essay about online learning and face to face learning

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 ]

Tips for Online Students , Tips for Students

Facts: Is Online Learning As Good As Face-To-Face Learning?

Online learning is increasingly popular nowadays, and this trend is here to stay. With more flexibility, self-directed study options, and access to the same instructors and teachers as traditional learning, it’s no surprise that online learning is popular. But is online learning as good as face to face learning? It may be — and may even be more effective in some cases!

What Is Online Learning?

Online learning can be any type of learning that takes place over the internet. This could be a supplemental course, a full degree program, or self study. More times than not, online learning is asynchronous, as students do not have to learn at the same time and place as their instructors are teaching.

What Is Face-To-Face Learning?

Face-to-face learning is the more traditional way of instruction, where students and teachers attend an in-person session at the same time. The instructor leads the class, and usually, students are passively learning.

Photo by  Pixabay  from  Pexels

Measuring up: online learning vs face-to-face, 1. asynchronous learning vs synchronous learning.

One of the most significant differences between face-to-face learning and online learning is that face-to-face learning is synchronous, or done at the same time. All instructors and students/classmates are present in face-to-face learning.

With online learning, however, that is not necessary. Online instruction can be either synchronous or asynchronous.

2. Delivering Knowledge vs Facilitating Learning

In face-to-face classes, instructors are usually just delivering knowledge, and then assessing the understanding of that knowledge at a later date.

This is compared to online learning, where instructors are seen more as facilitators of learning — helping their students understand the material through provided online materials.

3. Teacher vs Child-Led Advancement

While both online and face-to-face learning can have components of both student-led and teacher-led curriculum, online study lends itself better to student-led advancement and learning. In online study, students can decide for themselves what they want to dig deeper on, and spend more time learning.

4. Discipline and Self Motivation

Some may say that it is harder to succeed in online education, and that is because you must be highly self-motivated and disciplined. In online learning, no one is keeping you on track — you must be your own motivator, time keeper, and disciplinarian.

5. Measuring Performance

In both face-to-face and online learning, instructors must have a way to measure performance. This is typically done by way of submitting assignments, administering tests, exams and quizzes, and creating points for participation. Participation and class ‘attendance’ is harder to measure in an online learning environment.

Photo by  Buro Millennial  from  Pexels

Key differences between face-to-face vs online instruction.

There are so many important differences between face-to-face learning and online learning. Here are just a few:

Benefits of Face-to-Face Learning

Face-to-face learning has been the standard way of instruction for centuries. While online instruction is becoming increasingly popular, in-person study may still be the best option for some people. With face-to-face learning, instructors are better able to gauge understanding and interest of students, and it is easier to generate group excitement about a subject. It is also easier to hold students accountable.

6 Reasons Why Online Learning is More Effective

Is online learning as good as face-to-face learning? It may be even better.

1. Students Learn More

Online courses give students full control over what they are learning, so students are able to work at their own speed. They are able to work quickly through areas they understand, and spend more time on areas they do not.

2. Higher Retention Rates

Many studies have shown that retention rates for online students are much higher than for traditional, in-person students. Online learning increases access and makes it more likely that a student can finish a course or program when physical limitations are removed.

Photo by  Jopwell  from  Pexels

3. lower time investment.

In online learning, students save a ton of time by not having to commute to class. There is also a need by face-to-face instructors to fill the allotted course time, when students could be using that time to work on something more valuable for their learning. In online learning, students are spending less time overall, and making that time towards their education count.

4. Frequent Assessments Reduce Distractions

In a classroom setting there are many distractions, but at home, those same distractions are removed. Online, students’ disruptive behavior is no longer a factor in classroom culture, and there is no need to hold up the lesson for just one student. In addition, many online courses make use of more frequent ‘knowledge checks’ or mini quizzes which can keep students on track.

5. It’s the Green Way to Study

Online learning not only cuts back on paper and electricity use, but also on carbon emissions commuting to a campus. Online courses use 90% less energy and have 85% fewer carbon emissions than traditional, face-to-face classes.

6. Tracking Learning Patterns

Online learning helps educators and instructional designers track learning in ways that face-to-face learning cannot do. Through analytical tools, educators and researchers can see what really works and what doesn’t, and use that information to inform future curriculum and instruction design.

So, you want to know is online learning as good as face to face learning? Just check the facts listed, and we think you’ll find that the answer is… Absolutely.

Related Articles

Advertisement

The effects of online education on academic success: A meta-analysis study

• Published: 06 September 2021
• Volume 27 , pages 429–450, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Hakan Ulum   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1398-6935 1  

75k Accesses

22 Citations

11 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of online education, which has been extensively used on student achievement since the beginning of the pandemic. In line with this purpose, a meta-analysis of the related studies focusing on the effect of online education on students’ academic achievement in several countries between the years 2010 and 2021 was carried out. Furthermore, this study will provide a source to assist future studies with comparing the effect of online education on academic achievement before and after the pandemic. This meta-analysis study consists of 27 studies in total. The meta-analysis involves the studies conducted in the USA, Taiwan, Turkey, China, Philippines, Ireland, and Georgia. The studies included in the meta-analysis are experimental studies, and the total sample size is 1772. In the study, the funnel plot, Duval and Tweedie’s Trip and Fill Analysis, Orwin’s Safe N Analysis, and Egger’s Regression Test were utilized to determine the publication bias, which has been found to be quite low. Besides, Hedge’s g statistic was employed to measure the effect size for the difference between the means performed in accordance with the random effects model. The results of the study show that the effect size of online education on academic achievement is on a medium level. The heterogeneity test results of the meta-analysis study display that the effect size does not differ in terms of class level, country, online education approaches, and lecture moderators.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Information and communication technologies have become a powerful force in transforming the educational settings around the world. The pandemic has been an important factor in transferring traditional physical classrooms settings through adopting information and communication technologies and has also accelerated the transformation. The literature supports that learning environments connected to information and communication technologies highly satisfy students. Therefore, we need to keep interest in technology-based learning environments. Clearly, technology has had a huge impact on young people's online lives. This digital revolution can synergize the educational ambitions and interests of digitally addicted students. In essence, COVID-19 has provided us with an opportunity to embrace online learning as education systems have to keep up with the rapid emergence of new technologies.

Information and communication technologies that have an effect on all spheres of life are also actively included in the education field. With the recent developments, using technology in education has become inevitable due to personal and social reasons (Usta, 2011a ). Online education may be given as an example of using information and communication technologies as a consequence of the technological developments. Also, it is crystal clear that online learning is a popular way of obtaining instruction (Demiralay et al., 2016 ; Pillay et al., 2007 ), which is defined by Horton ( 2000 ) as a way of education that is performed through a web browser or an online application without requiring an extra software or a learning source. Furthermore, online learning is described as a way of utilizing the internet to obtain the related learning sources during the learning process, to interact with the content, the teacher, and other learners, as well as to get support throughout the learning process (Ally, 2004 ). Online learning has such benefits as learning independently at any time and place (Vrasidas & MsIsaac, 2000 ), granting facility (Poole, 2000 ), flexibility (Chizmar & Walbert, 1999 ), self-regulation skills (Usta, 2011b ), learning with collaboration, and opportunity to plan self-learning process.

Even though online education practices have not been comprehensive as it is now, internet and computers have been used in education as alternative learning tools in correlation with the advances in technology. The first distance education attempt in the world was initiated by the ‘Steno Courses’ announcement published in Boston newspaper in 1728. Furthermore, in the nineteenth century, Sweden University started the “Correspondence Composition Courses” for women, and University Correspondence College was afterwards founded for the correspondence courses in 1843 (Arat & Bakan, 2011 ). Recently, distance education has been performed through computers, assisted by the facilities of the internet technologies, and soon, it has evolved into a mobile education practice that is emanating from progress in the speed of internet connection, and the development of mobile devices.

With the emergence of pandemic (Covid-19), face to face education has almost been put to a halt, and online education has gained significant importance. The Microsoft management team declared to have 750 users involved in the online education activities on the 10 th March, just before the pandemic; however, on March 24, they informed that the number of users increased significantly, reaching the number of 138,698 users (OECD, 2020 ). This event supports the view that it is better to commonly use online education rather than using it as a traditional alternative educational tool when students do not have the opportunity to have a face to face education (Geostat, 2019 ). The period of Covid-19 pandemic has emerged as a sudden state of having limited opportunities. Face to face education has stopped in this period for a long time. The global spread of Covid-19 affected more than 850 million students all around the world, and it caused the suspension of face to face education. Different countries have proposed several solutions in order to maintain the education process during the pandemic. Schools have had to change their curriculum, and many countries supported the online education practices soon after the pandemic. In other words, traditional education gave its way to online education practices. At least 96 countries have been motivated to access online libraries, TV broadcasts, instructions, sources, video lectures, and online channels (UNESCO, 2020 ). In such a painful period, educational institutions went through online education practices by the help of huge companies such as Microsoft, Google, Zoom, Skype, FaceTime, and Slack. Thus, online education has been discussed in the education agenda more intensively than ever before.

Although online education approaches were not used as comprehensively as it has been used recently, it was utilized as an alternative learning approach in education for a long time in parallel with the development of technology, internet and computers. The academic achievement of the students is often aimed to be promoted by employing online education approaches. In this regard, academicians in various countries have conducted many studies on the evaluation of online education approaches and published the related results. However, the accumulation of scientific data on online education approaches creates difficulties in keeping, organizing and synthesizing the findings. In this research area, studies are being conducted at an increasing rate making it difficult for scientists to be aware of all the research outside of their ​​expertise. Another problem encountered in the related study area is that online education studies are repetitive. Studies often utilize slightly different methods, measures, and/or examples to avoid duplication. This erroneous approach makes it difficult to distinguish between significant differences in the related results. In other words, if there are significant differences in the results of the studies, it may be difficult to express what variety explains the differences in these results. One obvious solution to these problems is to systematically review the results of various studies and uncover the sources. One method of performing such systematic syntheses is the application of meta-analysis which is a methodological and statistical approach to draw conclusions from the literature. At this point, how effective online education applications are in increasing the academic success is an important detail. Has online education, which is likely to be encountered frequently in the continuing pandemic period, been successful in the last ten years? If successful, how much was the impact? Did different variables have an impact on this effect? Academics across the globe have carried out studies on the evaluation of online education platforms and publishing the related results (Chiao et al., 2018 ). It is quite important to evaluate the results of the studies that have been published up until now, and that will be published in the future. Has the online education been successful? If it has been, how big is the impact? Do the different variables affect this impact? What should we consider in the next coming online education practices? These questions have all motivated us to carry out this study. We have conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis study that tries to provide a discussion platform on how to develop efficient online programs for educators and policy makers by reviewing the related studies on online education, presenting the effect size, and revealing the effect of diverse variables on the general impact.

There have been many critical discussions and comprehensive studies on the differences between online and face to face learning; however, the focus of this paper is different in the sense that it clarifies the magnitude of the effect of online education and teaching process, and it represents what factors should be controlled to help increase the effect size. Indeed, the purpose here is to provide conscious decisions in the implementation of the online education process.

