Online vs.

Face-to-Face Learning

Aida Barrera
Carolyn Ho
Ida Garcia
Tomoko Traphagan
Yi-Fan Chang

There is no good evidence that most uses of computers significantly improve teaching and
learning, yet school districts are cutting programs – music, art, physical education – that enrich
children’s lives to make room for this dubious nostrum….(Oppenheimer, 1997).

Of course, computers are wonderful for transmitting and accessing information, but they are, more
broadly, a new medium through which people can create and express. If we use computers simply
to deliver information to students, we are missing the revolutionary potential of the new
technology for transforming learning and education (Resnick, 2002).

Introduction

The uses of the computer, the Internet and New Media digital technologies are
revolutionizing the way we understand learning and education. While some people view
this as transforming how and what people learn, others regard the new technologies with
skepticism, claiming that these are keeping us from learning what is fundamentally
essential in life (Postman, 1990; Oppenheimer, 1997; Goldman and Maxwell, 2001;
Resnick, 2002).

Overriding the cautionary concerns, however, are the facts of the digital explosion
that surround us. This is true for the uses of technology in instruction as it is for the uses
of technology in our everyday lives. Web-based or online courses are increasingly being
used on college and public school campuses both here in this country and abroad. The
number of students enrolled in at least one online course is projected to increase by 19.8
percent from 2002 to 2003, or a total of 1.9 million students (Allen and Seaman, 2003).
Blackboard Inc., reports more than 2,700 colleges and universities in 140 countries using
its online course management system (Finkelstein and Pittinsky, 2003). Clearly, the
impact of online learning is being felt; and as online courses proliferate, so does the
inevitable comparison with the time-honored practice of face-to-face instruction.

While the increased availability of online learning is a welcomed change,

questions emerge as to its educational effectiveness. What are the differences between
the two methods? In what situations is one approach more suitable than the other? Is
there any way to take advantage of both? In this paper, we seek to examine online and
face-to-face learning from multiple perspectives. We identify the common characteristics
between the two methods of learning and analyze the differences between the two.
Additionally, we rethink both methods in order to focus on the possibilities for bringing
creativity and expression to the learning situation. Our purpose is to deepen our

1
understanding of the two learning environments by seeking optimal ways to take
advantage of both methods of instruction. More specifically, our aim is to recognize the
importance of the dialogic relationship that exists between these two methods rather than
designating a hierarchical relationship in choosing one over the other.

I. Common Characteristics of Online and Face-to-Face Learning

While the classroom can still be regarded as the center of learning, we can no
longer consider the classroom in isolation. Everyone will lose if traditional face-to-face
and technology-enhanced learning environments are pitted against each other.
Technological change is occurring so rapidly, we are increasingly using broader terms
like "learning environments" or "learning communities" to capture the wider range of
opportunities for teaching and learning. The concept of the face-to-face classroom is
evolving to encompass a new functionality, and as this functionality expands, so does the
potential for employing new and innovative methods of learning (Brown & Lippincott,
2003).

Various learning approaches can be used in online and face-to-face environments.

These can be designed according to the desires of the instructors and the needs of the
students. Learning can be structured so that learners play active roles as they engage
themselves in creating new knowledge. Both learning environments hold the possibility
for expanding learning beyond the original context, giving the learner opportunities to go
elsewhere to conduct research or broaden the learning experience in myriad ways. The
“classroom” can be transformed into other venues such as fieldtrips to the local
community or visits from experts.

Technology, with a multiplicity of online and offline multimedia adaptations, can

be found in both learning environments. Although technology is embedded as an integral
part of online learning environments, the era of using only the chalkboard is passing. A
face-to-face learning environment is no longer a technology-free environment, and digital
technologies in various formats are available in face-to-face learning environments
without necessarily converting these to online environments (Mayer, 2001).

Both learning environments depend on the instructor to set the tone, establish the
pace and create the atmosphere that dominates the learning situation. The instructor can
design either environment to suit his/her particular teaching style. The instructor is free
to adopt a strong leadership and teacher-directed role or become the facilitator or guide in
a learner-centered, collaborative learning environment. Both methods hold the potential
for raising or lowering motivation, competition and/or learning anxiety on the part of the
learner. These factors depend on the design of learning activities, the manner in which
materials are presented and the instructor’s teaching approach. Edelson (2000) sees
teaching in both venues as a process of constant experimentation, of keeping young and
alive and of making the most of whatever modality is being deployed at any particular
time.

