Running Head: FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

Face-to-Face Versus Online Learning

Connie Fox
Wayne State University

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

Introduction
Is learning online as effective as learning in traditional face-to-face (F2F) classrooms?
Online learning (OL) for the purposes of this paper includes everything from partially online
learning such as blended classrooms to fully online classes with no F2F interaction. F2F refers
to classrooms that may utilize a computer or other technology, but do not use any sort of online
learning platform. Depending on whom you ask there are five answers to this question: OL is
superior to F2F, they are equally effective, F2F is superior, the evidence is inconclusive, and it
depends.
There are many studies supporting both claims that online learning is either equally
effective as face-to-face learning or superior to it. Being able to work at ones own pace,
availability of more courses, and convenience are just a few of the many benefits of online
learning. There are quite a few opinion pieces available from those who believe F2F is superior;
citing issues such as lack of student-student or student-teacher interaction, increased difficulty
obtaining employment, and higher dropout rates to name a few. Some people believe that
evidence for online learning is inconclusive largely due to differing research methods and low
quality studies. Lastly, there are those who would say, It depends. There is a myriad of issues
to consider here, but some include the personal characteristics of the student. Are they selfmotivated, disciplined, have enough skill with technology? Is the course subject matter well
suited for an online environment?
There are many arguments to consider.

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

Annotated Bibliography
Adams, J. (2008). Understanding the factors limiting the acceptability of online courses and
degrees. International Journal on ELearning, 7(4), 573-587. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/docview/210336854/abstract?accountid=
14925
In this article, Dr. Adams reviews studies that discuss a new area of research. Do
gatekeepers view degrees that were earned in a F2F environment as being of equal
quality to those that were earned either partially or fully online? (Gatekeepers are people
who review credentials for various positions.) The studies say no. Having an online
degree can be a disadvantage when applying for graduate school, jobs that require
bachelors degrees (even partially online), university faculty positions, and health
professions. A national survey in the health profession by Adams, DeFleur and Heald
(2007), found that, Only 6% of health profession employers indicated a willingness to
hire an applicant with an online degree and only fifteen percent would accept an applicant
with half of his or her courses earned online (as cited in Adams, 2008, p. 577). Some of
the experiences listed as lacking include student-student and student-professor F2F
interaction, rigorous programs, academic honesty, and proper school accreditation.
I think some of these attitudes will change in the future. Many people still dont have
experience with online learning. When the people who earned their degrees in OL start
to be gatekeepers, this issue should start to not be as prevalent. Accredited universities
with actual campuses such as Wayne State are likely seen in higher regard than some of
the fully online universities. Also, professions that include areas of study such as
instructional technology likely have a high number of people who value educations that

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

utilized technology. Why include this review? It provides evidence that OL learning
may not be as effective as F2F learning in helping a student to secure a job.
Bejerano, A. (2008). Face-to-face or online instruction? Face-to-face is better. Communication
Currents: Knowledge for Communicating Well, 3(3). Retrieved from
http://www.natcom.org/commcurrentsarticle.aspx?id=884
In this theoretical piece, Bejerano cites many reasons why she believes online learning is
inferior to that of a traditional F2F classroom. One important aspect that I hadnt
considered yet, is lack of college community and its corresponding resources. This
includes peer and instructor F2F interaction, and the support system that goes with it.
This lack of community support can make students feel isolated and increase drop-out
rates. Another big issue is that the self-discipline and motivation required to be
successful in online classes can be really challenging. Some students may not have the
necessary self-management skills to be successful in this type of learning environment.
More forms of student support are needed. Lastly, some subjects may be better for OL
learning than others. Bejerano asks, Even though online instruction may be effective at
meeting lower-order learning objectives (basic facts, recall, and comprehension), can we
expect the same for higher-order learning (evaluation and synthesis of information or
internalizing values and practices)? (Bejerano, 2008). This is another good point that I
hadnt put too much thought into. This is not a scholarly article. I included it anyway
because it brought to light several new aspects that must be considered before
determining if an online learning environment can be effective for a particular course or a
particular student.