The general impact of online education on the academic achievement will be discovered in the study. Therefore, this will provide an opportunity to get a general overview of the online education which has been practiced and discussed intensively in the pandemic period. Moreover, the general impact of online education on academic achievement will be analyzed, considering different variables. In other words, the current study will allow to totally evaluate the study results from the related literature, and to analyze the results considering several cultures, lectures, and class levels. Considering all the related points, this study seeks to answer the following research questions:

What is the effect size of online education on academic achievement?

How do the effect sizes of online education on academic achievement change according to the moderator variable of the country?

How do the effect sizes of online education on academic achievement change according to the moderator variable of the class level?

How do the effect sizes of online education on academic achievement change according to the moderator variable of the lecture?

How do the effect sizes of online education on academic achievement change according to the moderator variable of the online education approaches?

This study aims at determining the effect size of online education, which has been highly used since the beginning of the pandemic, on students’ academic achievement in different courses by using a meta-analysis method. Meta-analysis is a synthesis method that enables gathering of several study results accurately and efficiently, and getting the total results in the end (Tsagris & Fragkos, 2018 ).

2.1 Selecting and coding the data (studies)

The required literature for the meta-analysis study was reviewed in July, 2020, and the follow-up review was conducted in September, 2020. The purpose of the follow-up review was to include the studies which were published in the conduction period of this study, and which met the related inclusion criteria. However, no study was encountered to be included in the follow-up review.

In order to access the studies in the meta-analysis, the databases of Web of Science, ERIC, and SCOPUS were reviewed by utilizing the keywords ‘online learning and online education’. Not every database has a search engine that grants access to the studies by writing the keywords, and this obstacle was considered to be an important problem to be overcome. Therefore, a platform that has a special design was utilized by the researcher. With this purpose, through the open access system of Cukurova University Library, detailed reviews were practiced using EBSCO Information Services (EBSCO) that allow reviewing the whole collection of research through a sole searching box. Since the fundamental variables of this study are online education and online learning, the literature was systematically reviewed in the related databases (Web of Science, ERIC, and SCOPUS) by referring to the keywords. Within this scope, 225 articles were accessed, and the studies were included in the coding key list formed by the researcher. The name of the researchers, the year, the database (Web of Science, ERIC, and SCOPUS), the sample group and size, the lectures that the academic achievement was tested in, the country that the study was conducted in, and the class levels were all included in this coding key.

The following criteria were identified to include 225 research studies which were coded based on the theoretical basis of the meta-analysis study: (1) The studies should be published in the refereed journals between the years 2020 and 2021, (2) The studies should be experimental studies that try to determine the effect of online education and online learning on academic achievement, (3) The values of the stated variables or the required statistics to calculate these values should be stated in the results of the studies, and (4) The sample group of the study should be at a primary education level. These criteria were also used as the exclusion criteria in the sense that the studies that do not meet the required criteria were not included in the present study.

After the inclusion criteria were determined, a systematic review process was conducted, following the year criterion of the study by means of EBSCO. Within this scope, 290,365 studies that analyze the effect of online education and online learning on academic achievement were accordingly accessed. The database (Web of Science, ERIC, and SCOPUS) was also used as a filter by analyzing the inclusion criteria. Hence, the number of the studies that were analyzed was 58,616. Afterwards, the keyword ‘primary education’ was used as the filter and the number of studies included in the study decreased to 3152. Lastly, the literature was reviewed by using the keyword ‘academic achievement’ and 225 studies were accessed. All the information of 225 articles was included in the coding key.

It is necessary for the coders to review the related studies accurately and control the validity, safety, and accuracy of the studies (Stewart & Kamins, 2001 ). Within this scope, the studies that were determined based on the variables used in this study were first reviewed by three researchers from primary education field, then the accessed studies were combined and processed in the coding key by the researcher. All these studies that were processed in the coding key were analyzed in accordance with the inclusion criteria by all the researchers in the meetings, and it was decided that 27 studies met the inclusion criteria (Atici & Polat, 2010 ; Carreon, 2018 ; Ceylan & Elitok Kesici, 2017 ; Chae & Shin, 2016 ; Chiang et al. 2014 ; Ercan, 2014 ; Ercan et al., 2016 ; Gwo-Jen et al., 2018 ; Hayes & Stewart, 2016 ; Hwang et al., 2012 ; Kert et al., 2017 ; Lai & Chen, 2010 ; Lai et al., 2015 ; Meyers et al., 2015 ; Ravenel et al., 2014 ; Sung et al., 2016 ; Wang & Chen, 2013 ; Yu, 2019 ; Yu & Chen, 2014 ; Yu & Pan, 2014 ; Yu et al., 2010 ; Zhong et al., 2017 ). The data from the studies meeting the inclusion criteria were independently processed in the second coding key by three researchers, and consensus meetings were arranged for further discussion. After the meetings, researchers came to an agreement that the data were coded accurately and precisely. Having identified the effect sizes and heterogeneity of the study, moderator variables that will show the differences between the effect sizes were determined. The data related to the determined moderator variables were added to the coding key by three researchers, and a new consensus meeting was arranged. After the meeting, researchers came to an agreement that moderator variables were coded accurately and precisely.

2.2 Study group

27 studies are included in the meta-analysis. The total sample size of the studies that are included in the analysis is 1772. The characteristics of the studies included are given in Table 1 .

2.3 Publication bias

Publication bias is the low capability of published studies on a research subject to represent all completed studies on the same subject (Card, 2011 ; Littell et al., 2008 ). Similarly, publication bias is the state of having a relationship between the probability of the publication of a study on a subject, and the effect size and significance that it produces. Within this scope, publication bias may occur when the researchers do not want to publish the study as a result of failing to obtain the expected results, or not being approved by the scientific journals, and consequently not being included in the study synthesis (Makowski et al., 2019 ). The high possibility of publication bias in a meta-analysis study negatively affects (Pecoraro, 2018 ) the accuracy of the combined effect size, causing the average effect size to be reported differently than it should be (Borenstein et al., 2009 ). For this reason, the possibility of publication bias in the included studies was tested before determining the effect sizes of the relationships between the stated variables. The possibility of publication bias of this meta-analysis study was analyzed by using the funnel plot, Orwin’s Safe N Analysis, Duval and Tweedie’s Trip and Fill Analysis, and Egger’s Regression Test.

2.4 Selecting the model

After determining the probability of publication bias of this meta-analysis study, the statistical model used to calculate the effect sizes was selected. The main approaches used in the effect size calculations according to the differentiation level of inter-study variance are fixed and random effects models (Pigott, 2012 ). Fixed effects model refers to the homogeneity of the characteristics of combined studies apart from the sample sizes, while random effects model refers to the parameter diversity between the studies (Cumming, 2012 ). While calculating the average effect size in the random effects model (Deeks et al., 2008 ) that is based on the assumption that effect predictions of different studies are only the result of a similar distribution, it is necessary to consider several situations such as the effect size apart from the sample error of combined studies, characteristics of the participants, duration, scope, and pattern of the study (Littell et al., 2008 ). While deciding the model in the meta-analysis study, the assumptions on the sample characteristics of the studies included in the analysis and the inferences that the researcher aims to make should be taken into consideration. The fact that the sample characteristics of the studies conducted in the field of social sciences are affected by various parameters shows that using random effects model is more appropriate in this sense. Besides, it is stated that the inferences made with the random effects model are beyond the studies included in the meta-analysis (Field, 2003 ; Field & Gillett, 2010 ). Therefore, using random effects model also contributes to the generalization of research data. The specified criteria for the statistical model selection show that according to the nature of the meta-analysis study, the model should be selected just before the analysis (Borenstein et al., 2007 ; Littell et al., 2008 ). Within this framework, it was decided to make use of the random effects model, considering that the students who are the samples of the studies included in the meta-analysis are from different countries and cultures, the sample characteristics of the studies differ, and the patterns and scopes of the studies vary as well.

2.5 Heterogeneity

Meta-analysis facilitates analyzing the research subject with different parameters by showing the level of diversity between the included studies. Within this frame, whether there is a heterogeneous distribution between the studies included in the study or not has been evaluated in the present study. The heterogeneity of the studies combined in this meta-analysis study has been determined through Q and I 2 tests. Q test evaluates the random distribution probability of the differences between the observed results (Deeks et al., 2008 ). Q value exceeding 2 value calculated according to the degree of freedom and significance, indicates the heterogeneity of the combined effect sizes (Card, 2011 ). I 2 test, which is the complementary of the Q test, shows the heterogeneity amount of the effect sizes (Cleophas & Zwinderman, 2017 ). I 2 value being higher than 75% is explained as high level of heterogeneity.

In case of encountering heterogeneity in the studies included in the meta-analysis, the reasons of heterogeneity can be analyzed by referring to the study characteristics. The study characteristics which may be related to the heterogeneity between the included studies can be interpreted through subgroup analysis or meta-regression analysis (Deeks et al., 2008 ). While determining the moderator variables, the sufficiency of the number of variables, the relationship between the moderators, and the condition to explain the differences between the results of the studies have all been considered in the present study. Within this scope, it was predicted in this meta-analysis study that the heterogeneity can be explained with the country, class level, and lecture moderator variables of the study in terms of the effect of online education, which has been highly used since the beginning of the pandemic, and it has an impact on the students’ academic achievement in different lectures. Some subgroups were evaluated and categorized together, considering that the number of effect sizes of the sub-dimensions of the specified variables is not sufficient to perform moderator analysis (e.g. the countries where the studies were conducted).

2.6 Interpreting the effect sizes

Effect size is a factor that shows how much the independent variable affects the dependent variable positively or negatively in each included study in the meta-analysis (Dinçer, 2014 ). While interpreting the effect sizes obtained from the meta-analysis, the classifications of Cohen et al. ( 2007 ) have been utilized. The case of differentiating the specified relationships of the situation of the country, class level, and school subject variables of the study has been identified through the Q test, degree of freedom, and p significance value Fig.  1 and 2 .

3 Findings and results

The purpose of this study is to determine the effect size of online education on academic achievement. Before determining the effect sizes in the study, the probability of publication bias of this meta-analysis study was analyzed by using the funnel plot, Orwin’s Safe N Analysis, Duval and Tweedie’s Trip and Fill Analysis, and Egger’s Regression Test.

When the funnel plots are examined, it is seen that the studies included in the analysis are distributed symmetrically on both sides of the combined effect size axis, and they are generally collected in the middle and lower sections. The probability of publication bias is low according to the plots. However, since the results of the funnel scatter plots may cause subjective interpretations, they have been supported by additional analyses (Littell et al., 2008 ). Therefore, in order to provide an extra proof for the probability of publication bias, it has been analyzed through Orwin’s Safe N Analysis, Duval and Tweedie’s Trip and Fill Analysis, and Egger’s Regression Test (Table 2 ).

Table 2 consists of the results of the rates of publication bias probability before counting the effect size of online education on academic achievement. According to the table, Orwin Safe N analysis results show that it is not necessary to add new studies to the meta-analysis in order for Hedges g to reach a value outside the range of ± 0.01. The Duval and Tweedie test shows that excluding the studies that negatively affect the symmetry of the funnel scatter plots for each meta-analysis or adding their exact symmetrical equivalents does not significantly differentiate the calculated effect size. The insignificance of the Egger tests results reveals that there is no publication bias in the meta-analysis study. The results of the analysis indicate the high internal validity of the effect sizes and the adequacy of representing the studies conducted on the relevant subject.

