CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 213Online and Blended LearningHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Learning and Satisfaction in Webinar, Online, and Face-to-Face Instruction: A Meta-Analysis

Open access
Ebner, Christian, Gegenfurtner, Andreas·2019·Frontiers in Education
DOI 10.3389/feduc.2019.00092
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Kirkpatrick’s four-level training evaluation model assumes that a positive correlation exists between satisfaction and learning. Several studies have investigated levels of satisfaction and learning in synchronous online courses, asynchronous online learning management systems, and synchronous face-to-face classroom instruction. The goal of the present meta-analysis was to cumulate these effect sizes and test the predictive validity of Kirkpatrick’s assumption. In this connection, particular attention was given to a prototypical form of synchronous online courses – so called “webinars”. The following two research questions were addressed: (a) Compared to asynchronous online and face-to-face instruction, how effective are webinars in promoting student learning and satisfaction? (b) What is the association between satisfaction and learning in webinar, asynchronous online and face-to-face instruction? The results showed that webinars were descriptively more effective in promoting student knowledge than asynchronous online (Hedges’ g = 0.29) and face-to-face instruction (g = 0.06). Satisfaction was negligibly higher in webinars compared to asynchronous online instruction (g = 0.12) but was lower in webinars to face-to-face instruction (g = -0.33). Learning and satisfaction were negatively associated in all three conditions, indicating no empirical support for Kirkpatrick’s assumption in the context of webinar, asynchronous online and face-to-face instruction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/feduc.2019.00092

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Most data indicates that online learning and face-to-face learning can have similar outcomes when controlling for mediating variables.

    “Most of the data indicates that online learning and face-to-face learning can have similar outcomes when controlling for mediating variables (Carol & Burke, 2010;Cavanaugh & Jacquemin, 2015;Ebner & Gegenfurtner, 2019;Means et al., 2010;Nguyen, 2015;Somenarain et al., 2010).”

    From Online or Face to Face? The Modality of a Learning Strategies Course and Impacts on Grades, GPA, Retention and Persistence for Developmental Students (2026) · cites this paper as Ebner & Gegenfurtner, 2019

    The Implications for Practical Application section says online and face-to-face modalities were roughly equal in learning and satisfaction outcomes. The Statistical Calculations section describes subgroup moderator analysis, but does not say the comparison controlled for mediating variables. The paper therefore supports the similarity claim, not that specific condition. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 57 · Cited by 213

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Alliger, G. M., and Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick's levels of training criteria: thirty years later. Pers. Psychol. 42, 331-342. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00661.x · DOI
  2. Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Traver, H., and Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Pers. Psychol. 50, 341-358. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00911.x * Alnabelsi, T., Al-Hussaini, A., and Owens, D. (2015). Comparison of traditional face-to-face teaching with synchronous e-learning in otolaryngology emergencies teaching to medical undergraduates: a randomised controlled trial. Eur. Archiv. Otorhinolaryngol. 272, 759-763. doi: 10.1007/s00405-014- 3326-6 · DOI
  3. Beretvas, S. N. (2019). "Meta-analysis, " in The Reviewer's Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences, 2nd Edn., eds G. R. Hancock, L. M. Stapleton, and R. O. Mueller (New York, NY: Routledge), 260-268. doi: 10.4324/9781315755649-19 · DOI
  4. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 1243-1289. doi: 10.3102/0034654309333844 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Constantine, M. B. (2012). A study of individual learning styles and e- learning preferences among community health aides/practitioners in rural Alaska (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Trident University International, Cypress, CA, United States.
  6. Cook, D. A., Garside, S., Levinson, A. J., Dupras, D. M., and Montori, V. M. (2010). What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. Med. Educ. 44, 765-774. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03723.x · DOI
  7. Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., Carside, S., Dupras, D. M., Erwin, P. J., and Montori, V. M. (2008). Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 300, 1181-1196. doi: 10.1001/jama.300. · DOI
  8. 1181 · DOI
  9. Gegenfurtner, A., and Ebner, C. (in press). Webinars in higher education and professional training: A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Educ. Res. Rev.
  10. Gegenfurtner, A., Könings, K. D., Kosmajac, N., and Gebhardt, M. (2016). Voluntary or mandatory training participation as a moderator in the relationship between goal orientations and transfer of training. Int. J. Train. Dev. 20, 290-301. doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12089 · DOI
  11. Gegenfurtner, A., Schwab, N., and Ebner, C. (2018). "There's no need to drive from A to B": exploring the lived experience of students and lecturers with digital learning in higher education. Bavarian J. Appl. Sci. 4:310322. doi: 10.25929/bjas.v4i1.50 · DOI
  12. Gegenfurtner, A., Spagert, L., Weng, G., Bomke, C., Fisch, K., Oswald, A., et al. (2017). LernCenter: Ein Konzept für die Digitalisierung berufsbegleitender Weiterbildungen an Hochschulen. Bavarian J. Appl. Sci. 3, 234-243. doi: 10.25929/z26v-0x88 · DOI
  13. Gegenfurtner, A., Vauras, M., Gruber, H., and Festner, D. (2010). "Motivation to transfer revisited, " in Learning in the Disciplines: ICLS2010 Proceedings, Vol. 1, K. Gomez, L. Lyons, and J. Radinsky (Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences), 452-459.
  14. Gessler, M. (2009). The correlation of participant satisfaction, learning success and learning transfer: an empirical investigation of correlation assumptions in Kirkpatrick's four-level model. Int. J. Manage. Educ. 3, 346-358. doi: 10.1504/IJMIE.2009.027355 · DOI
  15. Goe, R., Ipsen, C., and Bliss, S. (2018). Pilot testing a digital career literacy training for vocational rehabilitation professionals. Rehabil. Couns. Bull. 61, 236-243. doi: 10.1177/0034355217724341 * · DOI
  16. Harned, M. S., Dimeff, L. A., Woodcook, E. A., Kelly, T., Zavertnik, J., Contreras, I., et al. (2014). Exposing clinicians to exposure: a randomized controlled dissemination trial of exposure therapy for anxiety disorders. Behav. Ther. 45, 731-744. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2014.04.005 · DOI
  17. Holton, E. F. (1996). The flawed four level evaluation model. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 7, 5-21. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.3920070103 · DOI
  18. Joshi, P., Thukral, A., Joshi, M., Deorari, A. K., and Vatsa, M. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of webinars and participatory learning on essential newborn care (ENBC) in the class room in terms of acquisition of knowledge and skills of student nurses: a randomized controlled trial. Indian J. Pediatr. 80, 168-170. doi: 10.1007/s12098-012-0742-8 · DOI
  19. Kirkpatrick, J. D., and Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Training Evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
  20. Knogler, M., Gegenfurtner, A., and Quesada Pallarès, C. (2013). "Social design in digital simulations: effects of single versus multi-player simulations on efficacy beliefs and transfer, " in To See the World and a Grain of Sand: Learning Across Levels of Space, Time, and Scale, Vol. 2, eds N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, and S. Puntambekar (Madison, WI: International Society of the Learning Sciences), 293-294.
  21. Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159-174. doi: 10.2307/2529310 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Liu, Q., Peng, W., Zhang, F., Hu, R., Li, Y., and Yan, W. (2016). The effectiveness of blended learning in health professions: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 18:e2. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4807 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Margulieux, L. E., McCracken, W. M., and Catrambone, R. (2016). A taxonomy to define courses that mix face-to-face and online learning. Educ. Res. Rev. 19, 104-118. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.07.001 · DOI
  24. Marjanovic, O. (1999). Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative environment. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 15, 129-138. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2729.1999.152085.x · DOI
