Short communication: 2021 Vol: 25 Issue: 4
Steven Rugsaken, Southeast Missouri State University
This paper extends the body of research asking lots of questions about/trying to find the truth about) possible differences in face to face and online delivery of a business law course. Using a like nothing else in the world survey, it asks lots of questions about/tries to find the truth about student perceptions of their learning and understanding of very important course ideas, as well as student happiness from meeting a need or reaching a goal with the course and course instruction. Further, the paper explores the particular features/ qualities/ traits of online against/compared to/or face-to-face students that may hit/affect their happiness from meeting a need or reaching a goal.
Business Law, Student Learning, Online, Face-to-Face.
Institutions of after high school education are increasing their distance chances to learn things in response to related to social pressure, how people act toward each other, etc. demand for more convenient and flexible methods of college instruction, and as Falk & Blaylock (2010) suggest, making distance learning a "central focus". These opportunities can include combination courses, taught partially face to face and partially online, or courses taught fully online. As the addition of distance chances to learn things can be a money-related concern for an institution, it is important to discover the best practices in creating online education that is as effective and acceptable as the usual face to face format (Bernard et al., 2004). Throughout related to school and learning books, two questions remain: (a) is it possible for fully online instruction to be as effective as traditional face to face instruction? and (b) does fully online instruction make happy by meeting a need or reaching a goal student demands the same as face to face instruction? (Bernard et al., 2004). This paper addresses the fully online course, specifically of the business law control/field of study, which most business schools include in their needed/demanded undergraduate school courses to make happy by meeting a need or reaching a goal approval from an organization ability to be picked/ability to participate through the Association to Advance College-related Schools of Business. Although people who work to find information have compared face to face and online sections of the same course in other business fields of study and in the college courses that teach about people (Lyke & Frank, 2013; Driscoll et al., 2012; McFarland & Hamilton, 2005). There is little research on this comparison in business law. Because introductory business law courses are having a unique quality in aspects such as students' likely initial exposure to complex legal ideas, the open to opinion and judging; not black-and-white and related to thinking a lot about what things mean to you nature of the control/field of study, and the less having to do with measuring things with numbers focus than more than two, but not a lot of other business set of basic school lessons courses, it is important to examine the impact definitely/as one would expect delivery model on both student learning and student happiness from meeting a need or reaching a goal. This paper adds/gives to the discussion of business law's use of online learning. We chose to ask lots of questions about/try to find the truth about the business law control/field of study not only due to the lack of research comparing business law online and face to face courses, but because business law is to an important extent different from other common core business courses, including accounting, finance, money flow/money-based studies, and information systems. Where these common core courses are mostly having to do with measuring things with numbers and goal, business law is a having to do with figuring out the quality of things without measuring them with numbers and open to opinion and judging; not black-and-white control/field of study. Business law is not often offered as a major in business schools so students may not give a core business law course the same focus and attention as one that was their business major of choice. Also, business law is in most events the first time students have had legal studies, making the course more foreign than mathematically based courses such as the common core listed above. We ask lots of questions about/try to find the truth about whether students taught using an identical course delivery plan by the same instructor, in online and face to face sections of an introductory business law course, perceive their learning and course happiness from meeting a need or reaching a goal equally. We further explore clearly stated/particular student features/ qualities/ traits that may add/give to differences in happiness from meeting a need or reaching a goal levels between the two delivery formats, such as student age, the number of hours that students work outside of school, and the number of credit hours in which students are enrolled.
Falk, C.F., & Blaylock, B.K. (2010). Strategically Planning Campuses for the “Newer Students” in Higher Education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(3), 15-38.
Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Yiping, L., Borokhovski, E, Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P.A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How Does Distance Education Compare with Classroom Instruction? A MetaAnalysis of the Empirical Literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439.
Lyke, J., & Frank, M. (2013). Comparison of Student Learning Outcomes in Online and Traditional Environments in a Psychology Course. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(3-4), 245-250.
Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Andrea N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can Online Courses Deliver In-Class Results?: A Comparison of Student Performance and Satisfaction in an Online versus a Face-to-Face Introductory Sociology Course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312-331.
McFarland, D., & Hamilton, D. (2005) Factors Affecting Student Performance and Satisfaction: Online Versus Traditional Course Deliver. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(2), 25-32.