In this study, it was aimed to determine the effect size of online education on academic achievement after testing the publication bias. In line with the first purpose of the study, the forest graph regarding the effect size of online education on academic achievement is shown in Fig.  3 , and the statistics regarding the effect size are given in Table 3 .

The flow chart of the scanning and selection process of the studies

Funnel plot graphics representing the effect size of the effects of online education on academic success

Forest graph related to the effect size of online education on academic success

The square symbols in the forest graph in Fig.  3 represent the effect sizes, while the horizontal lines show the intervals in 95% confidence of the effect sizes, and the diamond symbol shows the overall effect size. When the forest graph is analyzed, it is seen that the lower and upper limits of the combined effect sizes are generally close to each other, and the study loads are similar. This similarity in terms of study loads indicates the similarity of the contribution of the combined studies to the overall effect size.

Figure  3 clearly represents that the study of Liu and others (Liu et al., 2018 ) has the lowest, and the study of Ercan and Bilen ( 2014 ) has the highest effect sizes. The forest graph shows that all the combined studies and the overall effect are positive. Furthermore, it is simply understood from the forest graph in Fig.  3 and the effect size statistics in Table 3 that the results of the meta-analysis study conducted with 27 studies and analyzing the effect of online education on academic achievement illustrate that this relationship is on average level (= 0.409).

After the analysis of the effect size in the study, whether the studies included in the analysis are distributed heterogeneously or not has also been analyzed. The heterogeneity of the combined studies was determined through the Q and I 2 tests. As a result of the heterogeneity test, Q statistical value was calculated as 29.576. With 26 degrees of freedom at 95% significance level in the chi-square table, the critical value is accepted as 38.885. The Q statistical value (29.576) counted in this study is lower than the critical value of 38.885. The I 2 value, which is the complementary of the Q statistics, is 12.100%. This value indicates that the accurate heterogeneity or the total variability that can be attributed to variability between the studies is 12%. Besides, p value is higher than (0.285) p = 0.05. All these values [Q (26) = 29.579, p = 0.285; I2 = 12.100] indicate that there is a homogeneous distribution between the effect sizes, and fixed effects model should be used to interpret these effect sizes. However, some researchers argue that even if the heterogeneity is low, it should be evaluated based on the random effects model (Borenstein et al., 2007 ). Therefore, this study gives information about both models. The heterogeneity of the combined studies has been attempted to be explained with the characteristics of the studies included in the analysis. In this context, the final purpose of the study is to determine the effect of the country, academic level, and year variables on the findings. Accordingly, the statistics regarding the comparison of the stated relations according to the countries where the studies were conducted are given in Table 4 .

As seen in Table 4 , the effect of online education on academic achievement does not differ significantly according to the countries where the studies were conducted in. Q test results indicate the heterogeneity of the relationships between the variables in terms of countries where the studies were conducted in. According to the table, the effect of online education on academic achievement was reported as the highest in other countries, and the lowest in the US. The statistics regarding the comparison of the stated relations according to the class levels are given in Table 5 .

As seen in Table 5 , the effect of online education on academic achievement does not differ according to the class level. However, the effect of online education on academic achievement is the highest in the 4 th class. The statistics regarding the comparison of the stated relations according to the class levels are given in Table 6 .

As seen in Table 6 , the effect of online education on academic achievement does not differ according to the school subjects included in the studies. However, the effect of online education on academic achievement is the highest in ICT subject.

The obtained effect size in the study was formed as a result of the findings attained from primary studies conducted in 7 different countries. In addition, these studies are the ones on different approaches to online education (online learning environments, social networks, blended learning, etc.). In this respect, the results may raise some questions about the validity and generalizability of the results of the study. However, the moderator analyzes, whether for the country variable or for the approaches covered by online education, did not create significant differences in terms of the effect sizes. If significant differences were to occur in terms of effect sizes, we could say that the comparisons we will make by comparing countries under the umbrella of online education would raise doubts in terms of generalizability. Moreover, no study has been found in the literature that is not based on a special approach or does not contain a specific technique conducted under the name of online education alone. For instance, one of the commonly used definitions is blended education which is defined as an educational model in which online education is combined with traditional education method (Colis & Moonen, 2001 ). Similarly, Rasmussen ( 2003 ) defines blended learning as “a distance education method that combines technology (high technology such as television, internet, or low technology such as voice e-mail, conferences) with traditional education and training.” Further, Kerres and Witt (2003) define blended learning as “combining face-to-face learning with technology-assisted learning.” As it is clearly observed, online education, which has a wider scope, includes many approaches.

As seen in Table 7 , the effect of online education on academic achievement does not differ according to online education approaches included in the studies. However, the effect of online education on academic achievement is the highest in Web Based Problem Solving Approach.

4 Conclusions and discussion

Considering the developments during the pandemics, it is thought that the diversity in online education applications as an interdisciplinary pragmatist field will increase, and the learning content and processes will be enriched with the integration of new technologies into online education processes. Another prediction is that more flexible and accessible learning opportunities will be created in online education processes, and in this way, lifelong learning processes will be strengthened. As a result, it is predicted that in the near future, online education and even digital learning with a newer name will turn into the main ground of education instead of being an alternative or having a support function in face-to-face learning. The lessons learned from the early period online learning experience, which was passed with rapid adaptation due to the Covid19 epidemic, will serve to develop this method all over the world, and in the near future, online learning will become the main learning structure through increasing its functionality with the contribution of new technologies and systems. If we look at it from this point of view, there is a necessity to strengthen online education.

In this study, the effect of online learning on academic achievement is at a moderate level. To increase this effect, the implementation of online learning requires support from teachers to prepare learning materials, to design learning appropriately, and to utilize various digital-based media such as websites, software technology and various other tools to support the effectiveness of online learning (Rolisca & Achadiyah, 2014 ). According to research conducted by Rahayu et al. ( 2017 ), it has been proven that the use of various types of software increases the effectiveness and quality of online learning. Implementation of online learning can affect students' ability to adapt to technological developments in that it makes students use various learning resources on the internet to access various types of information, and enables them to get used to performing inquiry learning and active learning (Hart et al., 2019 ; Prestiadi et al., 2019 ). In addition, there may be many reasons for the low level of effect in this study. The moderator variables examined in this study could be a guide in increasing the level of practical effect. However, the effect size did not differ significantly for all moderator variables. Different moderator analyzes can be evaluated in order to increase the level of impact of online education on academic success. If confounding variables that significantly change the effect level are detected, it can be spoken more precisely in order to increase this level. In addition to the technical and financial problems, the level of impact will increase if a few other difficulties are eliminated such as students, lack of interaction with the instructor, response time, and lack of traditional classroom socialization.

In addition, COVID-19 pandemic related social distancing has posed extreme difficulties for all stakeholders to get online as they have to work in time constraints and resource constraints. Adopting the online learning environment is not just a technical issue, it is a pedagogical and instructive challenge as well. Therefore, extensive preparation of teaching materials, curriculum, and assessment is vital in online education. Technology is the delivery tool and requires close cross-collaboration between teaching, content and technology teams (CoSN, 2020 ).

Online education applications have been used for many years. However, it has come to the fore more during the pandemic process. This result of necessity has brought with it the discussion of using online education instead of traditional education methods in the future. However, with this research, it has been revealed that online education applications are moderately effective. The use of online education instead of face-to-face education applications can only be possible with an increase in the level of success. This may have been possible with the experience and knowledge gained during the pandemic process. Therefore, the meta-analysis of experimental studies conducted in the coming years will guide us. In this context, experimental studies using online education applications should be analyzed well. It would be useful to identify variables that can change the level of impacts with different moderators. Moderator analyzes are valuable in meta-analysis studies (for example, the role of moderators in Karl Pearson's typhoid vaccine studies). In this context, each analysis study sheds light on future studies. In meta-analyses to be made about online education, it would be beneficial to go beyond the moderators determined in this study. Thus, the contribution of similar studies to the field will increase more.

The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of online education on academic achievement. In line with this purpose, the studies that analyze the effect of online education approaches on academic achievement have been included in the meta-analysis. The total sample size of the studies included in the meta-analysis is 1772. While the studies included in the meta-analysis were conducted in the US, Taiwan, Turkey, China, Philippines, Ireland, and Georgia, the studies carried out in Europe could not be reached. The reason may be attributed to that there may be more use of quantitative research methods from a positivist perspective in the countries with an American academic tradition. As a result of the study, it was found out that the effect size of online education on academic achievement (g = 0.409) was moderate. In the studies included in the present research, we found that online education approaches were more effective than traditional ones. However, contrary to the present study, the analysis of comparisons between online and traditional education in some studies shows that face-to-face traditional learning is still considered effective compared to online learning (Ahmad et al., 2016 ; Hamdani & Priatna, 2020 ; Wei & Chou, 2020 ). Online education has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of online learning compared to face-to-face learning in the classroom is the flexibility of learning time in online learning, the learning time does not include a single program, and it can be shaped according to circumstances (Lai et al., 2019 ). The next advantage is the ease of collecting assignments for students, as these can be done without having to talk to the teacher. Despite this, online education has several weaknesses, such as students having difficulty in understanding the material, teachers' inability to control students, and students’ still having difficulty interacting with teachers in case of internet network cuts (Swan, 2007 ). According to Astuti et al ( 2019 ), face-to-face education method is still considered better by students than e-learning because it is easier to understand the material and easier to interact with teachers. The results of the study illustrated that the effect size (g = 0.409) of online education on academic achievement is of medium level. Therefore, the results of the moderator analysis showed that the effect of online education on academic achievement does not differ in terms of country, lecture, class level, and online education approaches variables. After analyzing the literature, several meta-analyses on online education were published (Bernard et al., 2004 ; Machtmes & Asher, 2000 ; Zhao et al., 2005 ). Typically, these meta-analyzes also include the studies of older generation technologies such as audio, video, or satellite transmission. One of the most comprehensive studies on online education was conducted by Bernard et al. ( 2004 ). In this study, 699 independent effect sizes of 232 studies published from 1985 to 2001 were analyzed, and face-to-face education was compared to online education, with respect to success criteria and attitudes of various learners from young children to adults. In this meta-analysis, an overall effect size close to zero was found for the students' achievement (g +  = 0.01).

In another meta-analysis study carried out by Zhao et al. ( 2005 ), 98 effect sizes were examined, including 51 studies on online education conducted between 1996 and 2002. According to the study of Bernard et al. ( 2004 ), this meta-analysis focuses on the activities done in online education lectures. As a result of the research, an overall effect size close to zero was found for online education utilizing more than one generation technology for students at different levels. However, the salient point of the meta-analysis study of Zhao et al. is that it takes the average of different types of results used in a study to calculate an overall effect size. This practice is problematic because the factors that develop one type of learner outcome (e.g. learner rehabilitation), particularly course characteristics and practices, may be quite different from those that develop another type of outcome (e.g. learner's achievement), and it may even cause damage to the latter outcome. While mixing the studies with different types of results, this implementation may obscure the relationship between practices and learning.

