last set of attributes focuses on
the technological aspects of the course.
The presurvey evaluations reveal that
the students expected to be relatively
less effective in using the available DL
technology (dpre = -0.51, p < .05). This
gap in perceived effectiveness widened
on the postsurvey (dpost = -1.06, p < .01),
but not because students were less effective in using DL technology (dDL = 0.02,
p = .934). Rather, an unexpectedly high
level of effectiveness with use of the TL
technology caused the wider gap on the
postsurvey (dTL = 0.56, p < .01). These
findings are consistent with those
reported in Table 3, which show no significant difference between pre- and
postsurvey attitudes concerning the
quality, availability, and technical support related to the DL technology used
in this course.
With respect to comfort in using technology (row 5b), the postsurvey scores
were relatively lower for the DL delivery
mode (dpost = -0.60, p < .01; dpre = -0.44,
p < .01). It is noteworthy that students
significantly underestimated their comfort level for both sets of technology
(dDL > 0 and dTL > 0), but with a larger
error with respect to the TL technology
(dDL = 0.52, p < .05; dTL = 0.68, p < .01).
In summary, in this study we found
that student satisfaction with the available TL technology was, on average,
higher than anticipated. Consequently,
we concluded that the gap in overall satisfaction between DL and TL responses
may be partly attributable to higherthan-expected scores for both effectiveness and comfort in using technology
during TL components of the course.
At this point, we can draw several
conclusions from this study:
• The overall satisfaction with this
accounting course was significantly
lower than students had anticipated; this
primarily reflects lower relative satisfaction with the DL delivery mode.
• Cross-survey comparisons for specific course attributes indicate that students were often overly optimistic about
DL but unduly pessimistic about TL.
Both factors contributed to the lowerthan-anticipated overall level of satisfaction with this accounting course.
• The DL component of the course
scored poorly on all three learning
attributes that were surveyed. DL hindered mastery of the course material,
diminished student effectiveness in
learning the material, and made the
course material less interesting to learn.
• Students felt “less efficient” in
their use of time during DL components, and DL produced less dialogue
between other students than expected.
• Students were more effective and
comfortable than they had expected in
using the available TL technology.
Reactive Effects
Studies that pit a traditional learning
control group against an experimental
distance-learning group tend to be
plagued by various reactive effects that
bias the survey results. The reactive
effects most often discussed are the
John Henry and the novelty effects. By
definition, the design of this experiment
eliminated the John Henry effect
because the students were not in competition with another control group.
The novelty effect suggests that students work harder because of an
increased level of motivation fostered
by the newness of a technology such as
distance learning. When students were
asked whether a novelty effect would
inspire a “greater interest in learning,”
they overwhelmingly indicated that DL
components fostered less interest than
TL components (Table 4, row 6: dpost =
-1.72, p < .01). This result is driven primarily by low ex post satisfaction with
the DL delivery mode (dDL = -1.22, p <
.01).
It would be reasonable to expect that
the negative perceptions associated with
the distance-learning delivery mode
would affect student motivation and
effort adversely during DL components
of the course. In Table 5, we summarize
perceptions with respect to relative motivation, time spent learning DL component
chapters, and relative effort expended in
the traditional over the distance-learning
component of the accounting class. Students mildly disagreed with the notion
that they would be more motivated
when studying the DL component chapters (mean = 3.34; Likert midpoint = 4).
Their response was even more forceful
TABLE 5. Reactive Effects Associated With Distance Learning
Col. 1:
Mean value
postsurvey
Col. 2:
Mean value
presurvey
Col. 3:
Mean paired
difference
Overall satisfaction with the
accounting course
3.98
4.56
–0.58*
(0.025)
More motivated when studying the
distance-learning component
chapters
2.54
3.34
–0.80**
(0.002)
Spend less time on the distancelearning component chapters
4.53
3.31
1.22**
(0.001)
Give more effort to the TL over the
DL component of the accounting
class
4.76
4.44
0.32
(0.300)
Survey statement
Note. The mean values were tabulated on a 7-point Likert scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
July/August 2004
365
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:34 12 January 2016
on the postsurvey, which showed a
mean score of 2.54. Thus, there was a
significant (p < .01) 0.80 postsurvey
shift in attitude that implies less motivation during DL components. A consequence of this diminished motivation
was that students spent relatively less
time on DL components; the postsurvey
mean jumped by 1.22 points (p < .01)
for this factor.
Finally, we note a surprising result.
Students expected to exert relatively
more effort on TL course components
(mean = 4.44). This is probably a byproduct of their anticipation of a more
satisfying learning experience via the
TL delivery mode (see Table 4, row 1,
col. 2). Ex post, students did make a relatively greater effort with TL components, but the 0.32-point increase from
presurvey levels was not statistically
significant. In sum, higher-than-expected
relative satisfaction with TL did not produce greater effort relative to that expended for the DL components of this
accounting course.
Discussion
The overall satisfaction experienced
by students in the accounting course
under study was significantly lower than
they had anticipated, primarily because
of their lower relative satisfaction with
the DL delivery mode. The students
thought that the DL components were
less interesting and less efficient for
learning and that they lowered student
effectiveness in mastering the course
material compared with the traditional
366
Journal of Education for Business
delivery system. Thus, the difference in
satisfaction between response sets
regarding delivery modes reflects lowerthan-expected satisfaction with the three
aforementioned learning attributes. We
also reached this conclusion in an earlier
pilot study, but the sample data were too
small for discernment of any noticeable
shifts from pre- to postsurvey scores in
the other course attributes. In the present
study, which involved a much larger sample, we detected noticeable differences in
each of the course attribute categories
that we studied. We found a less efficient
use of time, less dialogue between students, and less effectiveness in using the
available technology during DL components. Thus, we conclude that issues
related to time management, interaction,
and technology may also contribute to
the significant difference in satisfaction
in the comparison of distance-learning
and traditional-learning delivery modes
of instruction.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Alexander R. Vamosi, School of
Management, Florida Institute of Technology,
Melbourne, FL, 32901-6975. or to the following
e-mail address: avamosi@fit.edu.
REFERENCES
Arbaugh, J. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with Internet-based
MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 32–54.
Cudmore, B. A., Lease, T. M., Pierce, B. G.,
Slotkin, M. H., & Vamosi, A. R. (2002). Student
perceptions on distance versus traditional classroom based learning: Survey results from a dual
taught accounting course. Journal of Accounting and Finance Research, 10(3), 1–14.
Dellana, S., Collins, W., & West, D. (2000). Online education in a management science
course—Effectiveness and performance factors. Journal of Education for Business, 76(1),
43–47.
Horngren, C. T., Harrison, W. T., Jr., & Bamber, L.
S. (2002). Accounting (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1998,
April). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Retrieved
March 19, 2004, from http://www.ihep.com/
Pubs/PDF/Difference.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education. (1999, December).
Distance education at postsecondary education
institutions: 1997–98. (Publication No. NCES
2000013). Retrieved March 19, 2004, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000013.pdf
Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Policy issues
in the teaching of economics in cyberspace:
Research design, course design, and research
results. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18(3),
359–366.
Ponzurick, T. G., France, K. R., & Logar, C. M.
(2000). Delivering graduate marketing education: An analysis of face-to-face versus distance
education. Journal of Marketing Education,
22(3), 180–187.
Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference
phenomenon. Office of Instructional Telecommunications, Chapel Hill, NC. North Carolina
State University. Articles retrieved March 19,
2004, from http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/
nosignificantdifference/
Ryan, R. (2000). Student assessment and comparison of lecture and online construction equipment and methods classes. T.H.E. Journal,
27(6), 78–83.
Sonner, B. S. (1999). Success in the capstone
business course—Assessing the effectiveness
of distance learning. Journal of Education for
Business, 74(4), 243–248.
Terry, N., Owens, J., & Macy, A. (2000). Student
and faculty assessment of the virtual MBA: A
case study. Journal of the Academy of Business
Education, 1(2), 33–38.
Terry, N., Owens, J., & Macy, A. (2001). Student
performance in the virtual versus traditional
classroom. Journal of the Academy of Business
Education, 2(1), 1–4.