Teaching Geology Courses Online: Is Anyone Learning?

Solomon A. ISIORHO

Department of Geosciences

Indiana University - Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW)

Fort Wayne, IN 46805, USA.

(isiorho@ipfw.edu)

ABSTRACT

As more colleges and universities offer online courses and programs, some disciplines such as Geology appear to be lagging behind. Teaching geology courses online is still in its infancy partly because the facilitating technology is still evolving, the nature of the courses (some require laboratory or field work), and the lack of data of the effectiveness of online delivery in the geosciences. Using pre-quiz and post-quiz, we attempted to find out if students learn from geology courses offered online. Also, using the test scores from four exams administered to two student groups (the Face To Face (FTF)) and Internet), we were able to compare students’ performances. The result shows no significance difference between the two student groups. However, there was statistical significant difference between the pre-quiz and post-quiz for the internet students (T-value = -2.41; P-value = 0.02; DF = 31). The results suggest that learning is taking place in geology courses offered online.

Keywords: Teaching, Online, Internet, Geology, Face to face (FTF).

INTRODUCTION

Internet-based course offerings have increased as entire college programs are now offered through the internet with several virtual colleges and universities now in existence. This trend will continue as larger and high resolution frame videos streaming become available to most homes. Some fields are more amendable to being offered online than others. Science courses, especially in the earth sciences that require laboratory and field experiences, are lacking behind in internet-based course offerings. Literature search shows some science courses that require or incorporate laboratory components are now being partly offered online with some science courses offered entirely online. Is anyone learning geology in the online geology offered courses? One way of assessing if students learn through internet-based courses is by surveys or the use of students’ exams. Students’ performances can be used to evaluate students= mastering of subject materials.

METHOD

To answer the question Ais anyone learning taking internet-based geology courses?”, two student groups taking the same general education physical geology course in the spring of 2003 are chosen for this study. One group meets in the regular class room settings and the other group is taught entirely online. This physical geology course meets the general education (GenEd) requirement in the physical sciences and as a result, students with varied backgrounds (majors) take the course. For background information as to their prior knowledge of geology, a pre-quiz is administered in the first week of the course. The pre-quiz consists of ten questions taken from practice tests of the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) as discussed in Isiorho [1].

Available to both groups are the syllabi and Power Point slides prepared by two students who had taken the course previously. Also available are class notes (lecture outlines), CD-ROMs, and links to the textbook web sites. Online bulletin boards are made available to both groups. However, in the internet-based section, students are required to have a minimum of one posting per week for credit while the traditional section students have the option to use the bulletin board for questions and answers. Both groups are required to write a one-page report, but the internet-based group is required to write three additional one page reports. Both groups are given four exams spread throughout the semester. At the end of the semester, a post quiz was administered to both groups using the same set of questions from the pre-quiz. As an ongoing project, we present the results from the spring of 2003 students= groups below.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A total of 122 students registered for the FTF physical geology course while 25 students signed up for the internet section. The results from the pre-quiz and post quiz and the four tests are presented in tables 1 and 2. Table I is the basic statistic for the online class and table II is for the FTF class.

Table 1. Statistics for the Online Class

	Test 1	Test 2	Test3	Test 4	Pre-Quiz	Post-quiz
N
Valid	23	23	23	23	21	12
Missing	1	1	1	1	3	12
Mean
	72.70	66.35	73.8261	78.2870	1.8095	3.1667
Median
	70.00	68.00	76.0000	82.0000	1.0000	3.0000
Std. Deviation
	11.903	14.556	13.01626	17.73346	1.24976	1.99241
Range
	46	52	46.00	87.40	4.00	6.00

Table 2. Statistics for the FTF Class

	Pre-Quiz	Post-Quiz	Test1	Test2	Test3	Test4
Valid	78	68	117	111	106	109
Missing	54	64	15	21	26	23
Mean
	2.4487	2.7941	61.8803	71.3514	78.9434	80.0183
Median
	3.0000	3.0000	64.0000	72.0000	82.0000	82.0000
Std. Deviation
	1.43832	1.29935	13.64144	12.60638	12.92972	12.11823
Variance
	2.06876	1.68832	186.08901	158.92088	167.17772	146.85151
Range
	8.00	7.00	60.00	56.00	62.00	58.00

The data for Test 1 is shown as a histogram in figure 1 for the internet class and figure 2 for the FTF class. Also shown in histogram format are the test score results for Test 4 in figures 3 and 4 for both the internet and FTF classes respectively.

Figure 1. Test #1 score for FTF Class Figure 2. Test #1 score for Internet Class

Figure 3. Test #4 for FTF Class Figure 4. Test #4 score for Internet Class

We analyzed the students’ exams 1 and 4 scores results using a 2-Sample t statistics. To test the hypothesis that there is no difference between the means of the two student groups, we used a 2-sample T test using MINITAB statistical software.

Figure 5 shows a box plot of the pre-quiz for the internet with the FTF students’ scores. It shows similarity of the knowledge base for both groups prior to course offering. This means that the two student groups exhibit the same level of knowledge with regards to their geologic understanding. Figure 6 shows a box plot for the post-quiz for the two groups. There is a difference in their scores between the two groups. However, there is no statistical significant difference between the two groups.