Some meta-analytical studies have focused on the effectiveness of the new generation distance learning courses accessed through the internet for specific student populations. For instance, Sitzmann and others (Sitzmann et al., 2006 ) reviewed 96 studies published from 1996 to 2005, comparing web-based education of job-related knowledge or skills with face-to-face one. The researchers found that web-based education in general was slightly more effective than face-to-face education, but it is insufficient in terms of applicability ("knowing how to apply"). In addition, Sitzmann et al. ( 2006 ) revealed that Internet-based education has a positive effect on theoretical knowledge in quasi-experimental studies; however, it positively affects face-to-face education in experimental studies performed by random assignment. This moderator analysis emphasizes the need to pay attention to the factors of designs of the studies included in the meta-analysis. The designs of the studies included in this meta-analysis study were ignored. This can be presented as a suggestion to the new studies that will be conducted.

Another meta-analysis study was conducted by Cavanaugh et al. ( 2004 ), in which they focused on online education. In this study on internet-based distance education programs for students under 12 years of age, the researchers combined 116 results from 14 studies published between 1999 and 2004 to calculate an overall effect that was not statistically different from zero. The moderator analysis carried out in this study showed that there was no significant factor affecting the students' success. This meta-analysis used multiple results of the same study, ignoring the fact that different results of the same student would not be independent from each other.

In conclusion, some meta-analytical studies analyzed the consequences of online education for a wide range of students (Bernard et al., 2004 ; Zhao et al., 2005 ), and the effect sizes were generally low in these studies. Furthermore, none of the large-scale meta-analyzes considered the moderators, database quality standards or class levels in the selection of the studies, while some of them just referred to the country and lecture moderators. Advances in internet-based learning tools, the pandemic process, and increasing popularity in different learning contexts have required a precise meta-analysis of students' learning outcomes through online learning. Previous meta-analysis studies were typically based on the studies, involving narrow range of confounding variables. In the present study, common but significant moderators such as class level and lectures during the pandemic process were discussed. For instance, the problems have been experienced especially in terms of eligibility of class levels in online education platforms during the pandemic process. It was found that there is a need to study and make suggestions on whether online education can meet the needs of teachers and students.

Besides, the main forms of online education in the past were to watch the open lectures of famous universities and educational videos of institutions. In addition, online education is mainly a classroom-based teaching implemented by teachers in their own schools during the pandemic period, which is an extension of the original school education. This meta-analysis study will stand as a source to compare the effect size of the online education forms of the past decade with what is done today, and what will be done in the future.

Lastly, the heterogeneity test results of the meta-analysis study display that the effect size does not differ in terms of class level, country, online education approaches, and lecture moderators.

*Studies included in meta-analysis

Ahmad, S., Sumardi, K., & Purnawan, P. (2016). Komparasi Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Antara Pembelajaran Menggunakan Sistem Pembelajaran Online Terpadu Dengan Pembelajaran Klasikal Pada Mata Kuliah Pneumatik Dan Hidrolik. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 2 (2), 286–292.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. Theory and Practice of Online Learning, 2 , 15–44. Retrieved on the 11th of September, 2020 from https://eddl.tru.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/01_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf

Arat, T., & Bakan, Ö. (2011). Uzaktan eğitim ve uygulamaları. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksek Okulu Dergisi , 14 (1–2), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.540741

Astuti, C. C., Sari, H. M. K., & Azizah, N. L. (2019). Perbandingan Efektifitas Proses Pembelajaran Menggunakan Metode E-Learning dan Konvensional. Proceedings of the ICECRS, 2 (1), 35–40.

*Atici, B., & Polat, O. C. (2010). Influence of the online learning environments and tools on the student achievement and opinions. Educational Research and Reviews, 5 (8), 455–464. Retrieved on the 11th of October, 2020 from https://academicjournals.org/journal/ERR/article-full-text-pdf/4C8DD044180.pdf

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta- analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 3 (74), 379–439. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003379

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis . Wiley.

Book   Google Scholar  

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., & Rothstein, H. (2007). Meta-analysis: Fixed effect vs. random effects . UK: Wiley.

Card, N. A. (2011). Applied meta-analysis for social science research: Methodology in the social sciences . Guilford.

Google Scholar  

*Carreon, J. R. (2018 ). Facebook as integrated blended learning tool in technology and livelihood education exploratory. Retrieved on the 1st of October, 2020 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1197714.pdf

Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) . Retrieved on the 11th of September, 2020 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED489533.pdf

*Ceylan, V. K., & Elitok Kesici, A. (2017). Effect of blended learning to academic achievement. Journal of Human Sciences, 14 (1), 308. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4141

*Chae, S. E., & Shin, J. H. (2016). Tutoring styles that encourage learner satisfaction, academic engagement, and achievement in an online environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1371–1385. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1009472

*Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students’ learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Educational Technology and Society, 17 (4), 352–365. Retrieved on the 11th of September, 2020 from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gwo_Jen_Hwang/publication/287529242_An_Augmented_Reality-based_Mobile_Learning_System_to_Improve_Students'_Learning_Achievements_and_Motivations_in_Natural_Science_Inquiry_Activities/links/57198c4808ae30c3f9f2c4ac.pdf

Chiao, H. M., Chen, Y. L., & Huang, W. H. (2018). Examining the usability of an online virtual tour-guiding platform for cultural tourism education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 23 (29–38), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2018.05.002

Chizmar, J. F., & Walbert, M. S. (1999). Web-based learning environments guided by principles of good teaching practice. Journal of Economic Education, 30 (3), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.2307/1183061

Cleophas, T. J., & Zwinderman, A. H. (2017). Modern meta-analysis: Review and update of methodologies . Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55895-0

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Observation.  Research Methods in Education, 6 , 396–412. Retrieved on the 11th of September, 2020 from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nabil_Ashraf2/post/How_to_get_surface_potential_Vs_Voltage_curve_from_CV_and_GV_measurements_of_MOS_capacitor/attachment/5ac6033cb53d2f63c3c405b4/AS%3A612011817844736%401522926396219/download/Very+important_C-V+characterization+Lehigh+University+thesis.pdf

Colis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible Learning in a Digital World: Experiences and Expectations. Open & Distance Learning Series . Stylus Publishing.

CoSN. (2020). COVID-19 Response: Preparing to Take School Online. CoSN. (2020). COVID-19 Response: Preparing to Take School Online. Retrieved on the 3rd of September, 2021 from https://www.cosn.org/sites/default/files/COVID-19%20Member%20Exclusive_0.pdf

Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, USA: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807002

Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P. T., & Altman, D. G. (2008). Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses . In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (pp. 243–296). Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.ch9

Demiralay, R., Bayır, E. A., & Gelibolu, M. F. (2016). Öğrencilerin bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri ile çevrimiçi öğrenmeye hazır bulunuşlukları ilişkisinin incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5 (1), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2017.10

Dinçer, S. (2014). Eğitim bilimlerinde uygulamalı meta-analiz. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 2014(1), 1–133. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegem.001

*Durak, G., Cankaya, S., Yunkul, E., & Ozturk, G. (2017). The effects of a social learning network on students’ performances and attitudes. European Journal of Education Studies, 3 (3), 312–333. 10.5281/zenodo.292951

*Ercan, O. (2014). Effect of web assisted education supported by six thinking hats on students’ academic achievement in science and technology classes . European Journal of Educational Research, 3 (1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.3.1.9

Ercan, O., & Bilen, K. (2014). Effect of web assisted education supported by six thinking hats on students’ academic achievement in science and technology classes. European Journal of Educational Research, 3 (1), 9–23.

*Ercan, O., Bilen, K., & Ural, E. (2016). “Earth, sun and moon”: Computer assisted instruction in secondary school science - Achievement and attitudes. Issues in Educational Research, 26 (2), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.3.1.9

Field, A. P. (2003). The problems in using fixed-effects models of meta-analysis on real-world data. Understanding Statistics, 2 (2), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328031us0202_02

Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63 (3), 665–694. https://doi.org/10.1348/00071010x502733

Geostat. (2019). ‘Share of households with internet access’, National statistics office of Georgia . Retrieved on the 2nd September 2020 from https://www.geostat.ge/en/modules/categories/106/information-and-communication-technologies-usage-in-households

*Gwo-Jen, H., Nien-Ting, T., & Xiao-Ming, W. (2018). Creating interactive e-books through learning by design: The impacts of guided peer-feedback on students’ learning achievements and project outcomes in science courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society., 21 (1), 25–36. Retrieved on the 2nd of October, 2020 https://ae-uploads.uoregon.edu/ISTE/ISTE2019/PROGRAM_SESSION_MODEL/HANDOUTS/112172923/CreatingInteractiveeBooksthroughLearningbyDesignArticle2018.pdf

Hamdani, A. R., & Priatna, A. (2020). Efektifitas implementasi pembelajaran daring (full online) dimasa pandemi Covid-19 pada jenjang Sekolah Dasar di Kabupaten Subang. Didaktik: Jurnal Ilmiah PGSD STKIP Subang, 6 (1), 1–9.

Hart, C. M., Berger, D., Jacob, B., Loeb, S., & Hill, M. (2019). Online learning, offline outcomes: Online course taking and high school student performance. Aera Open, 5(1).

*Hayes, J., & Stewart, I. (2016). Comparing the effects of derived relational training and computer coding on intellectual potential in school-age children. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (3), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12114

Horton, W. K. (2000). Designing web-based training: How to teach anyone anything anywhere anytime (Vol. 1). Wiley Publishing.

*Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., & Chen, C. C. (2012). An online game approach for improving students’ learning performance in web-based problem-solving activities. Computers and Education, 59 (4), 1246–1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.009

*Kert, S. B., Köşkeroğlu Büyükimdat, M., Uzun, A., & Çayiroğlu, B. (2017). Comparing active game-playing scores and academic performances of elementary school students. Education 3–13, 45 (5), 532–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2016.1140800

*Lai, A. F., & Chen, D. J. (2010). Web-based two-tier diagnostic test and remedial learning experiment. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 8 (1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.4018/jdet.2010010103

*Lai, A. F., Lai, H. Y., Chuang W. H., & Wu, Z.H. (2015). Developing a mobile learning management system for outdoors nature science activities based on 5e learning cycle. Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning, ICEL. Proceedings of the International Association for Development of the Information Society (IADIS) International Conference on e-Learning (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, July 21–24, 2015). Retrieved on the 14th November 2020 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562095.pdf

Lai, C. H., Lin, H. W., Lin, R. M., & Tho, P. D. (2019). Effect of peer interaction among online learning community on learning engagement and achievement. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 17 (1), 66–77.

Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . Oxford University.

*Liu, K. P., Tai, S. J. D., & Liu, C. C. (2018). Enhancing language learning through creation: the effect of digital storytelling on student learning motivation and performance in a school English course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66 (4), 913–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9592-z

Machtmes, K., & Asher, J. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 14 (1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640009527043

Makowski, D., Piraux, F., & Brun, F. (2019). From experimental network to meta-analysis: Methods and applications with R for agronomic and environmental sciences. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024_1696-1

* Meyers, C., Molefe, A., & Brandt, C. (2015). The Impact of the" Enhancing Missouri's Instructional Networked Teaching Strategies"(eMINTS) Program on Student Achievement, 21st-Century Skills, and Academic Engagement--Second-Year Results . Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Retrieved on the 14 th November, 2020 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562508.pdf

OECD. (2020). ‘A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020 ’. https://doi.org/10.26524/royal.37.6

Pecoraro, V. (2018). Appraising evidence . In G. Biondi-Zoccai (Ed.), Diagnostic meta-analysis: A useful tool for clinical decision-making (pp. 99–114). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78966-8_9

Pigott, T. (2012). Advances in meta-analysis . Springer.

Pillay, H. , Irving, K., & Tones, M. (2007). Validation of the diagnostic tool for assessing Tertiary students’ readiness for online learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 26 (2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310821

Prestiadi, D., Zulkarnain, W., & Sumarsono, R. B. (2019). Visionary leadership in total quality management: efforts to improve the quality of education in the industrial revolution 4.0. In the 4th International Conference on Education and Management (COEMA 2019). Atlantis Press

Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: a case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33 (2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2000.10782307

Rahayu, F. S., Budiyanto, D., & Palyama, D. (2017). Analisis penerimaan e-learning menggunakan technology acceptance model (Tam)(Studi Kasus: Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta). Jurnal Terapan Teknologi Informasi, 1 (2), 87–98.

Rasmussen, R. C. (2003). The quantity and quality of human interaction in a synchronous blended learning environment . Brigham Young University Press.

*Ravenel, J., T. Lambeth, D., & Spires, B. (2014). Effects of computer-based programs on mathematical achievement scores for fourth-grade students. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, 10 (1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.10.1.2830

Rolisca, R. U. C., & Achadiyah, B. N. (2014). Pengembangan media evaluasi pembelajaran dalam bentuk online berbasis e-learning menggunakan software wondershare quiz creator dalam mata pelajaran akuntansi SMA Brawijaya Smart School (BSS). Jurnal Pendidikan Akuntansi Indonesia, 12(2).

Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effective- ness of Web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis . Personnel Psychology, 59 (3), 623–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x

Stewart, D. W., & Kamins, M. A. (2001). Developing a coding scheme and coding study reports. In M. W. Lipsey & D. B. Wilson (Eds.), Practical meta­analysis: Applied social research methods series (Vol. 49, pp. 73–90). Sage.

Swan, K. (2007). Research on online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11 (1), 55–59.

*Sung, H. Y., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, Y. C. (2016). Development of a mobile learning system based on a collaborative problem-posing strategy. Interactive Learning Environments, 24 (3), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.867889

Tsagris, M., & Fragkos, K. C. (2018). Meta-analyses of clinical trials versus diagnostic test accuracy studies. In G. Biondi-Zoccai (Ed.), Diagnostic meta-analysis: A useful tool for clinical decision-making (pp. 31–42). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78966-8_4

UNESCO. (2020, Match 13). COVID-19 educational disruption and response. Retrieved on the 14 th November 2020 from https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-emergencies/ coronavirus-school-closures

Usta, E. (2011a). The effect of web-based learning environments on attitudes of students regarding computer and internet. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28 (262–269), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.051

Usta, E. (2011b). The examination of online self-regulated learning skills in web-based learning environments in terms of different variables. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10 (3), 278–286. Retrieved on the 14th November 2020 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ944994.pdf

Vrasidas, C. & MsIsaac, M. S. (2000). Principles of pedagogy and evaluation for web-based learning. Educational Media International, 37 (2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/095239800410405

*Wang, C. H., & Chen, C. P. (2013). Effects of facebook tutoring on learning english as a second language. Proceedings of the International Conference e-Learning 2013, (2009), 135–142. Retrieved on the 15th November 2020 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562299.pdf

Wei, H. C., & Chou, C. (2020). Online learning performance and satisfaction: Do perceptions and readiness matter? Distance Education, 41 (1), 48–69.

*Yu, F. Y. (2019). The learning potential of online student-constructed tests with citing peer-generated questions. Interactive Learning Environments, 27 (2), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1458040

*Yu, F. Y., & Chen, Y. J. (2014). Effects of student-generated questions as the source of online drill-and-practice activities on learning . British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (2), 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12036

*Yu, F. Y., & Pan, K. J. (2014). The effects of student question-generation with online prompts on learning. Educational Technology and Society, 17 (3), 267–279. Retrieved on the 15th November 2020 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.565.643&rep=rep1&type=pdf

*Yu, W. F., She, H. C., & Lee, Y. M. (2010). The effects of web-based/non-web-based problem-solving instruction and high/low achievement on students’ problem-solving ability and biology achievement. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47 (2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703291003718927

Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B, Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005). A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107 (8). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00544.x

*Zhong, B., Wang, Q., Chen, J., & Li, Y. (2017). Investigating the period of switching roles in pair programming in a primary school. Educational Technology and Society, 20 (3), 220–233. Retrieved on the 15th November 2020 from https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/18946/1/ETS-20-3-220.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Primary Education, Ministry of Turkish National Education, Mersin, Turkey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hakan Ulum .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ulum, H. The effects of online education on academic success: A meta-analysis study. Educ Inf Technol 27 , 429–450 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10740-8

Download citation

Received : 06 December 2020

Accepted : 30 August 2021

Published : 06 September 2021

Issue Date : January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10740-8

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

• Online education
• Student achievement
• Academic success
• Meta-analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Cornell Chronicle

• Architecture & Design
• Arts & Humanities
• Business, Economics & Entrepreneurship
• Computing & Information Sciences
• Energy, Environment & Sustainability
• Food & Agriculture
• Global Reach
• Health, Nutrition & Medicine
• Law, Government & Public Policy
• Life Sciences & Veterinary Medicine
• Physical Sciences & Engineering
• Social & Behavioral Sciences
• Coronavirus
• News & Events
• Public Engagement
• New York City
• Photos of the Day
• Big Red Sports
• Freedom of Expression
• Student Life
• Around Cornell
• All Stories
• In the News
• Expert Quotes
• Cornellians

Face-to-face interaction enhances learning, innovation

By james dean.

Whether virtual or in-person learning is better may be the wrong question.

New Cornell psychology research finds that sitting face-to-face, rather than shoulder-to-shoulder, enhances learning and innovation – even when we’re learning complex physical skills that should be harder from that perspective.

In experiments, children and adults solved a complex visual and spatial problem – opening a puzzle box – more quickly after they watched a model demonstrate a solution face-to-face, compared with others who observed from next to or perpendicular to the model.

Across ages, test subjects performed better when they could observe not only an instructor’s hands but also their eyes, gaze and facial movements. The researchers propose that face-to-face interaction transmits valuable social information about goals and motivations in addition to visual information about the task.

“This shared mental perspective might be more important for some types of learning than sharing a common visual perspective,” said Ashley Ransom , M.A. ’18, a doctoral student in the field of developmental psychology. “Face-to-face interaction might facilitate creativity and innovation rather than strict mimicry of the teacher.”

Ransom is the lead author with Dr. Brian LaGrant ’17, M.D. ’21, of “ Face-to-Face Learning Enhances the Social Transmission of Information ,” published Feb. 25 in PLOS ONE. Adam K. Anderson , professor in the Department of Psychology and in the College of Human Ecology (CHE), and Eve De Rosa , associate professor of psychology and a Rebecca Q. and James C. Morgan Sesquicentennial Fellow in CHE, and the dean of faculty, are senior authors. Anthony Spiteri, a former postdoctoral fellow in Anderson and De Rosa’s Affect and Cognition Lab , and Tamar Kushnir, now a professor at Duke University, are co-authors.

Learning a new visuospatial task, such as how to tie a knot or play an instrument, is thought to require us to adopt the teachers’ perspectives, to try to see the world through their eyes. However, the new research suggests it might also be important to actually see their eyes.

Past studies have shown that imitating specific steps is easier when learners see what an instructor sees – for example, watching a video of hands building a circuit board. As we move from that 0-degree viewpoint to an opposite angle at 180 degrees, our brains must employ “mental rotation” to understand a model’s movements as meaning left or right, forward or backward.

As a result, the researchers said, learning to open a puzzle box should be more difficult when observing someone face-to-face. But the study found otherwise.

“Remarkably, the simple act of sitting across from someone can help overcome limitations in shared visual perspective,” the authors wrote. “Face-to-face learning overrode the inherent difficulty of taking another’s visual perspective.”

The colorful puzzle box – also called an artificial fruit box when first developed for studies with chimpanzees – contained four layers requiring 12 steps to open, including removing bolts and panels, moving sliders and turning screws. There were multiple possible solutions, and the model incorporated superfluous movements in their demonstration to help measure imitation.

The researchers randomly assigned 36 children ages 4 to 6, and 57 university students ages 18 to 27, to watch demonstrations from 0-, 90- or 180-degree orientations relative to the model. The subjects then got three tries to open the box from whatever position they preferred.

By one standard, face-to-face learners were less successful: They imitated less faithfully than participants who couldn’t directly see faces. But in accomplishing the real goal of opening the puzzle box, they were faster and more likely to come up with new solutions rather than relying on the model’s solution.

“They weren’t as good at mimicking, but there’s a benefit to that because it facilitated discovery,” Anderson said. “A social perspective – looking at people and where they look – allowed children and adults to become better learners at the condition that should have been the most challenging.”

Adults overall were more likely to copy the model’s solution and to choose to solve the puzzle box from the teacher’s vantage point. Children, in contrast, came up with new solutions and often remained in their original position.

Those results suggested adults had become better rote learners but less innovative with time and more formal education.

“Adults focused on recreating the model’s actions rather than the end result,” the authors wrote. “Children are more flexible learners than adults and engage in more exploration during learning.”

The research was supported by a grant awarded to De Rosa from the State University of New York’s Empire Innovation Program.

Media Contact

Gillian smith.

Get Cornell news delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like

Gallery Heading

Essays About Online Learning: Top 6 Examples And Prompts

If you are writing essays about online learning, you can start by reading some essay examples and prompts in this article. 

People often regard online learning as kids stuck at home, glued to their devices. However, there is so much more to it than this simplistic concept. Many parents may see it as an “easy way out” for students to slack off on their studies while still passing their classes, but online learning has not reached its full potential yet. 

It has dramatically impacted how education is handled globally, for better or worse. It has forced teachers to take on extra work , while students say it has helped reduce their stress levels. It is undoubtedly a contentious topic. 

If you need help writing an essay about online learning, here are some essay examples you can use for inspiration.

1. Disabled Students Urge Universities To Make Online Learning More Accessible by Lucia Posteraro

2. why are more and more students taking online classes by perry mullins, 3. the benefits of online learning: 7 advantages of online degrees by kelsey miller, 4. why is online learning important by clare scott, 5. is online learning as effective as face-to-face learning by kelli wilkins, 6. i’m a high school student. i don’t want online learning to end. by rory selinger, prompts on essays about online learning, 1. how has online learning affected you, 2. compare and contrast online and in-person classes., 3. what can you learn from an online setup, 4. what is the future of online learning, 5. which is better- online or face-to-face learning, 6. can online learning be sustained long-term.

“Autism may hinder the ability to follow complex conversations, especially with background noise – but Charli’s lectures did not have subtitles. Moreover, extensions for group projects were too short for her extenuating circumstances.’

