research-article

Public Access

Online Vs Face-to-face Web-development Course: Course Strategies, Learning, and Engagement

Authors:

Sarah Heckman, and

Mary Lou MaherAuthors Info & Claims

SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

March 2021

Pages 1191 - 1197

https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432438

Published: 05 March 2021 Publication History

Abstract

To address the increasing enrollment in Computer Science (CS), face-to-face (F2F) courses are often redesigned to online courses. For the success of a large-enrollment online CS class, it is important to design it with effective strategies that can enhance student learning and engagement. With this aim, we developed an online, third year web-development course, and redesigned its existing F2F version. This study focuses on examining the course strategies utilized in the two versions of of the course, and how students' learning and engagement vary between these two offerings. In Fall 2019, we conducted experimental research with pre- and post-tests to collect data from these two sections. The participants of the study include 51 out of 103 online students, and 38 out of 72 F2F students. We identified course strategies that were more valuable to one group versus the other, and both the sections. In terms of student learning, we found that there was no significant difference between these sections. Behavioral engagement measures depicted how the online and F2F students engaged within their courses, and how it is related to students' learning. We also found how the level of engagement varied in the online course according to the engagement factors that include performance, emotions, skills, and participation. The results of this study will inform online, F2F, and hybrid course design of upper-level CS courses.

References

[1]

D. Robert Adams. 2007. Integration early: a new approach to teaching web application development. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Vol. 23, 1 (2007), 97--104.

Digital Library

[2]

Richard R. Aman. 2009. Improving student satisfaction and retention with online instruction through systematic faculty peer review of courses. (2009).

[3]

J. J. Arias, John Swinton, and Kay Anderson. 2018. Online vs. Face-to-Face: A Comparison of Student Outcomes with Random Assignment. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, Vol. 12, 2 (2018), 1--23.

[4]

Debarati Basu and Niveditha Gopalkrishna. 2020. Evaluation of Course Strategies: Face-to-Face vs. Online. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 313--313.

Digital Library

[5]

Amy S. Beavers, John W. Lounsbury, Jennifer K. Richards, and Schuyler W. Huck. 2013. Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, Vol. 18, 1 (2013), 6.

[6]

Colin Beer, Ken Clark, and David Jones. 2010. Indicators of engagement. Proceedings ascilite Sydney, Vol. 2010 (2010), 75--85.

[7]

Monique Boekaerts. 2016. Engagement as an inherent aspect of the learning process. Learning and Instruction, Vol. 43 (2016), 76--83.

[8]

Janet R. Buelow, Thomas Barry, and Leigh E. Rich. 2018. Supporting Learning Engagement with Online Students. Online Learning, Vol. 22, 4 (2018), 313--340.

[9]

Frank Butts, Brent Heidorn, and Brian Mosier. 2013. Comparing Student Engagement in Online and Face-to-Face Instruction in Health and Physical Education Teacher Preparation. Journal of Education and Learning, Vol. 2, 2 (2013), 8--13.

[10]

Joseph Chao, Kevin Parker, and Bill Davey. 2013. Navigating the framework jungle for teaching web application development. In Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference. Informing Science Institute.

[11]

Hyunsuk Chung, Siqu Long, Soyeon Caren Han, Shouvojit Sarker, Leonie Ellis, and Byeong Ho Kang. 2018. A comparative study of online and face-to-face embedded systems learning course. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conference. 63--72.

Digital Library

[12]

Jose M. Cortina. 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, Vol. 78, 1 (1993), 98.

[13]

Marcia D. Dixson. 2010. Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (2010), 1--13.

[14]

Marcia D. Dixson. 2015. Measuring student engagement in the online course: The Online Student Engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning, Vol. 19, 4 (2015), n4.

[15]

Jennifer A. Fredricks, Phyllis C. Blumenfeld, and Alison H. Paris. 2004. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, Vol. 74, 1 (2004), 59--109.

[16]

Jorge Gaytan and Beryl C. McEwen. 2007. Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 21, 3 (2007), 117--132.

[17]

Said Hadjerrouit. 2001. Web-based application development: a software engineering approach. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 33, 2 (2001), 31--34.

Digital Library

[18]

David Joyner and Melinda McDaniel. 2019. Replicating and Unraveling Performance and Behavioral Differences between an Online and a Traditional CS Course. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education. 157--163.

Digital Library

[19]

George D. Kuh. 2009. What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of college student development, Vol. 50, 6 (2009), 683--706.

[20]

Ron Legon and Jean Runyon. 2007. Research on the impact of the quality matters course review process. In 23rd Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning. 8--10.

[21]

Florence Martin, Abdou Ndoye, and Patricia Wilkins. 2016. Using learning analytics to enhance student learning in online courses based on quality Matters standards. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, Vol. 45, 2 (2016), 165--187.

[22]

Melinda McDaniel and David Joyner. 2019. Online or In Person? Student Motivations in the Choice of a CS1 Experience. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 1252--1252.

Digital Library

[23]

Merry McDonald, Brian Dorn, and Gary McDonald. 2004. A statistical analysis of student performance in online computer science courses. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education. 71--74.

Digital Library

[24]

David Olson. 2002. A comparison of online and lecture methods for delivering the CS 1 course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Vol. 18, 2 (2002), 57--63.

Digital Library

[25]

Jasmine Paul and Felicia Jefferson. 2019. A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in an Online vs. Face-to-Face Environmental Science Course From 2009 to 2016. Frontiers Comput. Sci., Vol. 1 (2019), 7.

[26]

Kalpathi Subramanian and Kiran Budhrani. 2020. Influence of Course Design on Student Engagement and Motivation in an Online Course. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 303--308.

Digital Library

[27]

Kevin Treu. 2002. To teach the unteachable class: an experimental course in web-based application design. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 34, 1 (2002), 201--205.

Digital Library

[28]

Ye Diana Wang. 2011. Teaching web development at a distance. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on Information technology education. 91--96.

Digital Library

[29]

Shu-Chen Yen, Yafen Lo, Angela Lee, and JudelMay Enriquez. 2018. Learning online, offline, and in-between: comparing student academic outcomes and course satisfaction in face-to-face, online, and blended teaching modalities. Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 23, 5 (2018), 2141--2153.

Digital Library

[30]

Kwok-Bun Yue and Wei Ding. 2004. Design and evolution of an undergraduate course on web application development. In Proceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. 22--26.

Digital Library

Cited By

Atun HCinar DSengun Oztas EGulbahar YLaws SWeber ABianchi RKittaneh K(2024)ONLINE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE TURKISH CONTEXT: A PRISMA-BASED SYSTEMATIC REVIEWTurkish Online Journal of Distance Education10.17718/tojde.129442625:3(97-125)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1294426
Shanley NPérez-Quiñones MMartin FPugalee DAhlgrim-Delzell LHart EDoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)K-12 Teacher Experiences from Online Professional Development for Teaching APCSAProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569827(1001-1006)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569827
Siew Gan BLieh Ouh E(2023)Class Participation, Using Technology to Enhance Efficiency and Fairness2023 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)10.1109/TALE56641.2023.10398380(1-8)Online publication date: 28-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE56641.2023.10398380
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Online Vs Face-to-face Web-development Course: Course Strategies, Learning, and Engagement
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Student assessment

Recommendations

Students' Engagement in Collaborative Active Learning - Online v.s. Face-to-Face
SIGCSE 2022: Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2

Teaching programming-intensive courses in a virtual space brings new opportunities for active learning and student engagement. This poster presents our experience in designing an online active learning environment in two programming-intensive courses ...
Read More
Evaluation of Course Strategies: Face-to-Face vs. Online
ICER '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

Asynchronous, online courses are being designed from face-to-face (F2F) versions to provide the flexibility to scale-up enrollment [3]. To support student success in large-enrollment online classes, it is important to design online courses with ...
Read More
Influence of Online and Face-to-face Collaboration and Learning Style on Cognitive Load and Engagement in a Health Introductory Course
ICMHI '19: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics

Although collaborative learning has received increasing attention, few studies have examined the differences between online and face-to-face (f2f) collaboration. This study utilized a two-factor experimental design to investigate the influences of ...
Read More

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

March 2021

1454 pages

ISBN:9781450380621

DOI:10.1145/3408877

General Chairs:
Mark Sherriff
University of Virginia, USA
,
Laurence D. Merkle
Air Force Institute of Technology, USA
,
Program Chairs:
Pamela Cutter
Kalamazoo College, USA
,
Alvaro Monge
California State University, Long Beach, USA
,
Judithe Sheard
Monash University, Australia

Copyright © 2021 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 05 March 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

NSF

Conference

SIGCSE '21

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

SIGCSE '21: The 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

March 13 - 20, 2021

Virtual Event, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE Virtual 2024

Sponsor:
sigcse

1st ACM Virtual Global Computing Education Conference

December 5 - 8, 2024

Virtual Event , NC , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

9
Total Citations
View Citations
630
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)210
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)23

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Atun HCinar DSengun Oztas EGulbahar YLaws SWeber ABianchi RKittaneh K(2024)ONLINE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE TURKISH CONTEXT: A PRISMA-BASED SYSTEMATIC REVIEWTurkish Online Journal of Distance Education10.17718/tojde.129442625:3(97-125)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1294426
Shanley NPérez-Quiñones MMartin FPugalee DAhlgrim-Delzell LHart EDoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)K-12 Teacher Experiences from Online Professional Development for Teaching APCSAProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569827(1001-1006)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569827
Siew Gan BLieh Ouh E(2023)Class Participation, Using Technology to Enhance Efficiency and Fairness2023 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)10.1109/TALE56641.2023.10398380(1-8)Online publication date: 28-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE56641.2023.10398380
Basu DHeckman S(2023)Impact of Study Groups on Students' Learning and Engagement: Across Different Online Formats of a Web-development Course2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10342918(1-7)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10342918
Heyl NBaniassad EOla OHenz MLerner B(2022)Team Harmony before, during, and after COVID-19Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on SPLASH-E10.1145/3563767.3568133(52-61)Online publication date: 29-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3563767.3568133
Sanaei MMachacek MEubanks JWu POliver JGilbert S(2022)The Effect of Training Communication Medium on the Social Constructs Co-Presence, Engagement, Rapport, and TrustProceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology10.1145/3562939.3565686(1-3)Online publication date: 29-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3562939.3565686
Jin K(2022)Student Engagement during Virtual v.s. Face-To-Face Active Learning Activities in Three IT CoursesProceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Information Technology Education10.1145/3537674.3554752(150-156)Online publication date: 21-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3537674.3554752
Bridson KAtkinson JFleming SMerkle LDoyle MSheard JSoh LDorn B(2022)Delivering Round-the-Clock Help to Software Engineering Students Using DiscordProceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 110.1145/3478431.3499385(759-765)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3478431.3499385
Carver JHeckman SSherriff MMerkle LDoyle MSheard JSoh LDorn B(2022)Training Computing Educators to Become Computing Education ResearchersProceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 110.1145/3478431.3499297(724-730)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3478431.3499297

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents