Summary of primary university learning outcomes by teaching mode
Primary outcome variables | Greater efficacy | Studies | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study/first author | Subject | Tests/grades | Satisfaction | Self-rated performance | Other – rating: tutor (t) student (s) | F2F | OL | No difference | ( ) |
Human resource | X | X | X | X | 1 | ||||
Bond (2004) | Social science | X | X | Problem-based learning (t) | X | 1 | |||
Heckman (2005) | Information management | Cognitive process, group task (t) | X | 1 | |||||
Economics and finance | X | X | 1 | ||||||
Language | X | X | X | 1 | |||||
Herman (2007) | Teacher education | X | Class discussion and engagement (t) | X | 1 | ||||
Teacher education | X | X | X | 1 | |||||
Multiple | X | X | 24 | ||||||
San Jose (2009) | Communications | Learning stress/adaptation (s) | X | 1 | |||||
Horspool (2010) | Music | X | X | Musical performance (t) | X | 1 | |||
Kurt (2010) | Unclear | Cognitive strategy (t) | X | 1 | |||||
Pilbeam (2010) | Computer literacy | X | Tutor attitudes (s) | X | 1 | ||||
Sussman (2010) | Social science | X | Learning (s) | X | 1 | ||||
Williams (2010) | Organisational behaviour | X | Team perform (s) | X | 1 | ||||
Social science | X | X | X | 1 | |||||
Multiple | X | X | X | 4 | |||||
Multiple | X | X | X | −− | 21 | ||||
Medicine | X | X | Confidence | X | 1 | ||||
Woolsey (2013) | Communications | X | X | X | 1 | ||||
Ghonsooly (2014) | Language | X | Learning (s) | X | 1 | ||||
Health-care (mixed) | X | Spiritual awareness (s) | X | 1 | |||||
Nursing | X | X | Performance and knowledge (t) | X | 6 | ||||
Cavanaugh (2015) | Multiple | X | GPA | X | 1 | ||||
Medical (surgery) | X | Surgery speed (t) Knowledge (s) | X | 4 | |||||
Multiple | X | X | Learning and engagement (s) | X | 6 | ||||
Callister (2016) | Negotiation | X | X | 1 | |||||
Nursing | X | −− | 5 | ||||||
Child development | X | X | X | 1 | |||||
In composite studies/meta-analyses – indicated outcome variable is that most used
Composite/meta-analyses report overall efficacy finding; results of included individual studies were:
Means et al. (2009) F2F(7); OL(16); ND(0)
Jurewitsch (2012) F2F(0); OL(3); ND(0)
Lack (2013) F2F(1); OL(3); ND(16) [no clear determination from assessed data]
McCutcheon et al. (2014) F2F(0); OL(2); ND(3)
Jayakumar et al. (2015) F2F(0); OL(3); ND(0)
Nguyen (2015) F2F(2); OL(2); ND(1) [categorised OL based on main study finding]
Voutilainen et al. (2017) F2F(2); OL(2); ND(0) [no clear determination from assessed data]
Addis , A.J. ( 2009 ), “ A comparison of face-to-face and online learning environments to prepare teachers to use technology ”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones, 33, University of Nevada , Las Vegas. NV , available at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations/33
Adekola , J. , Dale , V.H. and Gardiner , K. ( 2017 ), “ Development of an institutional framework to guide transitions into enhanced blended learning in higher education ”, Research in Learning Technology , Vol. 25 , doi: 10.25304/rlt.v25.1973 .
Arksey , H. and O’Malley , L. ( 2005 ), “ Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework ”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology , Vol. 8 No. 1 , pp. 19 - 32 , doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616 .
Beatty , B. ( 2014 ), “ Hybrid courses with flexible participation: the HyFlex course design ”, in Kyei-Blankson , L. and Ntuli , E. (Eds), Practical Applications and Experiences in K-20 Blended Learning Environments , IGI Global , Hershey, PA , pp. 153 - 177 , doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-4912-5.ch011 .
Becker , K. ( 2010 ), “ The Clark-Kozma debate in the 21st century ”, Canadian Network for Innovation in Education Conference 2010: Heritage Matters: Inspiring Tomorrow , Saint John, New Brunswick .
Beishuizen , J. ( 2008 ), “ Does a community of learners foster self‐regulated learning? ”, Technology, Pedagogy and Education , Vol. 17 No. 3 , pp. 183 - 193 , doi: 10.1080/14759390802383769 .
Bernard , R.M. , Abrami , P.C. , Lou , Y. , Borokhovski , E. , Wade , A. , Wozney , L. , Wallet , P.A. , Fiset , M. and Huang , B. ( 2004 ), “ How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A Meta-analysis of the empirical literature ”, Review of Educational Research , Vol. 74 No. 3 , pp. 379 - 439 , doi: 10.3102%2F00346543074003379 .
Biggs , J. ( 1998 ), “ Learning from the Confucian heritage: so size doesn’t matter? ”, International Journal of Educational Research , Vol. 29 No. 8 , pp. 723 - 738 , doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(98)00060-3 .
Blin , F. and Munro , M. ( 2008 ), “ Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory ”, Computers and Education , Vol. 50 No. 2 , pp. 475 - 490 , doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.017 .
Bond , N. and Peterson , C.L. ( 2004 ), “ Preparing preservice teachers to plan problem based learning: a qualitative case study of online and face-to-face learning ”, Action in Teacher Education , Vol. 26 No. 3 , pp. 82 - 95 , doi: 10.1080/01626620.2004.10463335 .
Brown , B.W. and Liedholm , C.E. ( 2002 ), “ Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of microeconomics? ”, American Economic Review , Vol. 92 No. 2 , pp. 444 - 448 , available at: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/000282802320191778
Brown , J.S. and Duguid , P. ( 1996 ), “ Universities in the digital age ”, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , Vol. 28 No. 4 , pp. 11 - 19 , doi: 10.1080/00091383.1996.9937757 .
Brown , M. , McCormack , M. , Reeves , J. , Brook , D.C. , Grajek , S. , Alexander , B. , Bali , M. , Bulger , S. , Dark , S. , Engelbert , N. , Gannon , K. , Gauthier , A. , Gibson , D. , Gibson , R. , Lundin , B. , Veletsianos , G. and Weber , N. ( 2020 ), 2020 Educause Horizon Report Teaching and Learning Edition , EDUCAUSE , Louisville, CO , available at: www.learntechlib.org/p/215670/
Burns , R. ( 2020 ), “ A COVID-19 panacea in digital technologies? Challenges for democracy and higher education ”, Dialogues in Human Geography , Vol. 10 No. 2 , pp. 246 - 249 , doi: 10.1177%2F2043820620930832 .
Callister , R.R. and Love , M.S. ( 2016 ), “ A comparison of learning outcomes in skills‐based courses: online versus face‐to‐face formats ”, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education , Vol. 14 No. 2 , pp. 243 - 256 , doi: 10.1111/dsji.12093 .
Cavanaugh , J.K. and Jacquemin , S.J. ( 2015 ), “ A large sample comparison of grade based student learning outcomes in online vs. face-to-face courses ”, Online Learning , Vol. 19 No. 2 , ISSN 1939-5256.
Clark , R.E. ( 1983 ), “ Reconsidering research on learning from media ”, Review of Educational Research , Vol. 53 No. 4 , pp. 445 - 459 , doi: 10.3102%2F00346543053004445 .
Clark , R.E. ( 1994 ), “ Media will never influence learning ”, Educational Technology Research and Development , Vol. 42 No. 2 , pp. 21 - 29 , doi: 10.1007/BF02299088 .
Clark , R.E. ( 2007 ), “ Learning from serious games? Arguments, evidence, and research suggestions ”, Educational Technology , Vol. 47 No. 3 , pp. 56 - 59 , available at: www.jstor.com/stable/44429512
Clark , R. ( 2014 ), “ Cognitive task analysis for expert-based instruction in healthcare ”, in Spector , J. , Merrill , M. , Elen , J. and Bishop , M. (Eds), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology , Springer , New York, NY , doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_42 .
Clark , R.E. and Feldon , D.F. ( 2005 ), “ Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning ”, in Mayer , R. (Ed.) Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , pp. 97 - 116 .
Cleveland-Innes , M.F. and Emes , C. ( 2005 ), “ Social and academic interaction in higher education contexts and the effect on deep learning ”, Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice , Vol. 42 No. 2 , pp. 387 - 408 , doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.1475 .
Condie , J.M. , Ayodele , I. , Chowdhury , S. , Powe , S. and Cooper , A.M. ( 2018 ), “ Personalizing twitter communication: an evaluation of ‘rotation-curation’ for enhancing social media engagement within higher education ”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education , Vol. 28 No. 2 , pp. 192 - 209 , doi: 10.1080/08841241.2018.1453910 .
Costa , C. ( 2014 ), “ Double gamers: academics between fields ”, British Journal of Sociology of Education , Vol. 37 No. 7 , pp. 993 - 1013 , doi: 10.1080/01425692.2014.982861 .
Costa , C. , Hammond , M. and Younie , S. ( 2019 ), “ Theorising technology in education: an introduction ”, Technology, Pedagogy and Education , Vol. 28 No. 4 , pp. 395 - 399 , doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2019.1660089 .
Crawford , J. , Butler-Henderson , K. , Rudolph , J. , Malkawi , B. , Glowatz , M. , Burton , R. , Magni , P. and Lam , S. ( 2020 ), “ COVID-19: 20 countries' higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses ”, Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 20 , doi: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7.
Crawford , R. and Jenkins , L. ( 2017 ), “ Blended learning and team teaching: adapting pedagogy in response to the changing digital tertiary environment ”, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , Vol. 33 No. 2 , doi: 10.14742/ajet.2924 .
Cronin , C. ( 2017 ), “ Openness and praxis: exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education ”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , Vol. 18 No. 5 , pp. 15 - 34 , doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096 .
Crook , C. ( 1998 ), “ Children as computer users: the case of collaborative learning ”, Computers and Education , Vol. 30 Nos 3/4 , pp. 237 - 247 , doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(97)00067-5 .
Dhawan , S. ( 2020 ), “ Online learning: a panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis ”, Journal of Educational Technology Systems , Vol. 49 No. 1 , pp. 5 - 22 , doi: 10.1177/0047239520934018 .
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 ”, Teaching Sociology , Vol. 40 No. 4 , pp. 312 - 331 , doi: 10.1177%2F0092055X12446624 .
Fontaine , G. ( 2000 ), “ Skills for successful international assignments to, from, and within Asia and the pacific: Implications for preparation, support, and training ”, Management Decision , Vol. 35 No. 8 , pp. 631 - 643 , doi: 10.1108/00251749710176190 .
Francescato , D. , Porcelli , R. , Mebane , M. , Cuddetta , M. , Klobas , J. and Renzi , P. ( 2006 ), “ Evaluation of the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and computer-supported university contexts ”, Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 22 No. 2 , pp. 163 - 176 , doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.03.001 .
Garrison , D.R. and Cleveland-Innes , M. ( 2005 ), “ Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough ”, American Journal of Distance Education , Vol. 19 No. 3 , pp. 133 - 148 , doi: 10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2 .
Ghonsooly , B. and Seyyedrezaie , Z.S. ( 2014 ), “ The comparison of language learning strategies and reading comprehension of Iranian EFL students taking web-based and face-to-face instruction ”, Theory and Practice in Language Studies , Vol. 4 No. 6 , pp. 1296 - 1302 , doi: 10.4304/tpls.4.6.1296-1302 .
Graham , M. ( 2014 ), “ Social media as a tool for increased student participation and engagementoutside the classroom in higher education ”, Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice , Vol. 2 No. 3 , doi: 10.14297/jpaap.v2i3.113 .
Groves , K. , Baldry , C. and Sherrat , C. ( 2014 ), “ What’s the “e” in e-learning for spirituality: a comparison of online and face to face course versions for healthcare workers ”, BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care , Vol. 4 No No. Suppl 1 , doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000654.86 .
Hass , A. and Joseph , M. ( 2018 ), “ Investigating different options in course delivery – traditional vs online: is there another option? ”, The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology , Vol. 35 No. 4 , pp. 230 - 239 , doi: 10.1108/ijilt-09-2017-0096 .
Hay , A. , Hodgkinson , M. , Peltier , J.W. and Drago , W.A. ( 2004 ), “ Interaction and virtual learning ”, Strategic Change , Vol. 13 No. 4 , pp. 193 - 204 , doi: 10.1002/jsc.679 .
Heckman , R. and Annabi , H. ( 2005 ), “ A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussions ”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Vol. 10 No. 2 , doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00244.x .
Herman , T. and Banister , S. ( 2007 ), “ Face-to-face versus online coursework: a comparison of learning outcomes and costs ”, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education , Vol. 7 No. 4 , pp. 318 - 326 . ISSN 1528-5804.
Hiltz , S.R. and Turoff , M. ( 2005 ), “ Education goes digital: the evolution of online learning and the revolution in higher education ”, Communications of the ACM , Vol. 48 No. 10 , pp. 59 - 64 , doi: 10.1145/1089107.1089139 .
Horspool , A. and Yang , S.S. ( 2010 ), “ A comparison of university student perceptions and success learning music online and face-to-face ”, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching , Vol. 6 No. 1 , pp. 15 - 29 , available at: https://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no1/horspool_0310.pdf .
Hynes , M. ( 2018 ), “ Students-as-producers: developing valuable student-centered research and learning opportunities ”, International Journal of Research Studies in Education , Vol. 7 No. 4 , pp. 1 - 13 , doi: 10.5861/ijrse.2017.1858 .
Jayakumar , N. , Brunckhorst , O. , Dasgupta , P. , Khan , M.S. and Ahmed , K. ( 2015 ), “ E-learning in surgical education: a systematic review ”, Journal of Surgical Education , Vol. 72 No. 6 , pp. 1145 - 1157 , doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.05.008 .
Johnson , S.D. , Aragon , S.R. and Shaik , N. ( 2000 ), “ Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments ”, Journal of Interactive Learning Research , Vol. 11 No. 1 , pp. 29 - 49 . ISSN 1093-023X.
Jones , K.A. and Sharma , R.S. ( 2019 ), “ An experiment in blended learning: higher education without lectures ”, International Journal of Digital Enterprise Technology , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 241 - 275 , doi: 10.1504/IJDET.2019.097846 .
Jurewitsch , B. ( 2012 ), “ A Meta-analytic and qualitative review of online versus face-to-face problem-based learning ”, Journal of Distance Education , Vol. 26 No. 2 , available at: www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/download/787/1399?inline=1
Kaplan , A.M. and Haenlein , M. ( 2016 ), “ Higher education and the digital revolution: about MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the cookie monster ”, Business Horizons , Vol. 59 No. 4 , pp. 441 - 450 , doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008 .
Kornbluh , A. ( 2020 ), “ Academe’s coronavirus shock doctrine ”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 March , available at: www.chronicle.com/article/academes-coronavirus-shock-doctrine/ ( accessed 20 June 2020 ).
Kozma , R.B. ( 1991 ), “ Learning with media ”, Review of Educational Research , Vol. 61 No. 2 , pp. 179 - 211 , doi: 10.3102%2F00346543061002179 .
Kozma , R.B. ( 1994 ), “ The influence of media on learning: the debate continues ”, School Library Media Research SLMQ , Vol. 22 No. 4 , available at: www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/edchoice/SLMQ_InfluenceofMediaonLearning_InfoPower.pdf
Kurt , A.A. and Gürcan , A. ( 2010 ), “ The comparison of learning strategies, computer anxiety and success states of students taking web-based and face-to-face instruction in higher education ”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , Vol. 9 , pp. 1153 - 1157 , doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.299 .
Lack , K.A. ( 2013 ), “ Current status of research on online learning in postsecondary education ”, Ithaka S+R , available at: https://sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ithaka-sr-online-learning-postsecondary-education-may2012.pdf ( accessed 15 June 2020 ).
Lambrinidis , G. ( 2014 ), “ Supporting online, non-traditional students through the introduction of effective e-learning tools in a pre-university tertiary enabling programme ”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , Vol. 36 No. 3 , pp. 257 - 267 , doi: 10.1080/01587919.2014.899053 .
McCutcheon , K. , Lohan , M. , Traynor , M. and Martin , D. ( 2014 ), “ A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face‐to‐face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education ”, Journal of Advanced Nursing , Vol. 71 No. 2 , pp. 255 - 270 , doi: 10.1111/jan.12509 .
McKenzie , K. ( 2013 ), “ A comparison of the effectiveness of a game informed online learning activity and face to face teaching in increasing knowledge about managing aggression in health settings ”, Advances in Health Sciences Education , Vol. 18 No. 5 , pp. 917 - 927 , doi: 10.1007/s10459-012-9430-8 .
McLaughlin , J.E. , Roth , M.T. , Glatt , D.M. , Gharkholonarehe , N. , Davidson , C.A. , Griffin , L.M. , Esserman , D.A. and Mumper , R.J. ( 2013 ), “ The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school ”, Academic Medicine , Vol. 89 No. 2 , pp. 236 - 243 , doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000086 .
Means , B. , Toyama , Y. , Murphy , R. , Bakia , M. and Jones , K. ( 2009 ), “ Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies”, US department of education ”, available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505824.pdf ( accessed 1 June 2020 ).
Mullen , C. ( 2019 ), “ Does modality matter? A comparison of aspiring leaders’ learning online and face-to-face ”, Journal of Further and Higher Education , Vol. 44 No. 5 , pp. 670 - 688 , doi: 10.1080/0309877x.2019.1576859 .
Namlu , A.G. ( 2005 ), “ BSartilgisayarözyeterliliğialgisiilebilişselöğrenmestratejileriarasindakiilişki ”, EğitimAraştirmalariDergisi , p. 19 .
Nguyen , T. ( 2015 ), “ The effectiveness of online learning: beyond no significant difference and future horizons ”, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching , Vol. 11 No. 2 , pp. 309 - 319 , available at: https://jolt.merlot.org/Vol11no2/Nguyen_0615.pdf
Pham , M.T. , Rajić , A. , Greig , J.D. , Sargeant , J.M. , Papadopoulos , A. and McEwen , S.A. ( 2014 ), “ A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency ”, Research Synthesis Methods , Vol. 5 No. 4 , pp. 371 - 385 , doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1123. .
Pilbeam , R. and Barrus , A. ( 2010 ), “ Transitioning from face-to-face to online learning: a case study ”, in Simonson , M. (Ed.), On the Practice of Educational Communications and Technology Presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology , Nova Southeastern University , Anaheim, CA , available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514647.pdf ( accessed 15 June 2020 ).
Previtali , P. and Scarozza , D. ( 2019 ), “ Blended learning adoption: a case study of one of the oldest universities in Europe ”, International Journal of Educational Management , Vol. 33 No. 5 , pp. 990 - 998 , doi: 10.1108/IJEM-07-2018-0197 .
Ragusa , A.T. and Crampton , A. ( 2018 ), “ Sense of connection, identity and academic success in distance education: sociologically exploring online learning environments ”, Rural Society , Vol. 27 No. 2 , pp. 125 - 142 , doi: 10.1080/10371656.2018.1472914 .
Raynauld , J. ( 2006 ), “ A comparison of online and face-to-face learning in undergraduate finance and economic policy courses ”, Preliminary , HEC Montréal , QC .
Rideout , V.J. , Foehr , U.G. and Roberts , D.F. ( 2010 ), Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year-Olds , The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation , Menlo Park, CA , available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527859.pdf
Rosell-Aguilar , F. ( 2006 ), “ The face-to-face and the online learner: a comparative study of tutorial support for open and distance language learning and the learner experience with audio-graphic SCMC ”, Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal , Vol. 6 No. 3 , pp. 248 - 268 .
Rubin , B. , Fernandes , R. and Avgerinou , M.D. ( 2013 ), “ The effects of technology on the community of inquiry and satisfaction with online courses ”, The Internet and Higher Education , Vol. 17 , pp. 48 - 57 , doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.006 .
San Jose , D.L. and Kelleher , T. ( 2009 ), “ Measuring ecoshock and affective learning: a comparison of student responses to online and face-to-face learning ecologies ”, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching , Vol. 5 No. 3 , pp. 469 - 476 .
Shachar , M. and Neumann , Y. ( 2003 ), “ Differences between traditional and distance education academic performances: a meta-analytic approach ”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , Vol. 4 No. 2 , doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.153 .
Schatzker , E. ( 2020 ), “ Morgan stanley CEO sees a future for the bank with ‘much less real estate ”, Bloomberg, 17 April , available at: www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-16/gorman-sees-morgan-stanley-future-with-much-less-real-estate ( accessed 30 June 2020 ).
Shea , P. and Bidjerano , T. ( 2012 ), “ Learning presence as a moderator in the community of inquiry model ”, Computers and Education , Vol. 59 No. 2 , pp. 316 - 326 , doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.011 .
Snilstveit , B. , Oliver , S. and Vojtkova , M. ( 2012 ), “ Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice ”, Journal of Development Effectiveness , Vol. 4 No. 3 , pp. 409 - 429 , doi: 10.1080/19439342.2012.710641 .
Stone , C. ( 2017 ), “ Opportunity through online learning: improving student access, participation and success in higher education ”, National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education , Perth, WA , available at: www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/opportunity-online-learning-improving-student-access-participation-success-higher-education/ ( accessed 28 June 2020 ).
Sussman , S. and Dutter , L. ( 2010 ), “ Comparing student learning outcomes in face-to-face and online course delivery ”, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , Vol. 8 No. 4 .
Taylor , C.A. ( 2013 ), “ Objects, bodies and space: gender and embodied practices of mattering in the classroom ”, Gender and Education , Vol. 25 No. 6 , pp. 688 - 703 , doi: 10.1080/09540253.2013.834864 .
Thomas , G. and Thorpe , S. ( 2019 ), “ Enhancing the facilitation of onlinegroups in higher education: a review of the literature on face-to-face and online group-facilitation ”, Interactive Learning Environments , Vol. 27 No. 1 , pp. 62 - 71 , doi: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1451897 .
Voutilainen , A. , Saaranen , T. and Sormunen , M. ( 2017 ), “ Conventional vs. e-learning in nursing education: a systematic review and meta-analysis ”, Nurse Education Today , Vol. 50 , pp. 97 - 103 , doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.12.020 .
Williams , E.A. and Castro , S.L. ( 2010 ), “ The effects of teamwork on individual learning and perceptions of team performance: a comparison of face‐to‐face and online project settings ”, Team Performance Management: An International Journal , Vol. 16 Nos 3/4 , pp. 124 - 147 , doi: 10.1108/13527591011053232 .
Williamson , B. ( 2019 ), “ Policy networks, performance metrics and platform markets: charting the expanding data infrastructure of higher education ”, British Journal of Educational Technology , Vol. 50 No. 6 , pp. 2794 - 2809 , doi: 10.1111/bjet.12849. .
Woolsey , S. ( 2013 ), Learning and Experiential Outcomes of Face-to-Face versus Online Communications Courses , Brock University (distributor) , St. Catharines, ON , available at: https://dr.library.brocku.ca/bitstream/handle/10464/4302/Brock_Woolsey_Shantal_2013.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y ( accessed 1 July 2020 ).
Wu , D. and Hiltz , S.R. ( 2004 ), “ Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions ”, Online Learning , Vol. 8 No. 2 , pp. 139 - 152 , doi: 10.24059/olj.v8i2.1832 .
Yen , S.C. , Lo , Y. , Lee , A. and Enriquez , J. ( 2018 ), “ Learning online, offline, and in-between: comparing student academic outcomes and course satisfaction in face-to-face, online, and blended teaching modalities ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 23 No. 5 , pp. 2141 - 2153 , doi: 10.1007/s10639-018-9707-5 .
This study was supported by the School of Social Sciences, Humanitarian and Development Research Initiative (HADRI) and the Young and Resilient Research Centre at Western Sydney University, Australia.
About the authors.
Garry John Stevens is a Senior Lecturer in the Humanitarian and Development Studies Programme at Western Sydney University. As part of the Humanitarian and Development Research Initiative (HADRI), he is involved in projects examining population preparedness for disasters and critical incidents, including occupational risk and resilience factors amongst emergency service workers, Disaster Medical Assistance Teams and humanitarian aid workers and trainees. His recent work with Aid practitioners focusses on worker self-care and well-being in the context of work-related stress. He is also involved in population mental health and epidemiology, including technology-assisted mental health-care in hospital and community settings.
Tobias Bienz holds a master’s degree in International Affairs from the University of St. Gallen. In the process of completing his degree, he consulted for the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. He also taught a class on “Innovative Projects for a Sustainable Future”. Furthermore, he was selected as a Leader of Tomorrow at the 2018 St. Gallen Symposium, having successfully submitted an essay on the future of work, which was later presented in the adapted form at the Asia Pacific Humanitarian Leadership Conference in Melbourne. Tobias is also a social impact entrepreneur engaged in starting, growing and scaling social impact start-ups.
Nidhi Wali is a Senior Research Officer at the HADRI at Western Sydney University. She holds a master’s degree in Development Studies from the University of Sussex, UK and is pursuing her Doctor of Philosophy research at Western Sydney University focussing on “Child undernutrition in South Asia”. In India, she has worked with the national government, as well as with international organisations such as CARE, Public Health Resource Network and UNICEF on maternal and child health and nutrition programmes. Her present research focusses on international development, public health and migrant issues of settlement and access to services and has published across these issues.
Jenna Condie is a Senior Lecturer in Digital Society in the Social of Social Sciences and a School-based Research Fellow with the Young and Resilient Research Centre at Western Sydney University. Her interdisciplinary research traverses critical psychology, geography and technology studies. Jenna’s research is concerned with what people and places are becoming with digital technologies. Current projects focus on women’s safety, digital geographies of fear and equitable mobilities. She co-leads Travel in the Digital Age (TinDA) and Social Technologies (SoTech) research teams.
Spyros Schismenos is currently a PhD Fellow and Member of HADRI at the School of Social Sciences, Western Sydney University, Australia. Since 2016, he has been working closely with the UNESCO Chair on Conservation and Ecotourism of Riparian and Deltaic Ecosystems as the Focal Point for the Wider Region of Asia-Pacific. He is a Member of the Youth International Soil Governance Commission (YISGC) of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. His research disciplines focus on Humanitarian Engineering, Disaster Management, Renewable Energy, Distance Learning, Disaster Education and Community Development.
All feedback is valuable.
Please share your general feedback
Contact Customer Support
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.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Carolyn chisadza.
1 Department of Economics, University of Pretoria, Hatfield South Africa
Thulani mthembu.
2 Department of Education Innovation, University of Pretoria, Hatfield South Africa
Eleni yitbarek.
This study investigates the factors that predict students' performance after transitioning from face‐to‐face to online learning as a result of the Covid‐19 pandemic. It uses students' responses from survey questions and the difference in the average assessment grades between pre‐lockdown and post‐lockdown at a South African university. We find that students' performance was positively associated with good wifi access, relative to using mobile internet data. We also observe lower academic performance for students who found transitioning to online difficult and who expressed a preference for self‐study (i.e. reading through class slides and notes) over assisted study (i.e. joining live lectures or watching recorded lectures). The findings suggest that improving digital infrastructure and reducing the cost of internet access may be necessary for mitigating the impact of the Covid‐19 pandemic on education outcomes.
The Covid‐19 pandemic has been a wake‐up call to many countries regarding their capacity to cater for mass online education. This situation has been further complicated in developing countries, such as South Africa, who lack the digital infrastructure for the majority of the population. The extended lockdown in South Africa saw most of the universities with mainly in‐person teaching scrambling to source hardware (e.g. laptops, internet access), software (e.g. Microsoft packages, data analysis packages) and internet data for disadvantaged students in order for the semester to recommence. Not only has the pandemic revealed the already stark inequality within the tertiary student population, but it has also revealed that high internet data costs in South Africa may perpetuate this inequality, making online education relatively inaccessible for disadvantaged students. 1
The lockdown in South Africa made it possible to investigate the changes in second‐year students' performance in the Economics department at the University of Pretoria. In particular, we are interested in assessing what factors predict changes in students' performance after transitioning from face‐to‐face (F2F) to online learning. Our main objectives in answering this study question are to establish what study materials the students were able to access (i.e. slides, recordings, or live sessions) and how students got access to these materials (i.e. the infrastructure they used).
The benefits of education on economic development are well established in the literature (Gyimah‐Brempong, 2011 ), ranging from health awareness (Glick et al., 2009 ), improved technological innovations, to increased capacity development and employment opportunities for the youth (Anyanwu, 2013 ; Emediegwu, 2021 ). One of the ways in which inequality is perpetuated in South Africa, and Africa as a whole, is through access to education (Anyanwu, 2016 ; Coetzee, 2014 ; Tchamyou et al., 2019 ); therefore, understanding the obstacles that students face in transitioning to online learning can be helpful in ensuring more equal access to education.
Using students' responses from survey questions and the difference in the average grades between pre‐lockdown and post‐lockdown, our findings indicate that students' performance in the online setting was positively associated with better internet access. Accessing assisted study material, such as narrated slides or recordings of the online lectures, also helped students. We also find lower academic performance for students who reported finding transitioning to online difficult and for those who expressed a preference for self‐study (i.e. reading through class slides and notes) over assisted study (i.e. joining live lectures or watching recorded lectures). The average grades between pre‐lockdown and post‐lockdown were about two points and three points lower for those who reported transitioning to online teaching difficult and for those who indicated a preference for self‐study, respectively. The findings suggest that improving the quality of internet infrastructure and providing assisted learning can be beneficial in reducing the adverse effects of the Covid‐19 pandemic on learning outcomes.
Our study contributes to the literature by examining the changes in the online (post‐lockdown) performance of students and their F2F (pre‐lockdown) performance. This approach differs from previous studies that, in most cases, use between‐subject designs where one group of students following online learning is compared to a different group of students attending F2F lectures (Almatra et al., 2015 ; Brown & Liedholm, 2002 ). This approach has a limitation in that that there may be unobserved characteristics unique to students choosing online learning that differ from those choosing F2F lectures. Our approach avoids this issue because we use a within‐subject design: we compare the performance of the same students who followed F2F learning Before lockdown and moved to online learning during lockdown due to the Covid‐19 pandemic. Moreover, the study contributes to the limited literature that compares F2F and online learning in developing countries.
Several studies that have also compared the effectiveness of online learning and F2F classes encounter methodological weaknesses, such as small samples, not controlling for demographic characteristics, and substantial differences in course materials and assessments between online and F2F contexts. To address these shortcomings, our study is based on a relatively large sample of students and includes demographic characteristics such as age, gender and perceived family income classification. The lecturer and course materials also remained similar in the online and F2F contexts. A significant proportion of our students indicated that they never had online learning experience before. Less than 20% of the students in the sample had previous experience with online learning. This highlights the fact that online education is still relatively new to most students in our sample.
Given the global experience of the fourth industrial revolution (4IR), 2 with rapidly accelerating technological progress, South Africa needs to be prepared for the possibility of online learning becoming the new norm in the education system. To this end, policymakers may consider engaging with various organizations (schools, universities, colleges, private sector, and research facilities) To adopt interventions that may facilitate the transition to online learning, while at the same time ensuring fair access to education for all students across different income levels. 3
Online learning is a form of distance education which mainly involves internet‐based education where courses are offered synchronously (i.e. live sessions online) and/or asynchronously (i.e. students access course materials online in their own time, which is associated with the more traditional distance education). On the other hand, traditional F2F learning is real time or synchronous learning. In a physical classroom, instructors engage with the students in real time, while in the online format instructors can offer real time lectures through learning management systems (e.g. Blackboard Collaborate), or record the lectures for the students to watch later. Purely online courses are offered entirely over the internet, while blended learning combines traditional F2F classes with learning over the internet, and learning supported by other technologies (Nguyen, 2015 ).
Moreover, designing online courses requires several considerations. For example, the quality of the learning environment, the ease of using the learning platform, the learning outcomes to be achieved, instructor support to assist and motivate students to engage with the course material, peer interaction, class participation, type of assessments (Paechter & Maier, 2010 ), not to mention training of the instructor in adopting and introducing new teaching methods online (Lundberg et al., 2008 ). In online learning, instructors are more facilitators of learning. On the other hand, traditional F2F classes are structured in such a way that the instructor delivers knowledge, is better able to gauge understanding and interest of students, can engage in class activities, and can provide immediate feedback on clarifying questions during the class. Additionally, the designing of traditional F2F courses can be less time consuming for instructors compared to online courses (Navarro, 2000 ).
Online learning is also particularly suited for nontraditional students who require flexibility due to work or family commitments that are not usually associated with the undergraduate student population (Arias et al., 2018 ). Initially the nontraditional student belonged to the older adult age group, but with blended learning becoming more commonplace in high schools, colleges and universities, online learning has begun to traverse a wider range of age groups. However, traditional F2F classes are still more beneficial for learners that are not so self‐sufficient and lack discipline in working through the class material in the required time frame (Arias et al., 2018 ).
For the purpose of this literature review, both pure online and blended learning are considered to be online learning because much of the evidence in the literature compares these two types against the traditional F2F learning. The debate in the literature surrounding online learning versus F2F teaching continues to be a contentious one. A review of the literature reveals mixed findings when comparing the efficacy of online learning on student performance in relation to the traditional F2F medium of instruction (Lundberg et al., 2008 ; Nguyen, 2015 ). A number of studies conducted Before the 2000s find what is known today in the empirical literature as the “No Significant Difference” phenomenon (Russell & International Distance Education Certificate Center (IDECC), 1999 ). The seminal work from Russell and IDECC ( 1999 ) involved over 350 comparative studies on online/distance learning versus F2F learning, dating back to 1928. The author finds no significant difference overall between online and traditional F2F classroom education outcomes. Subsequent studies that followed find similar “no significant difference” outcomes (Arbaugh, 2000 ; Fallah & Ubell, 2000 ; Freeman & Capper, 1999 ; Johnson et al., 2000 ; Neuhauser, 2002 ). While Bernard et al. ( 2004 ) also find that overall there is no significant difference in achievement between online education and F2F education, the study does find significant heterogeneity in student performance for different activities. The findings show that students in F2F classes outperform the students participating in synchronous online classes (i.e. classes that require online students to participate in live sessions at specific times). However, asynchronous online classes (i.e. students access class materials at their own time online) outperform F2F classes.
More recent studies find significant results for online learning outcomes in relation to F2F outcomes. On the one hand, Shachar and Yoram ( 2003 ) and Shachar and Neumann ( 2010 ) conduct a meta‐analysis of studies from 1990 to 2009 and find that in 70% of the cases, students taking courses by online education outperformed students in traditionally instructed courses (i.e. F2F lectures). In addition, Navarro and Shoemaker ( 2000 ) observe that learning outcomes for online learners are as effective as or better than outcomes for F2F learners, regardless of background characteristics. In a study on computer science students, Dutton et al. ( 2002 ) find online students perform significantly better compared to the students who take the same course on campus. A meta‐analysis conducted by the US Department of Education finds that students who took all or part of their course online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional F2F instructions. The report also finds that the effect sizes are larger for studies in which the online learning was collaborative or instructor‐driven than in those studies where online learners worked independently (Means et al., 2010 ).
On the other hand, evidence by Brown and Liedholm ( 2002 ) based on test scores from macroeconomics students in the United States suggest that F2F students tend to outperform online students. These findings are supported by Coates et al. ( 2004 ) who base their study on macroeconomics students in the United States, and Xu and Jaggars ( 2014 ) who find negative effects for online students using a data set of about 500,000 courses taken by over 40,000 students in Washington. Furthermore, Almatra et al. ( 2015 ) compare overall course grades between online and F2F students for a Telecommunications course and find that F2F students significantly outperform online learning students. In an experimental study where students are randomly assigned to attend live lectures versus watching the same lectures online, Figlio et al. ( 2013 ) observe some evidence that the traditional format has a positive effect compared to online format. Interestingly, Callister and Love ( 2016 ) specifically compare the learning outcomes of online versus F2F skills‐based courses and find that F2F learners earned better outcomes than online learners even when using the same technology. This study highlights that some of the inconsistencies that we find in the results comparing online to F2F learning might be influenced by the nature of the course: theory‐based courses might be less impacted by in‐person interaction than skills‐based courses.
The fact that the reviewed studies on the effects of F2F versus online learning on student performance have been mainly focused in developed countries indicates the dearth of similar studies being conducted in developing countries. This gap in the literature may also highlight a salient point: online learning is still relatively underexplored in developing countries. The lockdown in South Africa therefore provides us with an opportunity to contribute to the existing literature from a developing country context.
South Africa went into national lockdown in March 2020 due to the Covid‐19 pandemic. Like most universities in the country, the first semester for undergraduate courses at the University of Pretoria had already been running since the start of the academic year in February. Before the pandemic, a number of F2F lectures and assessments had already been conducted in most courses. The nationwide lockdown forced the university, which was mainly in‐person teaching, to move to full online learning for the remainder of the semester. This forced shift from F2F teaching to online learning allows us to investigate the changes in students' performance.
Before lockdown, classes were conducted on campus. During lockdown, these live classes were moved to an online platform, Blackboard Collaborate, which could be accessed by all registered students on the university intranet (“ClickUP”). However, these live online lectures involve substantial internet data costs for students. To ensure access to course content for those students who were unable to attend the live online lectures due to poor internet connections or internet data costs, several options for accessing course content were made available. These options included prerecorded narrated slides (which required less usage of internet data), recordings of the live online lectures, PowerPoint slides with explanatory notes and standard PDF lecture slides.
At the same time, the university managed to procure and loan out laptops to a number of disadvantaged students, and negotiated with major mobile internet data providers in the country for students to have free access to study material through the university's “connect” website (also referred to as the zero‐rated website). However, this free access excluded some video content and live online lectures (see Table 1 ). The university also provided between 10 and 20 gigabytes of mobile internet data per month, depending on the network provider, sent to students' mobile phones to assist with internet data costs.
Sites available on zero‐rated website
Browser access to the university intranet (ClickUp) | Zero‐rated | Paid with internet data |
---|---|---|
Content | X | X (Bb App) |
Interactive videos and content | X | |
YouTube (only if linked in ClickUP) | X | |
Announcements | X | X |
Blackboard Collaborate—live sessions | ||
Blackboard Collaborate—recordings | X | |
Discussions | X | |
Blogs | X | |
Journals | X | |
Assignments | X | |
Turnitin assignments | X | |
Tests | X | |
Gmail | X | |
Library | X | |
Google Drive (accessed via Gmail) | X | |
Google Hangouts/Meet | X | |
Blackboard App (Bb App) | X | |
Instructor App | X | |
UP & Library App | X | |
Cengage | X | |
Elsevier | X | |
IT Schools | X | |
Macmillan | X | |
McGraw Hill | X | |
Saping | X | |
Vitalsource | X | |
Webassign | X | |
Willeyplus | X |
Note : The table summarizes the sites that were available on the zero‐rated website and those that incurred data costs.
High data costs continue to be a contentious issue in Africa where average incomes are low. Gilbert ( 2019 ) reports that South Africa ranked 16th of the 45 countries researched in terms of the most expensive internet data in Africa, at US$6.81 per gigabyte, in comparison to other Southern African countries such as Mozambique (US$1.97), Zambia (US$2.70), and Lesotho (US$4.09). Internet data prices have also been called into question in South Africa after the Competition Commission published a report from its Data Services Market Inquiry calling the country's internet data pricing “excessive” (Gilbert, 2019 ).
We use a sample of 395 s‐year students taking a macroeconomics module in the Economics department to compare the effects of F2F and online learning on students' performance using a range of assessments. The module was an introduction to the application of theoretical economic concepts. The content was both theory‐based (developing economic growth models using concepts and equations) and skill‐based (application involving the collection of data from online data sources and analyzing the data using statistical software). Both individual and group assignments formed part of the assessments. Before the end of the semester, during lockdown in June 2020, we asked the students to complete a survey with questions related to the transition from F2F to online learning and the difficulties that they may have faced. For example, we asked the students: (i) how easy or difficult they found the transition from F2F to online lectures; (ii) what internet options were available to them and which they used the most to access the online prescribed work; (iii) what format of content they accessed and which they preferred the most (i.e. self‐study material in the form of PDF and PowerPoint slides with notes vs. assisted study with narrated slides and lecture recordings); (iv) what difficulties they faced accessing the live online lectures, to name a few. Figure 1 summarizes the key survey questions that we asked the students regarding their transition from F2F to online learning.
Summary of survey data
Before the lockdown, the students had already attended several F2F classes and completed three assessments. We are therefore able to create a dependent variable that is comprised of the average grades of three assignments taken before lockdown and the average grades of three assignments taken after the start of the lockdown for each student. Specifically, we use the difference between the post‐ and pre‐lockdown average grades as the dependent variable. However, the number of student observations dropped to 275 due to some students missing one or more of the assessments. The lecturer, content and format of the assessments remain similar across the module. We estimate the following equation using ordinary least squares (OLS) with robust standard errors:
where Y i is the student's performance measured by the difference between the post and pre‐lockdown average grades. B represents the vector of determinants that measure the difficulty faced by students to transition from F2F to online learning. This vector includes access to the internet, study material preferred, quality of the online live lecture sessions and pre‐lockdown class attendance. X is the vector of student demographic controls such as race, gender and an indicator if the student's perceived family income is below average. The ε i is unobserved student characteristics.
4.1. descriptive statistics.
Table 2 gives an overview of the sample of students. We find that among the black students, a higher proportion of students reported finding the transition to online learning more difficult. On the other hand, more white students reported finding the transition moderately easy, as did the other races. According to Coetzee ( 2014 ), the quality of schools can vary significantly between higher income and lower‐income areas, with black South Africans far more likely to live in lower‐income areas with lower quality schools than white South Africans. As such, these differences in quality of education from secondary schooling can persist at tertiary level. Furthermore, persistent income inequality between races in South Africa likely means that many poorer black students might not be able to afford wifi connections or large internet data bundles which can make the transition difficult for black students compared to their white counterparts.
Descriptive statistics
Columns by: Transition difficulty | Very easy to moderately easy | Difficult to impossible | Total |
---|---|---|---|
(%) | 169 (61.5) | 106 (38.5) | 275 (100.0) |
, (%) | |||
African | 82 (48.5) | 69 (65.1) | 151 (54.9) |
Colored | 9 (5.3) | 4 (3.8) | 13 (4.7) |
Indian | 15 (8.9) | 7 (6.6) | 22 (8.0) |
White | 63 (37.3) | 26 (24.5) | 89 (32.4) |
(%) | |||
Female | 82 (48.5) | 57 (53.8) | 139 (50.5) |
Male | 87 (51.5) | 49 (46.2) | 136 (49.5) |
, (%) | |||
Mobile internet data | 33 (19.5) | 31 (29.2) | 64 (23.3) |
Wifi | 122 (72.2) | 58 (54.7) | 180 (65.5) |
Zero‐rated, (%) | 14 (8.3) | 17 (16.0) | 31 (11.3) |
Post‐lockdown quiz average, mean ( ) | 83.09 (8.50) | 79.76 (11.07) | 81.81 (9.69) |
Difference pre‐ and post‐grades, mean ( ) | 6.81 (12.35) | 3.99 (14.07) | 5.72 (13.09) |
Self‐study, mean ( ) | 0.61 (0.49) | 0.58 (0.50) | 0.60 (0.49) |
Class attendance pre‐lockdown, mean ( ) | 0.54 (0.50) | 0.57 (0.50) | 0.55 (0.50) |
Quality collaborate: Picture/sound, mean ( ) | 0.24 (0.43) | 0.31 (0.47) | 0.27 (0.44) |
Below average income, mean ( ) | 0.24 (0.43) | 0.06 (0.23) | 0.17 (0.38) |
Notes : The transition difficulty variable was ordered 1: Very Easy; 2: Moderately Easy; 3: Difficult; and 4: Impossible. Since we have few responses to the extremes, we combined Very Easy and Moderately as well as Difficult and Impossible to make the table easier to read. The table with a full breakdown is available upon request.
A higher proportion of students reported that wifi access made the transition to online learning moderately easy. However, relatively more students reported that mobile internet data and accessing the zero‐rated website made the transition difficult. Surprisingly, not many students made use of the zero‐rated website which was freely available. Figure 2 shows that students who reported difficulty transitioning to online learning did not perform as well in online learning versus F2F when compared to those that found it less difficult to transition.
Transition from F2F to online learning.
Notes : This graph shows the students' responses to the question “How easy did you find the transition from face‐to‐face lectures to online lectures?” in relation to the outcome variable for performance
In Figure 3 , the kernel density shows that students who had access to wifi performed better than those who used mobile internet data or the zero‐rated data.
Access to online learning.
Notes : This graph shows the students' responses to the question “What do you currently use the most to access most of your prescribed work?” in relation to the outcome variable for performance
The regression results are reported in Table 3 . We find that the change in students' performance from F2F to online is negatively associated with the difficulty they faced in transitioning from F2F to online learning. According to student survey responses, factors contributing to difficulty in transitioning included poor internet access, high internet data costs and lack of equipment such as laptops or tablets to access the study materials on the university website. Students who had access to wifi (i.e. fixed wireless broadband, Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) or optic fiber) performed significantly better, with on average 4.5 points higher grade, in relation to students that had to use mobile internet data (i.e. personal mobile internet data, wifi at home using mobile internet data, or hotspot using mobile internet data) or the zero‐rated website to access the study materials. The insignificant results for the zero‐rated website are surprising given that the website was freely available and did not incur any internet data costs. However, most students in this sample complained that the internet connection on the zero‐rated website was slow, especially in uploading assignments. They also complained about being disconnected when they were in the middle of an assessment. This may have discouraged some students from making use of the zero‐rated website.
Results: Predictors for student performance using the difference on average assessment grades between pre‐ and post‐lockdown
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Difference pre and post | Difference pre and post | Difference pre and post | Difference pre and post | Difference pre and post | |
Transition | −2.086 | −2.216 | −2.207 | −2.020 | −2.166 |
Difficulty | (1.220) | (1.202) | (1.189) | (1.200) | (1.198) |
Wifi | 4.533 | 4.415 | 4.399 | 4.662 | 4.721 |
(2.153) | (2.150) | (2.091) | (2.109) | (2.116) | |
Zero‐rated | −0.245 | 0.089 | 0.214 | 0.499 | 1.226 |
(2.625) | (2.659) | (2.629) | (2.652) | (2.609) | |
Self‐study | −3.649 | −3.360 | −3.388 | −2.824 | |
(1.609) | (1.588) | (1.593) | (1.617) | ||
Class | −3.403 | −3.195 | −3.478 | ||
Attendance pre‐lockdown | (1.557) | (1.571) | (1.578) | ||
Quality | −1.968 | −1.997 | |||
Collaborate: | (1.603) | (1.562) | |||
Picture/sound | |||||
Male | −3.038 | ||||
(1.596) | |||||
Colored | 3.783 | 3.491 | 3.064 | 3.500 | 4.408 |
(2.421) | (2.622) | (2.566) | (2.652) | (2.652) | |
Indian | 4.240 | 4.611 | 4.700 | 4.563 | 4.701 |
(3.105) | (3.046) | (2.991) | (2.991) | (2.976) | |
White | −0.131 | 0.392 | 0.020 | −0.061 | 0.339 |
(1.829) | (1.844) | (1.832) | (1.834) | (1.856) | |
Below | −3.165 | −3.436 | −4.005 | −3.685 | −3.535 |
Average income | (2.008) | (1.996) | (1.953) | (1.967) | (1.959) |
‐adj. | 0.035 | 0.050 | 0.063 | 0.064 | 0.073 |
Observations | 275 | 275 | 275 | 273 | 273 |
Coefficients reported. Robust standard errors in parentheses.
∗∗∗ p < .01.
Students who expressed a preference for self‐study approaches (i.e. reading PDF slides or PowerPoint slides with explanatory notes) did not perform as well, on average, as students who preferred assisted study (i.e. listening to recorded narrated slides or lecture recordings). This result is in line with Means et al. ( 2010 ), where student performance was better for online learning that was collaborative or instructor‐driven than in cases where online learners worked independently. Interestingly, we also observe that the performance of students who often attended in‐person classes before the lockdown decreased. Perhaps these students found the F2F lectures particularly helpful in mastering the course material. From the survey responses, we find that a significant proportion of the students (about 70%) preferred F2F to online lectures. This preference for F2F lectures may also be linked to the factors contributing to the difficulty some students faced in transitioning to online learning.
We find that the performance of low‐income students decreased post‐lockdown, which highlights another potential challenge to transitioning to online learning. The picture and sound quality of the live online lectures also contributed to lower performance. Although this result is not statistically significant, it is worth noting as the implications are linked to the quality of infrastructure currently available for students to access online learning. We find no significant effects of race on changes in students' performance, though males appeared to struggle more with the shift to online teaching than females.
For the robustness check in Table 4 , we consider the average grades of the three assignments taken after the start of the lockdown as a dependent variable (i.e. the post‐lockdown average grades for each student). We then include the pre‐lockdown average grades as an explanatory variable. The findings and overall conclusions in Table 4 are consistent with the previous results.
Robustness check: Predictors for student performance using the average assessment grades for post‐lockdown
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Post‐lockdown quiz average | Post‐lockdown quiz average | Post‐lockdown quiz average | Post‐lockdown quiz average | Post‐lockdown quiz average | |
Pre‐lockdown | 0.171 | 0.171 | 0.177 | 0.175 | 0.181 |
Quiz average | (0.050) | (0.048) | (0.049) | (0.049) | (0.049) |
Transition | −1.745 | −1.875 | −1.875 | −1.744 | −1.818 |
Difficulty | (0.842) | (0.815) | (0.816) | (0.823) | (0.826) |
Wifi | 2.945 | 2.827 | 2.834 | 2.949 | 2.990 |
(1.624) | (1.619) | (1.599) | (1.605) | (1.599) | |
Zero‐rated | −0.590 | −0.257 | −0.215 | −0.045 | 0.318 |
(1.889) | (1.924) | (1.928) | (1.937) | (1.946) | |
Self‐study | −3.648 | −3.558 | −3.606 | −3.325 | |
(1.100) | (1.103) | (1.110) | (1.155) | ||
Class | −1.061 | −1.003 | −1.158 | ||
Attendance pre‐lockdown | (1.132) | (1.148) | (1.158) | ||
Quality | −1.267 | −1.286 | |||
Collaborate: picture/sound | (1.202) | (1.189) | |||
Male | −1.506 | ||||
(1.179) | |||||
Colored | 3.307 | 3.015 | 2.885 | 3.163 | 3.615 |
(2.477) | (2.402) | (2.394) | (2.493) | (2.657) | |
Indian | 4.147 | 4.518 | 4.547 | 4.457 | 4.526 |
(2.022) | (1.981) | (1.969) | (1.975) | (1.983) | |
White | 1.215 | 1.738 | 1.612 | 1.448 | 1.636 |
(1.356) | (1.349) | (1.346) | (1.344) | (1.349) | |
Below average | 1.476 | 1.204 | 0.993 | 1.278 | 1.319 |
Income | (1.363) | (1.327) | (1.344) | (1.335) | (1.342) |
‐adj. | 0.111 | 0.142 | 0.142 | 0.141 | 0.143 |
Observations | 275 | 275 | 275 | 273 | 273 |
As a further robustness check in Table 5 , we create a panel for each student across the six assignment grades so we can control for individual heterogeneity. We create a post‐lockdown binary variable that takes the value of 1 for the lockdown period and 0 otherwise. We interact the post‐lockdown dummy variable with a measure for transition difficulty and internet access. The internet access variable is an indicator variable for mobile internet data, wifi, or zero‐rated access to class materials. The variable wifi is a binary variable taking the value of 1 if the student has access to wifi and 0 otherwise. The zero‐rated variable is a binary variable taking the value of 1 if the student used the university's free portal access and 0 otherwise. We also include assignment and student fixed effects. The results in Table 5 remain consistent with our previous findings that students who had wifi access performed significantly better than their peers.
Interaction model
All assignment grades | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
Post × Transition difficulty | −1.746 | −1.005 | −1.008 | |
(0.922) | (0.948) | (0.948) | ||
Wifi × Post | 4.599 | 4.199 | 3.807 | |
(1.342) | (1.379) | (1.618) | ||
Zero‐rated × Post | −1.138 | |||
(2.223) | ||||
Assignment FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Student FE | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
‐adj | 0.370 | 0.373 | 0.373 | 0.373 |
Observations | 2215 | 2215 | 2215 | 2215 |
Notes : Coefficients reported. Robust standard errors in parentheses. The dependent variable is the assessment grades for each student on each assignment. The number of observations include the pre‐post number of assessments multiplied by the number of students.
The Covid‐19 pandemic left many education institutions with no option but to transition to online learning. The University of Pretoria was no exception. We examine the effect of transitioning to online learning on the academic performance of second‐year economic students. We use assessment results from F2F lectures before lockdown, and online lectures post lockdown for the same group of students, together with responses from survey questions. We find that the main contributor to lower academic performance in the online setting was poor internet access, which made transitioning to online learning more difficult. In addition, opting to self‐study (read notes instead of joining online classes and/or watching recordings) did not help the students in their performance.
The implications of the results highlight the need for improved quality of internet infrastructure with affordable internet data pricing. Despite the university's best efforts not to leave any student behind with the zero‐rated website and free monthly internet data, the inequality dynamics in the country are such that invariably some students were negatively affected by this transition, not because the student was struggling academically, but because of inaccessibility of internet (wifi). While the zero‐rated website is a good collaborative initiative between universities and network providers, the infrastructure is not sufficient to accommodate mass students accessing it simultaneously.
This study's findings may highlight some shortcomings in the academic sector that need to be addressed by both the public and private sectors. There is potential for an increase in the digital divide gap resulting from the inequitable distribution of digital infrastructure. This may lead to reinforcement of current inequalities in accessing higher education in the long term. To prepare the country for online learning, some considerations might need to be made to make internet data tariffs more affordable and internet accessible to all. We hope that this study's findings will provide a platform (or will at least start the conversation for taking remedial action) for policy engagements in this regard.
We are aware of some limitations presented by our study. The sample we have at hand makes it difficult to extrapolate our findings to either all students at the University of Pretoria or other higher education students in South Africa. Despite this limitation, our findings highlight the negative effect of the digital divide on students' educational outcomes in the country. The transition to online learning and the high internet data costs in South Africa can also have adverse learning outcomes for low‐income students. With higher education institutions, such as the University of Pretoria, integrating online teaching to overcome the effect of the Covid‐19 pandemic, access to stable internet is vital for students' academic success.
It is also important to note that the data we have at hand does not allow us to isolate wifi's causal effect on students' performance post‐lockdown due to two main reasons. First, wifi access is not randomly assigned; for instance, there is a high chance that students with better‐off family backgrounds might have better access to wifi and other supplementary infrastructure than their poor counterparts. Second, due to the university's data access policy and consent, we could not merge the data at hand with the student's previous year's performance. Therefore, future research might involve examining the importance of these elements to document the causal impact of access to wifi on students' educational outcomes in the country.
The authors acknowledge the helpful comments received from the editor, the anonymous reviewers, and Elizabeth Asiedu.
Chisadza, C. , Clance, M. , Mthembu, T. , Nicholls, N. , & Yitbarek, E. (2021). Online and face‐to‐face learning: Evidence from students’ performance during the Covid‐19 pandemic . Afr Dev Rev , 33 , S114–S125. 10.1111/afdr.12520 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
1 https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/309693-mobile-data-prices-south-africa-vs-the-world.html .
2 The 4IR is currently characterized by increased use of new technologies, such as advanced wireless technologies, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, robotics, among others. This era has also facilitated the use of different online learning platforms ( https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-fourth-industrialrevolution-and-digitization-will-transform-africa-into-a-global-powerhouse/ ).
3 Note that we control for income, but it is plausible to assume other unobservable factors such as parental preference and parenting style might also affect access to the internet of students.
Advertisement
Supported by
Student Opinion
A new report found that the heavy dependence on technology during the pandemic caused “staggering” education inequality. What was your experience?
By Natalie Proulx
During the coronavirus pandemic, many schools moved classes online. Was your school one of them? If so, what was it like to attend school online? Did you enjoy it? Did it work for you?
In “ Dependence on Tech Caused ‘Staggering’ Education Inequality, U.N. Agency Says ,” Natasha Singer writes:
In early 2020, as the coronavirus spread, schools around the world abruptly halted in-person education. To many governments and parents, moving classes online seemed the obvious stopgap solution. In the United States, school districts scrambled to secure digital devices for students. Almost overnight, videoconferencing software like Zoom became the main platform teachers used to deliver real-time instruction to students at home. Now a report from UNESCO , the United Nations’ educational and cultural organization, says that overreliance on remote learning technology during the pandemic led to “staggering” education inequality around the world. It was, according to a 655-page report that UNESCO released on Wednesday, a worldwide “ed-tech tragedy.” The report, from UNESCO’s Future of Education division, is likely to add fuel to the debate over how governments and local school districts handled pandemic restrictions, and whether it would have been better for some countries to reopen schools for in-person instruction sooner. The UNESCO researchers argued in the report that “unprecedented” dependence on technology — intended to ensure that children could continue their schooling — worsened disparities and learning loss for hundreds of millions of students around the world, including in Kenya, Brazil, Britain and the United States. The promotion of remote online learning as the primary solution for pandemic schooling also hindered public discussion of more equitable, lower-tech alternatives, such as regularly providing schoolwork packets for every student, delivering school lessons by radio or television — and reopening schools sooner for in-person classes, the researchers said. “Available evidence strongly indicates that the bright spots of the ed-tech experiences during the pandemic, while important and deserving of attention, were vastly eclipsed by failure,” the UNESCO report said. The UNESCO researchers recommended that education officials prioritize in-person instruction with teachers, not online platforms, as the primary driver of student learning. And they encouraged schools to ensure that emerging technologies like A.I. chatbots concretely benefited students before introducing them for educational use. Education and industry experts welcomed the report, saying more research on the effects of pandemic learning was needed. “The report’s conclusion — that societies must be vigilant about the ways digital tools are reshaping education — is incredibly important,” said Paul Lekas, the head of global public policy for the Software & Information Industry Association, a group whose members include Amazon, Apple and Google. “There are lots of lessons that can be learned from how digital education occurred during the pandemic and ways in which to lessen the digital divide. ” Jean-Claude Brizard, the chief executive of Digital Promise, a nonprofit education group that has received funding from Google, HP and Verizon, acknowledged that “technology is not a cure-all.” But he also said that while school systems were largely unprepared for the pandemic, online education tools helped foster “more individualized, enhanced learning experiences as schools shifted to virtual classrooms.” Education International, an umbrella organization for about 380 teachers’ unions and 32 million teachers worldwide, said the UNESCO report underlined the importance of in-person, face-to-face teaching. “The report tells us definitively what we already know to be true, a place called school matters,” said Haldis Holst, the group’s deputy general secretary. “Education is not transactional nor is it simply content delivery. It is relational. It is social. It is human at its core.”
Students, read the entire article and then tell us:
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
Home Essay Samples Education
Benefits of blended learning for students: an overview.
As technology continues to transform the landscape of education, innovative approaches such as blended learning have gained prominence in classrooms around the world. Blended learning, a combination of traditional in-person instruction and online learning, offers a versatile and effective way to engage students. This essay...
The rapid advancement of technology has brought about significant changes in the field of education, including the rise of online and remote learning options. While virtual education has its merits, the value of face-to-face classes remains a cornerstone of effective pedagogy. In this argumentative essay,...
Online learning, also known as e-learning, has gained significant popularity in recent years as a flexible and convenient alternative to traditional classroom education. While it offers numerous benefits, it also comes with its own set of challenges. In this essay, we will explore the pros...
The advent of technology has revolutionized education, giving rise to the debate between online classes and traditional classroom settings. While online classes offer flexibility and accessibility, traditional classrooms provide face-to-face interactions and a structured learning environment. In this argumentative essay, we will explore the merits...
Education has evolved significantly with the advent of technology, giving rise to new modes of learning. Online and face-to-face learning are two prominent approaches that cater to diverse learning preferences and circumstances. This essay delves into the core differences between online and face-to-face learning, highlighting...
Stressed out with your paper?
Consider using writing assistance:
Face-to-face learning, a traditional educational approach, has long been the cornerstone of formal education. However, as technology continues to reshape the educational landscape, it is essential to critically examine the drawbacks of this conventional method. This essay delves into the core disadvantages of face-to-face learning,...
Face-to-face learning, also known as traditional classroom education, has been the foundation of the educational system for centuries. While technological advancements have introduced online and remote learning options, face-to-face learning continues to hold its own unique advantages that contribute to effective learning experiences. In this...
Has the thought ever came about, “Are online classes the best for students gaining the most knowledge?” For most college intuitions they either have students taking traditional classes, online classes, or a mixture of both. As the years go on more and more colleges are...
For the past two decades, face-to-face learning has become not the only option in the education field. There has been an increased emphasis on the use of online learning by educators especially since the increase cases of Covid-19. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of both often becomes...
Introduction The physical “brick and mortar” classroom is starting to lose its monopoly as the place of learning. The Internet and the World Wide Web have made significant changes to almost all aspects of our lives ranging from a global economy, personal, and professional networks...
Over the years, education has been changing since technology exists in our lives. The most notable factors that have led to the birth and subsequent development of open and distance learning and teaching have been the need to learn throughout life. However, we all ask...
It seems everything is moving online these days. Even our education is transferring onto the internet. Students are receiving diplomas, degrees, highschool diplomas and graduating from grades K-8 as well. Many people might squabble about the disadvantages of this phenomena, but there are many advantages...
As the extremely growth of technology development today, technology is being a part of our solutions in many ways of our societies and this has led our education system in different approach. most people choose to educate themselves by traditional courses known as traditional education,...
In these days, we can easily find many university students buy and use a tablet while they are not carrying textbooks. Tablets are light, convenient and even support a variety of learning software programs such as handwriting note taking apps. Thanks to these benefits, using...
E-textbooks are beneficial to today’s society because they are an accessible way to find information and a reliable resource for students and teachers. E-textbooks are textbooks that are either electronically published, or scanned online from a paper textbook. They are attempting to take the place...
During summer vacation, no one thinks about school or textbooks. Only when the first day of school is about to start, everyone scramble on what they need. The one essential of many things the student needs are textbooks. While both Textbooks and eTextbooks are vastly...
The realm of online education is an increasing technological service utilized for information attainment in the United States. School systems are currently implementing computerized distance learning to teach upper level coursework that is not offered via a classroom setting. Many students solely rely on online...
According to the Oxford English dictionary, the word “online” is defined as the available on or performed using the Internet or other computer network, whereas the word “studying” means the action in which people dedicate their time and attention in order to gain knowledge of...
Institutions of education in the world have been adopting online learning, or a combination with the traditional, on ground education. Therefore, there has been debate among scholars for decades now as to which learning method is the most appropriate. There are those arguing that online...
With the popularization of online education, creation of different types of online courses continues (Strothmann, 2015). Online courses do not exist to eliminate personal interaction which is evident in other types of online courses: Face-to-Face and Hybrid Course. Face-to-Face is in traditional environment where students...
Online education has been developing at a high rate as the years progressed. Numerous individuals state that true learning can't occur on the web and that classroom learning is the primary 'genuine' approach to instruct and gain proficiency with a subject. In any case, there...
Best topics on Online vs. Traditional Classes
1. Benefits of Blended Learning for Students: an Overview
2. The Value of Face-to-Face Classes: An Argumentative Exploration of In-Person Learning
3. Pros and Cons of Online Learning: A Comprehensive Approach
4. Online Classes or Traditional Classroom: An Argumentative Examination of Learning Formats
5. Exploring Educational Landscapes: Differences Between Online and Face-to-Face Learning
6. Exploring Educational Avenues: Disadvantages of Face-to-Face Learning
7. Advantages of Face-to-Face Learning: The Power of In-Person Education
8. Similarities and Differences Between Online and Traditional Learning
9. Contrast Of Classroom Learning and Online Learning: Online Learning Vs Classroom Learning
10. The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Online And Traditional Education
11. The Benefits Of Online Classes Over Face-to-face Traditional Classes
12. Online Learning Is As Effective An Approach To Education As Traditional Methods
13. Technology In Education: Online Classes Versus Traditional
14. Why Tablets Should not Replace Textbooks in Schools
15. The Benefits of E-textbooks for Our Society
Need writing help?
You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need
*No hidden charges
100% Unique Essays
Absolutely Confidential
Money Back Guarantee
By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails
You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic
Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.
📄 Words: | 560 |
---|---|
📝 Subject: | |
📑 Pages: | 2 |
📚 Topics: |
The global education system has been characterized by face-to-face learning until recently. For centuries, people have depended on face-to-face learning until the proliferation of the internet led to online learning. Face-to-face education is a preferred method due to the opportunities for personal interactions that enhance learning. Online learning happens through the internet, and it is not suitable because it limits the educational processes of building social and professional skills. Face-to-face education is better than online learning because it offers opportunities for building interpersonal relationships, and it upholds the principles of a sound education system.
Face-to-face learning involves the meeting of an instructor and students for teaching sessions. The instructor shares information to students by word of mouth or by audiovisual presentations. The method of learning promotes the development of bonds between the two parties, which aids in the learning process. Face-to-face learning is a comprehensive system that helps to build students holistically through personal relationships, modeling, and sharing information.
Besides, most learning materials are physical and better understood in physical settings. According to Miliszewska, students perform better in projects and assignment submissions in face-to-face learning, indicating that the model fosters the transfer of skills and not just knowledge (499). Face-to-face learning also promotes the formation of a deep sense of community rather than individualism, which remediates feelings of isolation common among online learning students.
Face-to-face learning is a sound education system. It has the principles of student-instructor contact, student cooperation, active learning, prompt feedback from instructors, time discipline, high expectations, and values diverse talents (Stern 8). Face-to-face education allows the sharing of communal values and beliefs. Students learn to uphold community living that mirrors life in the larger society. Students learn the social skills necessary for success in the corporate world. Students also learn how to maintain discipline in life. It is, therefore, a holistic system of learning that not only informs, but also prepares students for the world.
Online learning has developed as an alternative to face-to-face education. The promoters of online education argue that the system offers convenience for learners. The providers of online education utilize course management software for designing and delivering course content to students (Stern 1). Online learning replaces the top-down relationships between an instructor and students with a more balanced approach where the teacher serves as a guide (Stern 2).
The basis of online learning is sharing information rather than modeling learning examples, passing skills, or building relationships to foster learning. Online learners do not have to interact with each other or build relationships. The lack of a sense of community predisposes learners to the feeling of isolation. Communication happens through learning software or email, further reducing the chances of holistic learning. The benefits of reduced costs, use of technology, and progressive storage of data do not outweigh the primary needs of building skills, community, and modeling examples
To sum up, face-to-face learning is better than online education because it offers experiences, skills, and relationships that are not available in online learning. Besides, some courses require the physical presence of a student, while others do not. Face-to-face education is a style that operates on sound learning principles for the holistic development of students. Due to various factors such as work and distance, students are increasingly opting for online learning. However, face-to-face learning is a better method of education, as it provides more learning benefits.
Miliszewska, Iwona. “Is It Fully ‘On’ Or Partly ‘Off’? The Case of Fully-Online Provision of Transnational Education”. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, vol 6, 2007, pp. 499-514. Web.
Stern, Joshua. “Introduction to Online Teaching and Learning.” Wlac.Edu . Web.
Select style
ChalkyPapers. (2023, June 16). Online Learning vs. Face-To-Face Learning. https://chalkypapers.com/online-learning-vs-face-to-face-learning/
"Online Learning vs. Face-To-Face Learning." ChalkyPapers , 16 June 2023, chalkypapers.com/online-learning-vs-face-to-face-learning/.
ChalkyPapers . (2023) 'Online Learning vs. Face-To-Face Learning'. 16 June.
ChalkyPapers . 2023. "Online Learning vs. Face-To-Face Learning." June 16, 2023. https://chalkypapers.com/online-learning-vs-face-to-face-learning/.
1. ChalkyPapers . "Online Learning vs. Face-To-Face Learning." June 16, 2023. https://chalkypapers.com/online-learning-vs-face-to-face-learning/.
Bibliography
ChalkyPapers . "Online Learning vs. Face-To-Face Learning." June 16, 2023. https://chalkypapers.com/online-learning-vs-face-to-face-learning/.
Home / Essay Samples / Education / Learning / Online Classes
Distane and online learning.
XXI century has become the “Era of technology” which influenced to all the parts of our life, and has had a profound impact on the education system too. Education seems as much the same as it has been for many years, however, the concept that...
Face-to-face getting to know can take many forms, as can online learning. In an argumentative essay about face to face classes will be discussed this tesis. Face-to-face learning ability stay two-way interaction however on line studying suggest some thing that doesn't include a live instructor....
Online classes and face-to-face classes both have their advantages and disadvantages, and which one is better depends on individual preferences and circumstances. As we can see the theme of online classes vs face-to face classes is analysed in this essay through comparison both of them....
While online learning has become increasingly popular in recent years, face-to-face learning remains the preferred method of instruction for many students and educators. I personaly believe that face-to-face learning is better than online learning and in this essay I will share my arguments on this...
After living up my education in Senior High School for two years, it was time to level up and move on to bigger and better things, which is College. I know that it will not be easy as usual, but I said to myself that...
During the college careers, there are many decisions that must made. From choosing a major, deciding what to eat for lunch that day, or how many classes to take per semester, every decision will matter. It does not matter if the decision is a huge...
Over the years, education has been changing since technology exists in our lives. The most notable factors that have led to the birth and subsequent development of open and distance learning and teaching have been the need to learn throughout life. However, we all ask...
Online learning has become more available over the past decade as potential students discover that they can find ways to obtain degrees while remaining within their work and life schedules, independent of their everyday obligations. Students' demand and college benefits of providing online education led...
The phrases, “do your homework,” “you need to be studying for that test you have tomorrow,” “don’t forget to make flashcards,” and “you can’t watch TV until your school work is finished” all derive from one of the biggest desires of the typical parent; the...
Throughout our existence on earth, we have given an inventor brain which has brought us such considerable amounts of opportunities and enabled us to flourish in our world. All of us tend to explore and learn new things due to our mind innate nature for...
Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?
Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!
samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->