quantitative research title about face to face classes

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Online and face‐to‐face learning: Evidence from students’ performance during the Covid‐19 pandemic

Carolyn chisadza.

1 Department of Economics, University of Pretoria, Hatfield South Africa

Matthew Clance

Thulani mthembu.

2 Department of Education Innovation, University of Pretoria, Hatfield South Africa

Nicky Nicholls

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.

1. INTRODUCTION

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

1.1. Related literature

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.

2. CONTEXT OF STUDY

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

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 ).

3. EMPIRICAL APPROACH

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. ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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.

6. CONCLUSION

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.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

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 [ 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.

• Almatra, O. , Johri, A. , Nagappan, K. , & Modanlu, A. (2015). An empirical study of face‐to‐face and distance learning sections of a core telecommunication course (Conference Proceedings Paper No. 12944). 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, Washington State.
• Anyanwu, J. C. (2013). Characteristics and macroeconomic determinants of youth employment in Africa . African Development Review , 25 ( 2 ), 107–129. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anyanwu, J. C. (2016). Accounting for gender equality in secondary school enrolment in Africa: Accounting for gender equality in secondary school enrolment . African Development Review , 28 ( 2 ), 170–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arbaugh, J. (2000). Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous internet‐based MBA course . Journal of Management Education , 24 ( 2 ), 213–233. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arias, J. J. , Swinton, J. , & Anderson, K. (2018). On‐line vs. face‐to‐face: A comparison of student outcomes with random assignment . e‐Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, , 12 ( 2 ), 1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard, R. M. , Abrami, P. C. , Lou, Y. , Borokhovski, E. , Wade, A. , Wozney, L. , Wallet, P. A. , Fiset, M. , & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta‐analysis of the empirical literature . Review of Educational Research , 74 ( 3 ), 379–439. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown, B. , & Liedholm, C. (2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of microeconomics? American Economic Review , 92 ( 2 ), 444–448. [ Google Scholar ]
• Callister, R. R. , & 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 , 14 ( 2 ), 243–256. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coates, D. , Humphreys, B. R. , Kane, J. , & Vachris, M. A. (2004). “No significant distance” between face‐to‐face and online instruction: Evidence from principles of economics . Economics of Education Review , 23 ( 5 ), 533–546. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coetzee, M. (2014). School quality and the performance of disadvantaged learners in South Africa (Working Paper No. 22). University of Stellenbosch Economics Department, Stellenbosch
• Dutton, J. , Dutton, M. , & Perry, J. (2002). How do online students differ from lecture students? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks , 6 ( 1 ), 1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emediegwu, L. (2021). Does educational investment enhance capacity development for Nigerian youths? An autoregressive distributed lag approach . African Development Review , 32 ( S1 ), S45–S53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fallah, M. H. , & Ubell, R. (2000). Blind scores in a graduate test. Conventional compared with web‐based outcomes . ALN Magazine , 4 ( 2 ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Figlio, D. , Rush, M. , & Yin, L. (2013). Is it live or is it internet? Experimental estimates of the effects of online instruction on student learning . Journal of Labor Economics , 31 ( 4 ), 763–784. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman, M. A. , & Capper, J. M. (1999). Exploiting the web for education: An anonymous asynchronous role simulation . Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 15 ( 1 ), 95–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert, P. (2019). The most expensive data prices in Africa . Connecting Africa. https://www.connectingafrica.com/author.asp?section_id=761%26doc_id=756372
• Glick, P. , Randriamamonjy, J. , & Sahn, D. (2009). Determinants of HIV knowledge and condom use among women in Madagascar: An analysis using matched household and community data . African Development Review , 21 ( 1 ), 147–179. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gyimah‐Brempong, K. (2011). Education and economic development in Africa . African Development Review , 23 ( 2 ), 219–236. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson, S. , Aragon, S. , Shaik, N. , & Palma‐Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face‐to‐face learning environments . Journal of Interactive Learning Research , 11 ( 1 ), 29–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundberg, J. , Merino, D. , & Dahmani, M. (2008). Do online students perform better than face‐to‐face students? Reflections and a short review of some empirical findings . Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento , 5 ( 1 ), 35–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Means, B. , Toyama, Y. , Murphy, R. , Bakia, M. , & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence‐based practices in online learning: A meta‐analysis and review of online learning studies (Report No. ed‐04‐co‐0040 task 0006). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Washington DC.
• Navarro, P. (2000). Economics in the cyber‐classroom . Journal of Economic Perspectives , 14 ( 2 ), 119–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Navarro, P. , & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace . American Journal of Distance Education , 14 ( 2 ), 15–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face‐to‐face instruction . American Journal of Distance Education , 16 ( 2 ), 99–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons . MERLOT Journal of Online Teaching and Learning , 11 ( 2 ), 309–319. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paechter, M. , & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face‐to‐face? Students' experiences and preferences in e‐learning . Internet and Higher Education , 13 ( 4 ), 292–297. [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell, T. L. , & International Distance Education Certificate Center (IDECC) (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education: As reported in 355 research reports, summaries and papers . North Carolina State University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shachar, M. , & Neumann, Y. (2010). Twenty years of research on the academic performance differences between traditional and distance learning: Summative meta‐analysis and trend examination . MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching , 6 ( 2 ), 318–334. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shachar, M. , & Yoram, N. (2003). Differences between traditional and distance education academic performances: A meta‐analytic approach . International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , 4 ( 2 ), 1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tchamyou, V. S. , Asongu, S. , & Odhiambo, N. (2019). The role of ICT in modulating the effect of education and lifelong learning on income inequality and economic growth in Africa . African Development Review , 31 ( 3 ), 261–274. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu, D. , & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Performance gaps between online and face‐to‐face courses: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas . The Journal of Higher Education , 85 ( 5 ), 633–659. [ Google Scholar ]

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 10 January 2024

Face-to-face vs. blended learning in higher education: a quantitative analysis of biological science student outcomes

• Claire V. Harper   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6228-4078 1 ,
• Lucy M. McCormick 1 &
• Linda Marron 2  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  21 , Article number:  2 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

3098 Accesses

1 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rapid seismic shift to online delivery in otherwise face-to-face higher education settings worldwide. This quantitative research study sought to investigate the effect of different delivery styles and assessment types on student outcomes. Specifically, grades achieved by first year undergraduate Biological Science students at a UK Higher Education institution were compared from seven modules across two different academic years, namely 2018–2019 and 2020–2021. The academic year 2018–2019 was delivered in the traditional face-to-face manner whereas the 2020–2021 method of delivery was via blended learning. The results showed that four of the seven modules were negatively affected by the transition from face-to-face to blended delivery (p < 0.05, T-test). One module was unaffected (p > 0.05, T-test) and the remaining two modules were positively affected (p < 0.05, T-test). However, the percentage of students requiring reassessments increased with blended learning delivery although this was not significant (p < 0.05, T-test). In summary, the majority of individual module marks decreased with blended learning compared to face-to-face delivery, with an associated increase in required reassessments. Although there are positive benefits to incorporating an element of online learning for students, it is important to utilise this information in future module delivery planning to support the varying student cohorts of the future.

Introduction and literature review

The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant and far-reaching changes across Higher Education in the United Kingdom, fundamentally altering the academic landscape. The most immediate and visible change was the rapid shift to online learning as universities closed their physical campuses and transitioned to virtual classrooms. This sudden change to digital delivery required the adoption and integration of new technologies and teaching methods, presenting both opportunities and challenges for educators and students. While the pandemic-driven shift to online learning in the UK Higher Education sector was a rapid response to unprecedented circumstances, it also reignited and added new dimensions to the ongoing discussion about the efficacy of face-to-face (F2F) versus online learning methods.

The debate about the benefits of F2F vs. online/remote/virtual learning has been longstanding with a wealth of literature in support of both modes of delivery at higher education level (e.g. Avella et al., 2016 ; Imel, 2002 ; Kemp & Grieve, 2014 ). Following the launch of the World Wide Web in 1991 the first learning management systems were developed enabling the introduction of online learning environments; with the first fully online courses appearing in 1995 (Bates, 2014 ). Virtual online learning provided a platform to access education remotely thus enabling students to access higher education where previously this would not have been a valid option. Personal circumstances for the inability to access F2F education include, but are not limited to, caring or parental responsibilities, challenges with physical or mental health, the requirement for paid daytime jobs and travel restrictions. Although the immediate positives of remote learning are obvious for the delivery of theoretical content over a flexible timescale, there are clear disadvantages including the dependence on self-discipline and self-motivation, social isolation and lack of engagement, limited educator-student interaction and feedback (Baltà-Salvador et al., 2021 ; Dumford and Miller, 2018 ; Jacob and Radhai, 2016 ).

Remote learning also poses significant additional challenges for practical courses where a key component involves hands-on practical experience (Bashir et al., 2021 ; Biel and Brame, 2016 ; Hallyburton and Lunsford, 2013 ). Losing this component reduces the skillset acquired during the course and therefore has downstream implications on future employment opportunities. Biological Science courses are an example, where the practical and theoretical content are interweaved throughout the course, providing students with a broad range of skills to increase their future outcomes.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on delivery type

The most profound shift in pedagogical methods in education history occurred in the past 3 years due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Dhawan, 2020 ; Mali and Lim, 2021 ; Mpungose, 2020 ; Paudel, 2021 ). It disrupted over 1.7 billion learners in more than 200 countries (United-Nations, 2020 ), forcing rapid changes in digital practices and curriculum design to enable quality education (teaching, learning and assessment) to be delivered on the virtual domain. This exemplified weaknesses such as lack of online teaching infrastructure, limited exposure of educators to online teaching, the information gap, non-conducive environment for learning at home, equity and academic excellence in terms of higher education (Pokhrel and Chhetri, 2021 ).

The effect of the transition from F2F to online learning has had varying effects on student outcomes across higher education institutions both pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic. A large study undertaken by Russell and the International Distance Education Certificate Center (IDECC) collated over 350 studies comparing F2F learning with online/remote learning and found that neither delivery method was significantly beneficial or detrimental to student outcomes (Russell, 1999 ). This finding was also supported by other studies from other higher education institutions, where no significant difference was found between online and F2F learning (Cavanaugh and Jacquemin, 2015 ; Driscoll et al., 2012 ; Paul & Jefferson, 2019 ). This was consistent with the literature collated in the ‘no significant difference’ database of 2004 ( http://nosignificantdifference.org/ ). More recently a study reported that economics students in South Africa achieved lower academic performance when studying remotely, with the main contributing factor being poor internet access (Chisadza et al., 2021 ).

Blended learning as a hybrid delivery method

Blended learning (BL) refers to the combination of pedagogic approaches; mixing technology-enhanced learning with more traditional, classroom-based, learning experiences (Bliuc et al., 2007 ; Bryan and Volchenkova, 2016 ; Nguyen, 2015 ; Oliver and Trigwell, 2005 ). It offers a hybrid learning programme through combining the advantages of online learning (e.g. often a more flexible schedule, student inclusivity) with the advantages of F2F learning (e.g. increased communication and interaction within the student cohort, between students and teachers, and increased potential for verbal feedback). There was a clear preference for blended learning over sole online learning in sports and exercise science students, with students appreciating the opportunity to meet F2F (Finlay et al., 2022 ).

Although most UK Higher Education delivery transitioned online during the COVID-19 pandemic-associated lockdowns, a blended learning approach was soon adopted across most of these institutions, and has continued to remain part of the present delivery method (Finlay et al., 2022 ). At the UK Higher Education institution in this study, a BL approach was implemented for Biological Science students in the academic year 2020–2021, combining traditional F2F learning, socially distanced laboratory practical sessions and remote, online, delivery. The department adopted strategies and technologies including virtual laboratories, and interactive online platforms to supplement the physical laboratory practical sessions. This approach provided students with up to 6 h of contact time on campus per week which included, but was not limited to, lectures, laboratory practicals and tutorials. The content of the modules remained unchanged where possible although, due to social distancing guidelines, group work in laboratory practical sessions was limited. The material during all the campus-based sessions could also be accessed virtually to ensure the inclusion of students learning remotely. All material (when delivered F2F and live online) was recorded allowing accessibility to students at times other than during the live delivery. This afforded students the flexibility required to adapt to home-schooling, part-time jobs and family commitments. But it also required the rapid learning of new technological platforms, for both teaching staff and students, and ensuring that the virtual learning environments were freely accessible to learners. Interactive, student-focussed online methods were included to encourage active engagement, with a greater focus on theoretical knowledge and virtual practical experiences, balancing the reduced opportunity for hands-on laboratory work.

Assessment strategies

In conjunction with the change in teaching delivery came the potential requirement for change in assessment type (Bashir et al., 2021 ; Benson and Brack, 2010 ). In-house examinations changed to online, open-book, assessments and face-to-face oral and poster presentations moved to an online platform. At the higher education institution in the present study, assessments remained the same in the BL year than they were for the F2F year for the first-year modules, but both the written exams (time-limited assessments) and oral presentations moved to an online format. Formative assessments also gained prominence, providing ongoing feedback in the absence of regular in-person interactions.

Aims of the study

The aim of this study was to critically analyse the marks obtained by first year undergraduate Biological Science students at a UK Higher Education institution in a normal F2F teaching year (2018–2019) and a BL teaching year due to the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021).

The ultimate objective of the study was to use the results obtained to inform future practice on delivery method and assessment types for enhancing students’ outcomes.

Research questions

Did the learning environment (F2F vs. BL) affect marks from first year undergraduate Biological Science students?

Did assessment type affect student outcomes in individual modules?

Did the transition from F2F to BL delivery influence the frequency of students requiring reassessments, and was there a noticeable difference between genders in the proportion of first sitting failures?

This is a timely study in the context of the ongoing need for students to access higher education both F2F and remotely.

Methodology and methods

Experimental design.

End-of-module marks from first year undergraduate Biological Science students from the academic years 2018–2019 and 2020–2021 were collected and analysed. These academic years were selected due to their different modes of delivery; 2018–2019 purely F2F teaching vs. 2020–2021 blended teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic (BL in this context being up to 6 h per week F2F teaching and the remainder delivered online). First year students were selected as they had no previous experience of higher education Biological Science teaching, learning and assessment, therefore they had only experienced a single delivery type (F2F or BL) at the time of taking their first-year assessments.

Data were collected across all the Biological Science degree programmes available (BSc (Hons) Biology, BSc (Hons) Biomedical Sciences, BSc (Hons) Biotechnology, BSc (Hons) Ecology and Conservation, BSc (Hons) Plant Sciences). Data comprised of marks (anonymised) from each student over the seven first year modules (Ecology, Biodiversity, Biology in Practice [BinP], Chemistry for Biologists [CforB], Introduction to Cell Biology [ICB], Anatomy and Physiology [A&P] and Genetics and Evolution [G&E]). 92 students were enrolled in year 2018–2019 and 103 students were enrolled in year 2020–2021. Marks were collated from first sittings and from final sittings (if reassessments were required, with reassessment marks capped at 40%). Information on the assessment types for each module for each of the two years in the study was accessed from archived module handbooks. A comparison between the assessment types was analysed.

Sampling strategy

All students registered as a first-year student on a Biological Science degree course at the selected UK Higher Education Institution in the years 2018–2019 and 2020–2021 (who undertook the assessments) were included in the study regardless of age/gender/background. Therefore, bias was eliminated due to lack of selection of students. Gender was determined as the assigned gender with which a student had registered on the course.

Students from both cohorts were given the opportunity to hire digital equipment and to attend courses (in person and virtual) to enhance their use of digital technology. This was particularly relevant to the BL cohort.

Use of student grades

Student mark data is available to authorised staff within the University and is owned by the University. No burden was put on the students to provide information for the study. Raw mark data was anonymised by removal of student names and numbers, therefore the identity of each individual student could not be ascertained. The list of marks per module was provided in a random order (not alphabetical) so to further maintain student anonymity. The large cohort size (> 55 students per module, > 90 students per year group) reduced the chance of identifying an individual student. The focus of this study was the trends in results in contrast to individual student outcomes. Anonymity of the data removed any downstream effect on the students during the rest of their degree program.

Data analysis

Data were collated in Microsoft Excel and subsequently analysed using GraphPad Prism. Marks per module were analysed as mean ± standard deviation. Raw mark data was tested for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (if n > 50) or Shapiro–Wilk test (if n < 50). Comparison between the F2F and BL years was then statistically tested using Students’ T-test (for normal data) or a Mann–Whitney U test (for non-normal data), where p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Ethics approval

Ethical approval was provided by the University PGCTHE Ethics Panel.

Student metrics across F2F and BL years

Student module marks were collated and analysed from first year undergraduate students carrying out Biological Science degrees at a UK University from the academic years 2018–2019, when students received F2F delivery, and 2020–2021, when students received BL delivery. Changes to module titles had occurred over the period of the study, but the content and assessment types remained the same (Table  1 ). The change in module titles occurred prior to, and was therefore unrelated to, the onset of the pandemic.

The number of students increased from 92 students in 2018–2019, reaching an intake of over one hundred students across five Biological Science programmes in 2020–2021. This increase was reflected across the compulsory and elective modules (Fig.  1 ). There was an increase in the number of students undergoing reassessment module assessments in the BL year when compared to the F2F year in six of the seven modules (Fig.  2 A; 9.1% of students in the BL year underwent reassessments compared to 5.7% of students in the F2F year). Although pronounced, this increase was not significant (p > 0.05, T-test).

Analysis of student metrics. Number of students taking each of the seven modules in the F2F learning year 2018–2019 and the BL year 2020–2021

Effect of delivery type on students requiring reassessments. A Percentage of students taking reassessments on each of the individual modules in the F2F and BL years. Modules are represented by different symbols as shown in the legend. The average is shown. B Percentage of students achieving less than 40% in first sitting module marks, separated by delivery type and gender. Bars represent mean and standard deviation across the seven modules. * represents p < 0.05; ns denotes not significant, p > 0.05; T-test

For each module, the percentage of students achieving less than 40% for the first attempt was calculated and then this was averaged across the seven modules. This was then further separated by the registered gender of the students. This analysis was performed to determine whether there was a gender-related difference in failure rate (Fig.  2 B). An increase in failure rate was observed in the BL year compared to the F2F year for both genders (Fig.  2 B). In the F2F year, there was no significant difference in the percentage of male and female students achieving less than 40% in the first sitting module marks (p > 0.05; T-test). In contrast, significantly more male students achieved less than 40% in the first sitting module marks compared to female students when BL was delivered (p < 0.05; T-test; Fig.  2 B).

Analysis of module marks across varying delivery years

Final module marks were analysed across the F2F and BL years (Table  2 and Fig.  3 A–G). Marks significantly decreased in the BL year compared to the F2F year in four modules: BinP, G&E, A&P and CforB (Table  2 and Fig.  3 A, B , F , G ; p < 0.05, unpaired T-test). The marks for the Ecology module did not significantly change over the two years of study (Table  2 and Fig.  3 D; p > 0.05, unpaired T-test). Interestingly, the marks for two modules, ICB and Biodiversity, significantly increased in the BL year vs. F2F year (Table  2 and Fig.  3 C, E ; p < 0.05, unpaired T-test).

Analysis of final sitting student marks across delivery types. A – G Final module marks for each of the seven modules in the F2F and BL years. Each individual student mark is represented with a datapoint on each graph. Bars show mean ± SD for all students taking the assessments. ns denotes not significant, *represents p < 0.05, *** represents p < 0.01; T-test)

Final sitting marks were further separated by students’ registered gender to determine whether the change in delivery type had a gender-specific effect on module mark outcomes (Fig.  4 ). The marks of both the female and male students reflected those of the whole student cohort (shown in Fig.  3 ), where there was a decrease in average modules marks in BinP, G&E, A&P and CforB. But the decrease in marks for these four modules in BL vs. F2F delivery was greater in the female student cohort than those from male students (Fig.  4 A, B ). Increases in average module marks were observed in the remaining three modules from both female and male students. Interestingly, the average female student module mark decreased across the F2F and BL years (F2F: 58 ± 8% compared to BL: 57 ± 7%; Fig.  4 A) whereas the average male student module mark increased across delivery type (F2F: 54 ± 1% compared to BL: 55 ± 0%; Fig.  4 B), although both results did not differ significantly (p > 0.05, T-test).

Final module marks separated by gender. Graphs showing average module marks achieved by ( A ) female students and ( B ) male students in the F2F and BL years. Modules are represented by different symbols as shown in the legend. The average is shown. ns not significant; T-test

Effect of assessment type on student outcomes across varying delivery methods

To assess whether assessment type was a factor in student mark outcomes, modules were separated based on their particular types of summative assessments; written exams (which comprised of time-limited assessment), practical assessment and presentation assessment (which comprised poster or oral presentations) (Fig.  5 ). The modules with a summative written exam showed significantly lower end-of-module marks in the BL year when compared to the F2F year (Fig.  5 A; p < 0.05; T-test). In contrast, the modules with a summative multiple-choice question (MCQ) assessment showed elevated marks in the BL year (Fig.  5 B; statistics not performed due to n < 3). This goes some way towards explaining why the ICB and Biodiversity module marks benefitted during BL delivery (Table  2 and Fig.  3 C, E respectively) as 50% of their overall module mark was from the MCQ assessment. An increase in modules marks was measured in the BL year when modules were separated by inclusion of a practical assessment (Fig.  5 C; statistics not performed due to n < 3). In contrast, modules without a practical assessment fared badly in the BL year compared to the F2F year, although this was not significant (Fig.  5 D; p > 0.05; T-test). Interestingly, inclusion of a presentation assessment (poster or oral) failed to affect the module marks across the contrasting delivery years (Fig.  5 E, F ; p > 0.05; T-test).

Effect of assessment type on mark outcomes. Analysis of final module marks in F2F compared to BL years in modules with a summative written exam ( A ), summative MCQ ( B ), including a practical assessment ( C ), without a practical assessment ( D ), including a presentation assessment ( E ), or without a presentation assessment ( F ). Data represents average module marks. Bars represent mean ± SD. Significance is determined by T-test (where ns denotes not significant, *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01). Modules are represented by different symbols as shown in the legend

This study aimed to analyse, in detail, the effect of two contrasting delivery methods, F2F vs BL, on first year undergraduate Biological Science student marks at a UK Higher Education institution. A wealth of data were included for analysis from > 90 students per year, across seven modules.

The results found that the proportion of students taking reassessments increased in the BL vs. F2F year although this increase was not statistically significant (Fig.  2 ). It is noteworthy to suggest that this correlates with studies showing that students have an increased positive perception of F2F learning (Nasution et al., 2021 ), with F2F learning enabling communication and interaction within the student cohort and between students and teachers (Paechter & Maier, 2010 ). A significant skew towards males achieving less than 40% in the first sitting of modules in the BL year (Fig.  2 ) may suggest that this gender benefit more from F2F learning and the interaction that this provides. This supports other research where males struggled more with the shift to online learning in the COVID-19 pandemic (Chisadza et al., 2021 ; Yu, 2021 ), with female students achieving significantly higher outcomes in online learning (Alghamdi et al., 2020 ) or self-regulated learning (Caprara et al., 2008 ; Pajares & Valiante, 2001 ) than male students. If an element of online learning is to remain part of future course planning it is imperative to ensure that all students receive training on the virtual platform in advance, as well as having the option to loan a device from the University. This would negate the possibility of excluding students due to not being able to use the software or having access to a usable device.

Although the aforementioned results showed that significantly more male students were graded under 40% in the first sitting module marks than female students during BL (Fig.  2 B), the average final module mark from male students was unaffected between the two delivery styles and even showed a slight increase during BL delivery (Fig.  4 B). In contrast the average final module marks from female students showed a decrease in the BL year when compared to the F2F year, although not significant (Fig.  4 A). This potentially implies that although male students were possibly slower to adjust to the change in delivery type (causing an increase in marks below 40% in the first sitting), the BL delivery did not significantly disadvantage their overall outcomes.

The spread of student marks often approaches a normal distribution if a large sample size is used (Akella et al., 2017 ; Ho et al., 1981 ; Lyon, 2020 ), with the majority of students clustered around the middle grades. The data can become skewed following reassessments due to these marks being capped at 40%. Interestingly there appeared to be an increase in the spread of the marks in the BL delivery year compared to the F2F delivery year across the modules (Fig.  3 ). This change in the spread of the data can be suggestive of underlying factors other than just student variation. In the BL year there were also factors that would differentiate students on their ability to achieve their highest potential. These include, but are not limited to, access to technology, access to adequate internet connection, other responsibilities (e.g. childcare/home-schooling), engagement during the sessions and inability to work at a screen for continuous periods. Due to the speed of the transition to online learning at the beginning of the pandemic these factors were not addressed as effectively as they could otherwise have been. But, if the online platform is going to be, at least in part, continued then the University has a responsibility to ensure that students have the access to equipment that is required.

Separating module grades by assessment type provided a useful indication of whether certain assessments were beneficial or disadvantageous to BL environments. Modules incorporating a summative written exam showed significantly decreased marks in the BL year compared to the F2F year (Fig.  5 A). This potentially suggests that the in-depth understanding of the subjects was not attained as efficiently following online delivery. Hence it could be speculated that students felt less forthcoming in asking questions when delivery was online. In contrast, the modules that included a 50% summative MCQ assessment generated higher overall marks in the BL year compared to the F2F year (Fig.  5 B). One possible reason for this could be that, due to these assessments taking place remotely, students were afforded unrestricted access to teaching materials and external source materials.

Interestingly, the literature reports that males outperform female on multiple choice assessments, with female students achieving higher marks in longer answer tests (Reardon et al., 2018 ), although this study was based on high school aged students. The results in this present study suggest that both males and females at higher education level benefit from MCQ assessments as average module marks increased for both genders in the BL vs. F2F years in the modules that included a 50% summative MCQ assessment (Fig.  4 A, B ; ICB and Biodiversity modules).

Although BL delivery did enable some F2F contact (up to 6 h per student per week for the students in the present study), it has been reported in the literature that the COVID-19 restrictions affected learning efficacy even within F2F practical classes, with reduced student numbers in large spaces and the need for social distancing causing awkwardness and fewer peer-to-peer interactions (Khan et al., 2021 ). The results in the present study show that module marks in modules containing a practical assessment (Biodiversity and CforB; Table  1 ) were increased in the BL year compared to the F2F year in contrast to modules without a practical assessment (Fig.  5 C, D ). This would suggest that the students in the present study benefitted from the opportunity to continue their practical work to provide interaction between their peers as a contrast to independent, self-directed study. Practical work is a significant component of Biological Science courses, but this highlights the importance of maintaining and developing opportunities for group working to maximise student interaction and communication within modules.

Marks across the F2F and BL years were not significantly affected by the incorporation of a presentation assessment (poster or oral presentation; Fig.  5 E, F ), although several students expressed a preference and also relief in presenting online rather than in person (Katy Andrews, personal communication ). This reflects a lack of confidence in the student cohort, likely due to missing out on the vital interaction that occurs at the beginning of the first year at university. It is important to ensure that confidence in presenting to an audience is developed throughout the course as this is a key skill for future employability. Therefore, the incorporation of small-group presentations (both online and F2F) should be included in future module development for students to gain maximal experience.

Informing future practice

Even though the COVID-19 restrictions are now lifted in the UK, and F2F learning has primarily been resumed, the positive role that remote learning can play has been widely recognised and will likely remain to have some role in higher education teaching henceforth. There are lessons to be learnt from the rapid monumental shift to online learning in March 2020 that will be used to shape future module planning and delivery (Nerantzi, 2020 ). A key benefit of online delivery is the ability to access the content asynchronously, where the students are able to access pre-recorded material at their own pace (Lapitan Jr et al., 2021 ) and around personal commitments. But there is also a place for synchronous online teaching, where students access the online classroom live. The results of the present study concur with a wealth of literature demonstrating that, when online teaching is incorporated into a curriculum, emphasis must be placed upon maintaining interaction within the students and between students and the teacher (Finlay et al., 2022 ; Lapitan Jr et al., 2021 ; Maatuk et al., 2022 ; Mali & Lim, 2021 ; Paechter & Maier, 2010 ; Vo et al., 2020 ). This includesd the inclusion of breakout groups (thus providing a small-group environment to enable communication), quizzes and interactive activities, and sharing work within the virtual learning environment to encourage discussion and feedback. There are advantages to offering students the option of choosing online student–teacher meetings over F2F, for example when discussing draft feedback on formative assessments. This could reduce unnecessary travel to campus. This will continue to be offered as an option for students if they express this preference. The time of day and frequency of delivery method has also been found to be important, with F2F learning preferred when courses were offered in the late morning or early afternoon (Paul & Jefferson, 2019 ). Therefore, if online learning is to be included in future module delivery it could be most advantageous for morning teaching sessions.

The opinions of students on their perceptions of F2F and BL is beyond the research in the present study but would be interesting to pursue further to understand the underlying reasons involved, for example whether motivation and engagement are compounding factors. Personal communication with students suggested that there were mixed opinions regarding preferences for F2F and BL. But the importance of student interaction was highlighted, and indicated that, if online teaching is to remain an element within future course planning, it should be secondary to on-campus F2F delivery.

For future planning of assessment strategies, the results from this study show that maximal student outcomes are achieved when online delivery is assessed using MCQ tests although, with future assessments being held on campus, this result may change due to the restriction in access to external online material.

Considerations for the inclusion of online content in future module delivery

Universal access to suitable devices: it is vital to ensure that all students have access to appropriate equipment and digital tools required. The University should actively signpost support services that can loan out such devices to the students who need them, ensuring equitable access to essential technology.

Comprehensive pre-session training: Before the commencement of online delivery, detailed training sessions tailored to the Biological Science discipline, should be offered. These sessions should cover all aspects of digital literacy relevant to the tools that will be used on the modules.

Interactive content in online sessions: Enhance online sessions with interactive content, including breakout rooms and peer review sessions. These activities encourage active engagement and collaboration through work in small groups.

Use of digital assessments: For example, MCQ tests can be used as both formative feedback and summative assessment. Online practical quizzes that simulate laboratory scenarios could be used to compliment physical laboratory-based practical sessions.

Flexible access to recorded content: Recording both F2F and online content enables students to access material at a convenient time. Recordings of laboratory demonstrations or scientific discussions would allow students who have valid absences to catch up effectively. Material should be easily accessible and organised to align with the module structure.

By tailoring these considerations to the nature of Biological Sciences modules, the inclusion of some element of online content in future module delivery can be optimised to enhance learning outcomes and ensure that all students have equitable access to education, regardless of their personal circumstances or learning preferences.

Limitations

This study investigating F2F and BL delivery in Higher Education, specifically on a Biological Science programme, revealed key insights and limitations that align closely with the ongoing debate about the effectiveness of different delivery styles.

The research compared first-year undergraduate marks from two different academic years where the delivery style differed (traditional F2F learning in 2019–2019 and BL in 2020–2021). The majority of modules showed a decrease in overall module mark with BL delivery, with one module unaffected and two modules showing improvements. The need for reassessments was increased (although not significantly) following BL delivery. However, the findings must be contextualised within the limitations of the study. Although the quantitative mark data was robust, mere statistical analysis fails to capture the differences caused by teaching methods within each delivery style. The study also does not account for complexities in assessment literacy. Understanding how students interpret and engage with different types of assessment is critical for a true evaluation but was beyond the objectives of the present study. The students selected were all first-year, enabling the assumption that this was the first University experience for the majority.

A notable omission is the measurement of student engagement, a key factor in learning effectiveness. This was not the focus of the study, which was to quantify student outcomes resulting from differing styles of delivery, but would be an interesting future avenue for research. The focus on a single subject area and institution are also limiting factors. Biological Sciences, with the blend of practical and theoretical content, may limit the generalisability of the study’s findings, but sets a foundation for potentially comparing the effect to those of other subject areas. The impact of the pandemic also increased stress, mental health challenges and other external factors amongst students, which might have significantly affected the academic outcomes during this period.

Given the limitations discussed, it could be argued that relying solely on statistical tests on marks from differing student cohorts may not provide sufficient evidence to support changes in future practice. However, the present analyses do offer insight into the effect of delivery style on student outcomes and, when combined with other qualitative and pedagogical research, can inform future teaching methods and curriculum design.

Implications for practice and future research

The results of this timely study show that the effect of BL on student marks was module-specific, with students achieving significantly reduced marks in more than half of the modules in BL vs. F2F delivery. This was correlated with an increase in the proportion of students undergoing reassessments and an increase in first sitting failure (< 40%) rate. A greater proportion of male students failed on the first sitting but, interestingly, BL had a more pronounced negative effect on female students’ overall module marks.

Therefore, although there are apparent benefits of online learning, e.g. enabling students with external commitments to engage with the course in their own time, thus supporting student inclusivity and engagement, it is important to ensure that appropriate training and access to the technology is provided to students in advance. To ensure that this occurs, slides should be included in lecture material to signpost the support services available to students and this should be reiterated in tutorial sessions. With these measures in place, maintaining an element of online learning within the predominantly F2F curriculum should not be detrimental to overall student outcomes.

Future directions of this work would be to correlate student outcomes with information on student perceptions of F2F vs. BL. This would provide valuable insight so that emphasis is placed on the optimal delivery methods, teaching quality and assessments to inform future course planning and ensure that the students are provided with the optimal environment to achieve their greatest potential.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Professor Paul Ashton and Katy Andrews for discussions on the results of the study.

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Biology Department, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, L39 4QP, UK

Claire V. Harper & Lucy M. McCormick

Centre for Learning and Teaching, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, L39 4QP, UK

Linda Marron

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CVH designed the study, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. LMM collated the data and advised on the manuscript. LM was involved in critical discussions of the work and assisted with writing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire V. Harper .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests, additional information, publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Harper, C.V., McCormick, L.M. & Marron, L. Face-to-face vs. blended learning in higher education: a quantitative analysis of biological science student outcomes. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 21 , 2 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00435-0

Download citation

Received : 17 August 2023

Accepted : 12 December 2023

Published : 10 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00435-0

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Face-to-face
• Blended online learning
• Higher education

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

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

• Discipline of Psychology, School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

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.

Introduction

With changing student lifestyles and fast-developing technology, universities are increasingly offering more “flexible” learning environments. Commensurate with the opportunities that technological advances afford, for over a decade ( Imel, 2002 ) the provision of online, e-learning experiences has undergone rapid expansion in the higher education sector. Today, online learning is part of the student experience for a substantial proportion of university students in a variety of countries (e.g., Ituma, 2011 ; Otter et al., 2013 ; Tucker et al., 2013 ). The current study aimed to compare students' experience and performance in both online and traditional face-to-face learning experiences.

The rise of e-learning has helped to encourage students to take on more responsibility for their own acquisition of knowledge ( Ituma, 2011 ). In a traditional, teacher-centered model of teaching, the lecturer transmits knowledge to students, with little input from those students ( Harden and Crosby, 2000 ; Prosser et al., 2005 ). However, the shift to less traditional classes has coincided with a greater focus on more student-centered learning, with the lecturer facilitating or managing the students' learning, rather than simply transmitting information ( Balluerka et al., 2008 ). Because of the more self-directed learning assumed to occur in online environments, online learning may have the potential to produce more in-depth discussions and to improve the quality of learning, as well as having the practical benefits of encouraging wider student participation and increasing the cost-effectiveness of education, compared to traditional face-to-face learning ( Smith and Hardaker, 2000 ; Alexander, 2001 ). A timely example is that of flipped classrooms, whereby the students engage in active learning (often via vodcasts or in online discussions) and the instructor provides support and scaffolding ( Strayer, 2012 ).

Given the potential pedagogical advantages of online learning, there is a pressing need to formulate an evidence-based understanding of best practice in this area. However, despite the increasing research interest in e-learning, there seems to be little consistency in the training that lecturers receive in developing online materials. This may be an artifact of a diverse research base. For example, many studies have focused on the efficiency, content and delivery method that teaching staff have developed (e.g., Rossman, 1999 ; Twigg, 2003 ; O'Neill et al., 2004 ), while the perceptions and experiences of the students themselves have been largely neglected ( Alexander, 2001 ; Holley and Oliver, 2010 ; Ituma, 2011 ). Some teaching staff seem to perceive web-based platforms simply as an alternative method for presenting the traditional content, whereas others might look for more innovative ways of using such platforms to improve students' engagement and thus their learning outcomes ( Holley and Oliver, 2010 ; Ituma, 2011 ). Much of the initial experience of e-learning failed to live up to learners' expectations ( Imel, 2002 ), partly because of technological constraints, and partly because of the early instructional approaches taken ( Anderson and Dron, 2011 ). Even today, students in different courses can have quite different experiences of online learning. There is a clear need for more research into what does and does not work in online learning, but also for a focus on the student experience in the increasingly digital landscape of tertiary education.

The worldwide trend toward online learning provision has resulted in numerous online-only courses, and universities in Australia are no exception (e.g., Bell et al., 2002 ; Tucker et al., 2013 ). However, the student experience in online classes is a different one from in traditional face-to-face classes, and patterns of engagement seem to differ between the two ( Robinson and Hullinger, 2008 ). For example, Otter et al. (2013) found that students in online-only classes felt more disconnected from their peers and lecturers, more obliged to be self-directed in their studies, and less aided by their lecturer, than their lecturers believe them to be. Students can also feel daunted by the technological expectations of online study, especially if they start off without sufficient technical knowledge or support ( Zhang and Perris, 2004 ; Holley and Oliver, 2010 ).

Most of the research to date has focused on courses offered entirely online. Yet, an increasing number of face-to-face courses are beginning to incorporate some online components, in which traditional in-class activities are supplemented, rather than replaced, with online activities ( Ituma, 2011 ). However, very little is known how students respond to this kind of “blended e-learning,” especially when they have enrolled in a face-to-face class, rather than one which they expect in advance to be completed online. This represents a substantial gap in the educational literature, as there are potentially important implications for student engagement, performance, and attrition. In general, student engagement in traditional classes is positively associated with student engagement and academic performance, although the magnitude of these effects may be small (e.g., Carini et al., 2006 ). Some research suggests that participation in learning technology can itself increase engagement and learning ( Chen et al., 2010 ), and flipped classrooms are emerging as a promising student-centered paradigm (e.g., Galway et al., 2014 ). However, a deeper consideration of these positive outcomes is warranted, as outcomes seem to depend on the nature of the online activities, and the way that students interact with them. For example, Davies and Graff (2005) found that students who interacted and participated more in online discussion did not show significantly better academic performance than students who were less involved in that discussion. In contrast, Evans et al. (2004) showed that students performed much better when their online course material was accessible via an interactive, navigable format than via a series of scrollable web-pages. Thus, there is mixed evidence about the extent to which some online activities might help or hinder students' marks, compared to more traditional, face-to-face classes.

There are various reasons to expect that students might prefer at least some aspects of online learning to traditional classes. Previous researchers have suggested that in contrast to the faster, real-time pace of face-to-face classes, the extra time available for online activities might allow students to think about course material more critically and reflectively, leading to deeper understanding of the course content (e.g., Ramsden, 1992 ; Robinson and Hullinger, 2008 ). Others have suggested that the less confrontational or personal nature of e-learning might encourage shyer students to engage more, or to feel less pressure than in face-to-face interactions ( Warschauer, 1997 ; Hobbs, 2002 ).

However, there are also reasons for which students might prefer more traditional, in-class activities. Although social connectedness can be derived online ( Grieve et al., 2013 ), most students feel that face-to-face contact is essential for building a sense of community ( Conole et al., 2008 ). Even when classes are only partially online, students may feel that online discussion detracts from this feeling of community with their peers and tutor. Further, at a practical level, students need to exercise more self-motivation to complete activities online, compared to in-class, where that role of motivator is taken on by the lecturer ( Upton, 2006 ). Thus, it is important to explore students' perceptions of both online and face-to-face learning experiences, rather than just one or the other.

At our university, there is currently a focus on incorporating more online material into face-to-face units, by replacing some weekly practical classes with self-directed, online activities. The primary motivation is a financial one, as online classes do not require paid tutors, and lecturing staff are not paid any more for developing online material than in-class material. A secondary motivation is the general assumption that students prefer the flexibility and opportunity for self-directed learning provided by online activities. However, there does not seem to have been any assessment of students' academic outcomes, or their overall experience, in terms of online learning within this context.

