A comparative study about the effectiveness of Lessons

Retainment: Online Class vs. Face to Face Classes

INTRODUCTION

Traditional or face-to-face instructional environments have been chastised for encouraging passive learning, ignoring individual

differences and requirements, and failing to address problem solving, critical thinking, and other higher-order thinking skills (Banathy,

1994; Hannum & Briggs, 1982). Education and training have faced new difficulties and opportunities as a result of improvements in

Internet-based technology, particularly through online instruction. Distance education delivered over the Internet is known as online

instruction. This style of instruction is seen as a huge breakthrough in teaching and learning by many since it allows for the exchange

of information and expertise while also offering possibilities for all types of learners in remote or underserved areas. While online

learning is becoming more popular, it is not without criticism. Many educators and trainers are skeptical about online learning because

they believe it does not solve complex teaching and learning problems. Others are concerned about the numerous impediments that

prevent efficient online teaching and learning (Conlon, 1997). The changing nature of technology, the complexity of networked

systems, the lack of stability in online learning settings, and a lack of knowledge of how much students and instructors need to know

to engage successfully are among these problems (Brandt, 1996). Online learning also risks commercializing education, isolating

students and professors, and lowering or even devaluing university degrees (Gallick, 1998).
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Advocates of Internet-based education are generally positive and hopeful about its possibilities (Relan & Gillani, 1997). However,

numerous obstacles must be overcome before it can be fully embraced by the general public and educational community (Hill, 1997).

The ability to meet the expectations and goals of both the teacher and the student, as well as how to create online courses that provide

a satisfying and successful learning environment, are among the most significant of these problems. Understanding these difficulties is

crucial for the development and implementation of effective online training from the standpoint of program developers and instructors.

While there have been few experimental research comparing the effectiveness of online training to more traditional face-to-face

instruction, two recent studies show hopeful results for online instruction producers. Schutte (1997) conducted a small-scale

experiment in which he separated a class of 33 pupils into two sections, one traditional and the other virtual (WWW). Despite the fact

that his research was defective due to a lack of control over teaching methods and the amount of student interaction, the results

revealed that online instruction can boost performance. In a similar study, LaRose, Gregg, and Eastin (1998) compared the

performance of students in a standard lecture section to that of students in a course section that supplied prerecorded audio over the

WWW, as well as full course outlines and related course pages available via the Web. The Web group had exam scores and student

attitude evaluations that were comparable to the traditional segment. While these quasi-experimental studies have methodological

limitations (e.g., dealing with small sample sizes, the effect of prior knowledge, etc), they are an important first step toward better

understanding the impact of online training on learning outcomes and student outcomes.
Satisfaction is linked to beliefs about one's ability to succeed thoughts regarding the final results (Keller, 1983). Several studies have

looked into student satisfaction with online programs from this standpoint (Debourgh, 1998; Enockson, 1997; Johanson, 1996;

McCabe, 1997). In a study of distant education in a university context, Enockson (1997) discovered that students were satisfied with

online instruction because it offered flexibility and responsiveness to their learning needs and expectations. 
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Although there has been a tremendous increase in the number of online programs in recent years, despite the fact that such programs

have been there for years, their potential and efficacy have yet to be completely studied. The majority of effort in this field has gone

into program development, with anecdotal evaluations of program quality and effectiveness. The need for research in this field is not

only urgent, but also vital, given the lack of empirical understanding concerning the consequences of Internet-based education. The

main goal of this exploratory empirical study was to compare an online course to a typical face-to-face course. Student evaluations of

teacher and course quality were compared, as were assessments of course interaction, structure, and support, as well as learning

outcomes such course projects, grades, and student self-assessment of their potential to perform tasks.

