Teaching with Technology

This article compares learning outcomes and student perceptions of learning for the same introductory music course, including a performance component, taught in both face-to-face (F2F) and online (OL) modalities. Both courses included F2F performance exams.

The learning objectives for this course included learning to read music, use musical terminology, identify the structure of music, play chords in accompaniment, and compose music. The F2F course included mandatory weekly performance labs whereas the OL course provided two optional labs provided during the latter half of the course. Both groups of students received feedback on their performance, yet “FtF students received more feedback that highlighted both their accomplishments and areas for improvement, so students could identify errors and make corrections. For online students, the electronic course management system provided only one response, praise for a job well done.” Other differences in the courses noted by the authors include FtF students having opportunities to write music in notation and more opportunities to practice sight reading skills including group exercises tapping out notation, for example. The most frequently noted reasons for students taking the course online reported by students included scheduling issues, reducing the commute to campus and to accommodate work.

The results of this study are interesting: based on the measurement of learning outcomes there were no significant differences between the two groups. However, the F2F students reported higher perceived levels of success reading music, playing chords and with musical notation. F2F students also reported chapter quizzes as being more useful to learning than did OL students. OL students reported higher levels of dissatisfaction with the amount of interaction they had with the instructor.

The course professor, a different individual than the researcher in this case, reported that “FtF students mastered performance skills more easily than online students. While the two groups did not show differences in outcomes as measured by final course grade, the process of reaching success may have been more difficult for online students.” In conclusion, “the authors propose that a blended, or hybrid approach to teaching musical performance skills may be more effective in providing students with essential feedback.”

Finally, the authors note that other studies have established that OL students have the benefit of accessing course materials “at their convenience” and echoing Fowler (2005) state “(r)ather than exploring whether online learning can be as effective as traditional formats, the burden of proof may soon shift to FtF courses.”

Compared to other articles in JOLT that I have read, this study appears to have been conducted with a relatively high level of methodological rigor. Nevertheless I am left with questions concerning how the data do or do not support some of the authors’ conclusions. The primary benefit of F2F course delivery, based on the data, seems only to be an elevated perception of ability compared to the OL group that in fact performs at a comparable level; that difference appears to lead to the authors’ suggestion of a hybrid course. Also in this study it is not clear how the OL course material was delivered in comparison to F2F settings. Both groups of students were provided web links to a video concerning playing scales, and numerous references are made to exercises only the F2F students engaged in, but the nature of the OL student experience – based on learning outcomes, a very successful experience – is not thoroughly addressed. Nevertheless this strikes me as an outstanding contribution to the still young body of literature comparing traditional and online learning.

Source: Agi Horspool and S.S. Yang, “A Comparison of University Student Perceptions and Success Learning Music Online and Face-to-face,” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 6, No. 1 (March 2010): 15-29.