traditional learning vs online learning research paper

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 09 January 2024

Online vs in-person learning in higher education: effects on student achievement and recommendations for leadership

• Bandar N. Alarifi 1 &
• Steve Song 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  86 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

3 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

This study is a comparative analysis of online distance learning and traditional in-person education at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia, with a focus on understanding how different educational modalities affect student achievement. The justification for this study lies in the rapid shift towards online learning, especially highlighted by the educational changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. By analyzing the final test scores of freshman students in five core courses over the 2020 (in-person) and 2021 (online) academic years, the research provides empirical insights into the efficacy of online versus traditional education. Initial observations suggested that students in online settings scored lower in most courses. However, after adjusting for variables like gender, class size, and admission scores using multiple linear regression, a more nuanced picture emerged. Three courses showed better performance in the 2021 online cohort, one favored the 2020 in-person group, and one was unaffected by the teaching format. The study emphasizes the crucial need for a nuanced, data-driven strategy in integrating online learning within higher education systems. It brings to light the fact that the success of educational methodologies is highly contingent on specific contextual factors. This finding advocates for educational administrators and policymakers to exercise careful and informed judgment when adopting online learning modalities. It encourages them to thoroughly evaluate how different subjects and instructional approaches might interact with online formats, considering the variable effects these might have on learning outcomes. This approach ensures that decisions about implementing online education are made with a comprehensive understanding of its diverse and context-specific impacts, aiming to optimize educational effectiveness and student success.

Similar content being viewed by others

Elementary school teachers’ perspectives about learning during the COVID-19 pandemic

Quality of a master’s degree in education in Ecuador

Co-designing inclusive excellence in higher education: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives on the ideal online learning environment using the I-TPACK model

Introduction.

The year 2020 marked an extraordinary period, characterized by the global disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Governments and institutions worldwide had to adapt to unforeseen challenges across various domains, including health, economy, and education. In response, many educational institutions quickly transitioned to distance teaching (also known as e-learning, online learning, or virtual classrooms) to ensure continued access to education for their students. However, despite this rapid and widespread shift to online learning, a comprehensive examination of its effects on student achievement in comparison to traditional in-person instruction remains largely unexplored.

In research examining student outcomes in the context of online learning, the prevailing trend is the consistent observation that online learners often achieve less favorable results when compared to their peers in traditional classroom settings (e.g., Fischer et al., 2020 ; Bettinger et al., 2017 ; Edvardsson and Oskarsson, 2008 ). However, it is important to note that a significant portion of research on online learning has primarily focused on its potential impact (Kuhfeld et al., 2020 ; Azevedo et al., 2020 ; Di Pietro et al., 2020 ) or explored various perspectives (Aucejo et al., 2020 ; Radha et al., 2020 ) concerning distance education. These studies have often omitted a comprehensive and nuanced examination of its concrete academic consequences, particularly in terms of test scores and grades.

Given the dearth of research on the academic impact of online learning, especially in light of Covid-19 in the educational arena, the present study aims to address that gap by assessing the effectiveness of distance learning compared to in-person teaching in five required freshmen-level courses at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. To accomplish this objective, the current study compared the final exam results of 8297 freshman students who were enrolled in the five courses in person in 2020 to their 8425 first-year counterparts who has taken the same courses at the same institution in 2021 but in an online format.

The final test results of the five courses (i.e., University Skills 101, Entrepreneurship 101, Computer Skills 101, Computer Skills 101, and Fitness and Health Culture 101) were examined, accounting for potential confounding factors such as gender, class size and admission scores, which have been cited in past research to be correlated with student achievement (e.g., Meinck and Brese, 2019 ; Jepsen, 2015 ) Additionally, as the preparatory year at King Saud University is divided into five tracks—health, nursing, science, business, and humanity, the study classified students based on their respective disciplines.

Motivation for the study

The rapid expansion of distance learning in higher education, particularly highlighted during the recent COVID-19 pandemic (Volk et al., 2020 ; Bettinger et al., 2017 ), underscores the need for alternative educational approaches during crises. Such disruptions can catalyze innovation and the adoption of distance learning as a contingency plan (Christensen et al., 2015 ). King Saud University, like many institutions worldwide, faced the challenge of transitioning abruptly to online learning in response to the pandemic.

E-learning has gained prominence in higher education due to technological advancements, offering institutions a competitive edge (Valverde-Berrocoso et al., 2020 ). Especially during conditions like the COVID-19 pandemic, electronic communication was utilized across the globe as a feasible means to overcome barriers and enhance interactions (Bozkurt, 2019 ).

Distance learning, characterized by flexibility, became crucial when traditional in-person classes are hindered by unforeseen circumstance such as the ones posed by COVID-19 (Arkorful and Abaidoo, 2015 ). Scholars argue that it allows students to learn at their own pace, often referred to as self-directed learning (Hiemstra, 1994 ) or self-education (Gadamer, 2001 ). Additional advantages include accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility (Sadeghi, 2019 ).

However, distance learning is not immune to its own set of challenges. Technical impediments, encompassing network issues, device limitations, and communication hiccups, represent formidable hurdles (Sadeghi, 2019 ). Furthermore, concerns about potential distractions in the online learning environment, fueled by the ubiquity of the internet and social media, have surfaced (Hall et al., 2020 ; Ravizza et al., 2017 ). The absence of traditional face-to-face interactions among students and between students and instructors is also viewed as a potential drawback (Sadeghi, 2019 ).

Given the evolving understanding of the pros and cons of distance learning, this study aims to contribute to the existing literature by assessing the effectiveness of distance learning, specifically in terms of student achievement, as compared to in-person classroom learning at King Saud University, one of Saudi Arabia’s largest higher education institutions.

Academic achievement: in-person vs online learning

The primary driving force behind the rapid integration of technology in education has been its emphasis on student performance (Lai and Bower, 2019 ). Over the past decade, numerous studies have undertaken comparisons of student academic achievement in online and in-person settings (e.g., Bettinger et al., 2017 ; Fischer et al., 2020 ; Iglesias-Pradas et al., 2021 ). This section offers a concise review of the disparities in academic achievement between college students engaged in in-person and online learning, as identified in existing research.

A number of studies point to the superiority of traditional in-person education over online learning in terms of academic outcomes. For example, Fischer et al. ( 2020 ) conducted a comprehensive study involving 72,000 university students across 433 subjects, revealing that online students tend to achieve slightly lower academic results than their in-class counterparts. Similarly, Bettinger et al. ( 2017 ) found that students at for-profit online universities generally underperformed when compared to their in-person peers. Supporting this trend, Figlio et al. ( 2013 ) indicated that in-person instruction consistently produced better results, particularly among specific subgroups like males, lower-performing students, and Hispanic learners. Additionally, Kaupp’s ( 2012 ) research in California community colleges demonstrated that online students faced lower completion and success rates compared to their traditional in-person counterparts (Fig. 1 ).

The figure compared student achievement in the final tests in the five courses by year, using independent-samples t-tests; the results show a statistically-significant drop in test scores from 2020 (in person) to 2021 (online) for all courses except CT_101.

In contrast, other studies present evidence of online students outperforming their in-person peers. For example, Iglesias-Pradas et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a comparative analysis of 43 bachelor courses at Telecommunication Engineering College in Malaysia, revealing that online students achieved higher academic outcomes than their in-person counterparts. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Gonzalez et al. ( 2020 ) found that students engaged in online learning performed better than those who had previously taken the same subjects in traditional in-class settings.

Expanding on this topic, several studies have reported mixed results when comparing the academic performance of online and in-person students, with various student and instructor factors emerging as influential variables. Chesser et al. ( 2020 ) noted that student traits such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extraversion play a substantial role in academic achievement, regardless of the learning environment—be it traditional in-person classrooms or online settings. Furthermore, Cacault et al. ( 2021 ) discovered that online students with higher academic proficiency tend to outperform those with lower academic capabilities, suggesting that differences in students’ academic abilities may impact their performance. In contrast, Bergstrand and Savage ( 2013 ) found that online classes received lower overall ratings and exhibited a less respectful learning environment when compared to in-person instruction. Nevertheless, they also observed that the teaching efficiency of both in-class and online courses varied significantly depending on the instructors’ backgrounds and approaches. These findings underscore the multifaceted nature of the online vs. in-person learning debate, highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of the factors at play.

Theoretical framework

Constructivism is a well-established learning theory that places learners at the forefront of their educational experience, emphasizing their active role in constructing knowledge through interactions with their environment (Duffy and Jonassen, 2009 ). According to constructivist principles, learners build their understanding by assimilating new information into their existing cognitive frameworks (Vygotsky, 1978 ). This theory highlights the importance of context, active engagement, and the social nature of learning (Dewey, 1938 ). Constructivist approaches often involve hands-on activities, problem-solving tasks, and opportunities for collaborative exploration (Brooks and Brooks, 1999 ).

In the realm of education, subject-specific pedagogy emerges as a vital perspective that acknowledges the distinctive nature of different academic disciplines (Shulman, 1986 ). It suggests that teaching methods should be tailored to the specific characteristics of each subject, recognizing that subjects like mathematics, literature, or science require different approaches to facilitate effective learning (Shulman, 1987 ). Subject-specific pedagogy emphasizes that the methods of instruction should mirror the ways experts in a particular field think, reason, and engage with their subject matter (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner, 2005 ).

When applying these principles to the design of instruction for online and in-person learning environments, the significance of adapting methods becomes even more pronounced. Online learning often requires unique approaches due to its reliance on technology, asynchronous interactions, and potential for reduced social presence (Anderson, 2003 ). In-person learning, on the other hand, benefits from face-to-face interactions and immediate feedback (Allen and Seaman, 2016 ). Here, the interplay of constructivism and subject-specific pedagogy becomes evident.

Online learning. In an online environment, constructivist principles can be upheld by creating interactive online activities that promote exploration, reflection, and collaborative learning (Salmon, 2000 ). Discussion forums, virtual labs, and multimedia presentations can provide opportunities for students to actively engage with the subject matter (Harasim, 2017 ). By integrating subject-specific pedagogy, educators can design online content that mirrors the discipline’s methodologies while leveraging technology for authentic experiences (Koehler and Mishra, 2009 ). For instance, an online history course might incorporate virtual museum tours, primary source analysis, and collaborative timeline projects.

In-person learning. In a traditional brick-and-mortar classroom setting, constructivist methods can be implemented through group activities, problem-solving tasks, and in-depth discussions that encourage active participation (Jonassen et al., 2003 ). Subject-specific pedagogy complements this by shaping instructional methods to align with the inherent characteristics of the subject (Hattie, 2009). For instance, in a physics class, hands-on experiments and real-world applications can bring theoretical concepts to life (Hake, 1998 ).

In sum, the fusion of constructivism and subject-specific pedagogy offers a versatile approach to instructional design that adapts to different learning environments (Garrison, 2011 ). By incorporating the principles of both theories, educators can tailor their methods to suit the unique demands of online and in-person learning, ultimately providing students with engaging and effective learning experiences that align with the nature of the subject matter and the mode of instruction.

Course description

The Self-Development Skills Department at King Saud University (KSU) offers five mandatory freshman-level courses. These courses aim to foster advanced thinking skills and cultivate scientific research abilities in students. They do so by imparting essential skills, identifying higher-level thinking patterns, and facilitating hands-on experience in scientific research. The design of these classes is centered around aiding students’ smooth transition into university life. Brief descriptions of these courses are as follows:

University Skills 101 (CI 101) is a three-hour credit course designed to nurture essential academic, communication, and personal skills among all preparatory year students at King Saud University. The primary goal of this course is to equip students with the practical abilities they need to excel in their academic pursuits and navigate their university lives effectively. CI 101 comprises 12 sessions and is an integral part of the curriculum for all incoming freshmen, ensuring a standardized foundation for skill development.

Fitness and Health 101 (FAJB 101) is a one-hour credit course. FAJB 101 focuses on the aspects of self-development skills in terms of health and physical, and the skills related to personal health, nutrition, sports, preventive, psychological, reproductive, and first aid. This course aims to motivate students’ learning process through entertainment, sports activities, and physical exercises to maintain their health. This course is required for all incoming freshmen students at King Saud University.

Entrepreneurship 101 (ENT 101) is a one-hour- credit course. ENT 101 aims to develop students’ skills related to entrepreneurship. The course provides students with knowledge and skills to generate and transform ideas and innovations into practical commercial projects in business settings. The entrepreneurship course consists of 14 sessions and is taught only to students in the business track.