Comparisons between online and face-to-face learning environments have been made because of the significant differences between

the two learning styles, they are frequently dismissed environments. This is a traditional comparison of apples and oranges. This type

of research should not attempt to determine if one fruit is superior than another. Instead, they should show that, when grown

appropriately, different plants can provide different results in terms of taste and nutritional content, fruits can be comparable. This

research aims to see if correctly built surroundings differ on a variety of levels. In terms of learning and satisfaction, these attributes

might be interchangeable. Studies this kind of thing is especially crucial because many faculty members are being asked to do things

they don't want to do. When it comes to designing and teaching Internet-based courses, many people ask if students are genuinely

interested. In these new online spaces, you can learn.

The purpose of this study was to find answers to the following research questions.

1. What distinctions exist between students enrolled in online versus face-to-face learning environments in terms of satisfaction with

their learning experience?

2. What distinctions exist between students enrolled in online versus face-to-face learning environments in terms of student/instructor

contact, course structure, and course support?

3. What differences in learning outcomes (i.e., perceived content) do you see students enrolled in online versus face-to-face learning

environments in terms of knowledge, quality of course projects, and final course grades)?
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Classroom training, for starters and maybe most crucially, is tremendously dynamic. Traditional classroom learning delivers real-time

face-to-face training and encourages students to ask creative questions. It also enables for more flexible content distribution and

immediate teacher reaction. Because students must confine their queries to blurbs and then give the teacher and fellow classmates time

to react, online instruction slows down the learning process (Salcedo, 2010). Online teaching, on the other hand, is likely to develop

over time, boosting classroom dynamics and bringing students face-to-face with their classmates and professors. For the time being,

however, face-to-face instruction offers dynamic learning characteristics not seen in Web-based instruction (Kemp and Grieve, 2014).

Traditional classroom learning is a proven method. Some students are resistant to change and have a poor perception of online

learning. These kids may be technophobes, preferring to take notes in a classroom rather than absorbing information on a computer.

Face-to-face engagement, class debates, shared learning, and spontaneous student-teacher bonding may be valued by other students

(Roval and Jordan, 2004). They can regard the Internet as a barrier to learning. Some students may avoid classroom activities if they

are uncomfortable with the teaching medium; their grades may suffer, and their educational interest may fade. Students, on the other

hand, may eventually adjust to online learning. Students may be obliged to take just Web-based courses as more universities adopt

computer-based training. Although this is true, it does not negate the fact that some kids enjoy classroom intimacy.
Third, face-to-face training is not reliant on computer networks. The student's ability to learn online is contingent on having

unrestricted Internet access. Online students may be unable to communicate, submit assignments, or access study materials if technical

issues arise. As a result, the student may become frustrated, perform poorly, and lose interest in studying.

Fourth, students with a campus education have access to both accredited faculty and research libraries. Students can count on

administrators to help them choose courses and make professorial recommendations. Learners can use library technicians to help them

edit their papers, find useful study materials, and enhance their study habits. Materials not available on a computer may be found at

research libraries. Overall, the typical classroom experience provides students with vital auxiliary tools to help them do better in class.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

Online and face-to-face learning methods each offer their own set of benefits and drawbacks. While many students still prefer the

discipline and familiarity that face-to-face studying provides, there is no doubting that online learning has numerous advantages. The

self-paced nature of eLearning content may appeal to today's learner as well as employers looking for new ways to manage staff

development and training in the post-COVID era.

This method of learning is more adaptable than traditional methods, and it is also more practical for students. However, because of

the distinct advantages of instructor-led training, many learners still prefer the presence of a live instructor to better internalize

knowledge. In their own ways, both learning approaches are extremely effective.

The sample group, student skills/abilities, and student experience with online training were all factors that contributed to the study's

limitations. The independent variables were not adjusted for real-world accuracy because this was a convenience, non-probability

sample. Second, when splitting comparison groups, student intelligence and skill level were not taken into account. It's possible that

the face-to-face students in this study were more capable than the online ones, and vice versa. This restriction also applies to

disparities in gender and social status (Friday et al., 2006). Finally, there may have been concerns with ease of familiarity between the

two groups of students. Students who have taken traditional classroom courses and are now attending Web-based courses may be

intimidated by the technical side of the format. They could not have had the requisite training or experience to effectively e-learn,

resulting in lower ratings (Helms, 2014).

