1887

Comparison of Online and Onsite Bioinformatics Instruction for a Fully Online Bioinformatics Master’s Program

    Authors: Kristina M. Obom1,*, Patrick J. Cummings1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Advanced Biotechnology Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Published 17 May 2007
    • *Corresponding Author. Mailing address: 9601 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850. Phone: (301)- 294-7159. Fax: (301) -315-2886. E-mail: kobom@jhu.edu.
    • Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2007 vol. 8 no. 1 22-27. doi:10.1128/193578807X14285805110719
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
  • PDF
    142.03 Kb
  • HTML
    35.24 Kb

    Abstract:

    The completely online Master of Science in Bioinformatics program differs from the onsite program only in the mode of content delivery. Analysis of student satisfaction indicates no statistically significant difference between most online and onsite student responses, however, online and onsite students do differ significantly in their responses to a few questions on the course evaluation queries. Analysis of student exam performance using three assessments indicates that there was no significant difference in grades earned by students in online and onsite courses. These results suggest that our model for online bioinformatics education provides students with a rigorous course of study that is comparable to onsite course instruction and possibly provides a more rigorous course load and more opportunities for participation.

Key Concept Ranking

Gene Expression
0.822125
Spring
0.4791667
0.822125

References & Citations

1. Ali A, Abdulaziz E2004Examining students performance and attitudes toward the use of information technology in a virtual and conventional settingJ Interactive Online Learning23[Online.] http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/2.3.5.pdf.
2. Allen E, Seaman J2006Making the grade: online education in the United States. 2006 Alfred PSloan FoundationNew York, N.Y.[Online.] http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/index.asp.
3. Curtis D, Lawson M2001Exploring collaborative online learningJ Asynchronous Learning Networks51[Online.] http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v5n1/v5n1_curtis.asp.
4. Holcomb LB, King FB, Brown SW2004Student traits and attributes contributing to success in online courses: evaluation of university online coursesJ Interactive Online Learning23[Online.] http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/2.3.4.pdf.
5. Kearsley G2002MEPP: a case study in online educationJan./Feb.2002The Technology Source. [Online.] http://technologysource.org/article/mepp/.
6. Lim YP, Hoog JO, Gardner P, Ranganathan S, Andersson S, Subbiah S, Wee Tan T, Hide W, Weiss AS2003The S-Star trial bioinformatics course. An on-line learning successBiochem. Mol. Biol. Educ.31202310.1002/bmb.2003.494031010160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2003.494031010160
7. Roach V, Lemasters L2006Satisfaction with online learning: a comparative descriptive studyJ Interactive Online Learning53[Online.] http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/5.3.7.pdf.
8. Stansfield M, McLellan E, Connolly T2004Enhancing student performance in online learning and traditional face-to-face class deliveryJ Information Technol Educ3173188
9. Stokes PJ2006Hidden in Plain Sight: Adult Learners Forge a New Tradition in Higher Education[Online.] http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports.html
10. Su B, Bonk CJ, Magjuka RJ, Liu X, Lee S2005The importance of interaction in web-based education: a program-level case study of online MBA coursesJ Interactive Online Learning41[Online.] http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/4.1.1.pdf.
11. Tolvanen M, Vihinen M2004Virtual bioinformatics distance learning suiteBiochem Mol Biol Educ3215616010.1002/bmb.2004.49403203033621706714 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2004.494032030336
12. Volery T, Lord D2000Critical success factors in online educationInt J Educ Management14521622310.1108/09513540010344731 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540010344731
193578807X14285805110719.citations
jmbe/8/1
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/193578807X14285805110719
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/193578807X14285805110719
2007-05-17
2017-07-24

Abstract:

The completely online Master of Science in Bioinformatics program differs from the onsite program only in the mode of content delivery. Analysis of student satisfaction indicates no statistically significant difference between most online and onsite student responses, however, online and onsite students do differ significantly in their responses to a few questions on the course evaluation queries. Analysis of student exam performance using three assessments indicates that there was no significant difference in grades earned by students in online and onsite courses. These results suggest that our model for online bioinformatics education provides students with a rigorous course of study that is comparable to onsite course instruction and possibly provides a more rigorous course load and more opportunities for participation.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/8/1/jmbe-8-1-22.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/193578807X14285805110719&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIG. 1

Click to view

FIG. 1

Course of study for a Master of Science in Bioinformatics at Johns Hopkins University.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2007 vol. 8 no. 1 22-27. doi:10.1128/193578807X14285805110719
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIG. 2

Click to view

FIG. 2

Student survey instrument. Students onsite complete the survey on the last night of class. Online students answer the same questions in the same format when the last unit opens, but it is a computer-based survey. Questions 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 were analyzed.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2007 vol. 8 no. 1 22-27. doi:10.1128/193578807X14285805110719
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIG. 3

Click to view

FIG. 3

Comparison of online and onsite student responses. The data represent the percentage of students who agreed with the statements, “The course was taught at a level I expected,” “I learned a great deal from the course,” “Assignments were an effective way to learn the material,” “Instructor encouraged participation,” “The work load was rigorous,” and “I would recommend this course.”

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2007 vol. 8 no. 1 22-27. doi:10.1128/193578807X14285805110719
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error