The current research was therefore designed to examine the performance and perceptions, in both face-to-face and online learning experiences, of Australian undergraduate students who were enrolled in traditional face-to-face units which incorporated some online components. We took a two-fold approach, with the aim of providing an integrated picture of both objective and subjective outcomes. To this end, we compared both students' academic performance and their qualitative comments on their learning experience, between offline and online modalities, as described below.

In order to control for individual differences and thus increase the statistical power of the study, we tested the same students on both offline and online tasks, rather than having separate groups for each modality. Alongside the empirical rigor of this within-groups design, we wished to maintain the authenticity of the measures, and thus chose to embed the tasks within the students' actual class learning experience, rather than in an artificial, lab-based study. We also wanted to ensure that instead of just observing students' behavior (e.g., counting their discussion contributions), we assessed both objective and subjective measures of their learning. The specific research questions were thus as follows:

After having engaged with course content either face-to-face or online, would students differ in:

1. Their academic marks on a short test of the concepts just learned?

2. Their preference ratings for online and face-to-face modalities?

3. The themes emerging in their justifications of these ratings?

In the first study, undergraduate psychology studied two carefully matched topics, one in a face-to-face class and the other online, with the order counterbalanced between two groups. We compared marks on the two topics, and examined the students' comments on their experience of completing the activities, one in-class and one online.

Participants

Participants were 67 third-year (advanced level) undergraduate students at an Australian university, 13 male and 54 female. Their mean age was 24 years ( SD 7.1 years), and all spoke English as a first language. The students took part in the study as part of their unit on developmental psychology, but gave consent for their data also to be used for research purposes. All were familiar and confident with the web-based platform used for delivering the online activities. The study received approval from the university's Human Research Ethics Committee.

Materials and Procedure

Participants completed written exercises, a class discussion, and a written test (worth 5% of their overall mark) on two academic topics, one week apart. The first topic concerned children's stages of cognitive development, and the second, children's stages of drawing development. Three classes of students participated. The classes were allocated to two groups (as described in the next paragraph), with the larger class allocated to Group 1 ( n = 27), and the two smaller classes to Group 2 ( n = 40). This meant that the two groups differed in size. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age [ M = 23.2 years ( SD 6.2) and M = 26.0 years ( SD 8.2), respectively], sex distribution (80 and 82% female), or overall performance in this unit [ M = 62.4% ( SD 11.6%) and M = 65.0% ( SD 10.0%)], all p s > 0.1.

In Week 1, both groups of participants completed the face-to-face activities in their weekly practical class. Group 1 students discussed their recent experience of observing a child completing several tasks of conservation of matter (e.g., conservation of liquid, conservation of number, Piaget, 1954 ). The previous week, each student had individually administered these tasks to a 5- to 12-year-old child of their acquaintance. The few students who did not know a child to visit had viewed multiple online videos of children being administered these tasks and chosen the one on which they would like to answer the test questions. There were no differences in performance between these two sets of students. Group 2 students were given a series of self-portraits drawn by children aged 2–16 years, and a copy of Lowenfeld's (1939) stages of drawing development.

In class, the tutor initiated the discussion with more general questions, for example (for conservation, Group 1): “What did you find most difficult about giving the task, and how did you overcome this difficulty?,” and (for drawing, Group 2) “Do you think it would be easy or difficult to persuade a child of this age to produce a self-portrait? Do you think it would be easier with older or younger children?.” The questions later narrowed in on theory, with the tutor asking the students in Group 1 to discuss which cognitive stage they thought the child was in (in terms of Piaget's stage model of cognitive development, e.g., pre-operations or concrete operations), and how the wording of the adult's instructions could influence the child's performance. In Group 2, the tutor asked the students to decide which developmental stage each self-portrait seemed to represent (e.g., pre-schematic drawing, schematic drawing), and why. They also talked about the motor skills required for drawing. For both groups, discussions took place first in small groups and then as a whole class, over a 1-h period, with the questions provided by the tutor but the discussion structured by the students themselves. At the end of the class, both groups were then given a half-hour, in-class, written test on the topic that they had just studied (i.e., development of conservation or drawing):

1. Participants answered six short-answer questions structured as similarly as possible for the two topics (e.g., Conservation : Based on your observation, which Piagetian stage do you think this child is in, and why? Drawing: Based on the drawing, which of Lowenfeld's stages do you think this child is in, and why?)

2. Participants rated their preference for completing these activities face-to-face vs. online, on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (“much prefer to do in class”) to 5 (“much prefer to do online”), and were asked to identify “one thing that was good about doing the activities in class, not online,” and “one thing that would have been good about doing the activities online, not in class.”

During the following week (Week 2), both groups of participants completed the online activities at a time of their own choosing, for the topic that they had not covered in the previous week. Group 1 scrolled through the series of children's self-portraits, presented in PDF form, and were provided with an online copy of Lowenfeld's (1939) stages of drawing development. Group 2 were asked to think about the conservation tasks they had observed.

Both groups were asked to consider the same questions that had been considered in the face-to-face classes as described above, for drawing development (Group 1) and for cognitive development (Group 2). Students were then instructed to go to the online discussion board. They did not have to transcribe their answers for all of the questions that they had considered, but were asked to contribute their answers to the questions that they “had found most interesting,” or to explain any questions that they “had found particularly difficult, and why.” Students were also asked to read others' contributions, and to respond to them, “linking their experiences and answers with yours if you can.”

The opportunity to reflect on the materials and questions, and to contribute to the online discussion, was available for 5 days, with each participant contributing at least once. Each participant contributed to the discussion, as required (with at least one discussion post that covered several questions). The day after the online discussion board was closed, the online version of the test was made available, with the same questions as in the face-to-face version:

1. Participants responded in writing to the same six short-answer questions answered in class the week before.

2. Participants rated their preference for completing these activities face-to-face or online, and were asked to identify “one thing that was good about doing the activities online, not in class,” and “one thing that would have been good about doing the activities in class, not online.”

Students had 4 days in which to do the test, which was open for 30 min once it was begun. It is possible that the students completing the test online could have accessed extra information (from the internet) than the students completing the test in class (without internet access). However, trying to find further information during the limited time available for writing the test answers would not have been very helpful. The questions were focused on discussing the conservation or drawing performance of “their” child, and all students (in class and online) had access to a copy of Lowenfeld's stages, and all had been aware that they would need to revise the basics of Piaget's cognitive stage theory for the test.

In summary, both groups completed the same activities, discussion and tests, but in Week 1 both groups did so in face-to-face classes (on cognitive development for Group 1 and on drawing development for Group 2) and in Week 2 both groups did so online (on drawing development for Group 2 and on cognitive development for Group 1).

Results and Discussion

Class marks and preferences.

Participants' marks on the two tests, as well as their stated preferences for studying each topic face-to-face or online, were calculated. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations on each of these factors, for participants in the two groups. As seen in the table, students showed an overall preference for studying topics face-to-face rather than online, with their average preferences of around 2 hovering much closer to the “much prefer to do in class” end of the 5-point scale than the “much prefer to do online” end of the scale.

Table 1. Study 1: Mean Marks and Modality Preferences across Task and Modality .

A series of repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVAs) showed that there were no significant differences between the groups on any of the comparisons made. The two groups did not differ significantly in the marks they gained, in terms of either the topic they were tested on [ F (1, 65) = 0.67, p = 0.42, partial η 2 = 0.01] or modality in which this test was presented [ F (1, 65) = 0.31, p = 0.58, partial η 2 = 0.01]. Nor did they differ significantly in their modality preference, in terms of either the topic about which they were asked [ F (1, 65) = 0.42, p = 0.52, partial η 2 = 0.01] or the modality in which they were asked it [ F (1, 65) = 0.05, p = 0.82, partial η 2 = 0.001]. We followed up this significant group difference in modality preference by also considering whether there was a significant difference in terms of the number of students who (much) preferred to do the tasks in class and those who (much) preferred to do them online/did not mind either way. A chi-squared analysis confirmed that significantly more students preferred to complete the tasks in class ( n = 47) than online/didn't mind ( n = 20), χ 2 (1) = 10.89, p < 0.001.

Pearson correlations were calculated to see if there was any association between participants' academic performance and their preference for learning face-to-face vs. online. We first considered participants' scores on the two topic-specific tests and their reported modality preference for each topic. The correlations were not significant for either the topic done online ( r =−0.02, p = 0.85), or the topic done in class ( r = 0.01, p = 0.95). This suggests that students did not simply prefer a modality because they felt they had performed better on the task in that modality, and nor did they perform better in the modality that they already preferred. We then looked at participants' final mark on this entire academic unit ( M = 64.0%, SD = 10.7%), and calculated the correlation between this mark and their modality preference averaged over the face-to-face and online tasks ( M = 2.09, SD = 0.92). The correlation was not significant ( r = −0.11, p = 0.40), suggesting no consistent relationship between overall academic performance and preference for learning online or in class. Finally, we confirmed that there was no significant correlation between participant age and modality preference ( r = 0.01, p = 0.97), nor between age and overall marks ( r = 0.05, p = 0.69).

Qualitative comments

We also asked participants to note one thing that they liked better about completing the activities (exercises, discussion, and test) face-to-face, and one thing about what they liked better about completing them online. Participants provided their own freeform answers, which we then subjected to thematic analysis ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). We chose thematic analysis rather than a more specific approach such as Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) or Discourse Analysis, as we wished to identify repeated patterns of meaning, or themes, in the responses, but without attaching our analysis to any pre-existing theoretical framework. We followed Braun and Clarke's (2006) six phases to identify the themes as they emerged from an analysis of students' responses, rather than pre-existing themes being imposed on a grouping of the responses. Specifically, we (1) familiarized ourselves with the scope and nature of the students' responses to both the “in-class” and “online” questions, and (2) generated initial codes on the basis of a subset of 25 participants' responses, by identifying the overall point made in each response with a 2- to 4-word summary code, which we (3) collated into tentative themes and modified as we reviewed another 25 responses. These potential themes were then (4) reviewed to check how they fitted with the entire data set, and (5) the themes were refined into an exhaustive set of final themes for all responses, which were named and clearly defined. Finally, (6) the most representative example for each theme was selected, and the final analysis related back to the research questions. Although participants had been asked to provide only one reason for liking something about each modality, many provided two or even more reasons. We included the first one or two reasons given in our thematic analysis. Table 2 shows the proportion of responses that were categorized into each them, for face-to-face and online learning, for the whole sample, n = 67.

Table 2. Study 1: Proportion of Responses per Theme, for Face-to-Face and Online Learning .

In justifying their modality preferences about completing the activities face-to-face, the 67 participants provided 102 reasons overall. The themes that emerged were as follows:

• More engagement: This was the theme with the most responses, with students noting that they felt more engaged when the activities were completed in the social environment of a classroom setting, rather than online. Most also commented that they felt this greater engagement led to more meaningful discussion, for example, I think that discussion face to face really allows you to think more deeply and bounce ideas of other people. Writing it online, felt like your answers had to be more formal and exact, whereas in class discussion I felt you could really bounce more possible ideas off each other before coming to a conclusion.

• Immediate feedback: The next most common theme was that participants appreciated the fact that each comment they made in class immediately elicited a related comment from a peer, or a clarification from the tutor in real time, rather than having to wait hours for a response to their particular comment online. An illustrative example is, You are able to directly discuss with tutor and peers and therefore directly receive feedback for your questions and others questions.

Overall, 80% of the first reasons (and 37% of second reasons) that participants gave to illustrate the benefits of in-class activities fitted these themes of “more engagement” and “immediate feedback.” Some of remaining responses referred to more practical considerations:

• No wish to read comments: Some students noted that they had no wish to read the comments of their classmates online, although they were happy to listen to and interact with their classmates in real life.

• Easier to review paper documents: Others noted it was easier to review material in class, because they could spread out the pages in front of them on a table rather than scrolling through on screen. The other remaining responses fitted the more pedagogically motivated themes that in-class interaction provided:

• Deeper understanding and a

• Better flow of argument .

When explaining their preferred modality for online activities, the 67 participants provided 78 reasons, rather fewer than the 102 that they had given about face-to-face classes.

• Convenience : The most common theme was a practical one; the greater convenience of being able to complete the online activities in their own time (within the given week), and/or at any location, as in the comment, Can do it at anytime, and anywhere.

• Wider contributions: The second most common theme was that the online discussion allowed contributions from a greater range of people than a class discussion, in which shyer students sometimes stayed quiet in the presence of their more outspoken peers, for example, Discussion not dominated by loud, confident people.

• More detailed responses: Students also noted that the online discussion forum encouraged more detailed responses than in-class discussion (where conversational turns were typically shorter, but more frequent, than in writing), as in the response, I thought it was good to be able to read everyone's experiences with full details, as time restraints in class don't allow for each individual to thoroughly go through their task.

Together, 84% of first reasons (and 69% of second reasons) fitted these three themes. The remaining responses were categorized into smaller themes; specifically:

• More time to think : Some students noted that providing responses online gave them more time to consider their answers than having to speak spontaneously in class.

• Faster to type : It was noted that it was faster to provide answers to the test when it was typed online than handwritten in the classroom.

• Less judgment : Finally, some students felt less judged by their tutor and peers when answers could be written than spoken.

Overall, many of the reasons that students gave for each modality differed from those seen in previous literature, as is taken up again in the General Discussion.

In Study 1, students had been asked to reflect on their preferences and perceptions of several different activities simultaneously: written exercises, class discussion, and a short test. However, the study was not set up to allow students to rate whether they would prefer to do some of these activities in one modality and others in another (these preferences emerged only in the qualitative comments). Further, participants also had to come up with “one good thing” about both face-to-face and online learning, even though some responses suggested that students had simply felt obliged to come up with benefits that they did not really see as an advantage, for example, [Online activity] can be done in the students own time… but since there is a dedicated time each week for a practical class, this kind of negates this advantage .

In order to assess students' ratings of the activities separately, and to ask them only for the reasons why they preferred one modality to another, we conducted a second study. In this follow-up, we asked a new group of undergraduates to reflect on their preferences for doing two separate activity types face-to-face or online: short written exercises to get students thinking about the topic (which would traditionally have been done in class but could just as well be done alone, in students' own time), and class discussions.

Participants were 37 third-year undergraduate psychology students (10 male) at the same Australian university, who had not participated in Study 1. Their mean age was 25 years ( SD 8.9 years). All but one spoke English as their first language, and they participated as part of their course requirements. As in Study 1, all were competent and familiar with the technical requirements of the online learning activities. Ethics approval was provided by the university's Human Research Ethics Committee, and participants gave consent for their data to be included in the research.

Participants were completing an undergraduate unit which included both face-to-face and online practical classes, and so they were accustomed to both modalities. In this particular unit (Psychology of Language), students had participated in each type of practical class in the last 2 weeks. In both the first week (class conducted face-to-face) and the second week (class conducted online), students had completed written activities, and participated in a discussion, and so the experience of both should have been relatively fresh in their minds. Specifically, in the second week's online practical class, students had completed written activities on language and gender (writing down the best word to address unknown people of varying age/sex, e.g., sir , mate , miss ), language in the digital age (responding to fictitious text messages), and language as a marketing tool (comparing two university courses on the basis of the universities' self-descriptions). That same week, students then contributed to an online discussion about their responses to these tasks. The following week, in a face-to-face class, participants discussed their responses to the previous week's tasks. They were then asked to take a few minutes to consider the advantages and disadvantages of completing the written activities online, rather than in a face-to-face class. Even though the students had not done these particular written activities in class, only online, we considered that they would be easily able to make this judgment, because they had previous experience with doing similar kinds of written activities in class on multiple occasions. Students were also asked to consider the advantages and disadvantages of engaging in discussion of these particular language-based issues in class, and online (both of which they had experienced).

Finally, students were asked to:

1. Rate, on a scale of 1 (“much prefer to do in class”) to 5 (“much prefer to do online”), how they would prefer to complete these written activities , and to write down their main reason for this rating.

2. Rate, on the same scale, how they would prefer to engage in this class discussion , and to write down their meaning reason for this rating.

Preferences

Overall, participants showed a mean preference for written activities that was close to the middle of the 5-point scale, 3.54 ( SD = 1.37). In contrast, their mean preference for discussions was closer to the “much prefer to do in class” end of the scale, 1.62 ( SD = 1.01). The difference between the two ratings was significant, F (1, 36) = 59.3, p < 0.001. It might be expected that some students simply preferred to do all activities in class or online, but this did not appear to be the case: there was no significant correlation between modality preferences for written activities and discussion, r = 0.21, p = 0.21. Nor was there any significant correlation with age and either of the modality preferences, written activities r = 0.17, p = 0.31 or discussion, r = 0.06, p = 0.71. Thus, it was clear that students had different preferences according to the nature of the task, preferring to do written activities online but discussions face-to-face.

We also asked participants to note the main reason for their ratings. Using the same process as in Study 1, we conducted a thematic analysis on the responses. Again, some participants provided two reasons, and we coded both of these.

Table 3 shows the themes which came out of the responses about preferences for written activities. As shown in the top panel, only 9 participants (much) preferred doing the written activities in class, while 21 (much) preferred doing the written activities online, as shown in the bottom panel. (The responses from the 5 participants who didn't mind either way were omitted.) As in Study 1, we conducted a chi-square analysis, and confirmed that significantly more participants preferred to do written activities online (or did not mind either way) than to do them in class, χ 2 (1) = 8.26, p < 0.005.

Table 3. Study 2: Proportion of Responses per Theme for Written Activities, for those who Preferred these Face-to-Face vs. Online .

The themes emerging from the responses of the relatively small group of participants who preferred doing written activities in class were:

• Interaction encourages learning : The students noted that the interaction of face-to-face classes encouraged learning, in a way that could not be achieved via the solitary completion of the activities, for example, Because if feels like more active learning in class, interacting and talking with others.

• Class time already allocated : A second theme was that since the class time was already allocated for doing activities, students would rather do the work in class, with others, rather than have to force themselves to do it in their own time, as in, Because I find it hard to make time for non-attending pracs and when I do I rush through them as fast as I can. Whereas if I have to come to class I'm more likely to concentrate and understand what I'm doing.

Finally, some students valued the

• Immediate feedback offered in response to any comments they made

• Deeper learning that occurred in class, where they felt more focused on the activities.

The larger group of participants who preferred doing written activities online overwhelmingly reported the following theme:

• Convenience : Students noted the convenience of being able to complete the work at a time and place that suited them, as in, If its online I can do it in bed .

Other responses fitted the themes of finding that doing the activities online provided:

• More time to think

• Less distraction

Finally, some students noted that it depended on the nature of the written activities—but when they were reasonably challenging but not really difficult (as the current activities were perceived), they were the

• Right level for doing online, and

• Would waste time if done in class as individual work.

The themes which emerged from participants' preferences about class discussions are summarized in Table 4 . Almost all participants (much) preferred discussions in class ( n = 26, top panel), with very few (much) preferring them online ( n = 3). (The 6 participants who didn't mind either way were not included in this analysis.) A chi-square analysis confirmed that significantly more students preferred to engage in discussions in the classroom than online (or did not mind either way), χ 2 (1) = 8.26, p < 0.005. There was a range of reasons for preferring in-class discussion, with the following themes:

• More engagement: The most common theme to emerge was that it allowed more engagement than online discussion, for example, I would rather be in a classroom talking to actual people and engaging more.

• Better flow of discussion: Another popular theme was that discussion flowed better in person than online, as in, Can actually have a free flowing conversation .

• Personal setting: Some participants noted that the personal setting of the classroom encouraged better discussion than the more impersonal online environment, for example, The discussion in person is more beneficial for learning. Easier to communicate and express ideas in a personal setting .

• Greater range of opinions: Students expressed that in-class discussion exposed them to more opinions, for example, Get more opinions and discussion of them in class .

Table 4. Study 2: Proportion of Responses per Theme for Discussion, for those who Preferred Discussion Face-to-Face vs. Online .

The remaining comments expressed the themes of:

• No wish to read others' comments (although they were happy to listen to them)

• Immediate feedback of face-to-face discussion

• Deeper learning facilitated by in-class discussion

• Time already allocated in class, so students were happy to do the discussion then.

As shown in Table 4 , only three participants said that they preferred discussions online, each with a separate reason.