  25. Martin, B. O., Kolomitro, K., and Lam, T. C. M. (2014). Training methods: a review and analysis. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 13, 11-35. doi: 10.1177/1534484313497947 · DOI
  26. McKinney, W. P. (2017). Assessing the evidence for the educational efficacy of webinars and related internet-based instruction. Pedag. Health Promot. 3, 475-515. doi: 10.1177/2373379917700876 · DOI
  27. McMahon-Howard, J., and Reimers, B. (2013). An evaluation of a child welfare training program on the commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC). Eval. Program Plann. 40, 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2013.04.002 · DOI
  28. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Baki, M., and Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
  29. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., and The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br. Med. J. 339:b2535. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Nelson, L. S. (2010). Learning outcomes of webinar versus classroom instruction among baccalaureate nursing students: a randomized controlled trial (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Texas Woman's University, Denton, TX, United States.
  31. Nicklen, P., Keating, J. L., Paynter, S., Storr, M., and Maloney, S. (2016). Remote- online case-based learning: a comparison of remote-online and face-to-face, case-based learning -a randomized controlled trial. Educ. Health 29, 195-202. doi: 10.4103/1357-6283.204213 · DOI
  32. Olson, J. S., and McCracken, F. E. (2015). Is it worth the effort? The impact of incorporating synchronous lectures into an online course. Online Learn. J. 19, 73-84. doi: 10.24059/olj.v19i2.499 · DOI
  33. Phipps, R., and Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
  34. Quesada-Pallarès, C., and Gegenfurtner, A. (2015). Toward a unified model of motivation for training transfer: a phase perspective. Z. Erziehungswiss. 18, 107-121. doi: 10.1007/s11618-014-0604-4 · DOI
  35. Reinhold, S., Gegenfurtner, A., and Lewalter, D. (2018). Social support and motivation to transfer as predictors of training transfer: testing full and partial mediation using meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Int. J. Train. Dev. 22, 1-14. doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12115 · DOI
  36. Reio, T. G., Rocco, T. S., Smith, D. H., and Chang, E. (2017). A critique of Kirkpatrick's evaluation model. New Horiz. Adult Educ. Hum. Resour. Dev. 29, 35-53. doi: 10.1002/nha3.20178 · DOI
  37. Richmond, H., Copsey, B., Hall, A. M., Davies, D., and Lamb, S. E. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of online versus alternative methods for training licensed health care professionals to deliver clinical interventions. BMC Med. Educ. 17:227. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-1047-4 · DOI
  38. Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., and Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning in medical education. Acad. Med. 81, 207-212. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Surkes, M. A., et al. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: a meta-analysis of classroom applications. Comput. Educ. 72, 271-291. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Siewiorek, A., and Gegenfurtner, A. (2010). "Leading to win: the influence of leadership style on team performance during a computer game training, " in Learning in the Disciplines: ICLS2010 Proceedings, Vol. 1, eds K. Gomez, L. Lyons, and J. Radinsky (Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences), 524-531.
  41. Stout, J. W., Smith, K., Zhou, C., Solomon, C., Dozor, A. J., Garrison, M. M., et al. (2012). Learning from a distance: effectiveness of online spirometry training in improving asthma care. Acad. Pediatr. 12, 88-95. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2011.11.006 · DOI
  42. Taveira-Gomes, T., Ferreira, P., Taveira-Gomes, I., Severo, M., and Ferreira, M. A. (2016). What are we looking for in computer-based learning interventions in medical education? A systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 18:e204. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5461 · DOI
  43. Testers, L., Gegenfurtner, A., Van Geel, R., and Brand-Gruwel, S. (2019). From monocontextual to multicontextual transfer: organizational determinants of the intention to transfer generic information literacy competences to multiple contexts. Frontl. Learn. Res. 7, 23-42. doi: 10.14786/flr. v7i1.359 * The studies that are preceded by an asterisk were included in the meta-analysis. · DOI
  44. Tratnik, A., Urh, M., and Jereb, E. (2017). Student satisfaction with an online and a face-to-face Business English course in a higher education context. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 56, 1-10. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2017. 1374875 · DOI
  45. Tseng, J.-J., Cheng, Y.-S., and Yeh, H.-N. (2019). How pre-service English teachers enact TPACK in the context of web-conferencing teaching: a design thinking approach. Comput. Educ. 128, 171-182. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018. 09.022 · DOI
  46. Wang, Q., and Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 38, 272-286. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00621.x · DOI

Authors
Ebner, C., & Gegenfurtner, A.
Affiliations
Deggendorf Institute of Technology (DE)
Corresponding author
Ebner, Christian
ORCID
Gegenfurtner, Andreas
Venue
Frontiers in Education
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2019-09-03
Volume
4
ISSN
2504-284X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/feduc.2019.00092
OpenAlex
W2967815350
Cited by
213
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 2
FWCI
8.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (16OH22004)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
webinars, synchronous online instruction, asynchronous online learning, face-to-face teaching, student satisfaction, student learning, predictive validity, face-to-face vs online learning, training evaluation

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