Computer Skills 101 (CT 101) is a three-hour credit course. This provides students with the basic computer skills, e.g., components, operating systems, applications, and communication backup. The course explores data visualization, introductory level of modern programming with algorithms and information security. CT 101 course is taught for all tracks except those in the human track.

Computer Skills 102 (CT 102) is a three-hour credit course. It provides IT skills to the students to utilize computers with high efficiency, develop students’ research and scientific skills, and increase capability to design basic educational software. CT 102 course focuses on operating systems such as Microsoft Office. This course is only taught for students in the human track.

Structure and activities

These courses ranged from one to three hours. A one-hour credit means that students must take an hour of the class each week during the academic semester. The same arrangement would apply to two and three credit-hour courses. The types of activities in each course are shown in Table 1 .

At King Saud University, each semester spans 15 weeks in duration. The total number of semester hours allocated to each course serves as an indicator of its significance within the broader context of the academic program, including the diverse tracks available to students. Throughout the two years under study (i.e., 2020 and 2021), course placements (fall or spring), course content, and the organizational structure remained consistent and uniform.

Participants

The study’s data comes from test scores of a cohort of 16,722 first-year college students enrolled at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia over the span of two academic years: 2020 and 2021. Among these students, 8297 were engaged in traditional, in-person learning in 2020, while 8425 had transitioned to online instruction for the same courses in 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2020, the student population consisted of 51.5% females and 48.5% males. However, in 2021, there was a reversal in these proportions, with female students accounting for 48.5% and male students comprising 51.5% of the total participants.

Regarding student enrollment in the five courses, Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown by average class size, admission scores, and the number of students enrolled in the courses during the two years covered by this study. While the total number of students in each course remained relatively consistent across the two years, there were noticeable fluctuations in average class sizes. Specifically, four out of the five courses experienced substantial increases in class size, with some nearly doubling in size (e.g., ENT_101 and CT_102), while one course (CT_101) showed a reduction in its average class size.

In this study, it must be noted that while some students enrolled in up to three different courses within the same academic year, none repeated the same exam in both years. Specifically, students who failed to pass their courses in 2020 were required to complete them in summer sessions and were consequently not included in this study’s dataset. To ensure clarity and precision in our analysis, the research focused exclusively on student test scores to evaluate and compare the academic effectiveness of online and traditional in-person learning methods. This approach was chosen to provide a clear, direct comparison of the educational impacts associated with each teaching format.

Descriptive analysis of the final exam scores for the two years (2020 and 2021) were conducted. Additionally, comparison of student outcomes in in-person classes in 2020 to their online platform peers in 2021 were conducted using an independent-samples t -test. Subsequently, in order to address potential disparities between the two groups arising from variables such as gender, class size, and admission scores (which serve as an indicator of students’ academic aptitude and pre-enrollment knowledge), multiple regression analyses were conducted. In these multivariate analyses, outcomes of both in-person and online cohorts were assessed within their respective tracks. By carefully considering essential aforementioned variables linked to student performance, the study aimed to ensure a comprehensive and equitable evaluation.

Study instrument

The study obtained students’ final exam scores for the years 2020 (in-person) and 2021 (online) from the school’s records office through their examination management system. In the preparatory year at King Saud University, final exams for all courses are developed by committees composed of faculty members from each department. To ensure valid comparisons, the final exam questions, crafted by departmental committees of professors, remained consistent and uniform for the two years under examination.

Table 3 provides a comprehensive assessment of the reliability of all five tests included in our analysis. These tests exhibit a strong degree of internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients spanning a range from 0.77 to 0.86. This robust and consistent internal consistency measurement underscores the dependable nature of these tests, affirming their reliability and suitability for the study’s objectives.

In terms of assessing test validity, content validity was ensured through a thorough review by university subject matter experts, resulting in test items that align well with the content domain and learning objectives. Additionally, criterion-related validity was established by correlating students’ admissions test scores with their final required freshman test scores in the five subject areas, showing a moderate and acceptable relationship (0.37 to 0.56) between the test scores and the external admissions test. Finally, construct validity was confirmed through reviews by experienced subject instructors, leading to improvements in test content. With guidance from university subject experts, construct validity was established, affirming the effectiveness of the final tests in assessing students’ subject knowledge at the end of their coursework.

Collectively, these validity and reliability measures affirm the soundness and integrity of the final subject tests, establishing their suitability as effective assessment tools for evaluating students’ knowledge in their five mandatory freshman courses at King Saud University.

After obtaining research approval from the Research Committee at King Saud University, the coordinators of the five courses (CI_101, ENT_101, CT_101, CT_102, and FAJB_101) supplied the researchers with the final exam scores of all first-year preparatory year students at King Saud University for the initial semester of the academic years 2020 and 2021. The sample encompassed all students who had completed these five courses during both years, resulting in a total of 16,722 students forming the final group of participants.

Limitations

Several limitations warrant acknowledgment in this study. First, the research was conducted within a well-resourced major public university. As such, the experiences with online classes at other types of institutions (e.g., community colleges, private institutions) may vary significantly. Additionally, the limited data pertaining to in-class teaching practices and the diversity of learning activities across different courses represents a gap that could have provided valuable insights for a more thorough interpretation and explanation of the study’s findings.

To compare student achievement in the final tests in the five courses by year, independent-samples t -tests were conducted. Table 4 shows a statistically-significant drop in test scores from 2020 (in person) to 2021 (online) for all courses except CT_101. The biggest decline was with CT_102 with 3.58 points, and the smallest decline was with CI_101 with 0.18 points.

However, such simple comparison of means between the two years (via t -tests) by subjects does not account for the differences in gender composition, class size, and admission scores between the two academic years, all of which have been associated with student outcomes (e.g., Ho and Kelman, 2014 ; De Paola et al., 2013 ). To account for such potential confounding variables, multiple regressions were conducted to compare the 2 years’ results while controlling for these three factors associated with student achievement.

Table 5 presents the regression results, illustrating the variation in final exam scores between 2020 and 2021, while controlling for gender, class size, and admission scores. Importantly, these results diverge significantly from the outcomes obtained through independent-sample t -test analyses.

Taking into consideration the variables mentioned earlier, students in the 2021 online cohort demonstrated superior performance compared to their 2020 in-person counterparts in CI_101, FAJB_101, and CT_101, with score advantages of 0.89, 0.56, and 5.28 points, respectively. Conversely, in the case of ENT_101, online students in 2021 scored 0.69 points lower than their 2020 in-person counterparts. With CT_102, there were no statistically significant differences in final exam scores between the two cohorts of students.

The study sought to assess the effectiveness of distance learning compared to in-person learning in the higher education setting in Saudi Arabia. We analyzed the final exam scores of 16,722 first-year college students in King Saud University in five required subjects (i.e., CI_101, ENT_101, CT_101, CT_102, and FAJB_101). The study initially performed a simple comparison of mean scores by tracks by year (via t -tests) and then a number of multiple regression analyses which controlled for class size, gender composition, and admission scores.

Overall, the study’s more in-depth findings using multiple regression painted a wholly different picture than the results obtained using t -tests. After controlling for class size, gender composition, and admissions scores, online students in 2021 performed better than their in-person instruction peers in 2020 in University Skills (CI_101), Fitness and Health (FAJB_101), and Computer Skills (CT_101), whereas in-person students outperformed their online peers in Entrepreneurship (ENT_101). There was no meaningful difference in outcomes for students in the Computer Skills (CT_102) course for the two years.

In light of these findings, it raises the question: why do we observe minimal differences (less than a one-point gain or loss) in student outcomes in courses like University Skills, Fitness and Health, Entrepreneurship, and Advanced Computer Skills based on the mode of instruction? Is it possible that when subjects are primarily at a basic or introductory level, as is the case with these courses, the mode of instruction may have a limited impact as long as the concepts are effectively communicated in a manner familiar and accessible to students?

In today’s digital age, one could argue that students in more developed countries, such as Saudi Arabia, generally possess the skills and capabilities to effectively engage with materials presented in both in-person and online formats. However, there is a notable exception in the Basic Computer Skills course, where the online cohort outperformed their in-person counterparts by more than 5 points. Insights from interviews with the instructors of this course suggest that this result may be attributed to the course’s basic and conceptual nature, coupled with the availability of instructional videos that students could revisit at their own pace.

Given that students enter this course with varying levels of computer skills, self-paced learning may have allowed them to cover course materials at their preferred speed, concentrating on less familiar topics while swiftly progressing through concepts they already understood. The advantages of such self-paced learning have been documented by scholars like Tullis and Benjamin ( 2011 ), who found that self-paced learners often outperform those who spend the same amount of time studying identical materials. This approach allows learners to allocate their time more effectively according to their individual learning pace, providing greater ownership and control over their learning experience. As such, in courses like introductory computer skills, it can be argued that becoming familiar with fundamental and conceptual topics may not require extensive in-class collaboration. Instead, it may be more about exposure to and digestion of materials in a format and at a pace tailored to students with diverse backgrounds, knowledge levels, and skill sets.

Further investigation is needed to more fully understand why some classes benefitted from online instruction while others did not, and vice versa. Perhaps, it could be posited that some content areas are more conducive to in-person (or online) format while others are not. Or it could be that the different results of the two modes of learning were driven by students of varying academic abilities and engagement, with low-achieving students being more vulnerable to the limitations of online learning (e.g., Kofoed et al., 2021 ). Whatever the reasons, the results of the current study can be enlightened by a more in-depth analysis of the various factors associated with such different forms of learning. Moreover, although not clear cut, what the current study does provide is additional evidence against any dire consequences to student learning (at least in the higher ed setting) as a result of sudden increase in online learning with possible benefits of its wider use being showcased.

Based on the findings of this study, we recommend that educational leaders adopt a measured approach to online learning—a stance that neither fully embraces nor outright denounces it. The impact on students’ experiences and engagement appears to vary depending on the subjects and methods of instruction, sometimes hindering, other times promoting effective learning, while some classes remain relatively unaffected.

Rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach, educational leaders should be open to exploring the nuances behind these outcomes. This involves examining why certain courses thrived with online delivery, while others either experienced a decline in student achievement or remained largely unaffected. By exploring these differentiated outcomes associated with diverse instructional formats, leaders in higher education institutions and beyond can make informed decisions about resource allocation. For instance, resources could be channeled towards in-person learning for courses that benefit from it, while simultaneously expanding online access for courses that have demonstrated improved outcomes through its virtual format. This strategic approach not only optimizes resource allocation but could also open up additional revenue streams for the institution.

