Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates' opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning

Nenagh Kemp, Rachel Grieve, Nenagh Kemp, Rachel Grieve

Abstract

As electronic communication becomes increasingly common, and as students juggle study, work, and family life, many universities are offering their students more flexible learning opportunities. Classes once delivered face-to-face are often replaced by online activities and discussions. However, there is little research comparing students' experience and learning in these two modalities. The aim of this study was to compare undergraduates' preference for, and academic performance on, class material and assessment presented online vs. in traditional classrooms. Psychology students (N = 67) at an Australian university completed written exercises, a class discussion, and a written test on two academic topics. The activities for one topic were conducted face-to-face, and the other online, with topics counterbalanced across two groups. The results showed that students preferred to complete activities face-to-face rather than online, but there was no significant difference in their test performance in the two modalities. In their written responses, students expressed a strong preference for class discussions to be conducted face-to-face, reporting that they felt more engaged, and received more immediate feedback, than in online discussion. A follow-up study with a separate group (N = 37) confirmed that although students appreciated the convenience of completing written activities online in their own time, they also strongly preferred to discuss course content with peers in the classroom rather than online. It is concluded that online and face-to-face activities can lead to similar levels of academic performance, but that students would rather do written activities online but engage in discussion in person. Course developers could aim to structure classes so that students can benefit from both the flexibility of online learning, and the greater engagement experienced in face-to-face discussion.

Keywords: discussion forums; e-learning; face-to-face learning; online learning; university.

References

    1. Alexander S. (2001). E-learning developments and experiences. Educ. Train. 43, 240–248 10.1108/00400910110399247
    1. Anderson T., Dron J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 12, 80–97 Available online at:
    1. Australian Qualifications Framework. (2013). Australian Qualifications Frameworks Council, 2nd Edn Available online at:
    1. Balluerka N., Rodríguez M., Gorostiaga A., Vergara A. (2008). Development of a questionnaire to evaluate pilot schemes adapting undergraduate courses to the requirements of the European higher education area (EHEA). Eur. Psychol. 13, 222–226 10.1027/1016-9040.13.3.222
    1. Bell M., Bush D., Nicholson P., O'Brien D., Tran T. (2002). Universities Online. A Survey of Online Education and Services in Australia. 02-A Occasional Paper Series. Canberra: Department of Education, Science, and Training.
    1. Braun V., Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    1. Carini R. M., Kuh G. D., Klein S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Res. High. Educ. 47, 1–29 10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9
    1. Chen P.-S., Lambert A. D., Guidry K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: the impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Comput. Educ. 54, 1222–1232 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008
    1. Citera M. (1998). Distributed teamwork: the impact of communication media on influence and decision quality. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 49, 792–800.
    1. Conole G., de Laat M., Dillon T., Darby J. (2008). “Disruptive technologies”, “pedagogical innovation”: what's new? Findings from an in-depth study of students' use and perception of technology. Comput. Educ. 50, 511–524 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.009
    1. Davies J., Graff M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: online participation and student grades. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 36, 657–663 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00542.x
    1. Evans C., Gibbons N. J., Shah K., Griffin D. K. (2004). Virtual learning in the biological sciences: pitfalls of simply “putting notes on the web.” Comput. Educ. 43, 49–61 10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.004
    1. Galway L. P., Corbett K. K., Takaro T. K., Tairyan K., Frank E. (2014). A novel integration of online and flipped classroom instructional models in public health higher education. BMC Med. Educ. 14:181. 10.1186/1472-6920-14-181
    1. Garrison D. R. (2012). E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
    1. Grieve R., Indian M., Witteveen K., Tolan G. A., Marrington J. (2013). Face-to-face or facebook: can social connectedness be derived online? Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 605–609 10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.017
    1. Harden R. M., Crosby J. (2000). AMEE guide no 20: the good teacher is more than a lecturer: the twelve roles of the teacher. Med. Teach. 22, 334–347 10.1080/014215900409429
    1. Hobbs D. (2002). Constructivist approach to web course design: a review of the literature. Int. J. E-Learn. 1, 60–65 Available online at:
    1. Holley D., Oliver M. (2010). Student engagement and blended learning: portraits of risk. Comput. Educ. 54, 693–700 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.035
    1. Imel S. (2002). E-learning—Trends and Issues Alert. (Report No-40). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
    1. Ituma A. (2011). An evaluation of students' perceptions and engagement with e-learning components in a campus based university. Active Learn. High. Educ. 12, 57–68 10.1177/1469787410387722
    1. Lowenfeld V. (1939). The Nature of Creative Activity. Oxford: Harcourt Brace.
    1. O'Neill K., Singh G., O'Donoghue J. (2004). Implementing elearning programmes for higher education: a review of the literature. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. 3, 313–323 Available online at:
    1. Otter R. R., Seipel S., Graeff T., Alexander B., Boraiko C., Gray J., Sadler K., et al. (2013). Comparing student and faculty perceptions of online and traditional courses. Internet High. Educ. 19, 27–35 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.08.001
    1. Piaget J. (1954). The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    1. Prosser M., Martin E., Trigwell K., Ramsden P., Lueckenhausen G. (2005). Academics' experiences of understanding of their subject matter and the relationships of this to their experiences of teaching and learning. Instr. Sci. 33, 137–157 10.1007/s11251-004-7687-x
    1. Ramsden P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
    1. Robinson C. C., Hullinger H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. J. Educ. Bus. 84, 101–109 10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109
    1. Rossman M. H. (1999). Successful online teaching using an asynchronous learner discussion forum. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 3, 1–8.
    1. Smith D., Hardaker G. (2000). e-Learning innovation through the implementation of an Internet supported learning environment. Educ. Technol. Soc. 3, 1–16 Available online at:
    1. Strayer J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation, and task orientation. Learn. Environ. Res. 15, 171–193 10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4
    1. Swan K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: the importance of interaction. Educ. Commun. Inf. 2, 23–49 10.1080/1463631022000005016
    1. Tucker B., Halloran P., Price C. (2013). Student perceptions of the teaching in online learning: an Australian university case study, in Research and Development in Higher Education: The Place of Learning and Teaching, Vol. 36, eds Frielick S., Buissink-Smith N., Wyse P., Billot J., Hallas J., Whitehead E. (Auckland: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia; ), 470–484.
    1. Twigg C. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: new models for online learning. Educause Review, Sept/Oct, 28–38 Available online at:
    1. Upton D. (2006). Online learning in speech and language therapy: student performance and attitudes. Educ. Health 19, 22–31. 10.1080/13576280500534735
    1. Warschauer M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: theory and practice. Mod. Lang. J. 8, 470–481 10.2307/328890
    1. Zhang W.-Y., Perris K. (2004). Researching the efficacy of online learning: a collaborative effort amongst scholars in Asian open universities. Open Learn. 19, 247–264 10.1080/0268051042000280110

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel