An Examination of the Relationship Between Instruction Type and Course Outcomes in Sport Management Courses

in Sport Management Education Journal

Click name to view affiliation

Megan B. Shreffler University of Louisville

Search for other papers by Megan B. Shreffler in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
*
,
Adam R. Cocco University of Louisville

Search for other papers by Adam R. Cocco in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
*
, and
Jacob R. Shreffler University of Louisville

Search for other papers by Jacob R. Shreffler in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
*
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2018-0014
Keywords:
content knowledge; online education; sport management curricula; student engagement
In Print:
Volume 13: Issue 2
Page Range:
53–62
Restricted access

The number of students enrolled in online courses continues to increase as the landscape of higher education evolves to meet the needs of the student population. With the growing number of online education students, and the necessity of programs to demonstrate learning effectiveness, it is essential for higher education institutions to compare the success of online students with their traditional classroom counterparts in terms of course outcomes (final project and course grades). This study used a quasi-experimental design to examine the relationship between the instructional delivery method (online vs. traditional classroom) and the course outcomes and satisfaction of students in selected sport management courses. Differences between instructional delivery method were found in motivational factors, satisfaction, and content knowledge. However, no significant differences were found with respect to final project and course grades. The findings from this study can assist sport management programs beginning to offer online education courses or looking to expand their online course offerings. The results demonstrate that instructional delivery method does not affect a student’s course outcomes in sport management courses, leaving them the ability to choose the educational delivery method best suited for their lifestyle and motivations.

The authors are with the University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.

M. Shreffler is (megan.shreffler@louisville.edu) is corresponding author.
  • Collapse
  • Expand

Sport Management Education Journal

Cover Sport Management Education Journal

  • Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., Straut, T.T., & Poulin, R. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Angiello, R. (2010). Study looks at online learning vs. traditional instruction. The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 20(14), 18–20.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Aragon, S.R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 57–68. doi:10.1002/ace.119

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bennett, G. (2002). Web-based instruction in sport management. Sport Management Review, 5(1), 45–68. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(02)70061-2

  • Bennett, G., & Green, F.P. (2001). Promoting service learning via online instruction. College Student Journal, 35(4), 491–497.

  • Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Lou, Y., Borokhovskdi, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., … Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379–439. doi:10.3102/00346543074003379

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bigatel, P.M., Ragan, L.C., Kenan, S., May, J., & Redmond, B.F. (2012). The identification of competencies for online teaching success. Journal of Asynchrounous Learning Networks, 16(1), 59–77.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bolliger, D.U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3, 61–67.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cobb, S.C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8, 241–254.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. (2013). Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Education and Information Technologies, 18, 661–685. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Curran, C. (2008). Online learning and the university. In W.J. Bramble & S. Panda (Eds.), Economics of distance and online learning: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 26–51). New York, NY: Routledge.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dixson, M.D. (2015). Measuring student engagement in the online course: The online student engagement scale (OSE). Online Learning, 19(4), 143–157. doi:10.24059/olj.v19i4.561

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Farkas, K. (2011). Online education growing as colleges offer more classes to meet student demand. Retrieved from http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/online_education_growing_as_co.html

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Faux, T.L., & Black-Hughes, C. (2000). A comparison of using the internet versus lectures to teach social work history. Research on Social Work, 10(4), 454–466.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Feintuch, H. (2010). Keeping their distance. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 27(3), 20.

  • Fillion, G., Limayem, M., Laferriere, T., & Mantha, R. (2009). Integrating information and communication technologies into higher education: Investigating onsite and online students’ points of view. Open Learning, 24, 223–240. doi:10.1080/02680510903201649

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Foster, A., & Carnevale, D. (2007). Distance education goes public. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(34), A49.

  • Friedman, J. (2017, May 3). Study: Online course enrollment rising rapidly at private nonprofits. U.S. News. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/higher-education/online-education/articles/2017-05-03/study-online-learning-enrollment-rising-fastest-at-private-nonprofit-schools

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Glover, L.C., & Lewis, E.V. (2012). Student preference online versus traditional courses. The Global eLearning Journal, 1(3), 1–28.

  • Handelsman, M.M., Briggs, W.L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184–192. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harris, D., & Parrish, D. (2006). The art of online teaching: Online instruction versus in-class instruction. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 24(2/3), 105–117. doi:10.1300/J017v24n02_06

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harris, H.S., & Martin, E.W. (2012). Student motivations for choosing online classes. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1–8. doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060211

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harris, K.F., Grappendorf, H., Veraldo, C.M., & Aicher, T.J. (2014). A concern for the future of sport management: Female students’ perceptions toward their sport management degree. Global Sport Business Journal, 2(3), 28–43.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harrolle, M., Bopp, T., Keiper, P., Ridinger, L., & Ryan, T. (2013). Online learning is here to stay! Sport management and distance education. Paper presented at the 28th Annual North American Society for Sport Management Conference, Austin, TX.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hill, J.R., Song, L., & West, R.E. (2009). Social learning theory and web-based learning environments: A review of research and discussion of implications. American Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 88–103. doi:10.1080/08923640902857713

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jones, D.F., & Brooks, D.D. (2008). Examining sport management programs in the United States. Sport Management Review, 11, 77–91. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(08)70104-9

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Leong, P. (2011). Role of social presence and cognitive absorption in online learning environments. Distance Education, 32(1), 5–28. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.565495

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lowenthal, P., Bauer, C., & Chen, K. (2015). Student perceptions of online learning: An analysis of online course evaluations. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(2), 85–97. doi:10.1080/08923647.2015.1023621

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Manning, M., Garvis, S., Fleming, C., & Wong, T. (2017). The relationship between teacher qualification and the quality of the early childhood care and learning environment. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 1–85.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mansour, B.E., & Mupinga, D.M. (2007). Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online classes. College Student Journal, 41(1), 242–248.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Martinez, J.M., & Barnhill, C.R. (2017). Enhancing the student experience in online sport management programs: A review of the community of inquiry framework. Sport Management Education Journal, 11(1), 24–33. doi:10.1123/smej.2016-0009

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McNiff, J., & Aicher, T.J. (2017). Understanding the challenges and opportunities associated with online learning: A scaffolding theory approach. Sport Management Education Journal, 11(1), 13–23. doi:10.1123/smej.2016-0007

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Moore, M.E., Parkhouse, B.L., & Konrad, A. (2004). The effect of student diversity programs on female student representation in sport management professional preparation programs. Women in Management Review, 19(6), 304–316.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ni, A.Y. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching research methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199–215. doi:10.1080/15236803.2013.12001730

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3, 248–292.

  • Online Learning Consortium. (2016). Babson study: Distance education enrollment growth continues [Press release]. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org//news_item/babson-study-distance-education-enrollment-growth-continues-2

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Quillen, I. (2010). E-learning delivery debated: Experts weigh ‘anytime, anywhere’ learning approach vs. fixed time frames for classes. Education Week, 29(30), S5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Reynold, J. (2012). Why do students like online learning? Ezine Articles. Retrieved from https://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Do-Students-Like-Online-Learning?&id=6984146

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Russell, J.L. (2013). Supporting students’ motivation in college online courses (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4749&context=etd

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Stier, W.F., & Schneider, R.C. (2009). Sport management taught on-line: A discussion. Kinesiology, Sport Studies and Physical Education Faculty Publications, 58(1), 55–68.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wash, P.D. (2014). Taking advantage of mobile devices: Using Socrative in the classroom. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 3(1), 99–101. doi:10.14434/jotlt.v3n1.5016

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wei, C.W., Chen, N.S., & Kinsuk. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(3), 529–545. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9234-9

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wilson, D., & Allen, D. (2011). Success rates of online versus traditional college students. Research in Higher Education Journal, 14, 1–9.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 2085 623 32
Full Text Views 38 5 3
PDF Downloads 32 8 4