Online learning is quickly gaining in importance in U.S. higher education, but little rigorous evidence exists as to its effect on student learning outcomes. In “Interactive Learning Online at Public Universities: Evidence from Randomized Trials,” we measure the effect on learning outcomes of a prototypical interactive learning online (ILO) statistics course by randomly assigning students on six public university campuses to take the course in a hybrid format (with machine-guided instruction accompanied by one hour of face-to-face instruction each week) or a traditional format (as it is usually offered by their campus, typically with 3-4 hours of face-to-face instruction each week).
We find that learning outcomes are essentially the same—that students in the hybrid format “pay no price” for this mode of instruction in terms of pass rates, final exam scores, and performance on a standardized assessment of statistical literacy. These zero-difference coefficients are precisely estimated. We also conduct speculative cost simulations and find that adopting hybrid models of instruction in large introductory courses have the potential to significantly reduce instructor compensation costs in the long run.
From this study. My bias here is that learning is, above all, linked to motivation to learn and that is rarely affected by the classroom environment.
Learning requires engagement, requires presence, which mostly comes from within. To me this is what great teachers do differently: they grab students’ attention and direct it to the material.
Without that gift, much of teaching is replaceable.
Not Unreasonable 
Once teachers realize that their jobs are slowly becoming irrelevant, maybe the focus will shift to where it belongs: motivation and engagement. Perhaps Charlie Jr. should get out of the insurance business and join us in the education world! He would be a welcome addition.