Comparing Online and Traditional Face-to-Face Classroom MSW Student Research Proficiency

Background and Purpose: Previous social work literature comparing online vs. traditional classroom experiences with research methods learning has examined differences in student satisfaction (Harrington, 1999; Petrecchi & Patchner, 2001; York, 2008) and operationalized outcomes as course grades (Hisle-Gorman & Zuravin, 2006), but research utilizing standardized measures to examine learning outcomes is scarce.

This research compares a completely asynchronous MSW-level online research methods class with its traditional face-to-face counterpart using standardized measures of practice evaluation knowledge and research self-efficacy.  This study builds on previous research by replicating Baker, Pollio, and Hudson’s (2011) pre/post study of undergraduate-level social work students using the Practice Evaluation Knowledge Scale (PEKS), with a sample of graduate-level social work students.  We included a measure of Research Self-Efficacy (RSES) and added a comparison group of online distance learning students.  Therefore, this study combines two bodies of research: 1) teaching research methods and 2) comparing learning outcomes between online and traditional face-to-face classroom students.

Methods: MSW students from an online (n=17) and traditional face-to-face (n=31) research methods course designed and taught by the same instructor in the same semester (15 weeks for face-to-face students; 8 weeks for online students) were asked to complete the PEKS and RSES prior to beginning their first research course and again at the end of their first research course.  The course content is identical and designed to meet CSWE Education Policy and Accreditation Standards. 

Results: Results indicate a statistically significant increase in RSES scores from pretest (M = 486.95, SD = 165.38) to posttest (M = 698.16, SD = 126.73), t (48) = -8.06, p < .00 (two-tailed).  The mean increase in RSES scores was 211.24 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 263.84 to 158.56.  The eta squared statistic (.57) indicated a large effect size.  Results from paired samples t-tests for all eight PEKS items reveal a statistically significant increase in posttest scores with the eta squared statistic ranging from .17 on item eight to .75 on item three indicating large effect sizes.  One-way between groups analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) results reveal that after adjusting for pretest scores there was no significant difference between online learners and traditional face-to-face students on their posttest RSES scores, F (1, 46) = .36, p = .55, partial eta squared = .01, nor on any of the eight PEKS items.

Conclusions and Implications:  Students gain confidence in research methods and evaluation regardless of the learning platform utilized.  Increased student self-efficacy in research methods may translate into greater comfort recognizing and employing evidence-based practices in the field, but results should be interpreted with caution considering we used self-reports from a convenience sample of graduate MSW students from one university. A major strength of this study is the addition of a comparison group of online students, with findings suggesting that the modality of content delivery is less important than the content itself.  Implications for social work education include effectively utilizing a broad range of information and communication technologies and increasing accessibility to social work students in traditionally underserved areas.