General Discussion

The goal of this research was to explore whether students' academic marks and their preferences for learning varied as a function of online or offline delivery. A further aim was to illuminate the “active ingredients” contributing to students' experiences in these modalities, using a qualitative methodology. In two studies, undergraduate students engaged in practical class activities in two modalities: in a face-to-face class, and online. We assessed students' academic performance on tests of class content and asked students which modality they preferred for learning, and why. Overall, we saw no clear differences in academic performance in online vs. in-class learning, but students had a general preference for in-class activities, specifically when discussion of academic topics was required.

In terms of academic performance, our first study showed that there were no significant differences in test performance whether class material, and the subsequent test, was presented face-to-face or online. This finding adds to previous evidence that simply participating in online activities does not necessarily lead to significantly improved test scores ( Davies and Graff, 2005 ). On the surface, these findings are difficult to explain using student-centered models of e-learning: it is assumed that the self-directed learning that occurs in in online environments should result in deeper learning. However, an alternative explanation comes from Garrison (2012) , who notes that the community of inquiry created by e-learning is not synonymous with the collaborative and constructivist approaches that can foster deep learning. If so, perhaps the current findings reflect collaboration and constructivism in both modalities, but in regards to different aspects of the learner experience. Overall, performance across the two modalities is convergent, but the electronic and face-to-face pathways to that performance may be divergent. For example, the benefits obtained a student who has “more time to think” when working asynchronously online may be similar to the benefits obtained by another student “exposed to more opinions” within a classroom discussion. Future research could aim to unpack such benefits and their relationship with student characteristics: this could potentially results in truly student-centered approaches through the creation of bespoke learning activities.

There was also no significant link between the academic mark achieved on the unit overall and preference for either face-to-face or online learning activities. The lack of relationship between preference and performance is a notable one. At least in the current study, it seems that a liking for a particular modality does not benefit performance in that modality. Importantly, these findings also suggest that asking students to engage in their non-preferred modality does not mean that poor performance will ensue. The implication is that educators can select delivery modality based solely on pedagogical reasons with confidence, rather than being concerned that a certain delivery method may disadvantage students who hold negative perceptions of that method.

The participants in our first study preferred, on average, to complete activities in class rather than online. In the second study, participants had the opportunity to be more specific about their preferences. Their responses indicated that although they were happy to complete individual written exercises online (especially if these were of a reasonable level of difficulty), students much preferred to participate in discussions in face-to-face classes. Thematic analysis ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ) of participants' qualitative comments in both Studies 1 and 2 revealed that students most liked the greater sense of engagement provided by face-to-face vs. online activities. Since there appears to be no previous direct comparison of students' perceptions of learning in these two modalities, it is difficult to link these responses with those in the literature concerning only online learning. However, it is interesting to note that the most common theme emerging in both studies was about the stronger feeling of engagement in the subject matter that these activities provided, with many students noting the deeper learning to come from this greater engagement. Although this result in no way negates previous findings that e-learning can also encourage deep learning (e.g., Ramsden, 1992 ; Robinson and Hullinger, 2008 ), it should be borne in mind that the benefits of e-learning do not diminish any pre-existing benefits of traditional classroom learning.

In Study 1, the immediate feedback from peers and tutor was also noted as an important advantage of in-class activities in general. In contrast, the immediacy of feedback available from online activities can vary greatly, depending on the nature of the activities and the way a unit is run. In the current study, students had 5 days in which to conduct their on-line discussion with peers. Thus, some students had to wait hours or even days for a peer to comment on their particular contribution, a situation that could not arise in an in-class discussion. In other units or courses, online discussions could be organized to occur at a set time, or as a “chat” function, in real time. This would allow contributions to be responded to more rapidly, and would presumably alleviate some of the frustrations that our participants experienced with more drawn-out discussions. In Study 2, in addition to preferring in-class discussion because of the greater engagement it offered, students also expressed the themes that face-to-face discussion allowed better flow of conversation, provided a more personal setting in which to enjoy the discussion, and encouraged a greater range of opinions from the group. These findings highlight the importance of facilitating collaboration and constructivism in learning.

When students were asked to note “one good thing” about online learning (Study 1), or to explain why they preferred to do written exercises online (the majority of participants in Study 2), thematic analysis revealed an important common theme: convenience. Students in both studies noted for online learning; they could do the work at a time of their own choosing, without having to travel to the university. This pragmatic reason emphasizes the advantages of online activities for many students, but does not fit with the more pedagogically driven reasons seen in previous research (e.g., Galway et al., 2014 ). Nevertheless, it does suggest that at least some students appreciate the flexibility in time and location afforded by online activities, especially as part of an otherwise face-to-face unit.

A number of participants in the first study also noted that online work encouraged contributions from a wider range of students, specifically, those who might be shy about face-to-face interaction. This reason has been noted in previous work (e.g., Citera, 1998 ; Hobbs, 2002 ). Nevertheless, on its own, this point does not provide a strong justification to adopt online learning, as many universities now consider oral communication skills as an important graduate attribute (e.g., Australian Qualifications Framework, 2013 ). Only a few students provided an academically oriented benefit of online learning, noting that it encouraged more detailed answers, and that contributors had more time to think before responding, compared to in a face-to-face class. These reasons thus seemed to be less important to our participants than to participants in other studies (e.g., Robinson and Hullinger, 2008 ).

Another finding to emerge from Study 1 was that students' preference for one modality over the other was not related to their marks on the related tests, nor to their age. Much of the extant research on online learning has focused on students who might begin at a disadvantage because they do not have the skills to interact confidently with the technology (e.g., Zhang and Perris, 2004 ). Further, as noted by Ituma (2011) , it seems that when students do not struggle with the technical requirements of online learning, age is no barrier to the value that they can gain from this modality of study. However, with the increased use of e-learning in mainstream education, online components are part of the university experience for more and more students from a diverse range of backgrounds (e.g., Chen et al., 2010 ; Holley and Oliver, 2010 ), and appropriate technological skills should not be assumed.

The present results serve as a reminder that it is rather simplistic to consider “online learning” as a unitary concept, to be examined on its own or compared wholesale to face-to-face learning. Both modalities of education have multiple aspects, and research focusing on one particular aspect or combination of aspects might reach very different conclusions from research focusing on another aspect or combination of aspects. Our participants liked completing individual written activities online, but preferred to engage in class discussions in person. As noted earlier, this view may have been strongly influenced by the stilted and drawn-out nature of the online discussion that the current participants experienced, which took place mostly asynchronously, rather than in real time. It is clear that the developers of online content need to consider a range of issues in designing the best way to deliver this content to students. Simply providing materials ( Evans et al., 2004 ) or a discussion forum ( Swan, 2002 ) online does not automatically aid learning ( Davies and Graff, 2005 ), making more contributions to an online discussion does not necessarily lead to better academic performance.

In addition to some of the limitations already mentioned, it should be noted that our sample sizes were modest. The participants were all advanced level undergraduates in psychology, who were enrolled in a face-to-face course but who were also accustomed to doing some of their learning online, in a self-directed way. Thus, further work with a wider range of participants would help to ascertain the generalizability of these findings. It should also be noted that we asked students about only a few aspects of online vs. face-to-face learning, in a unit which provided online materials in a relatively limited range of ways (e.g., asynchronous discussion forum, scrollable written exercises). This specificity is both a strength and a limitation of the current research. Although they provide good experimental control and strong ecological validity, the focused nature of these tasks and their context means that it is important not to overgeneralize our findings. Future research should aim to extend questions about online learning to a wider range of disciplines, using online activities in a more varied range of ways, in order to build up a broader picture of students' preferences and performance in terms of online and in-class learning. Extending research in a number of dimensions will become increasingly important for understanding how blended learning and flipped classrooms can progress along with the technology that underpins these paradigms.

The provision of online units, and of online components to face-to-face units, is continuing to expand worldwide. Those who are responsible for creating online material for blended units would do well to consider carefully the nature and type of activities they allocate to each modality. In directly comparing the same students' performance and perceptions on in-class vs. online learning, this study confirmed that in these groups, at least, online activities led to similar levels of academic achievement as face-to-face activities. It seems that although students appreciate the flexibility of choosing the time and place to do some activities, they also value the greater engagement provided by discussions that take place face-to-face, rather than face-to-screen. Rather than being seen simply as an alternative modality for delivering academic content, the benefits of online technology should be adapted not only to offer greater flexibility, but to inspire students' engagement and success at university and beyond.

Conflict of Interest Statement

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

Alexander, S. (2001). E-learning developments and experiences. Educ. Train . 43, 240–248. doi: 10.1108/00400910110399247

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, T., and Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn . 12, 80–97. Available online at: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890/1663/

Australian Qualifications Framework. (2013). Australian Qualifications Frameworks Council, 2nd Edn . Available online at: http://www.aqf.edu.au/

Balluerka, N., Rodríguez, M., Gorostiaga, A., and 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. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.13.3.222

Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O'Brien, D., and 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.

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol . 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., and Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: testing the linkages. Res. High. Educ . 47, 1–29. doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9

Chen, P.-S., Lambert, A. D., and Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: the impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Comput. Educ . 54, 1222–1232. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.008

Citera, M. (1998). Distributed teamwork: the impact of communication media on influence and decision quality. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci . 49, 792–800.

Google Scholar

Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T., and 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. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.009

Davies, J., and Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: online participation and student grades. Br. J. Educ. Technol . 36, 657–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00542.x

Evans, C., Gibbons, N. J., Shah, K., and Griffin, D. K. (2004). Virtual learning in the biological sciences: pitfalls of simply “putting notes on the web.” Comput. Educ . 43, 49–61. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.004

Galway, L. P., Corbett, K. K., Takaro, T. K., Tairyan, K., and Frank, E. (2014). A novel integration of online and flipped classroom instructional models in public health higher education. BMC Med. Educ . 14:181. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-181

Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Garrison, D. R. (2012). E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice . New York, NY: Routledge.

Grieve, R., Indian, M., Witteveen, K., Tolan, G. A., and Marrington, J. (2013). Face-to-face or facebook: can social connectedness be derived online? Comput. Hum. Behav . 29, 605–609. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.017

Harden, R. M., and 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. doi: 10.1080/014215900409429

Hobbs, D. (2002). Constructivist approach to web course design: a review of the literature. Int. J. E-Learn . 1, 60–65. Available online at: http://www.editlib.org/p/10821

Holley, D., and Oliver, M. (2010). Student engagement and blended learning: portraits of risk. Comput. Educ . 54, 693–700. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.035

Imel, S. (2002). E-learning—Trends and Issues Alert. (Report No-40) . Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

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. doi: 10.1177/1469787410387722

Lowenfeld, V. (1939). The Nature of Creative Activity . Oxford: Harcourt Brace.

O'Neill, K., Singh, G., and 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: http://jite.org/documents/Vol3/v3p313-323-131.pdf

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. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.08.001

Piaget, J. (1954). The Construction of Reality in the Child . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Prosser, M., Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., and 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. doi: 10.1007/s11251-004-7687-x

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education . London: Routledge.

Robinson, C. C., and Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. J. Educ. Bus . 84, 101–109. doi: 10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109

Rossman, M. H. (1999). Successful online teaching using an asynchronous learner discussion forum. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw . 3, 1–8.

Smith, D., and Hardaker, G. (2000). e-Learning innovation through the implementation of an Internet supported learning environment. Educ. Technol. Soc . 3, 1–16. Available online at: http://www.ifets.info/journals/3_3/e04.html

Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation, and task orientation. Learn. Environ. Res . 15, 171–193. doi: 10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: the importance of interaction. Educ. Commun. Inf . 2, 23–49. doi: 10.1080/1463631022000005016

Tucker, B., Halloran, P., and 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 S. Frielick, N. Buissink-Smith, P. Wyse, J. Billot, J. Hallas, and E. Whitehead (Auckland: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia), 470–484.

Twigg, C. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: new models for online learning. Educause Review , Sept/Oct, 28–38. Available online at: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0352.pdf

Upton, D. (2006). Online learning in speech and language therapy: student performance and attitudes. Educ. Health 19, 22–31. doi: 10.1080/13576280500534735

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: theory and practice. Mod. Lang. J . 8, 470–481. doi: 10.2307/328890

Zhang, W.-Y., and Perris, K. (2004). Researching the efficacy of online learning: a collaborative effort amongst scholars in Asian open universities. Open Learn . 19, 247–264. doi: 10.1080/0268051042000280110

Keywords: online learning, e-learning, face-to-face learning, university, discussion forums

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

Received: 29 August 2014; Accepted: 22 October 2014; Published online: 12 November 2014.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2014 Kemp and Grieve. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Nenagh Kemp, Division of Psychology, School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 30, Hobart 7001, TAS, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

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

Accessibility Links

• Skip to content
• Skip to search IOPscience
• Skip to Journals list
• Accessibility help
• Accessibility Help

Click here to close this panel.

Purpose-led Publishing is a coalition of three not-for-profit publishers in the field of physical sciences: AIP Publishing, the American Physical Society and IOP Publishing.

Together, as publishers that will always put purpose above profit, we have defined a set of industry standards that underpin high-quality, ethical scholarly communications.

We are proudly declaring that science is our only shareholder.

Face to Face Learning vs Blended Learning vs Online Learning (Student Perception of Learning)

Awal Kurnia Putra Nasution 1 , Andika Hariyanto Surbakti 1 , Rahmanita Zakaria 1 , Sungkawati Kardi Wahyuningsih 1 and Leni Agustina Daulay 1

Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd Journal of Physics: Conference Series , Volume 1783 , Annual Conference on Science and Technology Research (ACOSTER) 2020, 20-21 June 2020, Medan, Indonesia Citation Awal Kurnia Putra Nasution et al 2021 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1783 012112 DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/1783/1/012112

Article metrics

10266 Total downloads

Share this article

Author e-mails.

[email protected]

Author affiliations

1 Department of Tarbiyah, Institute Agama Islam Negeri Takengon, Indonesia

Buy this article in print

The coronavirus covid19 pandemic crisis in Indonesia has caused all lectures to be conducted online (online learning), so that all students have experienced face to face learning, blended learning, and online learning. The purpose of this study is to determine student perceptions of learning, which learning is most preferred by students between face to face learning, blended learning, and online learning. The research method used is descriptive research with a quantitative approach. Respondents were 100 students of Islamic Religious Education study programs. The results showed that face to face learning was the most preferred choice by students of the Islamic Religious Education study Program in IAIN Takengon, which is 78 students or at 78%, while a total of 20 students or 20% of the study was done in blended learning, and only 2 students or 2% who chose online learning.

Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence . Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

CITE Journal

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education

• Current Practice
• Mathematics Education
• English/Language Arts Education
• Science Education
• Social Studies Education
• Objects to Think With
• Submit Commentary

Stern, B.S. (2004). A comparison of online and face-to-face instruction in an undergraduate foundations of American education course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 4 (2). https://citejournal.org/volume-4/issue-2-04/general/a-comparison-of-online-and-face-to-face-instruction-in-an-undergraduate-foundations-of-american-education-course

A Comparison of Online and Face-To-Face Instruction in an Undergraduate Foundations of American Education Course

This article examines the similarities and differences for one course, Foundations of American Education, when offered in traditional face-to-face and online formats. The data analysis used both qualitative and quantitative measures. Several conclusions were reached: (a) for the course to be effective, the time that must be allotted for online teaching will remain an issue that instructors may struggle with as the workload is significantly higher; (b) for students, a familiarity with their own learning styles and the desire and motivation to shoulder responsibility for online learning will be major factors in their success; (c) while the instructor can, and should, design and monitor the course to ensure that all students are kept on track and participating, student time management and organizational skills will remain of paramount importance; and (d) students with more proficient reading and writing skills will perform better in online classes. Suggestions for further research include focusing on whether or not certain types of courses are more appropriate for online instruction and developing a repertoire of instructional strategies to accommodate a range of learning styles.

As higher education faculty members find themselves under ever increasing pressures to offer courses online, it seems prudent to consider the similarities and differences in a course offered in the traditional face-to-face format and one offered fully or almost fully online. The pressure to integrate technology into college courses arises from many directions. Certainly the university, in a move to reach out to previously underserved populations, is pressuring faculty members to offer more online coursework. Additionally, the problems of space allocation do not exist for online courses, thereby freeing valuable classrooms for other courses. And in teacher education, standards (e.g., the National Education Technology Standards for Teachers [NETS-T], Goal 2 of the National Education Technology Plan, and state standards for technology skills required of instructional personnel) make it imperative that teacher educators search for appropriate means of integrating technology into classrooms. With virtual high schools being established in ever increasing numbers and with several states using courseware such as BlackBoard© for high school course delivery within and across counties, offering some teacher preparation courses online may become a necessity for preservice teacher preparation.

This article examines the similarities and differences for one course, Foundations of American Education, when offered in traditional face-to-face and online formats. The study examined multiple sections of the course as offered by the same instructor with similar enrollment ( n = 25/section). Taking into account the factors required for successful online instruction (Chickering & Ehrmann, 2001; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; National Education Association [NEA], 2000; Pena, 2001; Schrum, 2000; University of Illinois Faculty Seminar, 1999), as well as those required for successful in-class instruction in terms of authentic learning and assessment (Newmann, 1997; Newmann et al., 1996; Newmann & Wehlage, 1993; Wiggins, 1996, 1998), how do student performance and course satisfaction (instructor and student) vary? The study used both qualitative and quantitative measures, including examination grades, quality of discussion (threaded and traditional), course evaluations, and direct and indirect communication with the instructor for analysis.

Literature Review

There are several studies available that seek to compare traditional and online courses (e.g., Imel, 1998; NEA, 2000; O’Malley, 1999; Paskey, 2001, Smith, Ferguson, & Caris, 2001). The results of these studies vary with the courses offered, the characteristics of the students enrolled (e.g., gender, age, learning style, and level of academic competence), and the instruction being offered. Thus, it appears that when the literature comparing online and traditional courses is reviewed, the researcher can make a case for either one or both being more or equally effective, depending on the variables used. Therefore, for this case study another framework for comparing the two instructional formats was clearly needed.

Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seminal work on the principles of good teaching practice has influenced web-based delivery systems, such as BlackBoard© or WebCt©, in the design and philosophy of courses. After all, good teaching practice is good teaching practice whether the classroom is a physical one or an electronic one, a sentiment shared by officials of the NEA (2001), an agency in the process of researching online learning and developing a set of evaluative criteria. The seven principles of good teaching practice outlined by Chickering and Gamson (1987) included the following: (a) encourages contacts between students and faculty, (b) encourages cooperation among students, (c) encourages active learning, (d) gives prompt feedback, (e) emphasizes time on task, (f) communicates high expectations, and (g) respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

Even with the implementation of all of these principles, experts (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996) claimed that neither technology nor faculty alone can transform learning in an electronic environment. Students must take action regarding their own learning and create opportunities to “search out additional resources or complementary experiences, establish their own study groups, or go to the professor for more substantial activities and feedback (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996).” In other words, an online learning environment still requires a “learning community.” Heretofore, the emphasis on successful online teaching has resided with the creator of the course and not with course participants. Chickering and Ehrmann’s emphasis on student responsibility is an added dimension to the growing body of literature on cyber classrooms, albeit, their work addresses the physical classroom as well.

One recent report on the “Pedagogy of Online Teaching and Learning,” by the faculty at the University of Illinois, supported a broad scope approach to online instruction, yet at the same time pointed out the importance of emotional interaction between teacher and student, as well as among students themselves, theoretically present in the traditional classroom. The absence of an emotional component in online courses is viewed by some as problematic, especially in terms of undergraduate education (University of Illinois Faculty Seminar, 1999), because the social dimension of undergraduate education is important. Gregory Farrington, president of Lehigh University, spoke to this issue when he stated,

College is as much about learning to live as it is about learning from books….Late-night discussions are much of what college is about, and the role of the football team is truly important. It is hard to imagine distance education, however effective, being truly equivalent. (Farrington, 1999, as quoted in University of Illinois Faculty Seminar, 1999)

The theme, “there is no substitute for real classroom interaction,” is a common one. Yet, as one “home study” professional pointed out, “When I was in school, you missed a couple of sentences of a professor’s lecture and it was gone. Here, (online) you can review the lecture as many times as you want (Pena, 2001, p. 76).”

Can electronic classrooms or web-supported classrooms be equivalent in terms of effectiveness? Or can they be even more effective than the traditional face-to-face classroom? The answer may be that they have the potential to transform the way in which learners understand the course material and provide a social component often missed in the traditional classroom–the willingness of and the necessity for shy or introverted students to participate in classroom discussion. Additionally, students have more time to respond to discussion questions than when they are face-to-face in a time-designated classroom. The ability of the electronic classroom to deliver instruction in a 24/7 format means that learning is no longer confined to exact periods (Schrum, 2000). Students can access courses whenever they have a question or can interact with classmates whenever they choose.

Thus, despite the difficulties inherent in online or online assisted classes, a major advantage virtual learning provides is the ability to “independently store data collected through interaction with the student, thus providing the possibility for following student moves as a source of data and later providing feedback to them (p. 43).” Two instructional benefits are apparent and include (a) learner interaction with concepts can be stored and retrieved for later analysis, and (b) the immediate feedback the learner receives allows a greater degree of learner control by providing individualized opportunities for review (Hargis, 2001, p. 475-76; see Galagan, 2000, pp. 24-31, for a discussion on learning and Hicks, 2000, p. 75). These web interactions and the ability of the teacher to retrieve and later analyze them and then return to the student with questions or statements are invaluable to the learning process. Often teachable moments go untaught or certainly never revisited; yet, through this storage capacity, remarks made by students online are preserved and can be used to extend learning.

Not surprisingly, Bill Gates has remarked that the school of the future will not be one that relies on paper and pencil, but rather on collaboration and web-based curriculum (Robbins, 2001). Even the way the achievement of students is assessed is changing, owing to web-enhanced or online instruction. Today’s assessment tools include production rather than paper and pencil tests that seek to measure students’ cognitive understanding (Carnevale, 2001, p. A43-6; also, see the WebQuest homepage at http://webquest.sdsu.edu/webquest.html ). One researcher points out however, that educators must move with caution and not simply embrace technology for technology’s sake (Leydon, 2001).

Any effective learning strategy should bridge the gap between what we know about student learning and what we must do as teachers. McDonald (2001) discussed five common characteristics of effective learning strategy for online learning:

• Openness in the Education Process – choice and negotiation within the course, self-and peer-assessment, and tutor-learner relationships. This process should seek to engage learners fully as both participants and contributors to the learning process.
• Learning to Learn – student construction of knowledge. Self-awareness of the knowledge construction process is the ultimate goal. Promoting and developing the higher order cognitive skills of articulation, reflection, analysis, synthesis, problem-solving, and evaluation support the development of these skills and should provide a focus for the design of learning activities.
• Prior Knowledge and Experience – existing knowledge and personal conceptions are the starting point for discussion, clarification, and planning of learning.
• Problem/Action-Based Learning – use problems as the stimulus and focus for student activity.
• A Sense of Community – provide learning activities that encourage cooperation among group members as a means of creating a sense of community and promotion of learning as a social process (pp. 20-23).

These criteria are similar to those listed as necessary for authentic instruction.

Authentic instruction has been defined as achievement that is significant and meaningful based upon students constructing meaning and producing knowledge; using disciplined inquiry to construct meaning; and aiming their work toward production or performance that has value or meaning beyond success in school, that is, high grades (Newmann, 1991, 1997; Newmann et al., 1995, 1996; Newmann & Wehlage, 1993; Wiggins, 1990, 1996, 1998, 1999). Thus, these goals are congruent with the already discussed criteria necessary to design successful activities that served as the base for either traditional or virtual classroom instruction in the course.

The Case Study

James Madison University (JMU) is a traditional state college campus. Set in the heart of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia, JMU is located in the small city of Harrisonburg surrounded by mountains with rural farms and ski areas sprinkled around the valley. Students tend to be traditional age 18-22, overwhelmingly white, middle to upper middle class, conservative, and Christian. Most JMU courses have a fairly even distribution of population from across Virginia, with about one third of the total campus population of 15,000 coming from northern Virginia and neighboring states, although there are students from other states and nations present on campus. While our teacher education programs do attract some post-baccalaureate and re-entry students, of 45 Foundations of Education students in the spring 2002 semester, one was an older, re-entry female, two were Asian American, and 12 were male. In the fall 2002 semester, just one was African American, and only six were male. In spring 2003, out of 31 students, there was one older, re-entry female and there were six males. These examples are normal distributions for this course throughout the past 5 years at the university. The Foundations of American Education courses are overwhelmingly female and nondiverse.

The course is a traditional Foundations of American Education [EDUC 360] required by all students who wish to pursue teacher education licensure. This is the entry-level course for all teacher education programs offered by the College of Education. The course is offered in multiple sections every semester, enrollment is theoretically limited to 25 students, and it is taught by both full-time and adjunct faculty in a variety of formats: three times/week; twice/week; one 3-hour block; and one double section run entirely as lecture. The full-time faculty met as a committee in 1998 to adjust the uniform statement for the purpose of the course (goals) and a common set of objectives that could be expanded by individual instructors.

The courseware package provided to JMU faculty and students is BlackBoard©. The courseware is relatively easy to use and is being widely introduced on campus. For example, all teacher education faculty members were required to have course syllabi electronically posted using BlackBoard© by spring 2002. The faculty training for the courseware was completed in less than 1 day. Students receive online tutorial or help from their instructors in learning to use the courseware. Few faculty members are teaching courses completely online, especially at the undergraduate level, but many faculty members for several years have been using web-based instruction integrated into their courses.

The Face-to-Face Course

In the sections of EDUC 360 described in this case study, I have been integrating BlackBoard© into the traditional course over the past several years in the following ways: (a) posting the syllabus electronically and requiring students to submit assignments (journals, biographical timelines, and personal practical theory papers) electronically; (b) allowing students to access PowerPoint slides that accompany lectures on history, philosophy, legal issues, and global education; (c) accessing grades in an electronic grade book; (d) posting discussion forums (for legal case research and discussion of two films shown in class); (e) having students check for class announcements; (f) communicating through e-mail with classmates and the instructor; and (g) allowing students to access Internet links placed in the courseware by the instructor, that provide supplementary information to accompany the chapters. However, the class continued to meet face-to-face twice each week utilizing a lecture/discussion format.

My teaching style is narrative, incorporating a significant number of “teacher stories” and personal anecdotes to illustrate course topics. Students are encouraged to ask questions and contribute their personal anecdotes and teacher stories throughout the class meetings. Attendance in class is expected and reflected in class participation, reinforcing the instructor’s belief in active learning.

Student performance is assessed using two traditional multiple choice/essay exams; one take-home essay exam; weekly journals; participation in the three discussion forums; the short biographical timeline and personal practical theory papers; and the beginnings of a developmental portfolio in lieu of a final exam. In reviewing the test grades students achieved over several semesters, it is clear that students have been successful with the take-home exam and the essay questions on the traditional tests but have not done well on the multiple-choice questions. The essay questions were based on class discussion but the multiple-choice questions were selected from a test bank provided with the textbook resources. It is likely that students were not completing the assigned reading and were mistakenly relying on the instructor to teach them everything they needed to know while they passively absorbed it, despite instructor warning that the questions came from the textbook test bank.

The lack of student interaction with the textbook was problematic, as the book is both readable and informative. Further, the course should be inherently relevant to student interest in becoming a teacher and, therefore, it would be expected that students would read the assigned chapters or occasionally check the chapter links posted in the external links, chapter resources area of BlackBoard©. Additionally, although the chapters were discussed in class, it would be difficult for students to add meaningful participation if they had not completed the reading, as the specific information contained in the chapter was purposely not repeated by the instructor.

Course satisfaction as defined by student evaluations has been high, with the survey data ranging from 4.21 to 4.68 out of 5.0 over the past four semesters that the instructor taught the class face to face. Anecdotal comments generally relate to student discomfort with the narrative teaching style (20%), but that is countered by high student satisfaction with the narrative teaching style by the rest of the students who chose to answer open-ended questions. Other negatives have related to the large workload, with weekly journals being the most onerous task. On the other hand, many students reported that the journals were the most meaningful part of the course, as they learned how political and important education is to the American public.

The Biographical-Timeline and Personal Practical Theory assignments are also seen by students as quite meaningful and authentic. Lastly, students reported having learned a tremendous amount from the take-home test but felt that a traditional test would be less time consuming and “easier.” Considering that they did not do well on the traditional tests, this is somewhat interesting.

The Online Course

In designing the online course, eight factors (Stern, 2003) were taken into consideration: (a) the loss of the instructor’s narrative style of teaching; (b) the change in student work and study habits required in an electronic environment; (c) the need for the students to read the textbook thoroughly; (d) the instructor’s desire to maintain course control despite the existence of the course cartridge (which supplies everything that might be desired by an instructor); (e) the necessity of creating a virtual community; (f) the desire to maintain the authentic learning and assessment criteria required by Newmann et al. (1996) that formed the core of course design for the face-to-face course; (g) technical concerns with both the courseware and student skills; and (h) concern for student success in an online format. Stern (2003) provides detail about each of these factors.

The appendix , Applying Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education to EDUC 360, Foundations of American Education, identifies ways these concerns were integrated into the requirements of the online course. The authentic assignments were maintained, although based on student evaluations from fall 2002 (the first semester the course was put online), the number of journal assignments were halved for spring 2003. An additional change requires students to integrate not only chapter reading but also information from hyperlinks (provided either by the course cartridge or the course resources uploaded by the instructor) into their weekly threaded discussions.

The quantitative data on course satisfaction as defined by student evaluations is reported as follows: Fall 2002 ( n =21) as 3.89 out of 5.0 and spring 2003 ( n =28) as 4.10 out of 5.0. Although these scores are lower than the face-to-face scores, it should be noted that a faculty committee revised the evaluation instrument during the summer 2002, and the questions answered by the students in the previous four years (face-to-face) were not identical to the ones currently asked. The new questions place more stress on varied instructional strategies and student interaction in class. The phrasing of these questions is particularly unsuited for online courses (an issue that will need to be addressed by the faculty in coming year). When the students were informed in the second semester that the questions did not match the course format and they should answer appropriately to “the realm of the possible,” the scores rose. Nonetheless, because of the unsuitability of the questions to course format, the qualitative data became more valid as a measurement of satisfaction with the online course format.

Two types of qualitative data were collected from students: (a) the open-ended questions from the university evaluation form, and (b) the e-mailed comments the instructor requested students to send to her for this project. In the e-mail evaluations, student comments on creating a virtual community include positives and negatives:

I think that I did make personal connections online because I probably talked to people that I would not normally talk to in class. I think that it helped me voice my opinion more through writing. I think I have made several comments over the semester that I would not have made in class. I was able to sort out my opinions and state them in a more effective manner. My opinion was still heard but in a different way. In that way, the Internet is not taking away the personal connections that students make in classes. I don’t think that all classes should be online by any means, but having one online has really been a learning experience for me. I like being pushed to take personal responsibility and I like the freedom that comes as the result of not having to meet in the actual classroom.

I also agree that I’m kind of wishy-washy about this class being almost entirely online. While I understand more opinions and it’s been very beneficial, I don’t feel that if I was to run into another student from class that I would even recognize more than a few of them! So much for my personal skills . . .

This comment prompted me to post the digital pictures in the course information section of BlackBoard© at the beginning of the spring 2003 semester and to suggest that all students download a copy and look at their classmates while entering threaded discussion.

It [the class] took a lot of work and discipline to enter the discussion boards each week, and to submit journals on time every Tuesday . . . I did not particularly enjoy this semester’s online course, and would have much preferred to meet every Tu/Th in class. I enjoy the personal contact with the teachers and students in my classes, and think that the most effective way to learn is to be in class every class meeting. To learn online is to learn by yourself, and I don’t feel like I gained as much from this class as I could have had we met each week. I like to see everybody’s faces, but I also like to sleep late every Tu/Th. Its a trade-off, but in the end I’d much rather be in class, getting to know everybody and see everybody’s faces. And the person-to-person contact is lost it the mix. Kids shouldn’t be asked to learn in this way, and it’s a disservice to them to ask them to teach themselves the course work.

On technical skills:

I look forward to using technology in my classroom because I want students to get the same experiences that I have. Some people learn more when they are forced to do it on their own. I think that I would have been fairly quiet in class instead of sitting here and saying what I really feel. I think some people need that. Like it or not, children are attracted to technology and the children we teach will not know the world without technology. We grew up at the beginning of the technology era but these kids are right in the middle of it. I think that we should encourage this growth in our society and use it to our best interests!

Surprisingly, the student who was negative about the impersonal nature of the course wrote:

Of course I will use technology in my classroom, I only exaggerate about hating it. For cooperative learning, technology can be a very important tool. For instance, what we are doing now on BlackBoard© is very cool. We get to hear everybody’s opinion instead of just those of the people who speak up in class; it’s a very effective tool.

Thus, there is ambivalence among students about online courses.

What did students actually learn? They learned that personal learning styles make online classes problematic for certain types of learners.

Generally, as a student, I am one of those kids who sit up front, talk a lot, and keep the conversation going when everyone else is packing up their stuff. I say hi to my teachers as I pass them, and I integrate things I’ve learned from other classes into current class discussions. My favorite part of going to class isn’t the reading or the assignments, but is the time where my peers and I sit and discuss what we’ve learned. I listen, I talk, I try my hardest to see both sides of the issue. Mostly I am a visual learner, but much of what I remember and sticks with me comes from my auditory learning side. In taking an online class, I’ve learned that there are some learning styles that simply benefit more from a classroom experience. I am one of those styles. I would not say however, that the program is horrible, or that no student should take an online course. On one hand, I have enjoyed taking this online course, but on the other, I do not think it should be widely used in high schools. I have no problems with offering online courses at the high school level so long as there is still teacher and student interaction, but they should never take the place of in-school classes. There are just way too many valuable hidden curricula and social skills lessons to be learned inside schools to cut out that type of interaction.

On the positive side:

I think that taking this class online has taught me a lot. At first when I heard it was online, all that meant to me was YEA, no class. This will be awesome. But this class turned out to be a lot more work than most of my other classes and I ended up devoting the same if not more time to this class each day as I would if I were in class. However it was really nice to be able to put in that time whenever it was most convenient for me, rather than a specific time each day. Another important thing this class taught me or further instilled in me was time management and organization. I had to remember each week, without hearing from a teacher that things were due, and I had to keep everything organized so I only had a certain amount to do at one time, and so that everything was done when it was due. I think overall this has been a very good experience for me I personally liked having this online class to some extent because it allowed me the free time to do my work whenever I had time. I didn’t have to worry about going to class, I could just sit in front of my computer like I spend most of my time anyways doing my work for class . . . [student goes on to express concerns about other classmates with different learning styles.] I feel that the online class offers both benefits and downfalls. I’ll be the first to admit, I really did enjoy doing this class on my own schedule—it was nice having a class I didn’t have to attend. However, time-management was difficult at times. I also know that I wouldn’t have read the chapters if they were written in a syllabus, but these responses required me to read and reflect on the chapters. It ended up being more work than I thought. I do like the social interaction that the classroom involves, it does help you get to know people and even recognize someone on campus. But then again, I am not outspoken and do not speak up in class, so I really wouldn’t have had any input on any of the issues we’ve discussed through the discussion board. So, I’m not sure of my overall opinion on the way this class was set up… I am glad that I took this class online and was given a glimpse of what it is like to attend a virtual school. There are definitely pluses, including a required response by every student to every question, and the ability to work on my own schedule (not to mention hardly ever having to go to class!).

In reviewing the open-ended questions from the university evaluation form several patterns emerged. One, the instructor and the course workload were very demanding (see high expectations in appendix ). As a result of the specific statements on these evaluations I reduced the journal requirements for the spring 2003 semester by 50%. Two, several students reported that this was the first time they had ever read an entire textbook throughout their school careers (K-14+). Most students reported positively to the question asking whether the instructor was available and focused on helping them to succeed. As this was a major concern in course design, I found this a positive comment. Although they did not come to class, students felt that I was concerned and indicated that I was helpful when they needed to access that help. Three, most students commented on the participation of the entire class in discussion and viewed that participation in a positive light. Finally, several students reported that the things they learned the most about in this course were organizational and time management skills. This was almost always a positive except for those students who reported that they still had further to go in mastering these skills.

Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face

What can be concluded from comparing the same course when delivered online and face to face? First, Applying Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education to EDUC 360, Foundations of American Education (see appendix ), summarizes the principles for effective instruction at the undergraduate level for both course formats. The chart clearly indicates that while both formats are effective, the biggest differential is the student’s learning style and ability to adjust to the electronic format. Online classes tend to favor students with highly developed literacy (reading and writing) skills. Students who are less strong in those areas or who are more social by nature have a difficult time adapting to the electronic format. On a positive note for online courses, shy and inhibited students or students who process material more slowly and so contribute less in traditional face-to-face discussion found the online format a place where they could blossom. They freely stated their opinions and they had the time, in an asynchronous format, to think through and to word their responses carefully. It also seems that the online format fostered more active learning on the part of the student than does traditional course delivery, even when the course integrated cooperative learning and discussion.

In terms of instructor satisfaction there are several considerations. For courses like EDUC 360 where class size hovers around 25 students per class, there is a lot of opportunity for professors to interact with and get to know students. The move to online has the potential to depersonalize the course. I worked hard to memorize pictures, learn student names, and utilize that knowledge during the four times the students were actually in class, as well as when students came to my office for help. Thus, through great effort, the students and I felt like we knew each other. In classes with small enrollments, the virtual classroom function could be used to increase synchronous contact.

The workload for an online class is far more intense than that for a face-to-face course. First, since time is not tied up by the constraint of particular assigned days and meeting times, students seem to expect the instructor to be available on all days and at all times. The demands of e-mail from students are considerable. This demand can be mitigated by explaining to students that time has been set aside by the instructor to address their concerns and sticking to that timetable. The literature reports that in addition to using the “allotted” class time (in this case, Tuesday and Thursday from 11:00-12:15) virtual office hours in the evening should be allotted for students who are unavailable during the “normal” workday. Since this class currently has an assigned room and meeting time and an enrollment of undergraduates, this has been less of a concern. However, as the course moves toward nontraditional populations, virtual office hours in the evening will probably be necessary.

A second time consideration is grading assignments. In a face-to-face class the discussions take place during class, but in the online version of the course the discussions are asynchronous. A class with 24 students is the maximum recommended for online courses. At that size, a threaded discussion in which all students participate a minimum of three times averages about 100 entries that must be read and assessed by the instructor. In this course, the initial entry was a response to instructor questions and was quite lengthy. This grading, coupled with weekly journal assignments, monitoring quiz grades, etc., is very time consuming. The second semester, due to budget cuts, there were 31 students in the online class (only 28 completed the quantitative evaluation), and managing all of the student input became difficult, as grading discussions is quite cumbersome. The average weekly discussion board had 150 messages. Reading, assessing, and responding to students takes significantly more time, as all students are participating rather than just the few who choose to speak up in class. The secretaries were instructed not to issue overrides once 25 seats per section had been filled for the fall 2003 semester to deal with this problem. This will create difficulties for students until financial pressures on campus allow for more sections.

Third, when grading is coupled with the actual setup of the courseware, the checking of external links on a regular basis to ensure they still connect, uploading documents and assignments, etc., there is a significantly higher workload than in a face-to-face class. Thus, the belief that the switch to online teaching will save instructors time is incorrect.

When comparing the same course delivered online and face to face, several conclusions can be reached. One, for the course to be effective, the time that must be allotted for online teaching will remain an issue for an instructor, as the workload is significantly higher. For students, a familiarity with their own learning styles and the desire and motivation to shoulder responsibility for online learning will be major factors in their success. While the instructor can, and should, design and monitor the course to ensure that all students are kept on track and participating, student time management and organizational skills will remain paramount. Additionally, students with better reading and writing skills will do better in online classes. The literature continues to report that traditional students (age 18-24) believe they learn more in face-to-face courses but choose online courses for various personal reasons. In terms of learning, students who apply themselves diligently should be successful in either format if the course, online or face-to-face, is well designed. That conclusion presumes that the issues surrounding class size are under control and that the instructor has a course load that makes the intensity of the workload feasible.

Suggestions for further research include focusing on whether or not certain types of courses are more appropriate for online instruction. For example, there has been discussion in our program about the feasibility of teaching methods courses online. Foundations of American Education, as taught at JMU, is primarily a “theory” course. This leads me to question whether or not there is a substantive difference in these courses that renders one unsuitable for online learning. Second, my experience with EDUC 360 leads me to believe that 15 to 20 students would be the appropriate class size for most effective teaching and learning. Thus, research on ideal class size for online courses would also be helpful. Lastly, research on creating or accessing instructional strategies in electronic environments that accommodate a range of student learning styles would be beneficial in helping to ensure that all students can be successful in an electronic environment.