Considering the enduring presence of online learning, both before the pandemic and its accelerated adoption due to Covid-19, there is an increasing need for institutions of learning and scholars in higher education, as well as other fields, to prioritize the study of its effects and optimal utilization. This study, which compares student outcomes between two cohorts exposed to in-person and online instruction (before and during Covid-19) at the largest university in Saudi Arabia, represents a meaningful step in this direction.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Allen IE, Seaman J (2016) Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States . Babson Survey Group

Anderson T (2003) Getting the mix right again: an updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn , 4 (2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149

Arkorful V, Abaidoo N (2015) The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. Int J Instruct Technol Distance Learn 12(1):29–42

Google Scholar  

Aucejo EM, French J, Araya MP, Zafar B (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey. Journal of Public Economics 191:104271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104271

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Azevedo JP, Hasan A, Goldemberg D, Iqbal SA, and Geven K (2020) Simulating the potential impacts of COVID-19 school closures on schooling and learning outcomes: a set of global estimates. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper

Bergstrand K, Savage SV (2013) The chalkboard versus the avatar: Comparing the effectiveness of online and in-class courses. Teach Sociol 41(3):294–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X13479949

Article   Google Scholar  

Bettinger EP, Fox L, Loeb S, Taylor ES (2017) Virtual classrooms: How online college courses affect student success. Am Econ Rev 107(9):2855–2875. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151193

Bozkurt A (2019) From distance education to open and distance learning: a holistic evaluation of history, definitions, and theories. Handbook of research on learning in the age of transhumanism , 252–273. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8431-5.ch016

Brooks JG, Brooks MG (1999) In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms . Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Cacault MP, Hildebrand C, Laurent-Lucchetti J, Pellizzari M (2021) Distance learning in higher education: evidence from a randomized experiment. J Eur Econ Assoc 19(4):2322–2372. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvaa060

Chesser S, Murrah W, Forbes SA (2020) Impact of personality on choice of instructional delivery and students’ performance. Am Distance Educ 34(3):211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1705116

Christensen CM, Raynor M, McDonald R (2015) What is disruptive innovation? Harv Bus Rev 93(12):44–53

Cochran-Smith M, Zeichner KM (2005) Studying teacher education: the report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Choice Rev Online 43 (4). https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.43-2338

De Paola M, Ponzo M, Scoppa V (2013) Class size effects on student achievement: heterogeneity across abilities and fields. Educ Econ 21(2):135–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2010.511811

Dewey, J (1938) Experience and education . Simon & Schuster

Di Pietro G, Biagi F, Costa P, Karpinski Z, Mazza J (2020) The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: reflections based on the existing literature and recent international datasets. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

Duffy TM, Jonassen DH (2009) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation . Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

Edvardsson IR, Oskarsson GK (2008) Distance education and academic achievement in business administration: the case of the University of Akureyri. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn, 9 (3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i3.542

Figlio D, Rush M, Yin L (2013) Is it live or is it internet? Experimental estimates of the effects of online instruction on student learning. J Labor Econ 31(4):763–784. https://doi.org/10.3386/w16089

Fischer C, Xu D, Rodriguez F, Denaro K, Warschauer M (2020) Effects of course modality in summer session: enrollment patterns and student performance in face-to-face and online classes. Internet Higher Educ 45:100710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100710

Gadamer HG (2001) Education is self‐education. J Philos Educ 35(4):529–538

Garrison DR (2011) E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838761

Gonzalez T, de la Rubia MA, Hincz KP, Comas-Lopez M, Subirats L, Fort S, & Sacha GM (2020) Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PLOS One 15 (10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239490

Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66(1):64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Hall ACG, Lineweaver TT, Hogan EE, O’Brien SW (2020) On or off task: the negative influence of laptops on neighboring students’ learning depends on how they are used. Comput Educ 153:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103901

Harasim L (2017) Learning theory and online technologies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846933

Hiemstra R (1994) Self-directed learning. In WJ Rothwell & KJ Sensenig (Eds), The sourcebook for self-directed learning (pp 9–20). HRD Press

Ho DE, Kelman MG (2014) Does class size affect the gender gap? A natural experiment in law. J Legal Stud 43(2):291–321

Iglesias-Pradas S, Hernández-García Á, Chaparro-Peláez J, Prieto JL (2021) Emergency remote teaching and students’ academic performance in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study. Comput Hum Behav 119:106713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106713

Jepsen C (2015) Class size: does it matter for student achievement? IZA World of Labor . https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.190

Jonassen DH, Howland J, Moore J, & Marra RM (2003) Learning to solve problems with technology: a constructivist perspective (2nd ed). Columbus: Prentice Hall

Kaupp R (2012) Online penalty: the impact of online instruction on the Latino-White achievement gap. J Appli Res Community Coll 19(2):3–11. https://doi.org/10.46569/10211.3/99362

Koehler MJ, Mishra P (2009) What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemp Issues Technol Teacher Educ 9(1):60–70

Kofoed M, Gebhart L, Gilmore D, & Moschitto R (2021) Zooming to class?: Experimental evidence on college students’ online learning during COVID-19. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3846700

Kuhfeld M, Soland J, Tarasawa B, Johnson A, Ruzek E, Liu J (2020) Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educ Res 49(8):549–565. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x20965918

Lai JW, Bower M (2019) How is the use of technology in education evaluated? A systematic review. Comput Educ 133:27–42

Meinck S, Brese F (2019) Trends in gender gaps: using 20 years of evidence from TIMSS. Large-Scale Assess Educ 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-019-0076-3

Radha R, Mahalakshmi K, Kumar VS, Saravanakumar AR (2020) E-Learning during lockdown of COVID-19 pandemic: a global perspective. Int J Control Autom 13(4):1088–1099

Ravizza SM, Uitvlugt MG, Fenn KM (2017) Logged in and zoned out: How laptop Internet use relates to classroom learning. Psychol Sci 28(2):171–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679761667731

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sadeghi M (2019) A shift from classroom to distance learning: advantages and limitations. Int J Res Engl Educ 4(1):80–88

Salmon G (2000) E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203816684

Shulman LS (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Edu Res 15(2):4–14

Shulman LS (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harv Educ Rev 57(1):1–22

Tullis JG, Benjamin AS (2011) On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. J Mem Lang 64(2):109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.002

Valverde-Berrocoso J, Garrido-Arroyo MDC, Burgos-Videla C, Morales-Cevallos MB (2020) Trends in educational research about e-learning: a systematic literature review (2009–2018). Sustainability 12(12):5153

Volk F, Floyd CG, Shaler L, Ferguson L, Gavulic AM (2020) Active duty military learners and distance education: factors of persistence and attrition. Am J Distance Educ 34(3):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1708842

Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sports and Recreation Management, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Bandar N. Alarifi

Division of Research and Doctoral Studies, Concordia University Chicago, 7400 Augusta Street, River Forest, IL, 60305, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Bandar Alarifi collected and organized data for the five courses and wrote the manuscript. Dr. Steve Song analyzed and interpreted the data regarding student achievement and revised the manuscript. These authors jointly supervised this work and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bandar N. Alarifi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at King Saud University on 25 March 2021 (No. 4/4/255639). This research does not involve the collection or analysis of data that could be used to identify participants (including email addresses or other contact details). All information is anonymized and the submission does not include images that may identify the person. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alarifi, B.N., Song, S. Online vs in-person learning in higher education: effects on student achievement and recommendations for leadership. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 86 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02590-1

Download citation

Received : 07 June 2023

Accepted : 21 December 2023

Published : 09 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02590-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

A comparative analysis of student performance in an online vs. face-to-face environmental science course from 2009 to 2016.

• Department of Biology, Fort Valley State University, Fort Valley, GA, United States

A growing number of students are now opting for online classes. They find the traditional classroom modality restrictive, inflexible, and impractical. In this age of technological advancement, schools can now provide effective classroom teaching via the Web. This shift in pedagogical medium is forcing academic institutions to rethink how they want to deliver their course content. The overarching purpose of this research was to determine which teaching method proved more effective over the 8-year period. The scores of 548 students, 401 traditional students and 147 online students, in an environmental science class were used to determine which instructional modality generated better student performance. In addition to the overarching objective, we also examined score variabilities between genders and classifications to determine if teaching modality had a greater impact on specific groups. No significant difference in student performance between online and face-to-face (F2F) learners overall, with respect to gender, or with respect to class rank were found. These data demonstrate the ability to similarly translate environmental science concepts for non-STEM majors in both traditional and online platforms irrespective of gender or class rank. A potential exists for increasing the number of non-STEM majors engaged in citizen science using the flexibility of online learning to teach environmental science core concepts.

Introduction

The advent of online education has made it possible for students with busy lives and limited flexibility to obtain a quality education. As opposed to traditional classroom teaching, Web-based instruction has made it possible to offer classes worldwide through a single Internet connection. Although it boasts several advantages over traditional education, online instruction still has its drawbacks, including limited communal synergies. Still, online education seems to be the path many students are taking to secure a degree.

This study compared the effectiveness of online vs. traditional instruction in an environmental studies class. Using a single indicator, we attempted to see if student performance was effected by instructional medium. This study sought to compare online and F2F teaching on three levels—pure modality, gender, and class rank. Through these comparisons, we investigated whether one teaching modality was significantly more effective than the other. Although there were limitations to the study, this examination was conducted to provide us with additional measures to determine if students performed better in one environment over another ( Mozes-Carmel and Gold, 2009 ).

The methods, procedures, and operationalization tools used in this assessment can be expanded upon in future quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method designs to further analyze this topic. Moreover, the results of this study serve as a backbone for future meta-analytical studies.

Origins of Online Education

Computer-assisted instruction is changing the pedagogical landscape as an increasing number of students are seeking online education. Colleges and universities are now touting the efficiencies of Web-based education and are rapidly implementing online classes to meet student needs worldwide. One study reported “increases in the number of online courses given by universities have been quite dramatic over the last couple of years” ( Lundberg et al., 2008 ). Think tanks are also disseminating statistics on Web-based instruction. “In 2010, the Sloan Consortium found a 17% increase in online students from the years before, beating the 12% increase from the previous year” ( Keramidas, 2012 ).

Contrary to popular belief, online education is not a new phenomenon. The first correspondence and distance learning educational programs were initiated in the mid-1800s by the University of London. This model of educational learning was dependent on the postal service and therefore wasn't seen in American until the later Nineteenth century. It was in 1873 when what is considered the first official correspondence educational program was established in Boston, Massachusetts known as the “Society to Encourage Home Studies.” Since then, non-traditional study has grown into what it is today considered a more viable online instructional modality. Technological advancement indubitably helped improve the speed and accessibility of distance learning courses; now students worldwide could attend classes from the comfort of their own homes.

Qualities of Online and Traditional Face to Face (F2F) Classroom Education

Online and traditional education share many qualities. Students are still required to attend class, learn the material, submit assignments, and complete group projects. While teachers, still have to design curriculums, maximize instructional quality, answer class questions, motivate students to learn, and grade assignments. Despite these basic similarities, there are many differences between the two modalities. Traditionally, classroom instruction is known to be teacher-centered and requires passive learning by the student, while online instruction is often student-centered and requires active learning.

In teacher-centered, or passive learning, the instructor usually controls classroom dynamics. The teacher lectures and comments, while students listen, take notes, and ask questions. In student-centered, or active learning, the students usually determine classroom dynamics as they independently analyze the information, construct questions, and ask the instructor for clarification. In this scenario, the teacher, not the student, is listening, formulating, and responding ( Salcedo, 2010 ).

In education, change comes with questions. Despite all current reports championing online education, researchers are still questioning its efficacy. Research is still being conducted on the effectiveness of computer-assisted teaching. Cost-benefit analysis, student experience, and student performance are now being carefully considered when determining whether online education is a viable substitute for classroom teaching. This decision process will most probably carry into the future as technology improves and as students demand better learning experiences.

Thus far, “literature on the efficacy of online courses is expansive and divided” ( Driscoll et al., 2012 ). Some studies favor traditional classroom instruction, stating “online learners will quit more easily” and “online learning can lack feedback for both students and instructors” ( Atchley et al., 2013 ). Because of these shortcomings, student retention, satisfaction, and performance can be compromised. Like traditional teaching, distance learning also has its apologists who aver online education produces students who perform as well or better than their traditional classroom counterparts ( Westhuis et al., 2006 ).

The advantages and disadvantages of both instructional modalities need to be fully fleshed out and examined to truly determine which medium generates better student performance. Both modalities have been proven to be relatively effective, but, as mentioned earlier, the question to be asked is if one is truly better than the other.

Student Need for Online Education

With technological advancement, learners now want quality programs they can access from anywhere and at any time. Because of these demands, online education has become a viable, alluring option to business professionals, stay-at home-parents, and other similar populations. In addition to flexibility and access, multiple other face value benefits, including program choice and time efficiency, have increased the attractiveness of distance learning ( Wladis et al., 2015 ).

First, prospective students want to be able to receive a quality education without having to sacrifice work time, family time, and travel expense. Instead of having to be at a specific location at a specific time, online educational students have the freedom to communicate with instructors, address classmates, study materials, and complete assignments from any Internet-accessible point ( Richardson and Swan, 2003 ). This type of flexibility grants students much-needed mobility and, in turn, helps make the educational process more enticing. According to Lundberg et al. (2008) “the student may prefer to take an online course or a complete online-based degree program as online courses offer more flexible study hours; for example, a student who has a job could attend the virtual class watching instructional film and streaming videos of lectures after working hours.”

Moreover, more study time can lead to better class performance—more chapters read, better quality papers, and more group project time. Studies on the relationship between study time and performance are limited; however, it is often assumed the online student will use any surplus time to improve grades ( Bigelow, 2009 ). It is crucial to mention the link between flexibility and student performance as grades are the lone performance indicator of this research.

Second, online education also offers more program choices. With traditional classroom study, students are forced to take courses only at universities within feasible driving distance or move. Web-based instruction, on the other hand, grants students electronic access to multiple universities and course offerings ( Salcedo, 2010 ). Therefore, students who were once limited to a few colleges within their immediate area can now access several colleges worldwide from a single convenient location.