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

No Bibliography Main Themes/ Methods Major Findings Recommendati

. Objective / Variables / Conclusion on

Main

Question

1 HEW, K.F., LO, C.K. Flipped classroom No meta- We focused This meta- Current Future research

improves student learning in health analysis specifically on analysis and evidence should also

professions education: a meta- has been a set of flipped review were suggests that examine the

analysis. BMC Med Educ 18, 38 (2018). published classroom carried out the flipped possible

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1144-z that studies in according to classroom impact of

specificall which pre- the approach in video styles.

y examines recorded videos PRISMA health Despite the

the effect were provided (Preferred professions increasing

of flipped before face-to- Reporting education popularity of

classroom face class Items for overall yields a using video-

versus meetings. Systematic statistically recorded

traditional These reviews and significant lectures, we

classroom comparative Meta- improvement in still understand

on student articles focused Analysis) learner little about

learning.  on health care guidelines performance how different

professionals [22]. compared with video styles

including Relevant traditional may impact

medical online teaching student

students, databases methods. In learning.

residents, were addition, the Longitudinal

doctors, nurses, searched flipped studies should

or learners in from classroom also be

other health January would be more conducted to

care 2012 effective when examine

professions and through instructors use whether the

disciplines March quizzes at the flipped

(e.g., dental, 2017. start of each in- classroom

pharmacy, January class session. approach can

environmental 2012 Future research foster learning

or occupational onwards can be retention over

health). was chosen conducted to a long period

because examine the of time.

2012 was possible effect

the year of of specific

the first types of

publication teaching

of an method or

application presentation on

of flipped student

classroom learning. 

approach to

health

professions

student
 teaching

2 Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in Online To reduce online As a survey he most desired This article

Courses: Exploring Issues and Solutions— attrition courses, student and review outcome of reviews

A Literature Review. SAGE and ensure retention of literature such research literature to

Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440156 continual models, social reveals, the should be to ascertain

21777 growth in and causes of help boost critical reasons

online motivational poor retention. At for high

courses, it issues, technolo retention in present, there attrition rates

is gy in online online are many in online

important courses, courses are emerging classes, as well

to continue many, and trends in the as explore

to review although world of e- solutions to

current and there has learning that boost retention

updated been some presents rates. This will

literature headway in different help create a

to the area of avenues for starting point

understand providing future research and foundation

the viable such as Rovai’s for a more, in-

changing solutions to (2003) Compos depth research

behaviors this issue, ite Persistence and analysis of

of online much model retention issues

learners deeper and or Bradford’s in online

and faculty wider (2011) concept courses.

in the 21st studies are of Factor Examining

century required to Correlation these issues is

and develop a Matrix and the critical to

examine better Principal contemporary

how they understandi Components learning

fit together ng of ways Analysis. environments.

as a and means However,

cohesive to solve models and

educationa online concepts such

l unit. course as these need to

issues and be examined in

 improve the light of

online more real

classes and world context

course using larger

designs to participant

facilitate groups.

and benefit

both

learners and

educators. 

3 Di Xu & Shanna S. this study Individual and Using a Online After

Jaggars (2014) Performance Gaps between examines peer effects, dataset performance controlling for

Online and Face-to-Face Courses: the social sciences, containing gaps were also individual and

Differences across Types of Students and performan applied nearly wider in some peer effects,

Academic Subject Areas, The Journal of ce gap profession 500,000 academic the social

Higher Education, 85:5, 633- between courses subject areas sciences and

659, DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2014.117773 online and taken by than others. the applied

 43 face-to- over 40,000 performance professions

face community gaps. (e.g., business,

courses and law, and

and how technical nursing)

the size of college showed the

that gap students in strongest

differs Washington online

across State.

student

subgroups

and

academic

subject

areas.