2
II. Differences between Online and Face-to-Face Learning

One of the principal differences in online and face-to-face learning resides in the
realm of affect, but there is little consensus with respect to which modality is conducive
to generating the most effective social and cultural community. It is possible to have
effective communication and/or a meaningful cultural ethos online or in face-to-face
environments, yet the communication itself and the means to that communication is quite
different. There is no denying that the physical space in a face-to-face environment is
conducive to creating an atmosphere and a sense of belonging largely defined by the
physicality of the learning environment. At the same time, however, many learners feel
peripheral to what others consider the nurturing and hallowed halls of academe. Digital
communities can and do generate the same feelings in learners who identify strongly with
a technological age and whose cultural mindset is not contained by the physical space of
a learning environment.

An additional important factor is the communication that occurs within the

learning environment. Some people find face-to-face conversation, with its capacity for
nonverbal expression and body language, to be spontaneous and liberating, while others
consider dialogue a two-edged sword. The asynchronicity in online communication gives
learners, especially those having language and cultural differences, time to reflect and
think about what is being said (Soefijanto, n.d.). Others, however, find the constraints of
online communication, with its heavy emphasis on writing, to be onerous. Some learners
find themselves adopting different personae if their form of communication is written,
making communication difficult and contentious (Rhem, 2000). But others find that the
classroom can be vague and ambiguous, making the communication troublesome, and
conclude that affect and the emotionality of the classroom can be the biggest strength and
greatest weakness in the face-to-face environment (Edelson, 2000).

The differences between the two learning environments suggest that different
learning styles and levels of academic proficiency can be addressed by certain features of
each instructional approach. Learners who tend to avoid face-to-face learning will find
online communication more adaptable to their needs, while those who prefer nonverbal
cues to their communication style may need and require the instructional benefits which
accrue to sessions which occur in person. Students who write well will be more
comfortable in online settings. Those students who struggle with the written word or
who have limited keyboarding skills may find it inhibiting to write e-mail or meet in a
chat room. Independent learners with high proficiencies in reading and writing will relate
to online situations which allow the freedom and flexibility to develop in-depth
knowledge. Conversely, students who will need more personal guidance will find online
classes isolating and frustrating.

The differences inherent in the two methods of learning do not obviate giving
careful consideration to the communication dictated by each learning approach.
Perceptive instructors are generally cognizant of the needs of their students and can and
do adapt their communication styles accordingly, regardless of the learning environment
in which they are teaching. The important thing to consider, for the purposes of this

3
discussion, is that both methods of learning are equally conducive to effective means of
communication, regardless of the idiosyncratic nature of the communication.

Table 1: Major Differences between Face-to-Face and Online Learning

Face-to-Face Online
Inherent • Synchronous learning • Synchronous and
charac- • Learning occurs in specified asynchronous learning
teristics time and space. • Time and space for learning
• Teacher directed pace is flexible
• Self-paced learning allowed

Methods of • Verbal and non verbal • Heavy emphasis on writing

communi- communication
cation
Technical • Not a pre-requisite for course • Technical knowledge
knowledge required
Access to • Lectures or discussions are • Lectures and discussions
learning real time. No detail records archived and can be
materials archived. accessed anytime.

Cost • Cost for setting up physical • Cost for initial installment

space, commuting, parking, of hardware and software as
etc. may be high well as constant upgrade
may be high.
Learning • Allows learners and • Allows learners and
Process instructors to bond socially instructors to exchange idea
in a more thoughtful
• May inhibit reticent learners fashion.
to participate. • Allows reticent learners to
speak up more easily and
• Human interaction tends to actively.
reduce high dropout rate • Conducive to learning new
skills in technology
• Discussion is limited to the • Dropout rates are higher due
pre-defined time frame. to lack of human contact
• Immediate adjustment to and technical problems
repair misunderstanding is (Si_or & _ernochová, n.d.).
possible. • Discussion is not limited to
the class time.
• Teacher exercises strong • Misunderstanding in
leadership. discussion may not be
adjusted in time, causing
• Feedback is immediately unnecessary rift in class.
delivered through • Conducive to student-
verbal/visual/textual centered learning.
modalities.
4
 verbal/visual/textual centered learning.
modalities. • Feedback is usually delayed
and is given mostly through
text.

Another significant difference between face-to-face and online learning relates to

the role of the instructor, with the correlate implications that this has for the learner. In
face-to-face learning situations, instructors can maintain a stronger sense of leadership
over classroom processes. They can exercise greater control of learners’ attention,
motivate learners and do immediate adjustments if communication breaks down.
Although some may decry a strong leadership role for the instructor, others suggest that a
teacher-directed approach in a face-to-face environment is beneficial in certain situations.
There is evidence favoring the teacher-centered instructional approach, even with regard
to “higher order” achievements, especially with disadvantaged students (Chall, 2000, as
cited in Stone, 2001).