Third, with online teaching, students who usually don't participate in class may now voice their opinions and concerns. As they are not in a classroom setting, quieter students may feel more comfortable partaking in class dialogue without being recognized or judged. This, in turn, may increase average class scores ( Driscoll et al., 2012 ).

Benefits of Face-to-Face (F2F) Education via Traditional Classroom Instruction

The other modality, classroom teaching, is a well-established instructional medium in which teaching style and structure have been refined over several centuries. Face-to-face instruction has numerous benefits not found in its online counterpart ( Xu and Jaggars, 2016 ).

First and, perhaps most importantly, classroom instruction is extremely dynamic. Traditional classroom teaching provides real-time face-to-face instruction and sparks innovative questions. It also allows for immediate teacher response and more flexible content delivery. Online instruction dampens the learning process because students must limit their questions to blurbs, then grant the teacher and fellow classmates time to respond ( Salcedo, 2010 ). Over time, however, online teaching will probably improve, enhancing classroom dynamics and bringing students face-to face with their peers/instructors. However, for now, face-to-face instruction provides dynamic learning attributes not found in Web-based teaching ( Kemp and Grieve, 2014 ).

Second, traditional classroom learning is a well-established modality. Some students are opposed to change and view online instruction negatively. These students may be technophobes, more comfortable with sitting in a classroom taking notes than sitting at a computer absorbing data. Other students may value face-to-face interaction, pre and post-class discussions, communal learning, and organic student-teacher bonding ( Roval and Jordan, 2004 ). They may see the Internet as an impediment to learning. If not comfortable with the instructional medium, some students may shun classroom activities; their grades might slip and their educational interest might vanish. Students, however, may eventually adapt to online education. With more universities employing computer-based training, students may be forced to take only Web-based courses. Albeit true, this doesn't eliminate the fact some students prefer classroom intimacy.

Third, face-to-face instruction doesn't rely upon networked systems. In online learning, the student is dependent upon access to an unimpeded Internet connection. If technical problems occur, online students may not be able to communicate, submit assignments, or access study material. This problem, in turn, may frustrate the student, hinder performance, and discourage learning.

Fourth, campus education provides students with both accredited staff and research libraries. Students can rely upon administrators to aid in course selection and provide professorial recommendations. Library technicians can help learners edit their papers, locate valuable study material, and improve study habits. Research libraries may provide materials not accessible by computer. In all, the traditional classroom experience gives students important auxiliary tools to maximize classroom performance.

Fifth, traditional classroom degrees trump online educational degrees in terms of hiring preferences. Many academic and professional organizations do not consider online degrees on par with campus-based degrees ( Columbaro and Monaghan, 2009 ). Often, prospective hiring bodies think Web-based education is a watered-down, simpler means of attaining a degree, often citing poor curriculums, unsupervised exams, and lenient homework assignments as detriments to the learning process.

Finally, research shows online students are more likely to quit class if they do not like the instructor, the format, or the feedback. Because they work independently, relying almost wholly upon self-motivation and self-direction, online learners may be more inclined to withdraw from class if they do not get immediate results.

The classroom setting provides more motivation, encouragement, and direction. Even if a student wanted to quit during the first few weeks of class, he/she may be deterred by the instructor and fellow students. F2F instructors may be able to adjust the structure and teaching style of the class to improve student retention ( Kemp and Grieve, 2014 ). With online teaching, instructors are limited to electronic correspondence and may not pick-up on verbal and non-verbal cues.

Both F2F and online teaching have their pros and cons. More studies comparing the two modalities to achieve specific learning outcomes in participating learner populations are required before well-informed decisions can be made. This study examined the two modalities over eight (8) years on three different levels. Based on the aforementioned information, the following research questions resulted.

RQ1: Are there significant differences in academic performance between online and F2F students enrolled in an environmental science course?

RQ2: Are there gender differences between online and F2F student performance in an environmental science course?

RQ3: Are there significant differences between the performance of online and F2F students in an environmental science course with respect to class rank?

The results of this study are intended to edify teachers, administrators, and policymakers on which medium may work best.

Methodology

Participants.

The study sample consisted of 548 FVSU students who completed the Environmental Science class between 2009 and 2016. The final course grades of the participants served as the primary comparative factor in assessing performance differences between online and F2F instruction. Of the 548 total participants, 147 were online students while 401 were traditional students. This disparity was considered a limitation of the study. Of the 548 total students, 246 were male, while 302 were female. The study also used students from all four class ranks. There were 187 freshmen, 184 sophomores, 76 juniors, and 101 seniors. This was a convenience, non-probability sample so the composition of the study set was left to the discretion of the instructor. No special preferences or weights were given to students based upon gender or rank. Each student was considered a single, discrete entity or statistic.

All sections of the course were taught by a full-time biology professor at FVSU. The professor had over 10 years teaching experience in both classroom and F2F modalities. The professor was considered an outstanding tenured instructor with strong communication and management skills.

The F2F class met twice weekly in an on-campus classroom. Each class lasted 1 h and 15 min. The online class covered the same material as the F2F class, but was done wholly on-line using the Desire to Learn (D2L) e-learning system. Online students were expected to spend as much time studying as their F2F counterparts; however, no tracking measure was implemented to gauge e-learning study time. The professor combined textbook learning, lecture and class discussion, collaborative projects, and assessment tasks to engage students in the learning process.

This study did not differentiate between part-time and full-time students. Therefore, many part-time students may have been included in this study. This study also did not differentiate between students registered primarily at FVSU or at another institution. Therefore, many students included in this study may have used FVSU as an auxiliary institution to complete their environmental science class requirement.

Test Instruments

In this study, student performance was operationalized by final course grades. The final course grade was derived from test, homework, class participation, and research project scores. The four aforementioned assessments were valid and relevant; they were useful in gauging student ability and generating objective performance measurements. The final grades were converted from numerical scores to traditional GPA letters.

Data Collection Procedures

The sample 548 student grades were obtained from FVSU's Office of Institutional Research Planning and Effectiveness (OIRPE). The OIRPE released the grades to the instructor with the expectation the instructor would maintain confidentiality and not disclose said information to third parties. After the data was obtained, the instructor analyzed and processed the data though SPSS software to calculate specific values. These converted values were subsequently used to draw conclusions and validate the hypothesis.

Summary of the Results: The chi-square analysis showed no significant difference in student performance between online and face-to-face (F2F) learners [χ 2 (4, N = 548) = 6.531, p > 0.05]. The independent sample t -test showed no significant difference in student performance between online and F2F learners with respect to gender [ t (145) = 1.42, p = 0.122]. The 2-way ANOVA showed no significant difference in student performance between online and F2F learners with respect to class rank ( Girard et al., 2016 ).

Research question #1 was to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the academic performance of online and F2F students.

Research Question 1

The first research question investigated if there was a difference in student performance between F2F and online learners.

To investigate the first research question, we used a traditional chi-square method to analyze the data. The chi-square analysis is particularly useful for this type of comparison because it allows us to determine if the relationship between teaching modality and performance in our sample set can be extended to the larger population. The chi-square method provides us with a numerical result which can be used to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the two groups.

Table 1 shows us the mean and SD for modality and for gender. It is a general breakdown of numbers to visually elucidate any differences between scores and deviations. The mean GPA for both modalities is similar with F2F learners scoring a 69.35 and online learners scoring a 68.64. Both groups had fairly similar SDs. A stronger difference can be seen between the GPAs earned by men and women. Men had a 3.23 mean GPA while women had a 2.9 mean GPA. The SDs for both groups were almost identical. Even though the 0.33 numerical difference may look fairly insignificant, it must be noted that a 3.23 is approximately a B+ while a 2.9 is approximately a B. Given a categorical range of only A to F, a plus differential can be considered significant.

Table 1 . Means and standard deviations for 8 semester- “Environmental Science data set.”

The mean grade for men in the environmental online classes ( M = 3.23, N = 246, SD = 1.19) was higher than the mean grade for women in the classes ( M = 2.9, N = 302, SD = 1.20) (see Table 1 ).

First, a chi-square analysis was performed using SPSS to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in grade distribution between online and F2F students. Students enrolled in the F2F class had the highest percentage of A's (63.60%) as compared to online students (36.40%). Table 2 displays grade distribution by course delivery modality. The difference in student performance was statistically significant, χ 2 (4, N = 548) = 6.531, p > 0.05. Table 3 shows the gender difference on student performance between online and F2F students.

Table 2 . Contingency table for student's academic performance ( N = 548).

Table 3 . Gender * performance crosstabulation.

Table 2 shows us the performance measures of online and F2F students by grade category. As can be seen, F2F students generated the highest performance numbers for each grade category. However, this disparity was mostly due to a higher number of F2F students in the study. There were 401 F2F students as opposed to just 147 online students. When viewing grades with respect to modality, there are smaller percentage differences between respective learners ( Tanyel and Griffin, 2014 ). For example, F2F learners earned 28 As (63.60% of total A's earned) while online learners earned 16 As (36.40% of total A's earned). However, when viewing the A grade with respect to total learners in each modality, it can be seen that 28 of the 401 F2F students (6.9%) earned As as compared to 16 of 147 (10.9%) online learners. In this case, online learners scored relatively higher in this grade category. The latter measure (grade total as a percent of modality total) is a better reflection of respective performance levels.

Given a critical value of 7.7 and a d.f. of 4, we were able to generate a chi-squared measure of 6.531. The correlating p -value of 0.163 was greater than our p -value significance level of 0.05. We, therefore, had to accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis. There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of performance scores.

Research Question 2

The second research question was posed to evaluate if there was a difference between online and F2F varied with gender. Does online and F2F student performance vary with respect to gender? Table 3 shows the gender difference on student performance between online and face to face students. We used chi-square test to determine if there were differences in online and F2F student performance with respect to gender. The chi-square test with alpha equal to 0.05 as criterion for significance. The chi-square result shows that there is no statistically significant difference between men and women in terms of performance.

Research Question 3

The third research question tried to determine if there was a difference between online and F2F varied with respect to class rank. Does online and F2F student performance vary with respect to class rank?

Table 4 shows the mean scores and standard deviations of freshman, sophomore, and junior and senior students for both online and F2F student performance. To test the third hypothesis, we used a two-way ANOVA. The ANOVA is a useful appraisal tool for this particular hypothesis as it tests the differences between multiple means. Instead of testing specific differences, the ANOVA generates a much broader picture of average differences. As can be seen in Table 4 , the ANOVA test for this particular hypothesis states there is no significant difference between online and F2F learners with respect to class rank. Therefore, we must accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis.

Table 4 . Descriptive analysis of student performance by class rankings gender.

The results of the ANOVA show there is no significant difference in performance between online and F2F students with respect to class rank. Results of ANOVA is presented in Table 5 .

Table 5 . Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for online and F2F of class rankings.

As can be seen in Table 4 , the ANOVA test for this particular hypothesis states there is no significant difference between online and F2F learners with respect to class rank. Therefore, we must accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis.

Discussion and Social Implications

The results of the study show there is no significant difference in performance between online and traditional classroom students with respect to modality, gender, or class rank in a science concepts course for non-STEM majors. Although there were sample size issues and study limitations, this assessment shows both online learners and classroom learners perform at the same level. This conclusion indicates teaching modality may not matter as much as other factors. Given the relatively sparse data on pedagogical modality comparison given specific student population characteristics, this study could be considered innovative. In the current literature, we have not found a study of this nature comparing online and F2F non-STEM majors with respect to three separate factors—medium, gender, and class rank—and the ability to learn science concepts and achieve learning outcomes. Previous studies have compared traditional classroom learning vs. F2F learning for other factors (including specific courses, costs, qualitative analysis, etcetera, but rarely regarding outcomes relevant to population characteristics of learning for a specific science concepts course over many years) ( Liu, 2005 ).

In a study evaluating the transformation of a graduate level course for teachers, academic quality of the online course and learning outcomes were evaluated. The study evaluated the ability of course instructors to design the course for online delivery and develop various interactive multimedia models at a cost-savings to the respective university. The online learning platform proved effective in translating information where tested students successfully achieved learning outcomes comparable to students taking the F2F course ( Herman and Banister, 2007 ).

Another study evaluated the similarities and differences in F2F and online learning in a non-STEM course, “Foundations of American Education” and overall course satisfaction by students enrolled in either of the two modalities. F2F and online course satisfaction was qualitatively and quantitative analyzed. However, in analyzing online and F2F course feedback using quantitative feedback, online course satisfaction was less than F2F satisfaction. When qualitative data was used, course satisfaction was similar between modalities ( Werhner, 2010 ). The course satisfaction data and feedback was used to suggest a number of posits for effective online learning in the specific course. The researcher concluded that there was no difference in the learning success of students enrolled in the online vs. F2F course, stating that “in terms of learning, students who apply themselves diligently should be successful in either format” ( Dell et al., 2010 ). The author's conclusion presumes that the “issues surrounding class size are under control and that the instructor has a course load that makes the intensity of the online course workload feasible” where the authors conclude that the workload for online courses is more than for F2F courses ( Stern, 2004 ).

In “A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education,” Bernard et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis evaluating three types of instructional and/or media conditions designed into distance education (DE) courses known as interaction treatments (ITs)—student–student (SS), student–teacher (ST), or student–content (SC) interactions—to other DE instructional/interaction treatments. The researchers found that a strong association existed between the integration of these ITs into distance education courses and achievement compared with blended or F2F modalities of learning. The authors speculated that this was due to increased cognitive engagement based in these three interaction treatments ( Larson and Sung, 2009 ).

Other studies evaluating students' preferences (but not efficacy) for online vs. F2F learning found that students prefer online learning when it was offered, depending on course topic, and online course technology platform ( Ary and Brune, 2011 ). F2F learning was preferred when courses were offered late morning or early afternoon 2–3 days/week. A significant preference for online learning resulted across all undergraduate course topics (American history and government, humanities, natural sciences, social, and behavioral sciences, diversity, and international dimension) except English composition and oral communication. A preference for analytical and quantitative thought courses was also expressed by students, though not with statistically significant results ( Mann and Henneberry, 2014 ). In this research study, we looked at three hypothesis comparing online and F2F learning. In each case, the null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, at no level of examination did we find a significant difference between online and F2F learners. This finding is important because it tells us traditional-style teaching with its heavy emphasis on interpersonal classroom dynamics may 1 day be replaced by online instruction. According to Daymont and Blau (2008) online learners, regardless of gender or class rank, learn as much from electronic interaction as they do from personal interaction. Kemp and Grieve (2014) also found that both online and F2F learning for psychology students led to similar academic performance. Given the cost efficiencies and flexibility of online education, Web-based instructional systems may rapidly rise.

A number of studies support the economic benefits of online vs. F2F learning, despite differences in social constructs and educational support provided by governments. In a study by Li and Chen (2012) higher education institutions benefit the most from two of four outputs—research outputs and distance education—with teaching via distance education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels more profitable than F2F teaching at higher education institutions in China. Zhang and Worthington (2017) reported an increasing cost benefit for the use of distance education over F2F instruction as seen at 37 Australian public universities over 9 years from 2003 to 2012. Maloney et al. (2015) and Kemp and Grieve (2014) also found significant savings in higher education when using online learning platforms vs. F2F learning. In the West, the cost efficiency of online learning has been demonstrated by several research studies ( Craig, 2015 ). Studies by Agasisti and Johnes (2015) and Bartley and Golek (2004) both found the cost benefits of online learning significantly greater than that of F2F learning at U.S. institutions.

Knowing there is no significant difference in student performance between the two mediums, institutions of higher education may make the gradual shift away from traditional instruction; they may implement Web-based teaching to capture a larger worldwide audience. If administered correctly, this shift to Web-based teaching could lead to a larger buyer population, more cost efficiencies, and more university revenue.

The social implications of this study should be touted; however, several concerns regarding generalizability need to be taken into account. First, this study focused solely on students from an environmental studies class for non-STEM majors. The ability to effectively prepare students for scientific professions without hands-on experimentation has been contended. As a course that functions to communicate scientific concepts, but does not require a laboratory based component, these results may not translate into similar performance of students in an online STEM course for STEM majors or an online course that has an online laboratory based co-requisite when compared to students taking traditional STEM courses for STEM majors. There are few studies that suggest the landscape may be changing with the ability to effectively train students in STEM core concepts via online learning. Biel and Brame (2016) reported successfully translating the academic success of F2F undergraduate biology courses to online biology courses. However, researchers reported that of the large-scale courses analyzed, two F2F sections outperformed students in online sections, and three found no significant difference. A study by Beale et al. (2014) comparing F2F learning with hybrid learning in an embryology course found no difference in overall student performance. Additionally, the bottom quartile of students showed no differential effect of the delivery method on examination scores. Further, a study from Lorenzo-Alvarez et al. (2019) found that radiology education in an online learning platform resulted in similar academic outcomes as F2F learning. Larger scale research is needed to determine the effectiveness of STEM online learning and outcomes assessments, including workforce development results.

In our research study, it is possible the study participants may have been more knowledgeable about environmental science than about other subjects. Therefore, it should be noted this study focused solely on students taking this one particular class. Given the results, this course presents a unique potential for increasing the number of non-STEM majors engaged in citizen science using the flexibility of online learning to teach environmental science core concepts.

Second, the operationalization measure of “grade” or “score” to determine performance level may be lacking in scope and depth. The grades received in a class may not necessarily show actual ability, especially if the weights were adjusted to heavily favor group tasks and writing projects. Other performance indicators may be better suited to properly access student performance. A single exam containing both multiple choice and essay questions may be a better operationalization indicator of student performance. This type of indicator will provide both a quantitative and qualitative measure of subject matter comprehension.

Third, the nature of the student sample must be further dissected. It is possible the online students in this study may have had more time than their counterparts to learn the material and generate better grades ( Summers et al., 2005 ). The inverse holds true, as well. Because this was a convenience non-probability sampling, the chances of actually getting a fair cross section of the student population were limited. In future studies, greater emphasis must be placed on selecting proper study participants, those who truly reflect proportions, types, and skill levels.

This study was relevant because it addressed an important educational topic; it compared two student groups on multiple levels using a single operationalized performance measure. More studies, however, of this nature need to be conducted before truly positing that online and F2F teaching generate the same results. Future studies need to eliminate spurious causal relationships and increase generalizability. This will maximize the chances of generating a definitive, untainted results. This scientific inquiry and comparison into online and traditional teaching will undoubtedly garner more attention in the coming years.

Our study compared learning via F2F vs. online learning modalities in teaching an environmental science course additionally evaluating factors of gender and class rank. These data demonstrate the ability to similarly translate environmental science concepts for non-STEM majors in both traditional and online platforms irrespective of gender or class rank. The social implications of this finding are important for advancing access to and learning of scientific concepts by the general population, as many institutions of higher education allow an online course to be taken without enrolling in a degree program. Thus, the potential exists for increasing the number of non-STEM majors engaged in citizen science using the flexibility of online learning to teach environmental science core concepts.

Limitations of the Study

The limitations of the study centered around the nature of the sample group, student skills/abilities, and student familiarity with online instruction. First, because this was a convenience, non-probability sample, the independent variables were not adjusted for real-world accuracy. Second, student intelligence and skill level were not taken into consideration when separating out comparison groups. There exists the possibility that the F2F learners in this study may have been more capable than the online students and vice versa. This limitation also applies to gender and class rank differences ( Friday et al., 2006 ). Finally, there may have been ease of familiarity issues between the two sets of learners. Experienced traditional classroom students now taking Web-based courses may be daunted by the technical aspect of the modality. They may not have had the necessary preparation or experience to efficiently e-learn, thus leading to lowered scores ( Helms, 2014 ). In addition to comparing online and F2F instructional efficacy, future research should also analyze blended teaching methods for the effectiveness of courses for non-STEM majors to impart basic STEM concepts and see if the blended style is more effective than any one pure style.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Fort Valley State University Human Subjects Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

JP provided substantial contributions to the conception of the work, acquisition and analysis of data for the work, and is the corresponding author on this paper who agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. FJ provided substantial contributions to the design of the work, interpretation of the data for the work, and revised it critically for intellectual content.

This research was supported in part by funding from the National Science Foundation, Awards #1649717, 1842510, Ñ900572, and 1939739 to FJ.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their detailed comments and feedback that assisted in the revising of our original manuscript.

Agasisti, T., and Johnes, G. (2015). Efficiency, costs, rankings and heterogeneity: the case of US higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 40, 60–82. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.818644

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ary, E. J., and Brune, C. W. (2011). A comparison of student learning outcomes in traditional and online personal finance courses. MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach. 7, 465–474.

Google Scholar

Atchley, W., Wingenbach, G., and Akers, C. (2013). Comparison of course completion and student performance through online and traditional courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 14, 104–116. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1461

Bartley, S. J., and Golek, J. H. (2004). Evaluating the cost effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. Educ. Technol. Soc. 7, 167–175.

Beale, E. G., Tarwater, P. M., and Lee, V. H. (2014). A retrospective look at replacing face-to-face embryology instruction with online lectures in a human anatomy course. Am. Assoc. Anat. 7, 234–241. doi: 10.1002/ase.1396

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkesh, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 1243–1289. doi: 10.3102/0034654309333844

Biel, R., and Brame, C. J. (2016). Traditional versus online biology courses: connecting course design and student learning in an online setting. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 17, 417–422. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1157

Bigelow, C. A. (2009). Comparing student performance in an online versus a face to face introductory turfgrass science course-a case study. NACTA J. 53, 1–7.

Columbaro, N. L., and Monaghan, C. H. (2009). Employer perceptions of online degrees: a literature review. Online J. Dist. Learn. Administr. 12.

Craig, R. (2015). A Brief History (and Future) of Online Degrees. Forbes/Education . Available online at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2015/06/23/a-brief-history-and-future-of-online-degrees/#e41a4448d9a8

Daymont, T., and Blau, G. (2008). Student performance in online and traditional sections of an undergraduate management course. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 9, 275–294.

Dell, C. A., Low, C., and Wilker, J. F. (2010). Comparing student achievement in online and face-to-face class formats. J. Online Learn. Teach. Long Beach 6, 30–42.

Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., and 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. Am. Sociol. Assoc . 40, 312–313. doi: 10.1177/0092055X12446624

Friday, E., Shawnta, S., Green, A. L., and Hill, A. Y. (2006). A multi-semester comparison of student performance between multiple traditional and online sections of two management courses. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 8, 66–81.

Girard, J. P., Yerby, J., and Floyd, K. (2016). Knowledge retention in capstone experiences: an analysis of online and face-to-face courses. Knowl. Manag. ELearn. 8, 528–539. doi: 10.34105/j.kmel.2016.08.033

Helms, J. L. (2014). Comparing student performance in online and face-to-face delivery modalities. J. Asynchr. Learn. Netw. 18, 1–14. doi: 10.24059/olj.v18i1.348

Herman, T., and Banister, S. (2007). Face-to-face versus online coursework: a comparison of costs and learning outcomes. Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. 7, 318–326.

Kemp, N., and Grieve, R. (2014). Face-to-Face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates' opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning. Front. Psychol. 5:1278. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278

Keramidas, C. G. (2012). Are undergraduate students ready for online learning? A comparison of online and face-to-face sections of a course. Rural Special Educ. Q . 31, 25–39. doi: 10.1177/875687051203100405

Larson, D.K., and Sung, C. (2009). Comparing student performance: online versus blended versus face-to-face. J. Asynchr. Learn. Netw. 13, 31–42. doi: 10.24059/olj.v13i1.1675

Li, F., and Chen, X. (2012). Economies of scope in distance education: the case of Chinese Research Universities. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 13, 117–131.

Liu, Y. (2005). Effects of online instruction vs. traditional instruction on student's learning. Int. J. Instruct. Technol. Dist. Learn. 2, 57–64.

Lorenzo-Alvarez, R., Rudolphi-Solero, T., Ruiz-Gomez, M. J., and Sendra-Portero, F. (2019). Medical student education for abdominal radiographs in a 3D virtual classroom versus traditional classroom: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Roentgenol. 213, 644–650. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21131

Lundberg, J., Castillo-Merino, D., and Dahmani, M. (2008). Do online students perform better than face-to-face students? Reflections and a short review of some Empirical Findings. Rev. Univ. Soc. Conocim . 5, 35–44. doi: 10.7238/rusc.v5i1.326

Maloney, S., Nicklen, P., Rivers, G., Foo, J., Ooi, Y. Y., Reeves, S., et al. (2015). Cost-effectiveness analysis of blended versus face-to-face delivery of evidence-based medicine to medical students. J. Med. Internet Res. 17:e182. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4346

Mann, J. T., and Henneberry, S. R. (2014). Online versus face-to-face: students' preferences for college course attributes. J. Agric. Appl. Econ . 46, 1–19. doi: 10.1017/S1074070800000602

Mozes-Carmel, A., and Gold, S. S. (2009). A comparison of online vs proctored final exams in online classes. Imanagers J. Educ. Technol. 6, 76–81. doi: 10.26634/jet.6.1.212

Richardson, J. C., and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to student's perceived learning and satisfaction. J. Asynchr. Learn. 7, 68–88.

Roval, A. P., and Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: a comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 5. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v5i2.192

Salcedo, C. S. (2010). Comparative analysis of learning outcomes in face-to-face foreign language classes vs. language lab and online. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. 7, 43–54. doi: 10.19030/tlc.v7i2.88

Stern, B. S. (2004). A comparison of online and face-to-face instruction in an undergraduate foundations of american education course. Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. J. 4, 196–213.

Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., and Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innov. High. Educ. 29, 233–250. doi: 10.1007/s10755-005-1938-x

Tanyel, F., and Griffin, J. (2014). A Ten-Year Comparison of Outcomes and Persistence Rates in Online versus Face-to-Face Courses . Retrieved from: https://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2014/onlinecourses2014.pdf

Werhner, M. J. (2010). A comparison of the performance of online versus traditional on-campus earth science students on identical exams. J. Geosci. Educ. 58, 310–312. doi: 10.5408/1.3559697

Westhuis, D., Ouellette, P. M., and Pfahler, C. L. (2006). A comparative analysis of on-line and classroom-based instructional formats for teaching social work research. Adv. Soc. Work 7, 74–88. doi: 10.18060/184

Wladis, C., Conway, K. M., and Hachey, A. C. (2015). The online STEM classroom-who succeeds? An exploration of the impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional student characteristics in the community college context. Commun. Coll. Rev. 43, 142–164. doi: 10.1177/0091552115571729

Xu, D., and Jaggars, S. S. (2016). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: differences across types of students and academic subject areas. J. Higher Educ. 85, 633–659. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2014.0028

Zhang, L.-C., and Worthington, A. C. (2017). Scale and scope economies of distance education in Australian universities. Stud. High. Educ. 42, 1785–1799. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1126817

Keywords: face-to-face (F2F), traditional classroom teaching, web-based instructions, information and communication technology (ICT), online learning, desire to learn (D2L), passive learning, active learning

Citation: Paul J and Jefferson F (2019) A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in an Online vs. Face-to-Face Environmental Science Course From 2009 to 2016. Front. Comput. Sci. 1:7. doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007

Received: 15 May 2019; Accepted: 15 October 2019; Published: 12 November 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Paul and Jefferson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jasmine Paul, paulj@fvsu.edu

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Educ Health Promot

Online classes versus traditional classes? Comparison during COVID-19

Sanjana kumari.

Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Hitender Gautam

Neha nityadarshini, bimal kumar das, rama chaudhry, background:.

Nowadays, the use of Internet with e-learning resources anytime and anywhere leads to interaction possibilities among teachers and students from different parts of the world. It is becoming increasingly pertinent that we exploit the Internet technologies to achieve the most benefits in the education.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This study compares the difference between traditional classroom and e-learning in the educational environment. Medical undergraduate students of our institution were enrolled to compare between the online versus traditional method of teaching through questionnaire.

Forty percent of students found the online lecture material difficult to understand. 42.6% of respondents found it difficult to clear the doubts in online teaching; 64.4% of the participants believed that they have learned more in a face-to-face learning.

CONCLUSION:

In this study, we concluded that online mode offers flexibility on timing and delivery. Students can even download the content, notes, and assignment. Despite all the advantages offered, there is a general consensus that no technology can replace face-to-face teaching in real because in this, there will be visual as well as verbal discussion. Looking at the uncertainty of the current scenario, it is difficult to predict how long online classes will have to continue. Hence, it is of paramount importance that we assess the effectiveness of online classes and consequently take measures to ensure proper delivery of content to students, especially in a skilled field like medicine, so we concluded that face-to-face learning is of utmost importance in medical institutions.

Introduction

In these current times of information technology, students in higher education depend on a computer to do most of the work. Most higher educational institutions are also aware that using network technology can create, foster, deliver, and facilitate learning and enhance students’ experience and knowledge. Hence, the rapid developments and growth of information and communication technology have had a profound influence on higher education. E-learning means that teachers and students perform and complete the task through Internet, a method that is relatively different from traditional classroom.[ 1 ] According to a report published in 2011, over 6.1 million students were taking at least one or more online courses in 2010, with 31% of all students involved in higher education being taking at least one online course. In a more recent report, the number had increased by approximately 570,000 for a total of million students taking at least one or more online course. The report further shows and predicts that the number of students taking at least one online course is at its highest level, with the current growth rate of 9.3%, and shows no evidence of the trend slowing in the foreseeable future.[ 2 ] This trend has left many questions that need to be answered regarding what factors are driving this shift and how this shift will ultimately affect institutions across the country.

The history of online learning is particularly interesting because it not only shows the contributions of individuals but also institutions to the advancement of education and the sharing of that knowledge and skills on a global scale. As we briefly review the historical development of this subject, it is important to indicate that many authors use the terms “distance learning,” “distance education,” “online learning,” and “online education” interchangeably,[ 3 ] as is the case in this paper.

Online courses are courses where at least 80% of the content is delivered online without face-to-face meetings, whereas face-to-face instructions are a learning method where all content is delivered only in a traditional face-to-face setting.

Hybrid courses, on the other hand, combine the benefits of face-to-face learning with the technology often used in online courses. 30%–79% of the course is delivered online.

Web-facilitated courses are the ones where 1%–29% of the course is delivered online. Although this type of course is actually a face-to-face course, it uses a web-based technology to supplement the face-to-face instruction provided to students.

This study is to compare the effectiveness of a medical undergraduate, online microbiology course to a traditional in-class lecture course taught by the same instructor as measured by response to the pre-formed questionnaire.

Materials and Methods

Study design and setting.

It was a prospective study. Study participants were provided with a questionnaire to do comparison between the online versus traditional method of education. Due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, traditional classroom teaching was shifted to online teaching. In traditional classroom setting, lecture duration ranged typically from 45 min to 1 h, with few minutes dedicated for doubt clearing or discussion at the end. Course content was delivered by the faculty verbally, assisted by projected PowerPoint presentations. In contrast to this, course content in online mode was delivered through streaming/video-conferencing software. Students could access it through their electronic devices: phones, tablets, and laptops via a link. The content for both educational modes—online and traditional classroom-based—was identical as it was taught by the same teaching faculty. Duration of lectures remained the same as well.

Study participants and sampling

Medical undergraduate students at the Department of Microbiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India, were the study participants. Students were the same for both modes of teaching. Out of a total strength of 101, 75 students participated.

Data collection tool and technique

A questionnaire was designed covering questions such as whether online classes provide better understanding of course content, is it easier to pay attention to lectures in online classes, whether online classes are convenient to attend, is it easier to clear doubts through online discussions, do the students face technical issues during online classes, are the students more likely to attend online classes than traditional classes, is it easier to get distracted during online classes than during traditional classes, are the students more likely to stick to the time table of traditional classes as compared to online classes, do the students miss social interaction with peers and teachers in case of online classes, and do lack of face to face communication makes online classes less engaging.

Printed copies of the questionnaire covering all the questions were provided to all students, and a filled questionnaire was collected from all participating students. All the participant students were requested to fill the questionnaire individually. Response to all the questions from all participant students was entered in Microsoft Excel and analyzed. Active intervention was not attempted in the study, before COVID-19 pandemic traditional classroom teaching was the method of teaching which was changed to online teaching due to restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ethical considerations

Consent was taken from all students who participated in the study. Ethical consideration was not required as no active change in teaching modality was there due to the study.

Participants in this study were medical undergraduate students; the questionnaire was sent to a total of 101 students. A total of 75 students participated; female (26.6%) and male (73.3%) were in the age group of 18 and 30 years. We aimed to evaluate students about their perceptions regarding ease or difficulty of online lecture materials, assignments, and online navigation.

Questionnaires were made regarding the students’ concern about understanding of course content, attention scale, convenience, doubts in class, technical issue, distraction during the class, and clarification of the doubts.

Survey reported that 25.3% of students found that online lecture material was satisfactory and easy to understand, while over 40% of students found the lecture material difficult to understand. 42.6% of students found that online assignments were difficult to clear the doubts, while 45.3% found difficulty in attention span during the online classes. Similarly, 64% reported difficulty in the discussion in online classes with the teachers and understanding the course, as shown in Table 1 . The findings further indicate students’ perceptions about the material are viewed as being rigorous even despite the ease of navigation. No comparative analysis was done between the rigor for face-to-face classes and online offerings. However, students perceived a difference between the amounts learned in the two modes even though course content was equivalent.

Questionnaire-based response from students

*Subjective answer mentioned in results. Total number of participants n =75

In academic environments, course organization and presentation are key factors that can either attract or distract students. Students need clarity and relevance in the materials presented to them. 24% of the participants agreed that the online courses were well presented and organized. On the other hand, 64.4% of the participants believe they have learned more in a face-to-face learning environment than in an online setting. Online learning is not always a seamless experience for students. Users encounter many problems including Internet interruption, system upgrade downtime, and instruction and organization to unreliable Internet connection.

Within the last 20 years, the components of learning via computers have challenged the view that the traditional lecture is necessarily the most appropriate means of facilitating learning in a university environment. People found that e-learning has its own advantages on learning outcomes through researches on comparison research about differences between e-learning and traditional classroom.

Over the past decades, most institutions have expanded the list of courses being offered online, and a growing number of students favor online courses over traditional face-to-face courses. This is due in part to the flexibility that online courses provide, the convenience, and a host of other factors. Respondents in this study indicated that offering more online courses would not be that helpful. Some of the students perceived their online experience as being positive despite multiple problems in the online courses, including lack of understanding of the content of materials, limited access, and poor technological infrastructure. In addition, the majority of students found the lecture materials and assignments difficult to understand. These findings suggest that institutions need to address their students’ desire for more flexible, technology-oriented educational platforms and to exert greater efforts to eliminate obstacles that might hinder the smooth utilization of these technologies.

In our study, the responders faced many difficulties. There should be orientation session for teachers and students on how to adapt to online classes and make learning fun and effective through classes before beginning online sessions for students. To ensure discipline is maintained in class, many educational institutions have issued e-classroom etiquette. It includes being properly dressed, being seated at a desk, and no interruptions from parents during the class. Classroom can be split into multiple batches so that it is easier to keep track of students in a session.

A study by Alsaaty et al. [ 3 ] compared and found out online experience as being positive despite multiple problems in the online courses. Thomas et al. [ 4 ] conducted a similar study where he compared students and found out Internet-based course showed higher performance of students on class-based course. Chen et al. [ 5 ] conducted another study where student perceptions in a MBA accounting concluded that the traditional classrooms would continue to offer benefits that cannot fully be obtained in any other manner. However, gaps in process effectiveness will continue to be narrowed as technology becomes friendlier for both instructor and students.

Limitation and recommendation

Since this was a questionnaire-based study, possibility of the participants misinterpreting certain questions cannot be ignored. Response rate was about 75%. Although efforts were made to include open-ended questions, some questions were multiple-choice question based which could have limited the response of participants to few options. Future studies on this subject could use a face-to-face interview approach to get a better response rate and include more subjective and personalized responses of participants. In addition, there was only one time collection of data in this study. Further studies are needed to see if online classes can be an integral part of medical education, once the restrictions due to pandemic ease down.

One of the advantages the online mode offers is its flexibility in timing and delivery. They can even download the content, notes, and assignment. They can easily participate in discussion due to less anxiety and do group discussion and permanent record of feedback. Other advantages for students include not needing to commute. Despite all the advantages offered, there is a general consensus that no technology can replace traditional teaching in real because in this, there will be visual as well verbal discussion. Practical learning through in-hand training, demonstrations, and skill development, which of utmost importance in medical learning, is not possible through online teaching. Teachers might be less conversant and have apathy toward online teaching. It is difficult to keep track of student's attention. Doubt-clearing is hampered as well. Looking at the uncertainty of the current scenario, it is difficult to predict how long online classes will continue. Hence, it is of paramount importance that we assess the effectiveness of online classes and consequently take measures to ensure proper delivery of content to students, especially in a skilled field like medicine.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment

We are thankful to the Academic Section of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India, for their support.

A Comparison of Student Learning Outcomes: Online Education vs. Traditional Classroom Instruction

Despite the prevalence of online learning today, it is often viewed as a less favorable option when compared to the traditional, in-person educational experience. Criticisms of online learning come from various sectors, like employer groups, college faculty, and the general public, and generally includes a lack of perceived quality as well as rigor. Additionally, some students report feelings of social isolation in online learning (Protopsaltis & Baum, 2019).

In my experience as an online student as well as an online educator, online learning has been just the opposite. I have been teaching in a fully online master’s degree program for the last three years and have found it to be a rich and rewarding experience for students and faculty alike. As an instructor, I have felt more connected to and engaged with my online students when compared to in-person students. I have also found that students are actively engaged with course content and demonstrate evidence of higher-order thinking through their work. Students report high levels of satisfaction with their experiences in online learning as well as the program overall as indicated in their Student Evaluations of Teaching  (SET) at the end of every course. I believe that intelligent course design, in addition to my engagement in professional development related to teaching and learning online, has greatly influenced my experience.

In an article by Wiley Education Services, authors identified the top six challenges facing US institutions of higher education, and include:

• Declining student enrollment
• Financial difficulties
• Fewer high school graduates
• Decreased state funding
• Lower world rankings
• Declining international student enrollments

Of the strategies that institutions are exploring to remedy these issues, online learning is reported to be a key focus for many universities (“Top Challenges Facing US Higher Education”, n.d.).

Babson Survey Research Group, 2016, [PDF file].

Some of the questions I would like to explore in further research include:

• What factors influence engagement and connection in distance education?
• Are the learning outcomes in online education any different than the outcomes achieved in a traditional classroom setting?
• How do course design and instructor training influence these factors?
• In what ways might educational technology tools enhance the overall experience for students and instructors alike?

In this literature review, I have chosen to focus on a comparison of student learning outcomes in online education versus the traditional classroom setting. My hope is that this research will unlock the answers to some of the additional questions posed above and provide additional direction for future research.

Online Learning Defined

According to Mayadas, Miller, and Sener (2015), online courses are defined by all course activity taking place online with no required in-person sessions or on-campus activity. It is important to note, however, that the Babson Survey Research Group, a prominent organization known for their surveys and research in online learning, defines online learning as a course in which 80-100% occurs online. While this distinction was made in an effort to provide consistency in surveys year over year, most institutions continue to define online learning as learning that occurs 100% online.

Blended or hybrid learning is defined by courses that mix face to face meetings, sessions, or activities with online work. The ratio of online to classroom activity is often determined by the label in which the course is given. For example, a blended classroom course would likely include more time spent in the classroom, with the remaining work occurring outside of the classroom with the assistance of technology. On the other hand, a blended online course would contain a greater percentage of work done online, with some required in-person sessions or meetings (Mayadas, Miller, & Sener, 2015).

A classroom course (also referred to as a traditional course) refers to course activity that is anchored to a regular meeting time.

Enrollment Trends in Online Education

There has been an upward trend in the number of postsecondary students enrolled in online courses in the U.S. since 2002. A report by the Babson Survey Research Group showed that in 2016, more than six million students were enrolled in at least one online course. This number accounted for 31.6% of all college students (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018). Approximately one in three students are enrolled in online courses with no in-person component. Of these students, 47% take classes in a fully online program. The remaining 53% take some, but not all courses online (Protopsaltis & Baum, 2019).

(Seaman et al., 2016, p. 11)

Perceptions of Online Education

In a 2016 report by the Babson Survey Research Group, surveys of faculty between 2002-2015 showed approval ratings regarding the value and legitimacy of online education ranged from 28-34 percent. While numbers have increased and decreased over the thirteen-year time frame, faculty approval was at 29 percent in 2015, just 1 percent higher than the approval ratings noted in 2002 – indicating that perceptions have remained relatively unchanged over the years (Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016).

(Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., Taylor Strout, T., 2016, p. 26)

In a separate survey of chief academic officers, perceptions of online learning appeared to align with that of faculty. In this survey, leaders were asked to rate their perceived quality of learning outcomes in online learning when compared to traditional in-person settings. While the percentage of leaders rating online learning as “inferior” or “somewhat inferior” to traditional face-to-face courses dropped from 43 percent to 23 percent between 2003 to 2012, the number rose again to 29 percent in 2015 (Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016).

Faculty and academic leaders in higher education are not alone when it comes to perceptions of inferiority when compared to traditional classroom instruction. A 2013 Gallop poll assessing public perceptions showed that respondents rated online education as “worse” in five of the seven categories seen in the table below.

(Saad, L., Busteed, B., and Ogisi, M., 2013, October 15)

In general, Americans believed that online education provides both lower quality and less individualized instruction and less rigorous testing and grading when compared to the traditional classroom setting. In addition, respondents also thought that employers would perceive a degree from an online program less positively when compared to a degree obtained through traditional classroom instruction (Saad, Busteed, & Ogisi, 2013).

Student Perceptions of Online Learning

So what do students have to say about online learning? In  Online College Students 2015: Comprehensive Data on Demands and Preferences,  1500 college students who were either enrolled or planning to enroll in a fully online undergraduate, graduate, or certificate program were surveyed. 78 percent of students believed the academic quality of their online learning experience to be better than or equal to their experiences with traditional classroom learning. Furthermore, 30 percent of online students polled said that they would likely not attend classes face to face if their program were not available online (Clienfelter & Aslanian, 2015). The following video describes some of the common reasons why students choose to attend college online.

How Online Learning Affects the Lives of Students ( Pearson North America, 2018, June 25)

In a 2015 study comparing student perceptions of online learning with face to face learning, researchers found that the majority of students surveyed expressed a preference for traditional face to face classes. A content analysis of the findings, however, brought attention to two key ideas: 1) student opinions of online learning may be based on “old typology of distance education” (Tichavsky, et al, 2015, p.6) as opposed to actual experience, and 2) a student’s inclination to choose one form over another is connected to issues of teaching presence and self-regulated learning (Tichavsky et al, 2015).

Student Learning Outcomes

Given the upward trend in student enrollment in online courses in postsecondary schools and the steady ratings of the low perceived value of online learning by stakeholder groups, it should be no surprise that there is a large body of literature comparing student learning outcomes in online classes to the traditional classroom environment.

While a majority of the studies reviewed found no significant difference in learning outcomes when comparing online to traditional courses (Cavanaugh & Jacquemin, 2015; Kemp & Grieve, 2014; Lyke & Frank 2012; Nichols, Shaffer, & Shockey, 2003; Stack, 2015; Summers, Waigandt, & Whittaker, 2005), there were a few outliers. In a 2019 report by Protopsaltis & Baum, authors confirmed that while learning is often found to be similar between the two mediums, students “with weak academic preparation and those from low-income and underrepresented backgrounds consistently underperform in fully-online environments” (Protopsaltis & Baum, 2019, n.p.). An important consideration, however, is that these findings are primarily based on students enrolled in online courses at the community college level – a demographic with a historically high rate of attrition compared to students attending four-year institutions (Ashby, Sadera, & McNary, 2011). Furthermore, students enrolled in online courses have been shown to have a 10 – 20 percent increase in attrition over their peers who are enrolled in traditional classroom instruction (Angelino, Williams, & Natvig, 2007). Therefore, attrition may be a key contributor to the lack of achievement seen in this subgroup of students enrolled in online education.

In contrast, there were a small number of studies that showed that online students tend to outperform those enrolled in traditional classroom instruction. One study, in particular, found a significant difference in test scores for students enrolled in an online, undergraduate business course. The confounding variable, in this case, was age. Researchers found a significant difference in performance in nontraditional age students over their traditional age counterparts. Authors concluded that older students may elect to take online classes for practical reasons related to outside work schedules, and this may, in turn, contribute to the learning that occurs overall (Slover & Mandernach, 2018).

In a meta-analysis and review of online learning spanning the years 1996 to 2008, authors from the US Department of Education found that students who took all or part of their classes online showed better learning outcomes than those students who took the same courses face-to-face. In these cases, it is important to note that there were many differences noted in the online and face-to-face versions, including the amount of time students spent engaged with course content. The authors concluded that the differences in learning outcomes may be attributed to learning design as opposed to the specific mode of delivery (Means, Toyoma, Murphy, Bakia, Jones, 2009).

Limitations and Opportunities

After examining the research comparing student learning outcomes in online education with the traditional classroom setting, there are many limitations that came to light, creating areas of opportunity for additional research. In many of the studies referenced, it is difficult to determine the pedagogical practices used in course design and delivery. Research shows the importance of student-student and student-teacher interaction in online learning, and the positive impact of these variables on student learning (Bernard, Borokhovski, Schmid, Tamim, & Abrami, 2014). Some researchers note that while many studies comparing online and traditional classroom learning exist, the methodologies and design issues make it challenging to explain the results conclusively (Mollenkopf, Vu, Crow, & Black, 2017). For example, some online courses may be structured in a variety of ways, i.e. self-paced, instructor-led and may be classified as synchronous or asynchronous (Moore, Dickson-Deane, Galyan, 2011)

Another gap in the literature is the failure to use a common language across studies to define the learning environment. This issue is explored extensively in a 2011 study by Moore, Dickson-Deane, and Galyan. Here, the authors examine the differences between e-learning, online learning, and distance learning in the literature, and how the terminology is often used interchangeably despite the variances in characteristics that define each. The authors also discuss the variability in the terms “course” versus “program”. This variability in the literature presents a challenge when attempting to compare one study of online learning to another (Moore, Dickson-Deane, & Galyan, 2011).

Finally, much of the literature in higher education focuses on undergraduate-level classes within the United States. Little research is available on outcomes in graduate-level classes as well as general information on student learning outcomes and perceptions of online learning outside of the U.S.

As we look to the future, there are additional questions to explore in the area of online learning. Overall, this research led to questions related to learning design when comparing the two modalities in higher education. Further research is needed to investigate the instructional strategies used to enhance student learning, especially in students with weaker academic preparation or from underrepresented backgrounds. Given the integral role that online learning is expected to play in the future of higher education in the United States, it may be even more critical to move beyond comparisons of online versus face to face. Instead, choosing to focus on sound pedagogical quality with consideration for the mode of delivery as a means for promoting positive learning outcomes.

Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. (2016). Online Report Card: Tracking Online Education in the United States [PDF file]. Babson Survey Research Group.   http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf

Angelino, L. M., Williams, F. K., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online students and reduce attrition rates.  The Journal of Educators Online , 4(2).

Ashby, J., Sadera, W.A., & McNary, S.W. (2011). Comparing student success between developmental math courses offered online, blended, and face-to-face.  Journal of Interactive Online Learning , 10(3), 128-140.

Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R.F., Tamim, R.M., & Abrami, P.C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied.  Journal of Computing in Higher Education , 26(1), 87-122.

Cavanaugh, J.K. & Jacquemin, S.J. (2015). A large sample comparison of grade based student learning outcomes in online vs. face-fo-face courses.  Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network,  19(2).

Clinefelter, D. L., & Aslanian, C. B. (2015). Online college students 2015: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences.   https://www.learninghouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/OnlineCollegeStudents2015.pdf

Golubovskaya, E.A., Tikhonova, E.V., & Mekeko, N.M. (2019). Measuring learning outcome and students’ satisfaction in ELT (e-learning against conventional learning). Paper presented the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 34-38. Doi: 10.1145/3337682.3337704

Kemp, N. & Grieve, R. (2014). Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates’ opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning.  Frontiers in Psychology , 5. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278

Lyke, J., & Frank, M. (2012). Comparison of student learning outcomes in online and traditional classroom environments in a psychology course. (Cover story).  Journal of Instructional Psychology , 39(3/4), 245-250.

Mayadas, F., Miller, G. & Senner, J.  Definitions of E-Learning Courses and Programs Version 2.0.  Online Learning Consortium.  https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/updated-e-learning-definitions-2/

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education.  https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Mollenkopf, D., Vu, P., Crow, S, & Black, C. (2017). Does online learning deliver? A comparison of student teacher outcomes from candidates in face to face and online program pathways.  Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration.  20(1).

Moore, J.L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyan, K. (2011). E-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same?  The Internet and Higher Education . 14(2), 129-135.