4 May, Shane Carroll. A Comparative In this The interview In this The findings Considering

Analysis of Student Success and study, data were chapter, the associated with the perceptions

Perceptions of Engagement between Face- interviews, qualitative, and methodolog the first of student
to-Face and Online College Courses surveys, according to y used to research engagement,

Lindenwood University ProQuest and data Creswell and address the question match the participants

Dissertations Publishing,  2019.  collection Gutterman research previous indicated

13811251. of grades, (2019) there are questions is research engagement

attendance, six steps in given. This (Nguyen, 2015) was better in a

and analyzing chapter and is further traditional

withdrawal qualitative data: includes the evidence of the face-to-face

rates were (a) preparing following need to move course. The

used to the data for elements: a beyond student rationale given

determine analysis, (b) statement of outcomes to was the belief

the exploring the the problem address other it is easier to

efficacy of data through and impacts of emulate

online coding, (c) purpose, the online immediate

courses using the codes design of education on behaviors, as

compared to develop a the research student defined by

to same picture of the to address success. As Mehrabian

content data, (d) the problem, Nguyen (2015) (1967). The

face-to- presenting the a stated, “There preference for

face findings description is robust face-to-face

courses. through of the evidence to courses was

The goal narratives and population suggest online similar to

was to visuals, (e) and sample, learning is students’

address a interpreting the the validity generally at beliefs

current gap results and, and least as engagement

in the finally, (f) reliability of effective as the was better in

existing validating the instruments, traditional face-to-face

research accuracy of the data format” (p. courses.

(Nguyen, findings. collection 309). The

2015) by methods, results of this

examining and data study support

faculty and analysis the robust

student processes. evidence to

perception Lastly, which Nguyen

s of ethical (2015) referred

 engagemen consideratio and highlights

t and ns are the importance

student detailed, of this research

outcomes followed by and

across the chapter examination of

different summary. student

delivery engagement

systems for across the

an entire different

academic delivery

year systems.

5 Bartley, S. J., & Golek, J. H. (2014). This study no significant . Particular A most It would be too

Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Online examines difference, attention is intriguing easy altogether

and Face-to-Face Instruction. Educational the online learning, paid to the project that to jump on the

Technology & Society, 7(4), 167–175. evidence hybrid learning, meta- combines the online learning

of the blended analyses on work from both bandwagon or

effectivene learning, higher the prospective to dismiss it as

ss of education, effectivenes paths would be a fad that will

online selection bias s of online the creation of go away (and

learning by learning, the one or two come back as

organizing heterogenou online courses many

and s outcomes that leverage educational

summarizi of student the factors that fads have been

ng the learning and are most known to do).

findings the effective in Overall, there

and endogenous improving is strong

challenges issue of learning evidence to

of online learning outcomes, suggest that

learning environment individualize online learning

into choice. student is at least as

positive, Taken as a learning using effective as the

negative, whole, there adaptive traditional

mixed, and is robust learning format, but the

null evidence to software, and evidence is, by

findings. suggest incorporate no means,

online non-trivial best conclusive.

learning is practices of Online

generally at “gamification.” learning is a

least as Gamification story that is

effective as has been found still being

the to increase written, and

traditional engagement, how it

format. motivation and progresses will

productivity in likely depend

solving on those

problems and present.

task

engagement in

a variety of

non-game

contexts
including

learning

(Deterding et

al., 2011;

Hamari,

Koivisto, Sarsa,

& Hamari,

2014; Kapp,

2012; Landers

& Callen,

2011; Tsai,

Tsai, & Lin,

2015). The

creators of the

course should

consist of

experts on
“gamification”,

online learning

and learning

sciences, and

instructors of

the most highly

rated online

courses. The

goal would be

to create an

online course

that maximizes

student

learning.
MARI PEBA NABALABALIN