AAHE Bulletin . (1993) Deep learning, surface learning. 45 (3), 10-13.

Carnevale, D. (2001). Assessment takes center stage in online learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (31), A43-6.

Chickering, A.W., & Ehrmann. (1996, October). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin , 3-6. (Electronic version retrieved online June 4, 2004, from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html )

Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin , 3-7.

Galagan, P.A. (2000). The e-learning revolution. Training & Development, 54 (2), 24-31.

Hanna, D.E., Glowacki-Duda, M. & Conceincao-Runlee, S. (2000). 147 practical tips for teaching online groups: Essentials of web-based education . Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

Hargis, J. (2001). Can students learn science using the Internet? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33 (4), 475-88.

Hicks, S. (2000). Evaluating e-learning. Training & Development, 54 (12), 75.

Imel, S. (1998) Distance learning: Myths and realities . Retrieved June 4, 2004, from http://www.cete.org/acve/docs/mr00012.pdf

International Society for Technology in Education. (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology . Eugene, OR: Author.

Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J.B., & Mizell, A.P. (2003). Teaching and learning with technology . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Leydon, B. (2001). The e-everything revolution: What’s a university to do? Educause Review, 36 (1), 62-64.

Lynch, M.M. (2002). The online educator: A guide to creating the virtual classroom . New York: Routledge.

McDonald, J. (2001). On-line learning: A radical pedagogy? Adults Learning, 12 (5), 20-3.

Minnis, P. (2003, February 12). Teaching in your pajamas: Lessons of online classes. New York Times , B8.

National Education Association. (2000). A survey of traditional and distance learning higher education members. NEA. Retrieved June 4, 2004, from http://www.nea.org/he/abouthe/dlstudy.pdf

National Education Association. (2001). NEA working on criteria that will judge quality of online learning. Electronic Education Report, 8 (11), 3-5.

Newmann, F.M. (1991). Linking restructuring to authentic student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 384 472).

Newmann, F.M. (1997). Authentic assessment in social studies: Standards and examples. In G. Phye (Ed.) Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, achievement, and adjustment (pp. 359-380). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Newmann, F.M., Marks, H.M., & Gamorman, A. (1995a, April). Authentic pedagogy and student performance . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 389 679).

Newmann, F.M., Marks, H.M., & Gamorman, A. (1995b). Authentic pedagogy: Standards that boost student performance. Issues in Restructuring Schools , Report No. 8. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 390 906).

Newmann, F. M., Marks, H.M., & Gamorman, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104 (4), 280-312.

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50 (7), 8-12.

Newmann, F.M., Wehlage, G. G., Secada, W.G., Marks, H.M., & Gamorman, A. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Norton, P., & Wilburg, K.M. (1998). Teaching with technology . Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

O’Malley, J. (1999). Students perceptions of distance learning, online learning and the traditional classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2 (4). Retrieved June 4, 2004, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/omalley24.html

Paskey, J. (2001). A survey compares two Canadian MBA programs, one online and one traditional. The Chronicle of Higher Education . Retrieved January 20, 2003, from http://chronicle.com/free/2001/04/2001042601u.html

Pena, A. (2001).The virtual classroom. Hispanic, 14 (9), 76.

Riley, K.L., & Stern, B. S. (2001) Problems and possibilities of web-based instruction: Transforming social studies methods and practice . A paper presented at the annual meeting of the College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies, Washington, DC.

Robbins, A. (2001, May 8). Tech Ed. PC Magazine , 69.

Roblyer, M.D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle river, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Sadker, D., & Sadker, M. (2003). Teachers, schools, and society (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Sanders, W.B. (2001). Creating learning-centered courses for the world wide web . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Schrum, L.M. (2000). Guarding the promise of online learning. Education Digest, 66 (4), 43-48.

Short, N. (2000). Online learning: Ready, set, click. RN, 63 (1), 28-33.

Smith, G.G., Ferguson, D., & Caris, M. (2001, April). Teaching college courses online vs. face-to-face. T.H.E. Journal . Retrieved June 4, 2004, from http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/a3407.cfm

Southern Regional Education Board. Criteria for evaluating online courses . Retrieved February 1, 2003 from, http://evalutech.sreb.org/criteria/online/asp

Stern, B.S. (2000). Authentic learning and foundations of education: A naturalistic inquiry of past learning experiences. Teaching and Curriculum Dialogue, 2 (1), 12-19.

Stern, B.S. (2003, March). Design and delivery of authentic on-line courses: A case study . A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Instructional Technology in Education, Albuquerque, NM.

Shulman, L.S. (1987, February). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), 1-22.

Thornburg, D. (2002). The new basics: Education and the future of work in the telematic age . Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

University of Illinois Faculty Seminar. (1999). Teaching at an Internet distance: The pedagogy of online teaching and learning. Retrieved June 4, 2004, from www.vpaa.uillinois.edu/tid/report/tid_report.htm

Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. ERIC Digest . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 328 611).

Wiggins, G. (1996). Practicing what we preach in designing authentic assessments. Educational Leadership, 54 (4), 18-25.

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Wiggins, G. (1999). Understanding by design . A session presented at the annual meeting of the Virginia Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development, Williamsburg, VA.

Author Note:

Barbara Slater Stern James Madison University email: [email protected]

Appendix Applying Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education to EDUC 360, Foundations of American Education

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 09 November 2017

Online or face-to-face instruction? A qualitative study on the electrocardiogram course at the University of Ulm to examine why students choose a particular format

• Oliver Keis 1 ,
• Claudia Grab 1 ,
• Achim Schneider 1 &
• Wolfgang Öchsner 1 , 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  17 , Article number:  194 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

35k Accesses

63 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Since the introduction of the e-learning electrocardiogram (ECG) course ‘ECG Online’ into the curriculum at the University of Ulm, a small but relatively constant number of students have decided not to participate in the online course but to attend the face-to-face course, although the content of both courses is identical. The present study examined why students prefer one format or the other.

In a qualitative research approach, ten medical students were questioned in a guided interview. At the time of the survey the interviewees were enrolled in the 7th to 10th semesters. Among the respondents, 2 had participated only in the face-to-face ECG course, 4 only in the online version and 4 in both the face-to-face and the online course.

Interestingly, the very factors associated with e-learning – and always praised as advantages of it – are viewed critically by the students. Thus, although the 24-h access to learning content was consistently evaluated positively, the unlimited availability (lack of expiry date) was not seen as conducive to learning. The lack of fixed time constraints and the attendant lack of pressure were important reasons why some of the students had discontinued the online course prematurely. A similar distinction was seen in the flexibility of location for e-learning, because the very obligation to be physically present on a particular day at a fixed time led to a higher degree of commitment to courses and a willingness to actually attend the course until the end. In addition, if the content has a high degree of perceived professional relevance face-to-face courses are preferred because they offer the possibility of direct interaction.

Conclusions

Even though the small sample size limits the generalisability of the results, our findings indicate that when developing online courses students’ needs could be better met if measures were included to strengthen extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and formats were favoured that enable students to have a minimum level of personal interaction with the lecturer.

Peer Review reports

The increasing introduction of e-learning formats into medical education has resulted in many studies; numerous authors have thereby established that in medical education the learning outcome through e-learning formats is at least equal to that of traditional methods [ 1 , 2 ] or that e-learning contributes additional positive effects to traditional methods [ 3 , 4 ]. In addition to the findings of these outcome-oriented studies, and of more relevance from the perspective of educational planners, the following advantages of e-learning formats have been cited in the literature: support of individual and community learning, access to a high number of students, greater flexibility in learning through personal choice of time and location and good availability and cost-effectiveness [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. However, possible disadvantages of certain e-learning formats have also been shown recently. In her study on economics students, Wigger determined that e-learning students show poorer professional competence than conventionally taught students. In this study, students evaluated working independently, which they are unaccustomed to, and the time required as negative [ 9 ].

Because numerous studies have focussed on the outcome of e-learning courses and the perspective of educational planners, in the current study we decided to look at a different perspective, i.e. that of the students. Teaching courses are usually offered as either a face-to-face or an online course or in a blended learning format. However, our university offers a special configuration: one of the elective courses at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Ulm, the electrocardiogram (ECG) course, is offered to all medical students in the 7th to 10th semesters as an e-learning and face-to-face course. The subject matter of both formats is identical. Students are free to choose either format or both, although not simultaneously; the choice of format, or the choice not to take this elective course, has no effect on the progress of students’ studies. The course communicates basic information about the resting ECG and the interpretation of ECG curves. Experience has shown that about half the students in semesters 7 to 10 attend one of the two formats of the ECG course during the course of their studies. On average, about 12 students enrol for the face-to-face course per semester, while approximately 160 students participate in the online course.

We used the fact that the ECG course is offered in two different formats to examine the following questions from the students’ perspective: (1) What are the reasons why students choose the face-to-face or online format of a course when the content of both formats is identical? (2) What conclusions are to be drawn from these preferences for the design of e-learning formats that better meet students’ needs? We hoped that the availability of one course in two different formats and the possibility to examine the students’ perspective would allow us to obtain first-hand insights to support the further development and design of our e-learning tools.

We decided to focus on the students rather than outcome-related criteria, such as examination results, to obtain information on students’ subjective perspectives and opinions on the two formats.

Participants

In January 2015 we e-mailed all medical students in the 7th to 10th semesters at the University of Ulm who took the online ( N  = 317) or face-to-face ( N  = 23) ECG elective course during the summer semester 2014 or the winter semester 2014/2015 ( N total = 340). In the corresponding periods, a total of 674 students were enrolled in semesters 7 to 10.

We were able to recruit 10 students into the study (3 males; 7 females). Students attended the 7th ( n  = 1), 8th ( n  = 2), 9th ( n  = 5) and 10th ( n  = 2) semester, respectively.

All participants had previously participated in at least one curricular computer-assisted learning programme as part of their course. Furthermore, all interviewees stated that in both their university and private environments they met the technical requirements necessary for participating in an online course.

Participants provided written informed consent after being assured that their data would remain anonymous for data analysis. They received € 30.00 for participating in the study.

The ethics committee of the University of Ulm confirmed that no approval was required for this study.

The online ECG course consists of 12 audio visual lessons of about 1 h duration and 2 to 4 online exercises (usually ECG interpretations) that are provided for each lesson. The aim of the course is to learn about the basics of the resting ECG and its interpretation for clinical purposes. Once a learning unit has been completely worked through (including the exercises) the next lesson is released (including sample solutions for exercises). For questions, students may contact the course instructor per e-mail. Completed e-learning lessons are available at any time to all students participating in the online course to allow for practise and repetition.

The content of the face-to-face course is identical to that of the online course. It consists of 12 lectures (90 min each) dealing with the basics and interpretation of the resting ECG and ECG curves. Students participating in the face-to-face course receive detailed notes on each lecture and have access to the lecture slides via the university learning platform.

After completing the full course, students can take a voluntary written final examination. If they pass the examination, they receive a certificate of participation (optional ECG certificate). This examination is summative and held jointly for all students at the end of the course, independent of the chosen course format. The mark scheme is shared with students. Though dropouts and assessment performance are not routinely documented, on average, about 25% of the students who enrol in the online course take the examination.

Data collection

We used a qualitative research approach to investigate the reasons why students had chosen the online or face-to-face format of the course. We chose a semi-structured interview as the evaluation procedure because, in addition to allowing open questions and answers, it also ensured comparability of the interviews [ 10 ].

The interview questions were compiled by means of the SPSS method of Helfferich [ 11 ] (SPSS stands for the German words ‘sammeln, prüfen, sortieren, subsumieren’, i.e. collect, check, sort, prioritise); the resulting interview guide consisted of 12 questions (see Table  1 ).

Two interviewers conducted the 20- to 30-min interviews according to recommendations in the literature [ 12 ]. The interviewers were not involved in teaching the ECG course, nor were there any dependencies between interviewers and interviewees. All interviews were recorded on tape and subsequently transcribed and anonymised. In accordance with Lamnek [ 13 ], transcriptions were conducted by two independent assistants who had not been involved in the interviews and who were trained beforehand.

In addition, study participants were sent a brief online questionnaire asking about the technical prerequisites for online courses (e.g. ‘Do you think the university’s technical equipment is adequate to allow you to participate in online courses?’) and the assessment of the students’ own e-learning competence (‘How do you rate your competence in dealing with e-learning formats?’). Participants were also asked to specify their sex and current semester and whether they had their own computer equipment.

Data analysis

The interviews were evaluated following the qualitative content analysis according to Mayring [ 14 ].

Interview responses were clustered into 6 categories, which in turn were assigned to the two superordinate topic areas ‘General advantages and disadvantages of the two formats’ and ‘Personal reasons for choosing a particular format’ (see Table  1 ). The first topic area required the students to give their perspective on a higher level of abstraction, whereas the second reflected their individual perspective.

Although we collected both qualitative and quantitative data, the present paper focuses on the qualitative findings. Quantitative data are supplementary and will be mentioned as appropriate in the sections Discussion and Conclusion.

Among the interviewees, 6 had participated in the face-to-face course and 4 in the online version; 2 of those who participated in the face-to-face course had previously completed the online course and 2 had previously discontinued it. Thus, a total of 8 interviewees could provide information on the online course and 6 on the face-to-face course.

General strengths and weaknesses of the two formats

Reasons named by students for and against online and face-to-face formats.

Many of the advantages and disadvantages of the two formats listed in Table  2 have already been discussed elsewhere [ 15 ]. The fact that three respondents referred to the supportive character of the face-to-face courses is therefore all the more interesting. Thus, the fixed location and time of this format were experienced as positive because they made students commit to participating and made them study the topic.

In addition, presence of the lecturer was perceived as increasing attentiveness, especially when the subject matter was difficult. The prospect of being asked directly in the face-to-face course, but not being able to answer, motivated students to adequately study the course topics.

‘[...] face-to-face with the lecturer, of course you don’t really want to lay yourself open (breathes in) [...] so then I always try [...] so always, always try to be up to date [...].’ (Interview 9, authors’ translation)

This effect could be strengthened by the attention in small group teaching, which is much more beneficial for attentiveness, not least because there are ‘ fewer possibilities to hide’ (Interview 7, authors’ translation) (6 mentions).

This finding also corresponded with several statements that the greater necessity of self-initiative or self-discipline in the online course was perceived as negative (4 mentions), as was the lack of interaction possibilities (6 mentions).

Therefore, when considering the question of the ideal characteristics of online courses, the integration of exercise or control tasks (with feedback) (7 mentions) and the opportunity for personal interaction with a direct contact person (4 mentions) play a decisive role. An assessment of course participation (e.g. in the form of a mark) would also add value and thus ultimately increase motivation on the part of the students.

With regard to time structure, one respondent’s comment is noteworthy: the student stated that in an ideal online course the actual central element of online courses, i.e. the ability to access the learning content as often and for as long as desired, would have to give way to a limit on the time that the material can be accessed. The ‘ time constraint ’ (Interview 2, authors’ translation) would create a greater commitment to studying the content of the various lessons.

Thus, structure-related factors, such as opportunities for interaction, marking work or fixed timeframes, are essential for an ideal online offering because they can support the students’ self-regulation.

Choice of format from the perspective of educational planning

After changing their perspective to that of an educational planner, the respondents named the following areas as being more suited to the face-to-face format: teaching the compulsory curriculum, practical skills, content with high professional relevance and topics students perceive as difficult. Their preference for this format can be attributed in particular to the opportunity for direct interaction in the form of communication or feedback (4 mentions).

‘For me a bit of exchange is part of studying, so with both teaching staff and fellow students, um, and I think an online course just simply doesn’t offer that. So, even if there's a chat or something like that, only a fraction of the, the participants use it, because a lot of them just somehow work through it in front of the computer and then do something else as quickly as possible. Um, I think you remember things better when you learn in a group.’ (Interview 2, authors’ translation)

On the other hand, the online format was preferable to face-to-face teaching in large groups (4 mentions) and for topics with a high proportion of theoretical knowledge (e.g. pharmacology; two mentions) or little clinical-practical relevance, e.g. ‘statistical stuff like biometry’ (Interview 1, author’s translation; two mentions).

In addition, as educational planners several respondents would offer online courses as a preparation or supplement to face-to-face courses or as an alternative to face-to-face courses that have a limited number of seats.

Required behaviour change depending on the format chosen

The interviewees stated that under certain conditions their choice could be influenced.

Switch from face-to-face to online : Making more of the online formats mandatory in the curriculum – as opposed to voluntary – was named as a prerequisite for someone to switch to this format (2 mentions). Instead of being completely time independent, fixed timeframes should be specified for working through the topics. Another proposal was to integrate blended learning elements into the online format, e.g. in the form of classroom-based sessions in which application examples are used (see also Table  2 ).

Switch from online to face-to-face : Educational planners would have to ensure that the face-to-face format takes advantage of the special features of this format, such as enabling direct contact with patients. Also, because the face-to-face format has a fixed time and place, the effort of attending would have to be minimized by optimising the timetable (see also Table  2 ).

A switch to the face-to-face format was considered to be worthwhile if the group size is small, ‘like these seminars for up to 20 people’ (Interview 4, author’s translation), because a smaller group would promote active participation by the students.

Personal reasons for choosing a particular format

Content-related factors.

As regards the motivation for participating in the ECG course, the respondents indicated that the course content was ‘highly relevant’ and that the compulsory curriculum did not include any courses on the topic. For example, in interview 4 the student stated the following:

‘[... so I think later on as a doctor you should evaluate ECGs, no matter in which discipline you are, you should be able to evaluate the most important things in an ECG, that was my motivation. And because it is not in the regular curriculum, I took it as an elective course.]’ (Interview 4, authors’ translation)

Students experience the relevance of the topic of ECG in the practical phases of their degree. Their own uncertainty and the uncertainty they perceive in others in dealing with different aspects of the topic motivated them to attend the course and examine the subject matter. The respective statements were identical for both course formats and a preference for one format or the other could not be derived from them.

The majority of students (7 out of 10) considered the topic of ECG to be difficult, complex and multifaceted. Several participants stated that the face-to-face course was the more appropriate format for difficult topics.

‘So if, if I, um, assume that a topic will be very difficult then I would also decide again for the face-to-face course.’ (Interview 10, authors’ translation)

Thus, there was a trend to associate the difficulty of the topic with the choice of format.

Learning style factors

Nine of the 10 respondents named actions such as notetaking, writing excerpts / summaries, etc., as important additional parts of their personal learning strategy, regardless of the format chosen. Two interviewees showed a genuine aversion to learning on the computer for longer periods (one of them wandered off topic when working on the computer and the other found it too strenuous to read on the monitor).

However, the factors listed in the category cluster ‘Learning style factors’ (learning type, teaching methods, exchange with others, strategic learning planning) had no decisive influence on the choice of format.

Personal reasons for making a particular decision

Online format – flexible time allocation, repeatability & individual learning speed.

The two main reasons for choosing the online format were given as the ability to freely allocate time and the ability to repeat the subject matter as often as desired. The greater flexibility of the online course, e.g. with regard to learning speed, was also rated positively.

‘[...] the nice thing about the online course is [...] that I can listen to it as often as I want. If I just noticed that parts of it were going too fast and, um, ( ) I can pause it now, I can write things down, I can carry on again, I can listen to a lecture twice, um, ( ) just as I like. One is simply more flexible.’ (Interview 8, authors’ translation)

Corresponding with the statements regarding the online format, the lack of time flexibility and the greater effort of participating (e.g. travel expenses) were rated negatively for face-to-face courses.

Face-to-face course - external control, commitment and interaction with lecturers

The negative side of flexible time allocation, however, was also apparent, because the two students who had discontinued the online course indicated the lack of a fixed time (‘lack of pressure’) as the reason for stopping.

‘[...] so I did the online course last year, but at lesson six, what with one thing and another, you plan to do it, but then if there isn’t any pressure on you, um, then it was exam period and then at some point I abandoned it.’ (Interview 4, authors’ translation)

This statement, characterizing the lack of pressure in the online course as a disadvantage is noteworthy with regards to the remarks of three participants in the face-to-face course, who perceived the prevailing degree of external control (‘compulsory attendance’), accompanied by a higher degree of commitment, as a positive aspect.