Two-sample T for Pre-Quiz versus (Internet) PreQuiz_1 (FTF)

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Pre-Quiz (Internet) 21 1.81 1.25 0.27

Pre-Quiz_ (FTF) 78 2.45 1.44 0.16

Difference = mu Pre-Quiz - mu PreQuiz_1; Estimate for difference: -0.639; 95% CI for difference: (-1.323, 0.045)

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -1.86 P-Value = 0.067 DF = 97;

Both use Pooled StDev = 1.40; NOTE * N missing = 57

Figure 5. Box plots of Pre-Quiz Internet and Pre-Quiz_1 (FTF)

Two-sample T for Post-Quiz (Internet) versus May-Quiz (FTF)

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Post-Quiz (Internet) 12 3.17 1.99 0.58

May-Quiz (FTYF) 69 2.80 1.29 0.16

Difference = mu Post-Quiz - mu May-Quiz; Estimate for difference: 0.370; 95% CI for difference: (-0.508, 1.247)

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 0.84 P-Value = 0.404 DF = 79

Both use Pooled StDev = 1.41

· NOTE * N missing = 74

Figure 6. Box plot of Post-Quiz (Internet) and May-Quiz (FTF)

When the pre-quiz and post-quiz results of the FTF students were compared, there was no significant difference in their scores, although there was slight increase in their post-quiz scores as shown in table 3. Comparing the pre-quiz and post-quiz performance of the internet class, there is an increase in students’ scores. The difference in the scores are statistically significant (T-value=-2.41; p-value=0.022; DF=31.) (Figure 7). This could mean that the internet class provides a more effective learning environment because the students are more involved participating in learning process [2].

Table 3. Post quiz for FTF and Internet classes Statistics

Two-sample T for PreQuiz_1 versus May-Quiz

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Pre-Quiz_ (FTF) 78 2.45 1.44 0.16

May-Quiz (Internet) 69 2.80 1.29 0.16

Difference = mu PreQuiz_1 - mu May-Quiz;

Estimate for difference: -0.348;

95% CI for difference: (-0.796, 0.099)

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -1.54 P-Value = 0.126 DF = 145

Both use Pooled StDev = 1.37;

* NOTE * N missing = 119

Two-sample T for Internet Class Pre-Quiz versus Post-Quiz

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Pre-Quiz (Internet) 12 1.81 1.25 0.27

Post-Quiz (Internet) 12 3.17 1.99 0.58

Difference = mu Pre-Quiz - mu Post-Quiz; Estimate for difference: -1.357; 95% CI for difference: (-2.504, -0.210)

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -2.41 P-Value = 0.022 DF = 31

Both use Pooled StDev = 1.55; NOTE * N missing = 12

Figure 7. Box plot of Pre and post quiz and Internet Class

Examining the test scores shows that the internet students did better than the FTF in the first exam (T-value =3.54; p-value=0.001, DF=138 (figure 8). However, on the fourth test, both groups show no significant difference (figure 9).

Two-sample T for IntTest1 versus Test1

N Mean StDev SE Mean

IntTest1 23 72.7 11.9 2.5

FTF Test1 117 61.9 13.6 1.3

Difference = mu IntTest1 - mu Test1; Estimate for difference: 10.82; 95% CI for difference: (4.78, 16.85)

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 3.54 P-Value = 0.001 DF = 138

Both use Pooled StDev = 13.4; NOTE * N missing = 15

Figure 8. Box plots of Test #1 Scores for internet and FTF students.

Two-sample T for IntTest4 versus Test4

N Mean StDev SE Mean

IntTest4 23 78.3 17.7 3.7

FTF Test4 110 80.1 12.1 1.2

Difference = mu IntTest4 - mu Test4; Estimate for difference: -1.79; 95% CI for difference: (-7.77, 4.20)

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -0.59 P-Value = 0.556 DF = 131

Both use Pooled StDev = 13.2; * NOTE * N missing = 23

Figure 9. Box plots of Test 4 scores of Internet and FTF

The median for both groups are the same. When all four exams are pooled together, we find no significant difference between the two groups (FTF, N=443; mean = 72.72; SD + 14.79 and the Internet, N=92; mean = 72.79; SD =14.86). This result that shows no significant difference in students’ performance between internet and FTF students is in agreement with the findings reported by Isiorho [1].

This study shows that internet students learn as much as FTF students. However, the result of the pre-quiz and post-quiz shows that students are learning from geology courses taught online. Not considered, is the role of class standing (for example, junior or senior ranking) on students performance. The FTF has traditionally more freshmen and sophomore (approximately 70%) students than the internet class (approximately 20%). That would be addressed this summer as two sections of the same course are monitored.

CONCLUSIONS

The collected data show internet students learn as much as FTF geology students. There is statistical significance learning on the part of the internet students shown by their pre-quiz and post-quiz score results.

REFERENCES

[1] S. A. Isiorho, “A Case for Teaching entry Level Geology Courses Online- Comparing Online with Traditional Face to Face (FTF) Students’ Performances”, 2003, Under review in the Journal of Geosciences Education.

[2] H. Arsham, “Impact of the Internet on Learning and teaching”, Journal of the United States Distance Learning Association, Vol. 16, No. 3, March 2002 (http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAR02_Issue/article01.html).

In the proceedings of the Int. Conference on Education and Information Systems: Technologies and Applications (EISTA '03) Orlando, Florida, July 31 to August 1-2, 2003. (Edited by F. Malpica, A.Tremante, and N. Sala). Pp 433-438.