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

Boghikian-Whitby, S., & Mortagy, Y. (2008). The effect of student background in e-learning-longitudinal study. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology, 5, 107.
Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA200343077&v=2.1&u=lom_monroecls
&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=00a57fc7dcf56f6918059dd94927192a
Boghikian-Whitby and Mortagy examined how a students background affected their
performance in an online classroom. This study had been ongoing at the time of
publication (2008) since 2001. The authors compared the results of undergrad students
aged 19-24 (right out of high school) to the results of those above 25. All students were
either junior or senior undergraduates working towards a Bachelors of Science degree.
Students had to be in good standing academically to enroll in the online classes. Twice a
year, two classes are run concurrently: one F2F and one OL. Both classes have the same
assignments, and same instructor. Performance is measured by a pre/post-test (both are
the same test), and final grade. The results show OL and F2F learning to be equally
effective. Students in the over 25 age group actually did better online than they did in the
F2F classrooms. The authors speculate that this is due to increased flexibility, which
allows older adults to complete their education while still managing other responsibilities.
That age group also tends to be more motivated to succeed. This study provides evidence
for both the equally effective and the it depends arguments. In this case, online
learning is more effective than F2F for students over 25.
Cavanaugh, C. (2009). Getting students more learning time online: Distance education in
support of expanded learning time in k-12 schools. Retrieved from the Center for
American Progress website:

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/05/pdf/distancelearning.
pdf
This article contains both theory and review. Cavanaugh believes that the length of both
the school day and the school year should be expanded by utilizing online learning.
While discussing the cost of k-12 virtual schools, she mentions that some course
providers do not include, exceptional education teachers, school counselors, media
specialists and resources, clubs and activities, and professional development services
(Cavanaugh, 2009, p. 13). I contend that OL learning that does not include these support
services is not as effective as F2F. Many students need these types of services to be
successful in their academic careers.
Cavanaugh mentions two other topics that can have an impact on the effectiveness of
online and F2F learning: monitoring and access to advanced/rare high school courses.
There is a need for k-12 schools to have the ability to monitor student and teacher online
performance. She reports that, Virtual schools and their vendor partners have developed
sophisticated student data systems that monitor student course behavior and content
mastery, teacher contacts with students and parents, and detailed demographic data, in
some cases at the state level (Caveaugh, 2009, p. 16). Both environments provide
quality student/teacher monitoring, which can make an impact on student performance.
Finally, an OL environment is more effective at providing student access to advanced
courses such as Computer Science and those that wouldnt normally have enough
students to fill a high school classroom, such as Mandarin or Arabic.
Gonzalez, B. Y. (2014). A six-year review of student success in a biology course using lecture,
blended, and hybrid methods. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(6), 14. Retrieved

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA372553998&v=2.1&u=lom_monroecls
&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=985b8779328c66b3b915b9b1e117ac3f
Dr. Gonzalez teaches a general biology course at a community college. Over a six year
period, she conducted a study in the above mentioned course which included 670 students
and a common final exam. Three different teaching methods were used: lecture, blended,
and hybrid. The lecture method included 72 contact hours, lectures, laboratory time
(experiments/exercises) and was the more traditional, face-to-face classroom experience.
With the blended method, lectures were delivered in a laboratory and had 41 contact
hours. (Note: this version of blended does not contain online components.) It
included: 75 contact hours, mini-lectures, small groups, guided inquiry, and the same
laboratory experiments as the lecture method class. In the hybrid method, students went
to the laboratory, but utilized the same lectures, PowerPoints, clicker-style questions, and
quizzes online. This method alone included five minute video clips with additional
explanation for difficult concepts. Students in all three methods took the same final exam
and submitted the same laboratory reports (though with the hybrid, individual reports
which included student collaboration were submitted as opposed to a group report in the
other two methods).
Dr. Gonzalez found that the blended method was associated with the greatest student
achievement of the three methods. He seemed to believe this was due to immediate
feedback, active learning, and more in depth discussions. Though the blended method
had the greatest success rate, there was greater achievement in the hybrid method than the
lecture method. The professor made the observation that students in the hybrid classes