‘[...] and then I thought, well, for, for someone like me who sometimes simply does not have the discipline to stay on the ball completely without, um, the external control, such as appearing every week, for example, [...] in that case a face-to-face course simply makes more sense and so that’s what I did.’ (Interview 9, authors’ translation)

In addition, three participants in the face-to-face course rated the opportunity for direct interaction with the lecturer in the form of questions and discussions as a key decision-making criterion for their choice of that format. This interaction would allow a more comprehensive understanding than the online course:

‘[...] l enjoyed having some exercises here and there [...] that we talked about it in the seminar, that we received feedback [...].’ (Interview 10, authors’ translation)

Last but not least, personal recommendations by older students played a role. On the one hand these students stressed the teaching activities of the responsible lecturer (2 mentions) and, on the other hand, they warned of the higher risk of discontinuing the online course, because of its non-committal character.

The choice of format was therefore primarily based on the weight students placed on the factors ‘flexible time management, repeatability and individual learning speed’ of the online format versus ‘more external control and commitment, as well as interaction with lecturers’ in the face-to-face format. These factors and their relative weighting were influenced by personal experience or were passed on by older fellow students.

As the analysis of our interviews shows, from the students’ perspective the aspects of time and location flexibility, which are always mentioned in connection with online courses, need to be considered in a nuanced way: although access to the learning content regardless of the time of day was rated positively by all students, the lack of a time limit for the availability of the learning content was viewed critically. Thus, two interviewees named the lack of a fixed timeframe (e.g. by when lessons had to be completed) and the associated lack of pressure or extrinsic motivation as the main reason why they had discontinued the online ECG course and why they subsequently decided to take the face-to-face course. The non-binding nature of the online course therefore requires the students to have a high degree of initiative and discipline in order to actually complete the course. Despite the perceived high professional relevance of the topic ECG and consequently of the learning content, many students do not achieve this level of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation (as is indicated as well by the low participation rate in the final examination), possibly because the high relevance is counteracted by competing or more extrinsically motivated demands on the medical students (e.g. mandatory attendance at face-to-face instruction and compulsory appointments). Strengthening the ability to learn in a self-regulated way has long been central to curricular development in medicine [ 16 ], although studies emphasise that it still needs to be enhanced [ 17 ].

The students viewed e-learning’s flexibility of location in a similarly differentiated way to time flexibility. It is the obligation to be present on a particular day at a fixed time at a fixed location that results in face-to-face courses requiring a higher degree of commitment both concerning adequate preparation of the learning content and willingness to complete the course. This finding is strengthened by the additional online survey: students indicated that preference is given to on-site teaching, even though all respondents have the necessary technical prerequisites to participate in online courses.

In addition, because of the personal feedback students received in the face-to-face course we assume that they perceived themselves as being more self-efficacious than those in the online course who did not receive individual feedback. This assumption is supported by research showing individual feedback to increase students’ self-efficacy [ 18 , 19 ]. In particular the social and emotional support provided by lecturers and students by means of direct feedback can help to strengthen learners’ confidence in their own skills – even though self-reported estimates of competence are an unreliable measure of competence [ 20 ]. The experienced self-efficacy itself leads to more self-motivation, effort and perseverance [ 21 , 22 ]. If nothing else, these are important factors for successfully completing a course. Notably, two interviewees named a lack of perseverance as a decisive reason why they had discontinued the online ECG course. Motivation has also been shown to be an important factor for students’ performance in online courses [ 23 ]. Whether or to what extent e-learning offerings can promote the self-efficacy experienced by participants is therefore an important question when establishing effective learning formats in this field.

The interaction between learners, teachers and learning contents has been described as a central element in the learning process [ 24 ]. The evaluation of our interviews suggests this very aspect to be a decisive strength of face-to-face instruction that cannot be replaced one-to-one by online courses. The opportunity to address the lecturer directly and obtain an immediate answer was considered to be a crucial advantage of this format. Also, in the case of complex topics the exchange with fellow students in face-to-face courses is experienced as beneficial. The extent to which these possibilities for interactions are integrated into online courses is thus a guiding question for the development of e-learning formats. However, known types of online interaction such as forums, chats or virtual pinboards do not fully meet this challenge and as far as possible direct (face-to-face) forms of communication are needed.

Limitations of our study concern the small sample size, limiting the generalisability of the results. Even though similar statements were made by several interviewees, additional interviews with further students might have contributed to a broader variety of statements. Therefore, the possible range of different assertions was probably not fully exhausted.

The inclusion of students who had discontinued the online course and then later participated in the face-to-face course may have given rise to a potential bias in the sense of a distortion in favour of face-to-face courses. However, the analysis of the interviews showed that one of these students explicitly named the advantages of the online course and the other could easily have imagined participating in the online course again. This group also provided exclusive information based on their experience with both formats. Furthermore, in particular the very students who discontinue a course may provide valuable information on reasons for withdrawal.

Pass / fail rates for the examination are not routinely recorded for the two courses and are therefore not available to us. None of the interviewees gave any indication that the examination results influenced the choice of format. This makes a respective bias unlikely.

We are unable to comment on the relative efficacy of the two formats from the point of view of assessment performance, as this was not a stated aim of this study.

Despite the limitations mentioned above, our results provide first indications that the following three aspects could be of particular interest in the future development of online courses in order to better meet students’ needs:

Extrinsic motivation – Create both fixed timeframes for working on topics and external support of self-regulation

Because students’ intrinsic motivation alone does not prevent them from discontinuing an online course, external support programmes are also required in order to maintain self-motivation, effort and perseverance in equal measure. Therefore, instead of the learning content being available for an indefinite time at any location we recommend specifying fixed timeframes for working through topics and integrating face-to-face teaching at fixed times. As a further tool, automatic exclusion from the course if a deadline is not met is conceivable as an external aid for self-regulation if, for example, a corresponding lesson has not been completed by a pre-determined time.

Intrinsic motivation – Feedback to students

Individual feedback is crucial for successful completion of online courses. Feedback from lecturers to students promotes self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. One conceivable option to integrate personal feedback into an online course would be in the form of submitted and corrected homework assignments, for example. Learning controls during or at the end of a learning unit, for example in the form of embedded multiple-choice questions on previously presented material, could also increase attention and motivation.

Preference of formats that enable at least some personal interaction with the lecturer

Building on the previous point, the statements of our interviewees indicate that face-to-face courses cannot be replaced one-to-one by online courses as regards the opportunities for interaction between lecturers and students or between students. However, because interaction – especially in the form of feedback [ 25 ] – is a key factor for learning success, we recommend hybrid forms with a minimum of personal interaction instead of purely online courses.

The points described above thus mean a shift from purely online courses to formats that are more strongly interspersed by elements from face-to-face courses (blended learning), at least for difficult or important subject matters. This proposed change is supported by the high level of agreement in the additional questionnaire that although e-learning formats are a good supplement to face-to-face instruction they are not an adequate replacement for theory-oriented face-to-face courses when it comes to students’ needs.

To conclude, we believe that the knowledge we gained from this study is sufficiently valuable to be taken into consideration when developing future e-learning tools in our faculty.

Abbreviations

Electrocardiogram

Sammeln, prüfen, sortieren, subsumieren, i.e. collect, check, sort, prioritise

Wutoh R, Boren S, Balas A. eLearning: a review of internet-based continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2004;24(1):20–30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cook D, Levinson A, Garside S, Dupras D, Erwin P, Montori V. Internet-based learning in health professionals: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300:1181–96.

Nilsson M, Bolinder G, Held C, Johansson BL, Fors U, Östergren J. Evaluation of a web-based ECG-interpretation programme for undergraduate medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2008;8(1):25.

Raupach T, Grefe C, Brown J, Meyer K, Schuelper N, Anders S. Moving knowledge acquisition from the lecture hall to the student home: a prospective intervention study. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(9):e223.

Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81:207–12.

Ward R, Stevens C, Brentnall P, Briddon J. The attitudes of health care staff to information technology: a comprehensive review of the literature. Health Inf Libr J. 2008;25:81–97.

Allen E, Seaman J. Changing course: ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson survey research group report. 2013. Retrieved from: https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/survey_report/changing-course-ten-years-tracking-online-educationunited-states/

Choules AP. The use of elearning in medical education: a review of the current situation. Postgrad Med J. 2007;83:212–6.

Wigger C. Auswirkungen von Blended-Learning auf Studierende und Hochschulen – eine Felduntersuchung. Herzogenrath: Shaker Verlag; 2013.

Google Scholar  

Scholl A. Die Befragung: Sozialwissenschaftliche Methode und kommunikationswissenschaftliche Anwendung. 2. Auflage. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; 2009.

Helfferich C. Die Qualität qualitativer Daten - Manual für die Durchführung qualitativer Interviews. 4. Auflage ed. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag; 2010.

Flick U. Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung. Reinbek: Rowohlt; 2006.

Lamnek S. Qualitative Sozialforschung, 5. Auflage. Weinheim: Beltz; 2010.

Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, 11. Auflage. Weinheim: Beltz; 2010.

Book   Google Scholar  

Cook D. Web-based learning: pros, cons and controversies. Clinical Medicine. 2007;7:737–42.

White CB, Gruppen LD, Fantone JC. Self-regulation learning in medical education. In: Swanwick T, editor. Understanding medical education. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 271–82.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lucieer SM, Jonker L, Visscher C, Rikersde RMJP, Themmen APN. Self-regulated learning and academic performance in medical education. Medical Teacher. 2016;38(6):585–93.

Earley PC, Gibson CB, Chen CC. “How did I do?” versus “how did we do?” cultural contrasts of performance feedback use and self-efficacy. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 1999;30(5):594–619.

Wang SL, Wu PY. The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: the social cognitive perspective. Comput Educ. 2008;51(4):1589–98.

Kruger J, Dunning J. Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;77(6):1121–34.

Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Das Konzept der Selbstwirksamkeit. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik. 2002;44:28–53. Beiheft: Selbstwirksamkeit und Motivationsprozesse in Bildungsinstitutionen

Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997.

Castillo-Merino D, Serradell-López E. An analysis of the determinants of students’ performance in e-learning. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;30:476–84.

Bernard R, Abrami P, Borokhovski E, Wade A, Tamin R, Surkes M, Bethel EA. Meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Rev Educ Res. 2009;79(3):1243–89.

Hattie J. Visible learning: a synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. London: Routledge; 2009.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jacquie Klesing, Board-certified Editor in the Life Sciences (ELS), for editing assistance with the manuscript. Ms. Klesing works as a freelance medical editor; her fees were paid by the University of Ulm.

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets obtained during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Medical Faculty, Office of the Dean of Studies, University of Ulm, Albert Einstein Allee 7, 89081, Ulm, Germany

Oliver Keis, Claudia Grab, Achim Schneider & Wolfgang Öchsner

Center for Surgery / Department for Cardiac Anesthesiology, University Hospital Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89081, Ulm, Germany

Wolfgang Öchsner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

OK developed the study idea, performed data collection and data analysis and drafted the manuscript. WÖ developed the study idea, performed data collection and data analysis and drafted the manuscript. CG developed the study idea and drafted the manuscript. AS drafted the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Keis .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The ethics committee of University of Ulm confirmed that no approval was required for this study. We affirm that we obtained written informed consent from all the participants prior to the study.

Consent for publication

Study participants provided written informed consent for the anonymised evaluation of their interview statements and a possible scientific publication of the results.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Keis, O., Grab, C., Schneider, A. et al. Online or face-to-face instruction? A qualitative study on the electrocardiogram course at the University of Ulm to examine why students choose a particular format. BMC Med Educ 17 , 194 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1053-6

Download citation

Received : 16 November 2016

Accepted : 02 November 2017

Published : 09 November 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1053-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Face-to-face teaching
• Advantages and disadvantages
• Flexible time management
• Flexible location
• Interaction possibilities
• Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Exploring the collaboration skills among architecture students: a quantitative study in north cyprus.

1. Introduction

• What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses in collaboration skills among architecture students?
• Are there discernible differences in collaboration abilities between international and domestic students, and what cultural factors might influence these differences?
• How do students’ perceived collaboration capabilities evolve throughout their academic journey?
• Can we identify distinct dimensions of teamwork skills from the collected data?

2. Methodology

2.1. research design, 2.2. data collection method.

• Perceptions of readiness for collaborative architectural practice.
• Ratings of 12 specific collaboration abilities, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale.
• Open-ended reflections on experiences from group projects.

2.3. Sampling

2.4. instrument validation, 2.5. ethical considerations, 2.6. data analysis.

• Descriptive statistics summarized self-reported skills and sample characteristics, with mean ratings identifying strengths and gaps in collaboration abilities.
• Independent sample t -tests compared ability ratings between the students in two levels.
• Exploratory factor analysis revealed the underlying factor structure of the skill items, grouping related competencies into broader components.
• Correlation analyses investigated relationships between extracted factors, preparedness ratings, prior training, age, and gender.
• Thematic analysis distilled open-ended reflections into overarching themes related to teamwork experiences.

3.1. Sample Description

3.2. quantitative findings.

• Work Quality: This refers to a group of skills related to delivering high-quality work. On a scale of 1 to 5, scores ranged from 3.2 (64.3% of the maximum score) to 4.2 (83.3% of the maximum score) across different courses, indicating a strong focus on delivering high-quality work.
• Self-Reflection Skill: This skill involves self-assessment and improvement. Scores averaged from 3.4 (67.9% of the maximum score) to 5 (100% of the maximum score), suggesting a proactive approach towards self-assessment and improvement.
• Time Management: This skill involves managing time efficiently. Scores varied between 2.6 (52.9% of the maximum score) and 5 (100% of the maximum score), implying an overall proficiency in managing time efficiently.
• However, there are certain areas that could benefit from improvement:
• Team Learning: Scores between 0.8 (16.7% of the maximum score) and 2.9 (58.3% of the maximum score) indicate a potential gap in collaborative learning processes.
• Role Flexibility Skill: Scores ranging from 2.1 (41.7% of the maximum score) to 3.3 (66.7% of the maximum score) suggest a need to enhance adaptability and versatility within team roles.

3.3. Differences in Collaboration Skills between International and Domestic Students

• Contribution Skill: Interior architecture students demonstrate a moderate level of skill with a mean score of 41.7, while architecture students exhibit a slightly higher capability at 53.63.
• Team Dynamics: Reflecting stronger dynamics, architecture students score 47.19 on average, surpassing the interior architecture students’ 41.7.
• Contribution Skill: There is a substantial difference in contribution skills, with international students scoring 29.77 and domestic students scoring significantly higher at 66.7.
• Teamwork Skill: International students exhibit slightly weaker teamwork skills with an average of 60.75, compared to 50 for domestic students.
• Time management shows a dramatic increase to 100% for INAR 492 students.
• The self-reflection skill drops notably for INAR 492 compared to very high for INAR 491.
• Team learning decreases in all groups, especially for INAR students.
• Work quality tends to increase slightly for both programs in 492.
• The contribution skill rises for INAR 492, drops for ARCH 492.

3.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

• Factor 1: Interpersonal facilitation, which includes seven items.
• Factor 2: Collaborative leadership, which includes three items.
• Factor 3: Contributing engagement, which includes two items.
• Factor 4: Active listening, which includes two items.
• Factor 5: Open information sharing, which includes one item.

4. Correlation Analysis

• Collaborative leadership abilities (r = 0.71, p < 0.001).
• Interpersonal facilitation skills (r = 0.58, p < 0.001).
• Contributing engagement (r = 0.50, p < 0.001).

5. Discussion

5.1. student collaboration skill self-assessments, 5.2. differences between student groups, 5.3. underlying dimensions of collaboration competencies, 5.4. the limitations of the current architectural curriculum, 5.5. factors influencing collaboration readiness, 6. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Stam, L.; Ostuzzi, F.; Heylighen, A. Open design: An actual topic in architectural education. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2022 , 32 , 667–693. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coleman, S.; Von Hellermann, P. Ethnography, and Undefined 2012, “Introduction: Queries, Collaborations, Calibrations”, Taylorfrancis.com. Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203810156-1/introduction-simon-coleman-pauline-von-hellermann (accessed on 11 April 2023).
• Hussein, H.A.A. Integrating augmented reality technologies into architectural education: Application to the course of landscape design at Port Said University. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2023 , 12 , 721–741. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, C.A. Research on Eco-Architecture-Oriented Architectural Education. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013 , 357–360 , 455–458. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deshpande, J.D. Restructuring Architectural Education: A review of the curriculum, objectives and outcomes. In the Oxford Conference: A Re-Evaluation of Education in Architecture ; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2008; p. 385. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salingaros, N.A. Two Series of Essays on Architectural Education. Arch. Impr. 2020. Available online: https://patterns.architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-193386 (accessed on 22 June 2024).
• Smita, K.; Khan, H. Nemesis in the genesis: Reforming architectural education in India. New Des. Ideas 2019 , 3 , 148–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Idi, D.B.; Khaidzir, K.A.M. Critical perspective of design collaboration: A review. Front. Arch. Res. 2018 , 7 , 544–556. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Danfulani, B.I.; Khairul, A.M.K. The Isomorphic Model; Designing as Knowledge Creation. In European Conference on Knowledge Management ; Moffett, S., Galbraith, B., Eds.; Academic Conferences International Limited: Oxford, UK, 2016; pp. 1011–1019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leathem, T.; Hillesheim, C.; Coley, A.; McGregor, S. Student and teacher perspectives on a multi-disciplinary collaborative pedagogy in architecture and construction. High. Educ. Ski. Work. Learn. 2019 , 9 , 121–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salama, A.M. Introduction: Legacies for the Future of Design Studio Pedagogy. In Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future ; Salama, A.M., Wilkinson, N., Eds.; University of Strathprints Glasgow: Glasgow, Scotland, 2007; pp. 2–8. ISBN 1-872811-09-04. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/23170894/Introduction_Legacies_for_the_Future_of_Design_Studio_Pedagogy_Ashraf_M._Salama_and_Nicholas_Wilkinson_2007 (accessed on 22 June 2024).
• Boud, D.; Cohen, R.; Sampson, J. Peer Learning and Assessment. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2006 , 24 , 413–426. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carpenter, R.G.; Valley, L.; Napier, T.; Apostel, S. On higher, Studio Pedagogy: A Model for Collaboration, Innovation, and Space Design. igi-global.comRG Carpenter, L Valley, T Napier, S ApostelCases on Higher Education Spaces: Innovation, Collaboration, and Technology. 2013. Available online: https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/content/72683 (accessed on 12 November 2013).
• Kvan, T.; Vera, A.; West, R. Expert and Situated Actions in Collaborative Design. 1997. Available online: http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show&_id=caadria2010_003/paper/d347 (accessed on 26 February 2022).
• Dewey, J. Educational Forum and Undefined 1986. In Experience and Education ; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2008; Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00131728609335764 (accessed on 14 February 2023).
• Snell, K. Towards a New Paradigm in Architectural Education ; Faculty Publications and Scholarship: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2014; Volume 2, Available online: http://source.sheridancollege.ca/fast_arch_publ/2 (accessed on 22 June 2024).
• Gokhale, A.A. Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking. J. Technol. Educ. 1995 , 7 . Available online: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/daf828c3-b6c0-4106-9553-baa243bf60bd/content (accessed on 22 June 2024).
• Barkley, E.; Cross, K.; Major, C. Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. 2014. Available online: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=S82LAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Collaborative+learning+techniques:+A+handbook+for+college+faculty&ots=ryaAg2qcei&sig=JKfo8_qYCp3G0q9r8nZLVC01K9U (accessed on 1 September 2023).
• Kelley, B. International and Undefined 2011, “Community Partnerships for Architectural Education” search.ebscohost.com. Available online: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=18331874&AN=91794518&h=jfxHXuWtbrdh1QBgNqxVq2C75C%2BKjI3jV3bEOsaQG%2BRTBmA5FpNzZccc1%2BNiHyoUHFLMGicv45nMt1gKs3MS0Q%3D%3D&crl=c (accessed on 11 April 2023).
• Mahdavinejad, M.; Samadzadeh, S.; Bostani, S.; Rafiei, S.; Mousavi, K.; Samadzadeh, S. Nature-oriented Architectural Learning in Contemporary Educating Environment Paradigms. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014 , 131 , 432–435. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salama, A. New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio ; ARTI-ARCH: Jakarta, Indonesia, 1995; Available online: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=J0HzIyF8RfkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=New+trends+in+architectural+education:+Designing+the+design+studio&ots=pCH8Eldu6R&sig=TltiRz-anK0SL8tFET9WMO9ml4k (accessed on 4 August 2023).
• Karimi, H.; Adibhesami, M.A.; Ghasemi, M.; Sepehri, B.; Mahdavi Estalkhsar, B. Investigating the impact of indoor environmental quality and internal design on students’ satisfaction in Tehran and North Cyprus dormitories. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2023; ahead-of-print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Williams, A.; Ostwald, M.; Askland, H.H. Assessing Creativity in the Context of Architectural Design Education. In Proceedings of the Design Research Society (DRS), Montreal, QC, Canada, 7–9 July 2010; pp. 1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ostwald, M.; Williams, A.; Learning, A.; Council, T. Understanding Architectural Education in Australasia. 2008. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Ostwald/publication/259953138_Understanding_Architectural_Education_In_Australasia_Volume_1_An_Analysis_of_Architecture_Schools_Programs_Academics_and_Students/links/0deec52eae280d7506000000/Understanding-Architectural-Education-In-Australasia-Volume-1-An-Analysis-of-Architecture-Schools-Programs-Academics-and-Students.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2023).
• Folić, B.; Kosanović, S.; Glažar, T.; Fikfak, A. Urban, and Undefined 2016, “Design-Build Concept In Architectural Education”. 2016. Available online: https://sciendo.com/downloadpdf/journals/aup/11/1/article-p49.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2023).
• Dizdar, S.I. Architectural Education, Project Design Course and Education Process Using Examples. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015 , 176 , 276–283. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jasiołek, A.; Nowak, P.; Brzezicki, M. On-line, face-to-face or hybrid teaching in architectural education? World Trans. Eng. Technol. Educ. 2021 , 19 , 90–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diao, P.-H.; Shih, N.-J. Trends and Research Issues of Augmented Reality Studies in Architectural and Civil Engineering Education—A Review of Academic Journal Publications. Appl. Sci. 2019 , 9 , 1840. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nicol, D.; Pilling, S. Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism. In Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism ; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2005; pp. 1–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gündeş, S. An empirical study of internship practices in architectural education: Student perspectives. Megaron 2017 , 12 , 355–364. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nicol, D.; Pilling, S. Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism. 2005. Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203992340/changing-architectural-education-david-nicol-simon-pilling (accessed on 11 April 2023).
• Ciravoğlu, A. Notes on Architectural Education: An Experimental Approach to Design Studio. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014 , 152 , 7–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bashier, F. Reflections on architectural design education: The return of rationalism in the studio. Front. Arch. Res. 2014 , 3 , 424–430. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hettithanthri, U.; Hansen, P. Design studio practice in the context of architectural education: A narrative literature review. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2022 , 32 , 2343–2364. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kara, L. A Critical Look at the Digital Technologies in Architectural Education: When, where, and how? Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015 , 176 , 526–530. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mosier, R.; Adhikari, S.; Langar, S. Investigation of architecture and architectural engineering online education; educator experience, self-efficacy and success. Int. J. Arch. Res. Archnet-IJAR , 2023; ahead of print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saunders, M.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research onion. In Research Methods for Business Students ; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2009; pp. 136–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis, J.M.; Kappelman, M.M. Teaching styles. Acad. Med. 1984 , 59 , 355. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chiu, M.-L. An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration. Des. Stud. 2002 , 23 , 187–210. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Segerstrale, U. Education for creativity, skills, and cross-disciplinary collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 18th International Conference on Cognitive Informatics & Cognitive Computing (ICCI* CC), Milan, Italy, 23–25 July 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 329–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kleinsmann, M.; Deken, F.; Dong, A.; Lauche, K. Development of design collaboration skills. J. Eng. Des. 2012 , 23 , 485–506. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rubin, H. Collaborative Leadership: Developing Effective Partnerships for Communities and Schools. 2009. Available online: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8HDAuVJPcB8C&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Collaborative+leadership:+Developing+effective+partnerships+for+communities+and+schools&ots=YTc7avim9P&sig=SxfV0ju0h6-ar40H0UC13aBbPdM (accessed on 11 April 2023).
• Kobayashi, Y.; Grasso, C.J.; McDearmon, M.J. World16 Innovation and collaboration in VR technology. In Proceedings of the ECAADE 2010: FUTURE CITIES, Zurich, Switzerland, 15–18 September 2010; Schmitt, G., Hovestad, L., VanGool, L., Bosche, F., Burkhard, R., Coleman, S., Halatsch, J., Hansmeyer, M., KonsorskiLang, S., Kunze, A., et al., Eds.; pp. 593–603. [ Google Scholar ]
• Austerlitz, N.; Sachs, A. Community Collaboration and Communication in the Design Studio. Open House Int. 2006 , 31 , 25–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• DeKay, M. Review of Energy Scheming 2.5: Software for Architectural Design with Energy, by G. Z. Brown, T. Sekiguchi, & J. Kline. J. Archit. Educ. 1998 , 51 , 206–209. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1425512 (accessed on 22 June 2024).
• Glass, C.R.; Westmont, C.M. Comparative effects of belongingness on the academic success and cross-cultural interactions of domestic and international students. Int. J. Intercult. Relations 2014 , 38 , 106–119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sophie, A.; Xin, Y.; Chi, B.; Shanton, C.; Ian, L.; Kim, W.; Helen, B.; Amanda, P.; Josephine, L. Finding Common Ground: Enhancing Interaction between Domestic and International Students: Final Report 2010 ; Australian Learning and Teaching Council: Strawberry Hills, NSW, Australia, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghannam, R.; Ahmad, W. Teaching teamwork to transnational students in engineering and technology. In Compass ; University of Greenwich: London, UK, 2020; Volume 13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Riebe, L.; Roepen, D.; Santarelli, B.; Marchioro, G. Education + Training Teamwork: Effectively teaching an employability skill Teamwork: Effectively teaching an employability skill. Educ. Train. Int. J. Train. 2010 , 52 , 528–539. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dorta, T.; Kinayoglu, G.; Boudhraâ, S. A new representational ecosystem for design teaching in the studio. Des. Stud. 2016 , 47 , 164–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jackson, D. Modelling graduate skill transfer from university to the workplace. J. Educ. Work. 2016 , 29 , 199–231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dillenbourg, P.; Baker, M.; Blaye, A.; O’malley, C. The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Learning in Humans and Machines ; Spada, H., Reimann, P., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; Volume 1, pp. 58–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stempfle, J.; Badke-Schaub, P. Thinking in Design Teams—An Analysis of Team Communication. Des. Stud. 2002 , 23 , 473–496. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X02000042?casa_token=j_qn4LBAtUIAAAAA:giHezI7qnZN0aqEfXL1nl28PzteS2zj5ShAfLpnUYh_9Qna8to1LJjI_p51lFOThzWlc40mKCi0 (accessed on 4 March 2022). [ CrossRef ]
• Swift, L.; Henderson, A.; Wu, C.-J. Self-confidence in clinical skill: A descriptive study of the perspective of first-year nursing students. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2022 , 58 , 103270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shaffer, D.W. The Design Studio: A promising model for learning to collaborate: Thoughts in response to Hall, Star, and Nemirovsky. In Computer Support for Collaborative Learning ; Routledge: London, UK, 2002; pp. 223–228. [ Google Scholar ]
• Novoselich, B.J.; Knight, D.B. Shared Leadership in Capstone Design Teams: Social Network Analysis. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2018 , 144 , 04018006. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Obi, L.I.; Omotayo, T.; Ekundayo, D.; Oyetunji, A.K. Enhancing BIM competencies of built environment undergraduates students using a problem-based learning and network analysis approach. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2024 , 13 , 217–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lahiff, A.; Tilley, E.; Broad, J.; Roach, K.; Detmer, A. Disciplinary learning in project-based undergraduate engineering education: The case for new knowledge. In Proceedings of the 8th Research in Engineering Education Symposium, REES 2019—Making Connections, Cape Town, South Africa, 10–12 July 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carneiro, J.; Rossetti, R.J.F.; Silva, D.C.; Oliveira, E.C. BIM, GIS, IoT, and AR/VR Integration for Smart Maintenance and Management of Road Networks: A Review. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference, ISC2 2018, Kansas City, MO, USA, 16–19 September 2018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Behzadpour, M.; Khakzand, M. Achieving Green Architecture Using BIM and Technology (VR-AR) in Tehran (Case study: Green villa building in Lavasan region of Tehran-Iran) †. Int. J. Archit. Eng. Urban Plan. 2022 , 32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes, J.E. The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2005 , 13 , 277–302. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sussman, A.; Woodworth, A.V. “Lesson Plan #4: Response to Open Letter for Curriculum Change: A New, Biological Approach to Architecture”, on the Future of Architectural Education. Available online: https://patterns.architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-193112 (accessed on 22 June 2024).
• Alexander, C. Lesson Plan #9: Ideas on Architectural Education. Available online: https://patterns.architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-194150 (accessed on 22 June 2024).
• Mehaffy, M.W. Architectural education: Still training tailors for the empire’s new clothes. New Des. Ideas 2019 , 3 , 154–158. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duerk, D.P. Architectural Programming: Information Management for Design, United States of America ; Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; ISBN 9780442010263. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Karimi, H.; Farivarsadri, G. Exploring the Collaboration Skills among Architecture Students: A Quantitative Study in North Cyprus. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 1984. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071984

Karimi H, Farivarsadri G. Exploring the Collaboration Skills among Architecture Students: A Quantitative Study in North Cyprus. Buildings . 2024; 14(7):1984. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071984

Karimi, Hirou, and Guita Farivarsadri. 2024. "Exploring the Collaboration Skills among Architecture Students: A Quantitative Study in North Cyprus" Buildings 14, no. 7: 1984. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071984

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 151 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

40 Facts About Elektrostal

Written by Lanette Mayes

Modified & Updated: 01 Jun 2024

Reviewed by Jessica Corbett

Elektrostal is a vibrant city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia. With a rich history, stunning architecture, and a thriving community, Elektrostal is a city that has much to offer. Whether you are a history buff, nature enthusiast, or simply curious about different cultures, Elektrostal is sure to captivate you.

This article will provide you with 40 fascinating facts about Elektrostal, giving you a better understanding of why this city is worth exploring. From its origins as an industrial hub to its modern-day charm, we will delve into the various aspects that make Elektrostal a unique and must-visit destination.

So, join us as we uncover the hidden treasures of Elektrostal and discover what makes this city a true gem in the heart of Russia.

Key Takeaways:

• Elektrostal, known as the “Motor City of Russia,” is a vibrant and growing city with a rich industrial history, offering diverse cultural experiences and a strong commitment to environmental sustainability.
• With its convenient location near Moscow, Elektrostal provides a picturesque landscape, vibrant nightlife, and a range of recreational activities, making it an ideal destination for residents and visitors alike.

Known as the “Motor City of Russia.”

Elektrostal, a city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia, earned the nickname “Motor City” due to its significant involvement in the automotive industry.

Home to the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Elektrostal is renowned for its metallurgical plant, which has been producing high-quality steel and alloys since its establishment in 1916.

Boasts a rich industrial heritage.

Elektrostal has a long history of industrial development, contributing to the growth and progress of the region.

Founded in 1916.

The city of Elektrostal was founded in 1916 as a result of the construction of the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Located approximately 50 kilometers east of Moscow.

Elektrostal is situated in close proximity to the Russian capital, making it easily accessible for both residents and visitors.

Known for its vibrant cultural scene.

Elektrostal is home to several cultural institutions, including museums, theaters, and art galleries that showcase the city’s rich artistic heritage.

A popular destination for nature lovers.

Surrounded by picturesque landscapes and forests, Elektrostal offers ample opportunities for outdoor activities such as hiking, camping, and birdwatching.

Hosts the annual Elektrostal City Day celebrations.

Every year, Elektrostal organizes festive events and activities to celebrate its founding, bringing together residents and visitors in a spirit of unity and joy.

Has a population of approximately 160,000 people.

Elektrostal is home to a diverse and vibrant community of around 160,000 residents, contributing to its dynamic atmosphere.

Boasts excellent education facilities.

The city is known for its well-established educational institutions, providing quality education to students of all ages.

A center for scientific research and innovation.

Elektrostal serves as an important hub for scientific research, particularly in the fields of metallurgy , materials science, and engineering.

Surrounded by picturesque lakes.

The city is blessed with numerous beautiful lakes , offering scenic views and recreational opportunities for locals and visitors alike.

Well-connected transportation system.

Elektrostal benefits from an efficient transportation network, including highways, railways, and public transportation options, ensuring convenient travel within and beyond the city.

Famous for its traditional Russian cuisine.

Food enthusiasts can indulge in authentic Russian dishes at numerous restaurants and cafes scattered throughout Elektrostal.

Home to notable architectural landmarks.

Elektrostal boasts impressive architecture, including the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord and the Elektrostal Palace of Culture.

Offers a wide range of recreational facilities.

Residents and visitors can enjoy various recreational activities, such as sports complexes, swimming pools, and fitness centers, enhancing the overall quality of life.

Provides a high standard of healthcare.

Elektrostal is equipped with modern medical facilities, ensuring residents have access to quality healthcare services.

Home to the Elektrostal History Museum.

The Elektrostal History Museum showcases the city’s fascinating past through exhibitions and displays.

A hub for sports enthusiasts.

Elektrostal is passionate about sports, with numerous stadiums, arenas, and sports clubs offering opportunities for athletes and spectators.

Celebrates diverse cultural festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal hosts a variety of cultural festivals, celebrating different ethnicities, traditions, and art forms.

Electric power played a significant role in its early development.

Elektrostal owes its name and initial growth to the establishment of electric power stations and the utilization of electricity in the industrial sector.

Boasts a thriving economy.

The city’s strong industrial base, coupled with its strategic location near Moscow, has contributed to Elektrostal’s prosperous economic status.

Houses the Elektrostal Drama Theater.

The Elektrostal Drama Theater is a cultural centerpiece, attracting theater enthusiasts from far and wide.

Popular destination for winter sports.

Elektrostal’s proximity to ski resorts and winter sport facilities makes it a favorite destination for skiing, snowboarding, and other winter activities.

Promotes environmental sustainability.

Elektrostal prioritizes environmental protection and sustainability, implementing initiatives to reduce pollution and preserve natural resources.

Home to renowned educational institutions.

Elektrostal is known for its prestigious schools and universities, offering a wide range of academic programs to students.

Committed to cultural preservation.

The city values its cultural heritage and takes active steps to preserve and promote traditional customs, crafts, and arts.

Hosts an annual International Film Festival.

The Elektrostal International Film Festival attracts filmmakers and cinema enthusiasts from around the world, showcasing a diverse range of films.

Encourages entrepreneurship and innovation.

Elektrostal supports aspiring entrepreneurs and fosters a culture of innovation, providing opportunities for startups and business development .

Offers a range of housing options.

Elektrostal provides diverse housing options, including apartments, houses, and residential complexes, catering to different lifestyles and budgets.

Home to notable sports teams.

Elektrostal is proud of its sports legacy , with several successful sports teams competing at regional and national levels.

Boasts a vibrant nightlife scene.

Residents and visitors can enjoy a lively nightlife in Elektrostal, with numerous bars, clubs, and entertainment venues.

Promotes cultural exchange and international relations.

Elektrostal actively engages in international partnerships, cultural exchanges, and diplomatic collaborations to foster global connections.

Surrounded by beautiful nature reserves.

Nearby nature reserves, such as the Barybino Forest and Luchinskoye Lake, offer opportunities for nature enthusiasts to explore and appreciate the region’s biodiversity.

Commemorates historical events.

The city pays tribute to significant historical events through memorials, monuments, and exhibitions, ensuring the preservation of collective memory.

Promotes sports and youth development.

Elektrostal invests in sports infrastructure and programs to encourage youth participation, health, and physical fitness.

Hosts annual cultural and artistic festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal celebrates its cultural diversity through festivals dedicated to music, dance, art, and theater.

Provides a picturesque landscape for photography enthusiasts.

The city’s scenic beauty, architectural landmarks, and natural surroundings make it a paradise for photographers.

Connects to Moscow via a direct train line.

The convenient train connection between Elektrostal and Moscow makes commuting between the two cities effortless.

A city with a bright future.

Elektrostal continues to grow and develop, aiming to become a model city in terms of infrastructure, sustainability, and quality of life for its residents.

In conclusion, Elektrostal is a fascinating city with a rich history and a vibrant present. From its origins as a center of steel production to its modern-day status as a hub for education and industry, Elektrostal has plenty to offer both residents and visitors. With its beautiful parks, cultural attractions, and proximity to Moscow, there is no shortage of things to see and do in this dynamic city. Whether you’re interested in exploring its historical landmarks, enjoying outdoor activities, or immersing yourself in the local culture, Elektrostal has something for everyone. So, next time you find yourself in the Moscow region, don’t miss the opportunity to discover the hidden gems of Elektrostal.

Q: What is the population of Elektrostal?

A: As of the latest data, the population of Elektrostal is approximately XXXX.

Q: How far is Elektrostal from Moscow?

A: Elektrostal is located approximately XX kilometers away from Moscow.

Q: Are there any famous landmarks in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to several notable landmarks, including XXXX and XXXX.

Q: What industries are prominent in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal is known for its steel production industry and is also a center for engineering and manufacturing.

Q: Are there any universities or educational institutions in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to XXXX University and several other educational institutions.

Q: What are some popular outdoor activities in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal offers several outdoor activities, such as hiking, cycling, and picnicking in its beautiful parks.

Q: Is Elektrostal well-connected in terms of transportation?

A: Yes, Elektrostal has good transportation links, including trains and buses, making it easily accessible from nearby cities.

Q: Are there any annual events or festivals in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal hosts various events and festivals throughout the year, including XXXX and XXXX.

Elektrostal's fascinating history, vibrant culture, and promising future make it a city worth exploring. For more captivating facts about cities around the world, discover the unique characteristics that define each city . Uncover the hidden gems of Moscow Oblast through our in-depth look at Kolomna. Lastly, dive into the rich industrial heritage of Teesside, a thriving industrial center with its own story to tell.

The Unique Burial of a Child of Early Scythian Time at the Cemetery of Saryg-Bulun (Tuva)

<< Previous page

Pages:  379-406

In 1988, the Tuvan Archaeological Expedition (led by M. E. Kilunovskaya and V. A. Semenov) discovered a unique burial of the early Iron Age at Saryg-Bulun in Central Tuva. There are two burial mounds of the Aldy-Bel culture dated by 7th century BC. Within the barrows, which adjoined one another, forming a figure-of-eight, there were discovered 7 burials, from which a representative collection of artifacts was recovered. Burial 5 was the most unique, it was found in a coffin made of a larch trunk, with a tightly closed lid. Due to the preservative properties of larch and lack of air access, the coffin contained a well-preserved mummy of a child with an accompanying set of grave goods. The interred individual retained the skin on his face and had a leather headdress painted with red pigment and a coat, sewn from jerboa fur. The coat was belted with a leather belt with bronze ornaments and buckles. Besides that, a leather quiver with arrows with the shafts decorated with painted ornaments, fully preserved battle pick and a bow were buried in the coffin. Unexpectedly, the full-genomic analysis, showed that the individual was female. This fact opens a new aspect in the study of the social history of the Scythian society and perhaps brings us back to the myth of the Amazons, discussed by Herodotus. Of course, this discovery is unique in its preservation for the Scythian culture of Tuva and requires careful study and conservation.

Keywords: Tuva, Early Iron Age, early Scythian period, Aldy-Bel culture, barrow, burial in the coffin, mummy, full genome sequencing, aDNA

Information about authors: Marina Kilunovskaya (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Vladimir Semenov (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Varvara Busova  (Moscow, Russian Federation).  (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Kharis Mustafin  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Candidate of Technical Sciences. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Irina Alborova  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Candidate of Biological Sciences. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Alina Matzvai  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected]

Shopping Cart Items: 0 Cart Total: 0,00 € place your order

Price pdf version

student - 2,75 € individual - 3,00 € institutional - 7,00 €

Copyright В© 1999-2022. Stratum Publishing House