Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 76Online and Blended LearningTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesEvaluation of Teaching Practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Instructor Time and Effort in Online and Face-to-Face Teaching: Lessons Learned

Worley, Wanda L., Tesdell, Lee S.·2009·IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
DOI 10.1109/tpc.2009.2017990
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Results in past studies comparing teaching time and effort in online and face-to-face (FTF) teaching environments have been inconsistent. This research study compares the instructional time and effort it took the authors to teach the same course online and FTF in their respective universities. The authors hypothesize that it takes more time to teach online courses. The results of the two-semester study show that both authors spent more time per student, approximately 20% more, in the online courses. In the total time spent per student online compared to the total time spent per student FTF, the paired-samples t-test showed a statistically significant difference (t(3)=6.163 , p=0.009). The authors speculate a number of factors contributed to this difference and the perception that teaching in an online environment takes more time and effort than teaching in a FTF environment.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tpc.2009.2017990

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. berge, 2002, barriers to distance education: a factor-analytic study, Amer J Distance Educ, 15, 7
  2. 10.1080/08923649309526808 · DOI
  3. 0, A survey of traditional and distance learning higher education members
  4. hewett, 2004, Preparing Educators for Online Writing Instruction Principles and Processes
  5. smith, 2002, teaching over the web versus in the classroom: differences in the instructor experience, Int J Instructional Media, 29, 61
  6. worley, 0, teaching technical communication on the web and in the traditional classroom: a comparison of time and effort., ATTW Bull
  7. 10.1207/s15389286ajde1802_4 · DOI
  8. 10.1207/s15427625tcq1601_1 · DOI
  9. grady, 2005, Online Education Global Questions Local Answers, 101
  10. ko, 2002, Teaching Online A Practical Guide
  11. dick, 2001, The Systematic Design of Instruction
  12. anderson, 1998, Connections A Guide to On-line Writing
  13. barnes, 2003, Computer-Mediated Communication Human-to-Human Communication Across the Internet
  14. 10.1002/tl.841 · DOI
  15. 10.2190/OEG · DOI
  16. sosnoski, 2007, review essay: reflections on the future of rhetorical education, Coll Compos Commun, 58, 495, 10.58680/ccc20075916 · DOI
  17. altalib, 0, A comparison of instructor time and effort between traditional and online classrooms
  18. 0, (2009) Time and effort reporting Office of Contracts and Grants Houston TX
  19. 10.1080/08923640009527061 · DOI
  20. hutchins, 0, (2003) Instructional immediacy and the seven principles Strategies for facilitating online courses
  21. 10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.10.001 · DOI
  23. 0, Time and effort reporting procedure
  24. 10.1002/meet.14504201155 · DOI
  25. borg, 1998, Borg's Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales
  26. moore, 0, (2000) Is distance teaching more work or less?
  27. rubens, 2005, Online Education Global Questions Local Answers, 193
  28. folkestad, 2002, conflicting ideologies and the shift to e-learning, Annu Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
  29. 10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_4 · DOI
  30. 10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_3 · DOI
  31. 10.1207/S15389286AJDE1604_3 · DOI
  32. gaud, 1999, assessing the impact of web courses, Syllabus, 13, 49
  33. 10.1080/08923640009527062 · DOI
  34. sherron, 0, Distance learning The shift to interactivity
  35. mason k harry ed, 1999, Higher Education Through Open and Distance Learning, 32

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Worley, W. L., & Tesdell, L. S.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • Minnesota State University, Mankato (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2009-06
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
138-151
ISSN
0361-1434 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2009.2017990
OpenAlex
W2138865281
Cited by
76
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
15.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplorehelp/downloads/license-information/IEEE.html (vor)
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
  • Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
online learning, face-to-face teaching, instructor workload, online courses

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.