Posteraro tells the stories of students who want online learning to be more accessible. For example, Charli, a student with autism, was greatly affected by the transition from in-person to online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, online learning has not catered to her special needs, so she urges schools to take action to make online education more inclusive. You might also be interested in these essays about knowledge .

“The result of taking online classes is that students who take them become more proficient and comfortable with using computers. Students can learn to connect with one another online and with information in meaningful and useful ways. With that said more and more students are taking online classes because it’s the best way to save money work at your own pace and not have to be stressed about going to class.”

In his essay, Mullins discusses why more students prefer online learning. First, it lessens expenses, as students learn from the comfort of their rooms. Second, it helps students avert the fear of talking to strangers face-to-face, helping them communicate better. 

“It’s clear, then, that learning online helps prepare professionals for this shift toward online work. Below, explore what online courses entail, explore seven key benefits, and get the advice you need to determine if online courses are right for you.”

Miller briefly explains what online learning is, then proceeds to discuss its advantages. These include a self-paced schedule, improved communication, and new technical skills. However, he reminds readers that everyone is different; regardless of the benefits, they should only choose online learning if they believe it will work for them.

“Boil it right down and the answer is simple: change is constant. You must move with it. The true beauty of online learning is that it lends itself perfectly to your lifestyle. By its very nature, it can fit around you. Also, no longer are we taught how to do a job, it’s usually a case of figuring it out for yourself—and that’s where online learning can amplify your skills.”

Scott presents the importance of online learning. Similar to Miller, she mentions self-paced, giving students new skills. However, the most important lesson is that change is constant. Online learning exemplifies this precept, and these skills help us move along.

“While both ways of learning have advantages and disadvantages, what is more effective is based off of the student themselves. Students can weigh the costs and benefits between online learning and face-to-face learning. They can decide for themselves what would be best for them. Online learning can be as effective as face-to-face learning if the student is committed to putting their time and effort to study alone.”

Wilkins questions the notion that online learning is inferior to a face-to-face classes. She begins by listing the benefits of online classes, including comfort and easier schedules, as with Miller and Scott. However, she also mentions its disadvantages, such as the possibility of students being distracted and a lack of bonding between classmates. But, of course, it’s all up to the student in the end: they should decide which type of education they prefer.

“One thing I hope people now realize is that education is not a one-size-fits-all model. While the self-disciplined nature of remote learning is not for everyone, it has allowed students like me to flourish unimpeded by the challenges presented by typical classroom settings.”

A 14-year-old student, Selinger wishes to continue her education online as schools return to physical classes amid the pandemic. She discusses the relief she feels from the lack of peer pressure, judgment, and a rigorous schedule. Controlling your study schedule relieves students of pressure, and Selinger believes this is optimal for success. She believes online learning opens a path to be better rather than to “return to normal.”

In this essay, you can write about your experience of online learning. Whether you have had online coursework from school or college or taken an online course for your own interests, we’ve all had some experience learning online. Discuss how you benefited from online learning and the challenges you faced. For a compelling essay, conduct interviews to back up your experience by showing others who felt the same way.

Create an exciting comparative essay between online and in-person learning. You can compare and contrast the experiences and show the positives and negatives of each. Start by making a list or Venn diagram, and organize your essay. Include the structure, advantages, and disadvantages of each method of learning. 

Online learning can teach you some skills to succeed in the real world. In this essay, write about the unique skills you can gain from online learning. Perhaps you learn valuable IT skills, virtual note-taking, and basic administrative skills. Then, look into how these skills can benefit you in future studies or when trying to step into a new career path. 

We have barely scratched the surface of technology. In this essay, look to the future and imagine how online education will look. Then, research up-and-coming online learning technologies and see what will come next. Will the development of more online learning technology benefit students? Look into this exciting topic for an engaging discussion.

For this topic, writing an excellent argumentative essay is easy. First, from research and your own experience, list the benefits and downsides of each type of learning and determine which is more effective. Then, you can use Google and the essay examples above to support your argument.  

Online learning is most commonly used for students who are ill or during situations such as a global pandemic. It is meant to be temporary; however, can schools stick to a completely-online method of instruction? Include some advantages and disadvantages of online learning in your essay.

Tip: If writing an essay sounds like a lot of work, simplify it. Write a simple 5 paragraph essay instead.

If you’re still stuck, check out our general resource of essay writing topics .

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

Home Essay Examples Education Online Vs. Traditional Classes

Online Versus Face-to-face Learning

• Category Education
• Subcategory Learning
• Topic Online Vs. Traditional Classes

This topic is one of the most debatable ones amongst many students, whether they select the online or face-to-face learning, these both options stand in rivalry next to one another since a majority of the people choose the latter option as per their comfort of understanding. In a detailed context, numerous people have always been loyal to their old school traditional ways of being taught in a classroom Face-to-face. Online learning is a new facility that has been denied by a plethora of learners. Online Learning in competition with Face-to-face learning, a SIGNIFICANT percentage of people choose online learning due to several reasons which CONSIST of disabled, people suffering from Anthropophobia and extreme anxiety issues. However, Face-to-Face learning is still the trend due to easy and understandable learning. people condemn online learning due to the difficulties faced in perceiving information, hence, creating understanding issues, which is why face-to-face is supported by the Capital.

A student learning from face to face learning can evaluate and apprehend the situation better than the ones studying online. Every peer has his own point of view allowing him to enhance his knowledge and add on to his professional experiences. Being totally unbiased in this situation as many have their own reasons to choose their methods of learning but online or distant education does not allow us to perceive the entire idea of a CONTEXT as studying in a contextual environment would. Although experienced knowledge can VARY from person to person but online information is not always reliable.

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

Moreover, exposure to the world is an important element in grooming one’s personality and push them into their professional lives. Face-to-Face learning helps a student enrich his information and make memorable memories. It helps in building his manners, gestures, tone, language, and volume of voice. a classroom helps a student grow his social life out. The most critical thing about online learning is that it tricks the students into thinking they have acquired the knowledge completely, which eventually leads them into misjudging themselves and ending up with a poor result. In Face to Face learning, an individual gets to experience the ideology of the subject and interact with one another, creating a state of more opportunities and more ways to grab the information by learning from one another, letting them think out of the box.

One of the reasons why people support online learning is because they believe it’s more reliable. Personally, I would support face to face learning. I believe that online learning cannot teach a student lessons’ which the traditional classroom can. A student misses out on many fun activities alongside studying which can end in depression. Lacking a social life isn’t something that can yield good results out of a student. Our teacher’s personal experiences and their way of teaching also affect how a student grasps knowledge. Some students also feel content with the fact that their teachers have gotten a study plan along with a schedule they can follow without any problems. The amount of trust they put in that plan, mentally ease them up enough to create a level of satisfaction among them.

In Conclusion, the major advantage of online learning is easy access to education by all kinds of students, people still recommend the traditional Face-to-Face learning due to effective results and traditions. Such commitment of timely classes and structured routines implements discipline. Therefore, E-Learning is a biased practice which might have a negative impact.

We have 98 writers available online to start working on your essay just NOW!

Related Topics

Related essays.

By clicking "Send essay" you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

By clicking "Receive essay" you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

We can edit this one and make it plagiarism-free in no time

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

The New York Times

The learning network | is online learning as good as face-to-face learning.

Is Online Learning as Good as Face-to-Face Learning?

Questions about issues in the news for students 13 and older.

• See all Student Opinion »

Some experts estimate that more than a million students in the United States, from kindergarten through 12th grade, are taking courses online. Have you ever taken a class for credit online? What was the experience like? In general, do you think K-12 students can learn as much in an online course as they can in a traditional class? Why or why not? What makes for a good online course, in your opinion?

In “More Pupils Are Learning Online, Fueling Debate on Quality,” Trip Gabriel writes:

Jack London was the subject in Daterrius Hamilton’s online English 3 course. In a high school classroom packed with computers, he read a brief biography of London with single-paragraph excerpts from the author’s works. But the curriculum did not require him, as it had generations of English students, to wade through a tattered copy of “Call of the Wild” or “To Build a Fire.” Mr. Hamilton, who had failed English 3 in a conventional classroom and was hoping to earn credit online to graduate, was asked a question about the meaning of social Darwinism. He pasted the question into Google and read a summary of a Wikipedia entry. He copied the language, spell-checked it and e-mailed it to his teacher. Mr. Hamilton, 18, is among the expanding ranks of students in kindergarten through Grade 12 — more than one million in the United States, by one estimate — taking online courses. Advocates of such courses say they allow schools to offer not only makeup courses, the fastest-growing area, but also a richer menu of electives and Advanced Placement classes when there are not enough students to fill a classroom. But critics say online education is really driven by a desire to spend less on teachers and buildings, especially as state and local budget crises force deep cuts to education. They note that there is no sound research showing that online courses at the K-12 level are comparable to face-to-face learning.

Students: Tell us about the experiences you’ve had with online learning. In general, do you think K-12 students can learn as much in an online course as they can in a traditional class? Why or why not? Do you tend to agree with online-learning advocates who say that this method allows schools to offer a richer menu of electives? Or do you tend to agree with critics who say that the popularity of these courses reflects a desire to save money on teachers in tough budgetary times? What makes for a good online course, in your opinion? (You might also read the related Room for Debate post in which five experts weigh in on this topic.)

Students 13 and older are invited to comment below. Please use only your first name. For privacy policy reasons, we will not publish student comments that include a last name.

Teachers: Here are 10 ways to teach with this feature.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Hi there, most definitely learning online can be more, not less effective, but it needs to be done differently. You can’t really just take the offline model and slap it online.

I recently did some ESL case studiesusing Facebook and Skype and before and after audio can be listened to here:

//englishoutthere.com/listen

After 16 years of learning English in China Jane still spoke like a beginner, after 18 hours of using our specially designed course content that required her to work in a new way with popular and free online technologies, she was speaking comfortably at intermediate level (up 3 levels).

Don’t believe me…have a listen…still don’t believe me…you can listen to every second of contact I had with her and read all of my contact notes and what she thought of the experience here:

Online classes seem like a good idea but those that take it would not be able to participate in athletics so they would most likely not get the daily recomended amount of physical activity.

Online classes are for more self motivated people. No one tells them to get on the computer and do their homework as if you were actually in the class and could ask questions right there when the problem was being presented.

Online classes do have its advantages. Most students already know how to use a computer, less discipline is needed, and less cost for the school district and for the parents. I would recommend online classes for students in 7th grade and up who are trying hard but struggling in a real class. However I feel that younger students should not take online classes. These students need the social interaction and discipline of a real classroom and teacher. Online courses should not be used to bail out grade-school students or students who don’t want to learn at all.

I haven’t personally taken a course online, but I have a couple friends that have and they all say the same thing: “It takes a lot more work on an individual basis, since you don’t have a teacher. You have to study a lot more and try to figure the material out on your own.” I would like to take an online course, but my school doesn’t offer them, sadly. I also think it is a good way for student to be in a more relaxed enviornment and feel a lot less stress than they normally would because they can really just get work done on their own basis.

