CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,638Online and Blended LearningOnline Learning Methods and InnovationsTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature

Means, Barbara, Toyama, Yukie, Murphy, Robert, Baki, Marianne·2013·Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education
DOI 10.1177/016146811311500307
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background/Context: Earlier research on various forms of distance learning concluded that these technologies do not differ significantly from regular classroom instruction in terms of learning outcomes. Now that web-based learning has emerged as a major trend in both K–12 and higher education, the relative efficacy of online and face-to-face instruction needs to be revisited. The increased capabilities of web-based applications and collaboration technologies and the rise of blended learning models combining web-based and face-to-face classroom instruction have raised expectations for the effectiveness of online learning. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: This meta-analysis was designed to produce a statistical synthesis of studies contrasting learning outcomes for either fully online or blended learning conditions with those of face-to-face classroom instruction. Population/Participants/Subjects: The types of learners in the meta-analysis studies were about evenly split between students in college or earlier years of education and learners in graduate programs or professional training. The average learner age in a study ranged from 13 to 44. Intervention/Program/Practice: The meta-analysis was conducted on 50 effects found in 45 studies contrasting a fully or partially online condition with a fully face-to-face instructional condition. Length of instruction varied across studies and exceeded one month in the majority of them. Research Design: The meta-analysis corpus consisted of (1) experimental studies using random assignment and (2) quasi-experiments with statistical control for preexisting group differences. An effect size was calculated or estimated for each contrast, and average effect sizes were computed for fully online learning and for blended learning. A coding scheme was applied to classify each study in terms of a set of conditions, practices, and methodological variables. Findings/Results: The meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed modestly better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. The advantage over face-to-face classes was significant in those studies contrasting blended learning with traditional face-to-face instruction but not in those studies contrasting purely online with face-to-face conditions. Conclusions/Recommendations: Studies using blended learning also tended to involve additional learning time, instructional resources, and course elements that encourage interactions among learners. This confounding leaves open the possibility that one or all of these other practice variables contributed to the particularly positive outcomes for blended learning. Further research and development on different blended learning models is warranted. Experimental research testing design principles for blending online and face-to-face instruction for different kinds of learners is needed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/016146811311500307

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Show all 98 references

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Barab S. A., 2001, Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 105
  2. Bates A. W., 1997, Learning Quarterly, 2, 7
  3. Bhattacharya M., 1999, Proceedings of WebNet World Conference on the WWW and Internet 1999, 100
  4. *Caldwell E. R. (2006). A comparative study of three instructional modalities in a computer programming course: Traditional instruction, web-based instruction, and online instruction (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3227694)
  5. Cavanaugh C., 2001, International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7, 73
  6. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Graham C. R., 2005, Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, 3
  8. Hermann F., 2001, European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning, 293
  9. Horn M. B., 2011, The rise of K-12 blended learning.
  10. Long M., 2005, ‘Does it work?’: The impact of technology and professional development on student achievement
  11. *Lowry A. E. (2007). Effects of online versus face-to-face professional development with a team-based learning community approach on teachers’ application of a new instructional practice (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. AAT 3262466)
  12. Mentzer G. A., 2007, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 233
  13. National Survey of Student Engagement, 2008, Promoting engagement for all students: the imperative to look within.
  14. Parsad B., 2008, Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006-07
  15. Rooney J. E., 2003, Association Management, 55, 26
  16. Schilling K., 2006, Family Medicine, 38, 126
  17. Schmeeckle J. M., 2003, Technology, 12, 205
  18. Shotsberger P. G., 1999, Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 1999, 1777
  19. Smith R., 2005, A synthesis of new research on K-12 online learning
  20. Spires H. A., 2001, Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 17, 5
  21. Wallace P. E., 2000, Journal of Information Systems Education, 11, 13
  22. Wang L., 2008, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17, 43
  23. What Works Clearinghouse, 2007, Technical details of WWC-conducted computations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M.
Affiliations
SRI International (US)
ORCID
Venue
Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2013-03
Volume
115
Issue
3
Pages
1-47
ISSN
  • 0040-0475 (ISSN-L)
  • 0161-4681
  • 1467-9620
DOI
10.1177/016146811311500307
OpenAlex
W1719359252
Cited by
1,638
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 176 · 2025: 203 · 2024: 160 · 2023: 188 · 2022: 166 · 2021: 208 · 2020: 152 · 2019: 108 · 2018: 95 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 4
FWCI
28.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online Learning Methods and Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
Keywords
online learning, blended learning, face-to-face teaching, learning outcomes, distance education, web-based learning, teaching effectiveness, effect size, K-12 education, higher education, professional training, student interaction

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