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

usually came to class prepared, having read laboratory worksheets and even starting to
fill them in before class. According to Gonzalez (2014), Similar findings, where online
students are more responsible and have better study skills than on-site students, have been
previously reported (Bacow, Bowen, Guthrie, Lack, & Long, 2012; Lack, 2013) (p. 14).
Why include this study? It is recent, has very similar (though not exact) subject matter
and practice (including the same professor) across methods, and provides evidence that
students do learn/perform at least as well in an online environment (in this case partially
online) as they do in a traditional classroom.
Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2004). E-learning compared with face to face: Differences in the academic
achievement of postgraduate business students. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 20(3), 316-336. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet20/ladyshewsky.html
This study was cited a couple of times in Mohelska (2014). In it, data was collected on
the final grades of 1,401 postgraduate business students over a period of two years. Nine
units were offered in both F2F and OL, with about 75% of students taking F2F. One
hundred thirty-eight students participated in both mediums. The OL class was fully
online, including all communication. The same professionals moderated the design of
both the F2F and OL units. They utilized standard templates.
The study found that, on average, there was greater success in online classes. The
students who participated in both mediums did significantly better with OL. These
results were not influenced by gender, but were influenced by age for students under 33.
As might be predicted, this demographic did better in the online class. Its noteworthy to
mention the age difference as students under 33 likely had more experience and a greater

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

comfort level with the technology. This may be a factor in the efficiency of online
learning for a while. Student performance in the OL class also improved over time. The
author speculates that this is due to improvement by staff in design and delivery.
One last note on this study: Ladyshewsky makes the statement that, This research
provides some assurance that well designed EL initiatives can deliver quality academic
outcomes. By focusing on the pedagogy behind unit design and delivery, the academic
program in this research study was able to design and deliver EL units that produced a
high quality outcomes (p. 11). Design and delivery both have an important impact on
the effectiveness of online learning.
Moazami, F., Bahrampour, E., Azar, M. R., Jahedi, F., & Moattari, M. (2014). Comparing two
methods of education (virtual versus traditional) on learning of Iranian dental students: A
post-test only design study. BMC Medical Education, 14(45), 1-5.
doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-45
In this study, two methods were compared for their effect on learning: virtual and
traditional. Thirty-five fifth year dental students (with similar GPAs) were randomly
placed into two groups (traditional n=15, virtual n=20) and were each given the same
content, lecturer, and post-test.

This test was first given right after the last class, and

then again in two months. The traditional method utilized face-to-face lecture. The
virtual method contained the same content as the traditional, but was online. Students in
the latter group were required to attend training on basic technology topics and the online
class interface. This was the first experience with online learning for all students in the
study.

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

The results showed a statistically relevant finding in favor of the virtual classroom with
both post-tests.

Some of the positive aspects of online learning mentioned include:

medical student preference for tutorials on the web over in class lectures, costeffectiveness, and the ability to watch a tutorial more than once. This can be particularly
helpful with difficult subject matter and for students with disorders such as ADHD. They
also list drawbacks such as technical issues and the lack of face-to-face student
interaction. Though drawbacks are listed, and the study had a small sample set, it is peer
reviewed and provides evidence that online learning is at least as good as traditional faceto-face learning.
Mohelska, H., & Sokolova, M. (2014). Effectiveness of using e-learning for business disciplines:
The case of introductory management course. E+M Ekonomie a Management, 17(1), 82.
Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA363189803&v=2.1&u=lom_monroecls
&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=01846421948695786406de1e91f088a0
The objective of this study was to find out if student performance in online learning was
comparable to traditional face-to-face learning. The subjects in this study were 149
university students who took the course, Principles of Management from 2009 to 2011.
They were randomly divided between each of the two teaching methods, and all took a
pre-test and a post-test. In the traditional class, students attended lectures and seminars.
Seminars included problem solving, and a paper that analyzed a product, company, etc.
They also had a midterm. The online group utilized an online environment with no faceto-face contact with the teacher. They had to complete 8 sub-tasks and pass a final exam.
In the end, there was no statistically relevant difference between the efficiency of face-to-