Everyone agrees that the role of the instructor changes in online environments and
a number of advocates propose this change calls for altering how online courses are
structured. Some scholars indicate the technologically-enhanced instructional/learning
environment makes it possible for educators to bring about a shift in pedagogy, which
necessarily shift implies a repositioning of the instructor and learner roles (Rudestam &
Schoenholtz-Read, 2002). Palloff and Pratt (1999) delineate important directions and
advocate a collaborative learning approach that concentrates on the interaction of student
to student rather than student to instructor. Knowlton (2000, as cited in Hutchins, 2003)
also addresses the advantages of a student-centered in online courses, suggesting that
collaborative learning with students guiding discussions and working in cohorts on
assignments provides the best approach for online instruction.

III. Rethinking Online and Face-to-Face Learning

The methods of learning facilitation have been revolutionized by the advent of

computer technology, and much has been said about how online learning outnumbers the
benefits of face-to-face learning. Instead of reinforcing the divide between face-to-face
and online learning, many educators have started to take advantages of both learning
environments. With the hybrid model, face-to-face learning allows learners to bond
socially, while the online portion of the lesson provides another forum for in-depth
discussion. Furthermore, learners can establish a mentor-mentee relationship with the
instructor in a face-to-face environment and build on the relationship by being able to
communicate in another format at anytime anywhere. Lastly, unlike the linear
progression in the face-to-face instruction, the hypertext technology enables learners to
develop multilineal thinking processes by instantly connecting a wide variety of
perspectives to the lesson at hand (Landow, 1992). It also allows instructors to do
interactive and collaborative activities in a more dynamic fashion through the medium
(Woodlief, 1997). Additionally, this non-linear, multiple-path inquiry learning greatly

5
facilitates the development of critical thinking, reading, and writing skills (Woodlief,
1997; Gosse, Gunn, & Swinkels, 2002).

Some activities are most effective when they are done in person, while others fit
perfectly in an online setting. The percentage of face-to-face or online portion in the
overall instruction design depends on the learning outcomes and learners’ needs. It is
therefore important to develop strategic hybrid learning models to take advantages of the
strengths in each environment. Valiathan (2002) proposes three learning models that
integrate both face-to-face and online learning: 1) skill-driven, 2) attitude-driven, and 3)
competency-driven. Below are brief explanations of each model:

Skill-Driven Model. When the learner needs to develop a specific knowledge or skills
and needs constant feedback from the instructor and peer learners, the class can be
designed so that learners are grouped together and interact both online and in person.
The instructor can introduce the foundational concepts and the basics of the target
knowledge/skill, while self-paced, online learning can facilitate exploration and
experiments. Meeting both in person and online provides support and feedback
necessary to reach the learning goals. Activities include instructor-led face-to-face
overview and closure, communication through e-mail, synchronous chat and group
projects.

Behavior-Driven Model. When the learning objectives are related to forming or shaping
attitudes, it is necessary to provide constant peer support and a “risk-free” environment
(Valiathan, 2002). Learners can have the online forum to express opinions and reactions
with less social inhibition than that commonly seen in the face-to-face setting. When
completing a project offline, peers can support each other and serve as simulation
partners in order to try out the new behavior without negative consequences. Activities
include discussion forums, online debate and face-to-face simulation or role-play.

Competency-Driven Model. When learners must acquire tacit knowledge either by

interacting with or observing the expert in a situation, it is important to have the face-to-
face component to establish the mentor-mentee relationship. However, online tools such
as e-mail, chat room and document transfer facilitate the bonding of the relationship and
in-depth discussion outside the regular meeting time and place. The knowledge acquired
by the mentee can be stored in an online repository as part of the artifact for the specific
field being studied. Activities may include face-to-face meeting, e-mail, chat room,
discussion forum and/or online simulation lab.

6
 Table 2: Valiathan’s Hybrid Learning Models

Why How
Skill-Driven Model: • Learning specific • Create a group-learning plan
knowledge and that's self-paced but bound to a
skills requires strict schedule
regular feedback • Pad self-paced learning
and support from material with instructor-led
the trainer, overview and closing sessions
facilitator, or peer. • Demonstrate procedures and
processes through synchronous
online learning labs or a
traditional classroom setting
• Provide e-mail support
• Design long-term projects

Attitude-Driven • Content that deals • Hold synchronous Web-based

Model with developing meetings (Webinars)
new attitudes and • Assign group projects (to be
behaviors requires completed offline)
peer-to-peer • Conduct role-playing
interaction and a simulations
risk-free
environment.

Competency-Driven • To capture and • Assign mentors

Model transfer tacit • Develop knowledge repository
knowledge,
learners must
interact with and
observe experts
on the job.

Conclusion

Online and face-to-face learning can no longer be regarded as two separate and
distinct approaches to learning. Rather, what is called for is a fundamental rethinking of
our approaches to learning and education.

