The Internet in face-to-face higher education: Can interactive learning improve academic achievement?

Recent research on e-learning shows that blended learning is more effective than face-to-face learning. However, a clear empirical response has not been given to the cause of such improvement. Using a data set of 9044 students at two Catalan universities and a quasi-experimental approach, two possible hypotheses identified in previous research are studied. The results show that the principal cause of the improvement is not, in itself, the increase in time spent online for educational purposes. Rather, increasing the time devoted to studying online is only useful when it takes place as some form of interactive learning. The educational implications of these results are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[1]  Alan B. Krueger,et al.  Putting Computerized Instruction to the Test: A Randomized Evaluation of a "Scientifically-Based" Reading Program , 2004 .

[2]  Susan B. Neuman,et al.  The knowledge gap: Implications of leveling the playing field for low‐income and middle‐income children , 2006 .

[3]  M. Gangl.  RBOUNDS: Stata module to perform Rosenbaum sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects on the treated , 2004 .

[4]  Barbara Means,et al.  Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies , 2009 .

[5]  Janet C. Moore,et al.  The Sloan Consortium , 2005 .

[6]  I. E. Allen,et al.  Class Differences Online Education in the United States, 2010 , 2010 .

[7]  A. Roy.  Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings , 1951 .

[8]  B. Sianesi,et al.  PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing , 2003 .

[9]  Marco Caliendo,et al.  Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching , 2005, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[10]  T. Shakespeare,et al.  Observational Studies , 2003 .

[11]  Robert M. Bernard,et al.  How Does Distance Education Compare With Classroom Instruction? A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature , 2004 .

[12]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. Fourth Edition. , 1991 .

[13]  Eszter Hargittai,et al.  Survey Measures of Web-Oriented Digital Literacy , 2005 .

[14]  R. Slavin.  Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. , 1996 .

[15]  Josep M. Duart,et al.  A hybrid approach to university subject learning activities , 2012, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[16]  Shenyang Guo,et al.  Propensity Score Analysis: Statistical Methods and Applications , 2014 .

[17]  Philip C. Abrami,et al.  What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on Learning , 2011 .

[18]  Barbara Schneider.  Estimating causal effects : using experimental and observational designs : a think tank white paper , 2007 .

[19]  Eszter Hargittai,et al.  Beyond logs and surveys: In-depth measures of people's web use skills , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  Gary R. Morrison,et al.  Past and Present : Balancing Rigor and Relevance to Impact School Learning , 2010 .

[21]  D. Rubin.  Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. , 1974 .

[22]  Shanna Smith Jaggars,et al.  Effectiveness of Fully Online Courses for College Students: Response to a Department of Education Meta-Analysis , 2010 .

[23]  KyungMann Kim,et al.  Contrasting treatment‐specific survival using double‐robust estimators , 2012 .

[24]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[25]  J. Angrist,et al.  New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil Learning , 1999, SSRN Electronic Journal.