Nichols, J., Shaffer, B., & Shockey, K. (2003). Changing the face of instruction: Is online or in-class more effective?   College & Research Libraries , 64(5), 378–388.  https://doi-org.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/10.5860/crl.64.5.378

Parsons-Pollard, N., Lacks, T.R., & Grant, P.H. (2008). A comparative assessment of student learning outcomes in large online and traditional campus based introduction to criminal justice courses.  Criminal Justice Studies , 2, 225-239.

Pearson North America. (2018, June 25).  How Online Learning Affects the Lives of Students . YouTube.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPDMagf_oAE

Protopsaltis, S., & Baum, S. (2019). Does online education live up to its promise? A look at the evidence and implications for federal policy [PDF file].   http://mason.gmu.edu/~sprotops/OnlineEd.pdf

Saad, L., Busteed, B., & Ogisi, M. (October 15, 2013). In U.S., Online Education Rated Best for Value and Options.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/165425/online-education-rated-best-value-options.aspx

Stack, S. (2015). Learning Outcomes in an Online vs Traditional Course.  International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning , 9(1).

Seaman, J.E., Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the United States [PDF file]. Babson Survey Research Group.  http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf

Slover, E. & Mandernach, J. (2018). Beyond Online versus Face-to-Face Comparisons: The Interaction of Student Age and Mode of Instruction on Academic Achievement.  Journal of Educators Online,  15(1) .  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1168945.pdf

Summers, J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. (2005). A Comparison of Student Achievement and Satisfaction in an Online Versus a Traditional Face-to-Face Statistics Class.  Innovative Higher Education , 29(3), 233–250.  https://doi-org.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/10.1007/s10755-005-1938-x

Tichavsky, L.P., Hunt, A., Driscoll, A., & Jicha, K. (2015). “It’s just nice having a real teacher”: Student perceptions of online versus face-to-face instruction.  International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.  9(2).

Wiley Education Services. (n.d.).  Top challenges facing U.S. higher education.  https://edservices.wiley.com/top-higher-education-challenges/

July 17, 2020

Online Learning

college , distance education , distance learning , face to face , higher education , online learning , postsecondary , traditional learning , university , virtual learning

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

© 2024 — Powered by WordPress

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑

Traditional Learning versus E-Learning

20 Pages Posted: 3 Oct 2019

Libron Kelmendi

University 'Hasan Prishtina'; University "Haxhi Zeka" in Peja

Date Written: April 25, 2019

The axis of this research paper is to compare and contrast the methods of traditional learning in classroom and E-Learning. The topic of this research paper appeared while considering the constant growing trend of technology and as a consequence of the current trends, the need for change to the methods of learning and teaching appears. With changes made to methods of learning there will be an increase in the learning choices, leading to an advancement, improvement, and progression in education. Besides the methods of traditional learning and E-Learning, this paper will make an analysis on the advantages and disadvantages of these learning methods, on the learning styles of traditional learning, which includes a physical place, usually a classroom, where students and educators or teachers can interact and on the learning styles of E-Learning, which includes an e-space with a server and a web browsing interface, based on wireless communication networks.

Keywords: Traditional learning, E-Learning, learning, methods, progression, education

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Libron Kelmendi (Contact Author)

University 'hasan prishtina' ( email ).

Pristina Pristina Kosovo

University "Haxhi Zeka" in Peja ( email )

st. UCK no number Peje Kosovo, KS 30000 Kosovo

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, development of innovation ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Anthropology of Education eJournal

Educational technology, media & library science ejournal, food science education ejournal.

• Corpus ID: 212888366

Impact of E-Learning vs Traditional Learning on Student’s Performance and Attitude

• Nahid Elfaki , I. Abdulraheem , R. Abdulrahim
• Published 2019
• International Journal of Medical Research and Health Sciences

Figures from this paper

81 Citations

Blended learning in higher education: a study of its impact on students' performance, the impact of e-learning strategy on students' academic achievement. case study: al- quds open university., academic motivation of university students and the factors that influence it in an e-learning environment, influence of e-leaning on students’ academic performance at the open university of tanzania.

• Highly Influenced

E-learning Acceptance Among Students: Evidence from UiTM Melaka City Campus

Comparative analysis and evaluation between traditional and online learning in engineering education, focused on introduction to engineering, a comparative study of blended learning versus conventional learning in higher education on the academic achievement of undergraduate students in the general chemistry course, e-learning experiences among nursing students: a scoping review, the effect of attendance on student performance: implications of using virtual learning on overall performance, e-learning and its impact on students and their learning styles, 40 references, the impact of e-learning on creativity and learning in physiology course in nursing students of shahrekord university of medical sciences, examining e-learning barriers as perceived by faculty members of engineering colleges in the jordanian universities., the impact of e-learning on students performance in tertiary institutions, the effect of e-learning on students’ creativity, student perceptions and opinions toward e-learning in the college environment, the role of e-learning, the advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education., e‐learning in higher education: some key aspects and their relationship to approaches to study, student achievement in online distance education compared to face-to-face education, implementing a university e-learning strategy: levers for change within academic schools, a study on attitude of college students towards e-learning with special reference to north lakhimpur of lakhimpur district, assam, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

•  Sign into My Research
•  Create My Research Account
• Company Website
• Our Products
• About Dissertations
• Español (España)
• Support Center

Select language

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Português (Brasil)
• Português (Portugal)

Welcome to My Research!

You may have access to the free features available through My Research. You can save searches, save documents, create alerts and more. Please log in through your library or institution to check if you have access.

Translate this article into 20 different languages!

If you log in through your library or institution you might have access to this article in multiple languages.

Get access to 20+ different citations styles

Styles include MLA, APA, Chicago and many more. This feature may be available for free if you log in through your library or institution.

Looking for a PDF of this document?

You may have access to it for free by logging in through your library or institution.

Want to save this document?

You may have access to different export options including Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive and citation management tools like RefWorks and EasyBib. Try logging in through your library or institution to get access to these tools.

• More like this
• Preview Available
• Conference Paper

ONLINE LEARNING VS TRADITIONAL LEARNING: THE RESEARCH OF STUDENT ATTITUDES

No items selected.

Please select one or more items.

Select results items first to use the cite, email, save, and export options

You might have access to the full article...

Try and log in through your institution to see if they have access to the full text.

Content area

Education on all levels faced a significant threat due to the Covid-19 pandemic that started in 2020. On one hand, it was impossible to keep the education processes going the same way as before, and on other hand no one could imagine stopping all education processes for a longer period. The key role in the field of education was played by the informatics technology. The solution was found in online learning using different platforms for communication in the real time. Although having classes in completely new circumstances was something new and unknown, both students and teachers have come to the point where they cannot wait for the time of returning to physical classes. This paper aims to detect the student attitudes to the online learning comparing it to the traditional learning at the university. Using a survey on a sample of 276 respondents, two main hypotheses are confirmed: Students prefer the traditional way of teaching to the online teaching and Better students appreciate more the traditional teaching than under average students. The sample is distributed among all years of the study, from the first year of bachelor study to the final year of the master study. The main aim of this research is to detect how satisfied the students are with the online classes, compared to the traditional teaching methods onsite. The results show that 52.9% of students prefer onsite classes, and 28.6% prefer online classes. For 65.9% of the respondent online classes are worse than onsite classes and only 19.2% of students consider online classes better. Students with higher average grades are more satisfied with traditional onsite classes, and less satisfied with online classes. This can also be interpreted as the higher satisfaction with online classes for under average student and their lower satisfaction with traditional classes.

Keywords: online learning process, student satisfaction, research, Croatia, Covid-19

JEL classification: I23, D83, A10, D24

Introduction

In 2020, the world has faced the pandemic of Covid-19, which is something unique in the modern history in many different senses. Global economic development was almost stopped, everyday life of each individual has changed, tourism was extremely reduced, and culture and sport events were stopped. Education on all levels faced a significant threat. On one hand, it was...

You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer

Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer

Suggested sources

• About ProQuest
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Related Papers

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Steven E Higgins

The study investigates the effect of e-learning, blended learning and classroom learning on students’ achievement. Two experimental groups together with a control group from Umm Al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia were identified randomly. To assess students’ achievement in the different groups, pre- and post-achievement tests were used. The results of the study (N = 148) show that there was a statistically significant difference between the three methods in terms of students’ achievement favouring the blended learning method (n = 55) with a substantial effect size of 1.34 (Hedges’ g). No significant difference was found between the e-learning (n = 43) and traditional learning groups (n = 50) in terms of students’ achievement and with a negligible effect size of 0.02.

Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

Prof. Ali Al Musawi Emeritus Professor , Mohamed Eid Hamed Amar

This research aims to design three educational programmes based on blended learning delivery to students attending the "introduction to educational technology" course. Each programme differs in its blending proportion between traditional and e-learning. The objective is to determine the most suitable blending ratio between the two delivery formats for this course, and compare the effectiveness of the three blending levels to the traditional instruction in terms of developing students' academic achievement and their attitudes towards using blended learning at the College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University. The results show a statistically significant difference at the level of <0.05 between the mean scores of all the experimental groups and the three control groups in the post academic achievement test, in favour of the experimental groups. The research recommends using a blended learning strategy with all blending ratios in teaching and developing different learning variables, such as understanding and thinking. INTRODUCTION Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) face several demands imposed by the ever-growing scientific and technological developments. They have to face the increasing turnout on higher education and improve their level of efficiency, effectiveness, and quality in line with era demands. They also need to develop human resources to meet the market and the development plan requirements. Therefore, radical changes in the university education system have to be made so that education is not limited to traditional teaching styles, but rather relies on modern ICT patterns, while remaining flexible and efficient. This can be easily accomplished by allowing instructional materials and curricula to reach higher education (HE) students at anytime and anywhere, giving them the competences, skills, and knowledge necessary for success in their careers and social lives.

DESIDOC Journal of Library &amp; Information Technology

Dr. Shamim Aktar Munshi

The study aims to determine students&#39; perceptions regarding the blended mode of learning in the post-Covid era of Aligarh Muslim University. An online questionnaire was designed (Google form) with the help of previous studies and forwarded the web link through text messaging, email, WhatsApp, and Facebook. In total, 291 participants (undergraduate, postgraduate, and research scholars) filled out the online questionnaire. The result shows that the blended mode of learning is well accepted by the students, but when it comes to practical classes, this mode surely does not suffice. When it comes to the attitude of the students towards the blended mode of learning, the results suggest that most of the students are comfortable. Further, the blended mode comes with the complexities of e-learning and technical issues like poor internet connectivity, technical problems, limited internet pack, unorganised reading materials, etc., causing many difficulties in the overall learning process. ...

Proceedings of the 5th …

Bijan Yavar

Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology

Marta Žuvić-Butorac

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

Azlan Abdul Aziz

Journal of Information Science and Engineering

Daria Bylieva

Manju Abeysinghe

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

jan cybell namocatcat

Studies in Literature and Language

Mohammad Alseweed

Zlatoeli Ducheva

Le Amor Ewican-Baje

Nikolaos Vernadakis

Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal

Psychology and Education , JEFFRY M O R I L L A SARO

Journal of Education and Practice

Reema Alnashash

Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences

Munir Tubagus

Murat Ekici

Haluk Soran , Meriç Balcı

Prof. Amosa I S I A K A GAMBARI

International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)

Nuha El-Khalili

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)

IJRASET Publication

Turkish Online Journal of Distance …

meryem yilmaz soylu

Ayşe Elitok Kesici

Educational Technology Research and Development

Rodríguez Lázaro

Arnold Lorenzo

Contemporary Issues In Education Research

Assoc.Prof.Dr. Meltem Eryılmaz

Mohd Azli Yeop

Computers & Education

Justice Daniel

International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research

Anna Marie Vilo

Ayub Budhi Anggoro

rozhanmidrus prof

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Instructional Technology

E-learning Vs. Traditional Learning for Learners Satisfaction

• January 2020
• 29(3):388-397

• Al Buraimi University College

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Gabriel Edrick Acuna
• Luis Antonio Z. Alvarez
• Jeffrey M. Miraflores
• Shivam Tyagi
• Kushagra Mathur
• Tushar Gupta
• Vikas Tripathi

• Gregory O. Onwodi
• Anietie John

• Azmi bin Mohd. Yusof
• Mohd Ezanee Bin Rusli

• Rosemarie D. Obispo

• Antonio R. Yango
• Morshed U. Chowdhury

• Educ Inform Tech

• Abdalla Eldow

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up