As somebody who has taken online courses in the past, and somebody who still does, I have to say that they can be very helpful and can achieve similar quality to regular classrooms. It’s also more comfortable, since you can do the work more at your own pace and in your own home. If someone is actually dedicated to the course and wants to take it, they will want to learn and will be more responsible with it. However, plenty of students wouldn’t want to do work in an online class, (or any class,) so I don’t think it’s a good idea to make online classes a requirement in high school or let it really be a part of a normal high school environment. While it can be beneficial to somebody who wants to take it, it can be detrimental to somebody who needs to do the work and needs to learn but just doesn’t want to. There is really no way to really make sure they are doing the work themselves, and in face-to-face classes it is much easier to prevent this problem. I do think that if a student has failed a class more than once, they should be able to take an online class to get the credit. They should also be made available to students who want to take them, but they shouldn’t be able to replace any core classes that can be taken in a normal classroom setting.

In my opinion, online learning seems like it would be a bit complicated. I know that I need to be able to have a teacher answering all my questions so that i could understand somthing much more clearly. If i were to sign up for an online class, my grades would most likely drop because of the limited communication with not only my professor but with my students as well.

One pro of learning online is that it gives students an opportunity to learn in a different way. In our school, if a student fails a class they can go afterschool to take a class online. They can earn the credit for that class. The con is that with online programs available their will not be as many teachers needed. Teacher will lose their jobs. Learning online can be boring and a very tedious task. Students might be less interested to learn. I wouldn’t want an online course to be a requirement because it just makes more unnecessary work for students. I don’t want to be worrying about taking an online class. In my junior year, I have to worry about SATs, ACTs, regents and other things necessary for my future.

I have taken quite a few classes online. I really like that I can work at my own pace. I actually attended graduate school online to get my teaching credential. It would have been much more difficult to attend a regular school and deal with child care for my own children. I loved that I could work while they were sleeping, in the early morning or late evening.

I now prefer to do almost all of my learning online, but I know many people prefer face to face classes.

Sacha from Luria Learning

I think that face-to-face learning is a lot better than online learning, because you can ask the questions. You get a better feel for the topic you are learning. I personally like face-to-face learning, but I guess it realy depends on the person.

I think that both face- to- face learning and online learning are entirely different and both have their benefits and negatives. I think that face-to-face learning is a good way to take in and absorb information, and allows people to question what they don’t understand state and share their opinion as well as hear others’ takes on whatever the topic may be. Though learning through text is definately beneifical as it is written in plain black and white, there are always those specs of red to throw off and confuse the reader. I feel that learning through interaction helps because the way you maty interpret the text or read it can lose the true meaning and emotion behind events and subjects. I do on the other hand feel that sometimes getting correct and accurate information is better learned from written text epecially when it comes to news and historical events because in order to get the most accurate and updated information online sources are the way to go. Sometimes word of mouth doesn’t pass off the most recents updates, however with technology’s helping hand the internet holds centuries of information, and a world worth of knowlege with just a press of a few buttons and a click. Also learning online allows you to process the information on your own time and at your own pace, but learning face-to-face pushes you to work at deadlines and at a moderate pace where you are able to balance the workload and still be able to process what it is you are actually learning; it keeps you on track. So to say which is truly better and more favorable is hard for me to say, just like anything both have their pros and their cons, the one to outweigh the other in the pros- I don’t know. I personally prefer both but in different situations.

Interesting that most comments here are positive compared to Trip’s hatchet job on 4/5. I’m chair of the International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL.org) and wrote this response to Trip’s poorly written front page piece: //edreformer.com/2011/04/nytimes-gets-it-wrong-again/

Where allowed by state policy, k-12 online learning offers access to quality courses taught by effective teachers. There is no reason that all students in the US don’t have access to all AP and all foreign language courses as well as credit recovery options for poorly taught courses at their school.

The pros of online dating is that it will make home schooling a lot easier. If someone wants to home schooled then keeping up with the curriculum will become easier. Many students who fail classes also have the opportunity to pass the course online. Also you are able to take classes that your school doesn’t offer The cons of online learning is the lack of attention student gives it and the amount of things that you are actually learning. Just because you’re able to pass the tests online but this doesn’t mean that you are learning anything. Many people online take the classes at home with a lot of distractions. The students end up taking the courses but not learning anything in the process. I don’t mind if the online courses become a requirement in my school. The reason I don’t mind is because I never took one so I don’t know how these courses are. Once I take an online course I could have an opinion on it but right now I think it would be cool to experience.

I am currently a junior in high school and I am taking two online courses on top a full course load. The first of my online classes in AP Environmental Science. I decided to take this course online because my high school did not offer any rigorous environmental learning courses (the best class offered is geophysics which is notorious for being the easiest way to get a science credit). I have found that the online course has not been as effective in teaching material compared to having the actual class experience, however online courses do allow students (such as myself) to pursue the subjects they are most interested in.

I haven’t really taken an online class but in my opinion, learning face-to-face. You learn so much more through face-to-face because you get the chance to ask questions about the subject, like things that you do not get, or things that you might just want to know more. On the other hand, learning online doesn’t have that much advantages because you don’t have the chance to ask questions, you can basically take the class and just do the work, without actually knowing and learning what you do. For me, it would be so much better to learn face-to-face rather than in online courses.

I never took an online class, but I am actually not interested in it. I think that taking an online course does not have the advantages us students have learning face-to-face. I do prefer face-to-face because you may get into the topic more and do activities that vary so it helps you to learn the subject more. You can participate more and actually learn all together with the rest of the students and ask the teacher questions.

I have not taken an online course, but I have heard of them.I think that taking online courses has a greater variety of different courses and topics to take, but in my opinion I think face-to-face learning is more helpful. By learning face-to-face, you have the opportunity to ask the teach if you have any concerns or doubts. Online courses however, might not work the same. You may not have the same opportunity to ask questions and receive more help. Personally, I would prefer to take face-to-face course so I had the opportunity to ask for more help if I needed it, but I would also like to have a greater variety of courses.

Online courses can be disadvantageous for many students, and some not. But in my case, I have to learn with the “face-to-face” method. It is important to have a good relationship between a student and a teacher to make the course much better and productive. Chances are that the student would be more open-minded and do much more than just sitting in front of a computer… I think there would be more limits and pressure of choosing online courses than “face-to-face”.

No it isn’t. Online learning gives the student easier access to other sites when they should be working on one thing. Unless you restrict there movement on the internet to only that page or pages. I get more out of face to face learning than I would on the internet. You can’t have conversations with the internet about the problem as you can with a teacher.

No, I do not believe online learning is as good as face to face learning. You do not get proper assistance, and will not receive the right amount of discipline. Face to face, you get honest opinions and a bond can form, thus creating a better environment. Face to face is always going to be better than online learning.

Our new director came up with the idea of online learning. First, students were happy because that meant to have more time in the house than coming to the school. However, we later realized that online classes meant no more fun in high school. Although I haven’t experienced any online learning, I think that students can’t learn as much in an online course as they can in a traditional class. I say so because some students are better in self-studying, but there are many others who learn more while interacting with the classmates and teachers. Moreover, I like the idea of online learning, yet that’s all I like about it. The students would use their computers the whole day, which is bad to their health, and they might end up being antisocial because all they do is seat in the desk with a computer and study. I think that one of the charms of high school is to be able to have new relationships with people. To be able to interact with one another by exchanging ideas and thoughts. Nevertheless, with online learning, that would be hard. Anyways, what I want to say is that traditional classes are much better and they should just leave it the way it is.

I don’t think that online courses are as good as face-to-face classes. Well, I have never taken online courses but I have seen my cousin taken courses and what I have seen is that is a lot more difficult to communicate with the teacher because the teacher would go over the material very fast and leave you to do it all. Also, It takes a lot of work as an individual and you have to figure out things on your own. Besides the studies, the internet connection can be very slow and there can be times when it there are connection lags and in that moment the teacher can say something important but you miss it. I think that online courses are too complicated.

I do not think that online learning is better than face to face learning because you dont have the option to ask a question at anytime you want, which means there are some things that you cant learn.

As a student who has experienced both online learning and face to face, I can honestly say that face to face learning is a million times better than online. My grades, my personality, my lifestyle all changed when I did online learning, and not in a good way. I didn’t learn nearly as much as I needed too, and I missed the direct contact with teachers and students. Now, online learning might work for some, but for a large amount of my friends who were homeschooled with me, it was a horrible way of learning.

What's Next

Face To Face Vs. Online Learning Essay Example

Since the pandemic has started many schools across the country have used online learning to keep students learning but how does it compare to in person learning. Many schools have also provided in persion learning for kids who want to learn at schools. In Person instruction is more effective than digital learning because digital learning causes lack of motivation and students not learning property due to non direct contact with teachers.

Learning at home is every student's dream, but the setting creates an environment which causes lack of motivation and distractions. Schools that offer digital learning usually have the teacher setup a zoom or google meet meeting, this way the teacher can still interact with the students but not directly. Some students need direct contact with the teacher to learn properly, having direct contact with the teacher may give students motivation to learn. Listening at a teacher through a computer screen makes the lesson bland and there isn’t a good way to make a lesson interactive and engaging unless the student is In person. While at home students are exposed to infinite distractions that will cause them to lose focus in class. It is easier to not get distracted when the lessons are engaging, which causes less students to fail classes. For instance in California school districts around the San Francisco Bay Area reported that after the pandemic the percent of students that were failing 1 class or more spiked from 19% to 30% in the 2019-2020 school year second semester wherever student was digital as claimed by an article written by (The Washington Post). In another article written on (Online Learning Statistics on educationdata,org) a survey showed that college level students that were taking online courses, 42% of students reported having a lack of motivation for completion of class work. This may be due to In Person learning offering more motivation than digital learning according to the multiple studies conducted.

Secondly a major part of education is the educators themselves otherwise known as teachers, they are the ones responsible for the future of a whole generation of children. For teachers to be able to execute their Job to the best of their abilities, being able to see a student in person will help the teacher cater individually to each student's different learning needs. This is nearly impossible to do over a computer screen because students in digital learning are not able to have direct contact with their teacher. In another study conducted by (Jesscia Happened and colleagues at the American Institutes for Research and the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research) where they studied 1,224 9th graders in 17 public Chicago high schools that failed Algebra I, they found that the credit recovery rate for in person students were much higher than the credit recovery rates of students who were digital. This further shows that students being in person learning helps the teachers provide for the student better and also helps the student learn better.

Digital Students may argue that digital learning gives the student more flexibility and freedom. If digital learning is as good as people claim it to be, why didn't the education system switch to digital learning when the tech bubble popped in the late 1990s and 2000s? Brains of kids and teens are still developing as teens and still need adults for supervision. The rational part of the human brain doesn't develop fully till around the age of 25 for the majority of People, this means that up until someone's mid 20s they usually pick the choice they are comfortable with instead of the rational choice according to a article written by (University of Rochester Medical Center on Understanding the Teen Brain). This is also why there are age limits on voting, driving, drinking because children don’t make the rational choice. Secondly when teens grow up to be adults and get a real job they will not have the luxury of flexibility. When you are at a job you are expected to perform at your best for a certain amount of hours, in school it is very similar in the way that you have to complete the work with a deadline. In digital learning there is no sense in completing an assignment now when you could complete it later which developed a bad habit. There's too much freedom in digital learning and no restrictions. Freedom and flexibility is good but too much is not healthy.    

