FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3121390160> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3121390160 endingPage "8" @default.
• W3121390160 startingPage "1" @default.
• W3121390160 abstract "(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)INTRODUCTIONThe demand for online coursework evidences the acceptance of distance learning in higher education. While some students earn an entire degree online without ever setting foot in a classroom, others supplement a traditional campus-based education with online classes. According to one study, approximately 5.5 million students took at least one online course in 2012. Of this number, 2.6 million were enrolled in fully online programs, while the remainder took some courses online and some in classrooms (Straumsheim, 2014). Much discussion has followed regarding the quality of instruction offered online and the performance of enrolled students. Proponents of face-to-face course delivery argue that there is substitute for the traditional lecture, with its give and take between professor and student. Web supporters cite time and resource efficiency, making online presentation the superior method of However, do students retain more knowledge when a course is presented in the traditional lecture format or via online delivery? Do students that have the material presented to them by a professor in real time have a better foundation for later applying that knowledge in another class, or does the convenience and student self-reliance associated with web courses lead to a richer learning experience? Thus, it is the purpose of this research to examine whether subsequent academic success is dependent upon prior method of delivery. The remainder of this article presents a literature review on the subject, followed by the data and methodology employed, which includes an explanation of the courses investigated. The prerequisite in this study is financial management, while the subsequent courses include strategic management and upper level finance. Multiple regression analysis tests the paper's hypothesis. Empirical results and conclusions are at the end of the paper.LITERATURE REVIEWSince the introduction of online education in 1985 (Crotty, 2012), its popularity has grown exponentially. What was once little more than glorified correspondent courses, web learning now includes full lectures available 24/7; integrated learning management systems geared to a specific textbook; whiteboard tutorials; message boards allowing interaction between students and instructors; virtual office hours for faculty; and online proctored examinations. Online education, whether in whole or part, is an attractive alternative to students, faculty and university administrators. Online education offers students and instructors flexibility and convenience. Content can be learned (and taught) anywhere, at any time, without sacrificing family and work responsibilities. A nationwide decrease in funding to higher education has made colleges and universities flock to deliver courses online: the overhead is low and the return on investment is high.Much debate has followed regarding whether student success is dependent upon mode of delivery. A large portion of the resulting research found significant performance difference between online students and those enrolled in the face-to-face version of the same class. Reuter (2009) found that students in a lab class earned similar course grades, regardless of delivery. Schou (2007) saw difference between the mean final exam score of a face-to-face class and that of the online section of introductory statistics. According to McLaren (2004), performance was independent of the mode of instruction. Even online students with access to video lectures did not perform any differently than those in the physical presence of a real time lecture, as demonstrated by Neuhauser (2002). Gange and Shepard (2001) investigated an accounting course and showed difference performance wise between those students enrolled in the web version and those in the classroom. Russell (1999) saw no statistically significant differences in student learning between learning formats. …" @default.
• W3121390160 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3121390160 creator A5080823806 @default.
• W3121390160 date "2015-07-01" @default.
• W3121390160 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W3121390160 title "Does Course Delivery Method Impact Performance in Subsequent Courses? Evidence from a Financial Management Course" @default.
• W3121390160 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W3121390160 type Work @default.
• W3121390160 sameAs 3121390160 @default.
• W3121390160 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3121390160 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W3121390160 hasAuthorship W3121390160A5080823806 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConcept C2781110425 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConcept C503872463 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConceptScore W3121390160C111472728 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConceptScore W3121390160C120912362 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConceptScore W3121390160C138885662 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConceptScore W3121390160C145420912 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConceptScore W3121390160C15744967 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConceptScore W3121390160C17744445 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConceptScore W3121390160C199539241 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConceptScore W3121390160C2779530757 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConceptScore W3121390160C2781110425 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConceptScore W3121390160C503872463 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConceptScore W3121390160C509550671 @default.
• W3121390160 hasConceptScore W3121390160C71924100 @default.
• W3121390160 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W3121390160 hasLocation W31213901601 @default.
• W3121390160 hasOpenAccess W3121390160 @default.
• W3121390160 hasPrimaryLocation W31213901601 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W1530594244 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W1539541080 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W1587299167 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W1779952862 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W2031002069 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W2065817284 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W2078426247 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W2120554181 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W2186265325 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W2187889123 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W220448697 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W2244381967 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W2263896101 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W2518214838 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W2994303078 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W76565139 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W78497934 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W825060792 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W91438163 @default.
• W3121390160 hasRelatedWork W277929291 @default.
• W3121390160 hasVolume "7" @default.
• W3121390160 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3121390160 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3121390160 magId "3121390160" @default.
• W3121390160 workType "article" @default.