10

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

face vs online training. This study provides evidence that OL learning is at least as good
as F2F learning.
However, Mohelska and Sokolova (2014) did review a couple of studies which provide
additional points to consider in this argument. Levy (2007), stated that the dropout rate
of online classes is much higher than in traditional classrooms. If a student is less likely
to complete an online course, it is not as effective in that aspect as a traditional course.
Also cited is the research of Shachar (2008), which finds that there is, a significant
group of opponents who argue that the evidence for e-learning is inconclusive (as cited
in Mohelska & Sokolova, 2014, p. 3). This presents an additional side to consider.
Porter, A. L., Pitterle, M. E., & Hayney, M. S. (2014). Comparison of online versus classroom
delivery of an immunization elective course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 78(5), 1-12. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA378681888&v=2.1&u=lom_monroecls
&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=e18f98be5a41822de62486208e2753ad
As with Moazamij, Bahrampour, Azar, Jahedi, and Moattari (2014), this study compared
student performance in two learning environments. One hundred forty students were
assigned to an online or face-to-face classroom using block randomization (no exceptions
to randomization were allowed). In the traditional classroom, students attended 50 minute
classes once a week. With the online class, students were able to access the lecture
online as many times as they wanted. Both groups were given the same activities, took
the same comprehensive exam, and were required to attend one laboratory session. All
students could reach the instructor via e-mail or in person by appointment. Drawbacks

11

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

listed for online learning included a rise in enrollment. This resulted in an increase in
time spent on the course by faculty and the number of proctors needed for the exam.
Its interesting to note that less than half of the students had taken an online course
before, and about the same number didnt consider themselves, technologically savvy
(Porter, Pitterle, & Hayney, 2014, p. 3). About half of the students preferred either a
traditional classroom or a blended delivery method. Even with this lack of experience
(and inclination away from fully online courses) the results still showed no significant
difference in grades between the two groups. This provides additional evidence that
learning online is at least as effective as it is in a traditional classroom setting.
Shachar, M. (2008). Meta-Analysis: The preferred method of choice for the assessment of
distance learning quality factors. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 9(3). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/493/1147
Shachar claims that, due to differing research methods, the research literature which
compares OL and F2F learning is inconclusive. He recommends that independent
researchers publish statistical data which could be utilized in Meta-Analysis studies to
evaluate the effectiveness of distance learning. It would then be possible to make
generalizations about a much larger pool of data. The following steps for meta-analysis
provide a picture of what this might look like. They are recommended by Glass,
McGraw, and Smith (1981), carry out a literature research to collect studies; code
characteristics of studies; calculate effect sizes as common measures of study outcomes;
and search for relationships between study features and study outcomes (as cited in
Shachar, 2008, p. 3).

12

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

This article provides another answer to the debate. Is OL learning as effective as F2F
learning? According to Shachar, the findings are inconclusive; i.e., we dont know. It
also provides recommendations on how we can go about better measuring the
effectiveness of both learning environments.

13

FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS ONLINE LEARNING

Conclusion
While some of the negatives of online learning were mentioned, all of the studies that I
reviewed found that learning in an online environment was at least as effective as learning in a
traditional face-to-face classroom overall. Some found online learning to be superior. While I
was able to find peoples opinions online that felt that traditional was better, I was unable to find
any study that came to this conclusion.
I disagree with the argument that Mohelska & Sokolova (2014) mention; that the
evidence for e-learning is inconclusive. There are enough studies out there for us to conclude
online learning can be as effective as face-to-face learning. However, I agree that further high
quality research is warranted.
So is learning online as effective as learning in traditional face-to-face classrooms? On
an individual level, I dont think the answer is a clear cut yes or no, but more of a, it depends.
What is the age of the student? This can have an effect, though Ladyshewsky (2004) differs in
opinion from Boghikian-Whitby, & Mortagy (2008) as to what age this is (more evidence for the
inconclusive argument). Younger students tend to have a higher skill level with technology,
but older students tend to be more self-motivated and disciplined. Students in K-12 can do well
if they have proper support at home and at school. OL learning is more likely to be effective for
all students if they have personal characteristics such as self-discipline, motivation, and time
management. An online course that has subject matter which lends itself well to online learning
will be more effective than one that does not. Quality design and delivery are really important.
Many variables contribute to the effectiveness of an online class.

14