Schools should make in person school more common as the pandemic is ending and it is becoming safer everyday. Due to lack of motivation and learning though a computer screen some students can't learn properly digitally. Are you going to attend in person school in the 2021-2022 school year? The longer students stay in digital learning the harder it will be to adjust to in person school when it will be mandatory. Do you prefer digital or in person learning?

Related Samples

• Colleges and Employers Checking Social Media Essay Sample
• School Uniform Benefits Essay Sample
• Personal Essay Sample on STEM
• The Need for an Effective Agenda Essay Example
• Argumentative Essay Example: Handwriting is Not Work Efficient
• Essay Sample on Why College Is Necessary
• Essay Sample on Effective Student Learning
• The Importance of Standardize Tests Essay Example
• Should Students be required to Wear Uniforms? Essay Example
• Reflective Essay Example: Philosophy of Education

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Online Learning vs Face-to-face Learning (Free Essay Sample)

Studies show that seventy – three percent of students prefer online classes while twenty – seven percent like face to face. You may already know that when attending school, there are options for you to be physically present or virtually online, which people have a hard time making a choice. No matter what choice you make to take classes online or in-person, there will always be pros and cons. Although in-person and online learning allows you to take in schooling material, there are many similarities and difficulties with both methods.

While you may sit in front of a computer listening to your professor give a lecture, nonetheless physically being present in your class gives more of a hands-on experience. Showing up to class and engaging physically with your peers and instructor gives a more modern learning style. Although, when being active online, the problem is not being in the actual “presence” of an instructor. Still, both online and in-person class options allow you to gain knowledge. For the most part, being present with an instructor online is a better advantage because it works within your schedule, and you won’t have to worry about travel.

In addition, when attending class in person, the professor has a set scheduled time for the students to show up. On the other hand, if you are in an online course, you will not have a set time to join the class at any given part of the day. Also, both in-person and virtual classrooms have a set due date on any assignments that’s students have to complete, and if you don’t finish it on time, it will lead to points being taken. Equally, both versions of learning have proficient time management, keeping pupils if you are one up to date and on top assignments. But Working online gives you more time to work with any busy schedule.

Another thing,  group work is an essential factor when participating in class and online. When being present in a classroom environment, you can be more interactive with peers and be more action-oriented with completing an assignment. Likewise, in an online setting, group projects are completed with online discussions and scheduled meet-ups at places, for example, libraries, cafés, or the school campus. Even though virtual classes have a good foundation with peers discussions, in-person groups have a better advantage having more hands in approach to assignments and projects.

To sum it up, virtual and in-person classes have many similarities and differences. When being to type on time, it will be different if it’s online, just you checking in, but in an actual class, there are consequences. Attending classes plays a hefty portion in your school life when it’s an instructor teaching you in person, you get a different experience doing things in class rather than online. Meeting up with peers and working together bigs a better team effort for completing tasks. Online schools and in person have many opportunities for students who to attend what would you choose.

Related Samples

• Persuasive Essay on Too Much Homework
• Benefits And Disadvantages Of Organization Wellness Programs
• Thesis Statement Example: Education Is the Pathway to Success
• Persuasive Essay Example: We Must get a Swimming Pool at School
• College Athletes Should Not Be Paid Persuasive Essay Sample
• The Causes of College Stress Essay Example
• Balancing School and Work Personal Essay Example
• The 1619 Project Should Be Read In School Argumentative Essay Example
• Rhetorical Situations Essay Sample
• Year-Round School Essay Example

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

AZ Writing | Sample Essays, Example Research Papers and Tips

Free essay samples, research paper examples and academic writing tips for students

Online Learning vs Face-to-Face Learning Essay

Online learning is the type of education that takes place through the internet. It can be a supplementary course or a full program diploma or degree. In most cases, online learning is asynchronous since learners are not mandated to carry out their learning from the premises of the instructor.

Conversely, face to face learning is the traditional form of education where instructors and the students interact in a physical manner, in the same location and the same time. Notably, online learning is as good as face to face interaction. Learners are able to enjoy both asynchronous and synchronous model benefits.

One strength of online learning is that it takes both the forms of asynchronous model just like in traditional classes. In addition to asynchronous learning, it also synchronous education model. In asynchronous model, students and the instructor interact on a one to one basis and at the same time Secondly, online learning promotes retention of students, enabling them to become consisted with their studies to the end. The retention of students in online classes is at the rate of 60%, which is above average. The high retention is a result of being able to control class clashes and time to do other activities comfortably. Notably, the retention rate in online learning is higher than that of traditional education. Lastly, online learning takes consideration of time management just like in traditional schools. It helps students to save their time to cutting off the time that would have been spent in moving from one class to another and also in traveling to school.

The critique associated with online learning is that instructors are limited from receiving student’s feedback. In the face to face learning, instructors gauge the level of student’s understanding through asking of questions and the receiving of prompt answers. Besides, instructors in the traditional classes are able to identify students experiencing curriculum problems and are able to react quickly either in the course of learning or after the end of the lecture. Notably, personal responses from students has a lot of advantages to their learning as it affects them positively by boosting their confidence in class and also in their class performance.

On the contrary, online learning has been improvised into allowing prompt responses from students through live chats. In such a forum, students are allowed to ask questions and instructors are also able to respond to them promptly. Besides, in the online learning, students are also able to form group discussions through chat rooms where they can expand further the knowledge received from the course. Such interacts are not different from the face to face interactions; therefore, positive results are guaranteed. In conclusion, online learning is as good as face to face interaction. Learners are able to enjoy both asynchronous and synchronous model benefits. Besides, learners are guaranteed academic excellence through the support given by instructors through live chats and the group discussion with other students online.

Online Learning and Face to Face Learning Essay Outline

• Title: Online learning is as good as face to face learning.
• Induction: Online learning is as good as face to face interaction. Learners are able to enjoy both asynchronous and synchronous model benefits.

Reason #1 Asynchronous learning Students and the instructor interact on a one to one basis and at the same time It also supports synchronous learning where students can catch up later with the instructors ‘lectures

Reason #2 Online learning promotes students’ retention The retention of students in online classes is at the rate of 60%, which is higher than that of traditional learning. The high retention is a result of being able to control class clashes and time to do other activities comfortably

Reason # 3 Online learning conserves time No time is wasted in moving from one class to another No time is wasted in traveling to school

Counterclaim Instructors are limited from receiving feedback from students in online learning. The truth is that technology has advanced and online classes have live chats where instructors interact one on one with students and receiving prompt feedback.

Conclusion Online learning is a good as face to face learning due to its convenience, asynchronous nature, and high retention rate.

If you are looking for someone to help write your essay on online learning and face-to-face learning from scratch, please get in touch with SmartWritingService essay writing services right now!

Home — Essay Samples — Education — E-Learning — Online Learning Vs Classroom Learning

Online Learning Vs Classroom Learning

• Categories: E-Learning

About this sample

Words: 792 |

Published: Mar 19, 2024

Words: 792 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction:, advantages of online learning:, disadvantages of online learning:, advantages of classroom learning:, disadvantages of classroom learning:, conclusion:.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1538 words

1 pages / 517 words

1 pages / 623 words

2 pages / 966 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on E-Learning

E-Learning Industry. (2021). E-learning Statistics and Facts For 2021. 5(4).

Most of the college using the electronic textbook which purchase from some website or using the PowerPoint nowadays. A traditional textbook is made by hundreds of pages of information, but all of this information is being write [...]

Online learning has gained prominence, offering flexibility and accessibility, but it also presents unique challenges to teacher-student relationships. This qualitative essay embarks on an in-depth exploration of teacher-student [...]

The emergence of e-learning has revolutionized the way we approach education. With the advancement of technology, traditional classroom settings are no longer the sole method of learning. E-learning, also known as online [...]

It is a reality that advancement of Information Technology has revolutionized the business practices and strategies of entire industries. The field of higher education is not an exception to this phenomenon. Colleges and [...]

In a study conducted on the effectiveness of the virtual classrooms and the traditional classroom, they concluded that the virtual classroom environment resulted in better mastery of course materials, greater student [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Home / Essay Samples / Education / Online Classes / Comparing the Contrast: Online Classes VS Face-to Face Classes

Comparing the Contrast: Online Classes VS Face-to Face Classes

• Category: Education
• Topic: Online Classes

Pages: 2 (786 words)

Views: 1401

• Downloads: -->

Benefits of Online Classes

• Flexibility: One of the most significant benefits of online classes is flexibility. Students can access course materials and complete assignments at their own pace and time, making it easier to balance academic pursuits with other commitments such as work or family.
• Access to Digital Resources: Online classes offer access to a wealth of digital resources, including e-books, online libraries, and video tutorials. This allows students to access information and materials beyond what may be available in a traditional classroom setting.
• Comfortable Learning Environment: Online classes allow students to learn from the comfort of their own homes or any other place with internet access. This can create a more relaxed and comfortable learning environment for students, leading to improved focus and retention.
• Lower Cost: Online classes are generally more affordable than traditional face-to-face classes as they do not require physical facilities or transportation costs. This can make higher education more accessible to individuals who may not have the financial means to attend traditional classes.

Disadvantages of Online Classes

• Limited Personal Interaction: Online classes lack the personal interaction that face-to-face classes provide, making it difficult for students to develop strong relationships with instructors and peers. This can limit opportunities for discussion, collaboration, and feedback.
• Lack of Structure: Online classes require self-discipline and motivation to stay on track, as students are responsible for managing their time and completing assignments without direct supervision. This lack of structure can be challenging for some students and may lead to procrastination or lack of engagement.
• Technical Issues: Online classes rely heavily on technology, such as high-speed internet and specific software. Technical issues can arise that can disrupt learning, and students may need to be proficient with technology to succeed.
• Cheating: Online classes can make it easier for students to cheat on assignments or exams, as there is less direct supervision and oversight.

Benefits of Face-to-Face Classes

• Personal Interaction: One of the most significant benefits of face-to-face classes is the personal interaction that takes place between students, instructors, and peers. This creates opportunities for discussion, collaboration, and feedback that are not possible in an online environment.
• Structured Learning Environment: Face-to-face classes provide a structured learning environment that can be beneficial for some students. This can help students stay on track, manage their time effectively, and stay engaged with the material.
• Active Learning: Face-to-face classes often incorporate active learning strategies such as group work, role-playing, and hands-on activities. This can enhance the learning experience and help students develop practical skills that may be difficult to learn in an online environment.
• Networking Opportunities: Face-to-face classes provide networking opportunities that can be beneficial for students' future careers. This can include building relationships with instructors and peers, attending events, and joining student organizations.

Disadvantages of Face-to-Face Classes

• Limited Flexibility: Face-to-face classes have set schedules and attendance requirements, which can be challenging for students who have other commitments such as work or family.
• Cost: Face-to-face classes can be more expensive than online classes as they require physical facilities, transportation costs, and materials such as textbooks.
• Commuting: Face-to-face classes require commuting to a physical location, which can be time-consuming and costly.
• Limited Access to Digital Resources: Face-to-face classes may have limited access to digital resources, such as e-books and online libraries, which are readily available in an online environment.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Importance of Education Essays

College Essays

After Graduation Essays

Graduation Essays

Brittany Stinson Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->