We need to change our mindset and reorganize our thinking about the process of
teaching and learning. Instead of following traditional paradigms that have the instructor
firmly in control, we should adopt entrepreneurial and innovative approaches to learning.
Such approaches would permit students to become independent learners, and, at the same

7
time, give the teacher the important role of guide throughout the learning process. We
should open the doors of the classroom into the communities beyond the school, thus
enabling students to learn from others in their communities. Given an atmosphere that
would take advantage of different styles and different approaches, the opportunities
would multiply for students to design their own ways of learning, bringing depth,
meaning and creativity to each learning environment (Resnick, 2002).

Digital technologies and the corresponding online tools they provide are not ends
in themselves. On the contrary, they are a means to the end of transforming the
educational process. The capability of online technologies functions as added value to
the human dimension fundamental to face-to-face learning situations. Learners are the
beneficiaries of these productive and creative environments, which bring a wide range of
educational opportunities. The goal is to use and orchestrate the best techniques and
resources in order to attain the best educational experience for all learners.

8
 References

Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2003, September). Sizing the opportunity: the quality and
extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Needham, MA: The
Sloan Consortium, Sloan Center for OnLine Education. Retrieved November 2, 2003,
from http://www.aln.org/resources/overview.asp

Brown, M. B., & Lippincott, J. K. (2003). Learning spaces: more than meets the eye.
Educause Quaterly, Number 1, 14-16.

Edelson, P. J. (2000). Virtual and face-to-face learning: meeting points. Paper presented
at La FormacionVirtual en el Nuevo Milenio, Madrid, 15-16 June, 2000. Retrieved
October 12, 2003, from http://www.synysb.edu/spd/dean_papers/madrid.pdf

Finkelstein, J. & Pittinsky, M. (2003, January/February). The evolving role of course

management system providers in the transformation of education: an interview with
Blackboard's Matthew Pittinsky. The Technology Source. Retrieved October 29,
2003, from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1039

Goldman, R. & Maxwell, J. W. (2001, October). Perspectivity technologies: computers,

the Internet, and new media for learning. Unpublished manuscript.

Gosse, H., Gunn, H., Swinkels, L. (2002, March). Learning in a hypertext Environment.
Retrieved November 2, 2003, from
http://www.accesswave.ca/~hgunn/special/papers/hypertxt/advantag.html

Hutchins, H. M. (2003). Instructional immediacy and the seven principles: strategies for
facilitating online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).
State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center. Retrieved October 29,
2003, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/hutchins63.html

Khan, B. H. (Ed.) (1997). Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational

Technology Publications.

Landow, G. (1992). Hypertext: the convergence of contemporary critical theory and

technology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Markel, M. (1999). Distance learning and the myth of the new pedagogy. Journal of
Business and Technical Communication, 12(2), 208-221.

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Online. Retrieved
October 29, 2003, from http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jul/computer.htm

9
Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in Cyberspace. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Postman, N. (1990, October 11). Informing ourselves to death. Speech presented at a

meeting of the German Information Society (Gesellschaft Fuer Informatik), Stuttgart,
Germany. Retrieved October 29, 2003, from http://internet-
history.org/archives/inform.ourselves.to.death.html

Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age. Global Information

Technology Report 2001-2002: Readiness for the Networked World. Retrieved
October 5, 2003, from Harvard University, Center for International Development
Web site, http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cr/pdf/gitrr2002_ch03.pdf

Rhem, J. (2000). A face, a voice. The National Teaching & Learning Forum, 9(6).
Retrieved October 27, 2003, from http://ctlstanford.edu/teach/NTLF/v9n6/ldiary.htm

Rudestam, K. E. & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook of online learning:

innovations in higher education and corporate training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Shrivastava, P. (1999). Management classes as online learning communities. Retrieved

October 25, 2003, from
http://www.esocrates.com/LearningResources/ClassroomOLCJME.html

Si_or, S. & _ernochová, M. (n.d.).How online support to face-to-face education can

change and improve teaching and learning. Retrieved November 2, 2003, from
http://web.udg.es/tiec/orals/c99.pdf

Soefijanto, T. (n.d.). Culture in distance education. Retrieved October 27, 2003, from
http://people.bu.edu/totok/culture.html

Stone, J. E. (2001, March). What really works in the classroom? How teaching style
affects student achievement. Education Consumers ClearingHouse. Retrieved
October 25, 2003, from http://www.education-
consumers.com/articles/What_Really_Works.shtm

Valiathan, P. (2002, August). Blended learning models. Learning Circuits. Retrieved

October 26, 2003, from
http://www.learningcircuits.com/2002/aug2002/valiathan.html

Woodlief, A. (1997). Changing the paradigm: hypertext and interactive, student-centered

learning. Horizon, The Technology Source. Retrieved November 2, 2003, from
http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/home/horizon.htm

10