Understanding the Effect of Distance Learning vs.

Face-to-Face Learning Experiences on

Students’ Engagement in Higher Education

Zoncita D. Norman, Ph.D. (Graduated)

Doctoral Program in Leadership Studies

Gonzaga University

November 20, 2020

 Abstract

The traditional face-to-face lecture method of teaching approach wherein students absorb

information from the instructor that trickles down from top to bottom to them has been abruptly

unused in all school systems due to the escalation of the COVID-19 pandemic globally. The

current implementation of hybrid classes and distance learning by most institutions of higher

learning nationwide is critical but effective out of necessity, assuring safety measures in every

school site domestically and globally. According to Rajabalee, Santally, & Rennie (2019), based

on literature, one of the critical components of quality online education is to ensure learner

engagement. That is, the need to effectively measure learner engagement is imperative to

determine the performances and the successful achievements of learners. Also, Rajabalee et al.’s

(2019) research study aimed to understand the relationship between students’ engagement in an

online module with their overall performances by analyzing students’ learning activities in an

online module. In this perspective, this inquiry seeks to highlight the effect of distance learning

experiences on students’ engagement via determining their performances and successful

achievements after undergoing distance learning in comparison to face-to-face learning. In doing

so, this paper: defines and explains face-to-face learning, distance learning, and student

engagement i.e. students’ performances and successful achievements via reviews of extensive

relevant literature on the topic, and finally, concludes this writing.

Keywords: Face-to-Face (F2F) learning, distance learning, hybrid classes, student

engagement, pandemic, student performances/achievements
 Table of Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................................ii
Table of Contents,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,iii

Title: Understanding the Effect of Distance Learning vs. Face-to-Face Learning Experiences on
Students' Engagement in Higher Education,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1

Defining and explaining Face-to-Face Learning,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1

Differences Between Online and Face-to-Face Courses,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2

Prior Research,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6

Conclusion,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,17

References,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18
 1

Understanding the Effect of Distance Learning vs. Face-to-Face Learning Experiences on

Students’ Engagement in Higher Education

The traditional face-to-face lecture method of teaching approach in which students absorb

information from the instructor that trickles down from top to bottom to them has been abruptly

unused in all school systems due to the escalation of the pandemic (COVID-19) globally. The

current implementation of hybrid classes and distance learning by most institutions of higher

learning nationwide is critical but effective out of necessity, assuring safety measures in every

school site domestically and globally. According to Rajabalee, Santally, and Rennie (2019),

based on literature, one of the critical components of quality online education is to ensure learner

engagement. That is, the need to effectively measure learner engagement is imperative to

determine the performances and the successful achievements of learners. Also, Rajabalee et al.’s

(2019) research study aimed to understand the relationship between students’ engagement in an

online module with their overall performances by analyzing students’ learning activities in an

online module. In this perspective, this inquiry seeks to highlight the effect of distance learning

experiences on students’ engagement via determining their performances and successful

achievements after undergoing distance learning in comparison to face-to-face learning. In doing

so, this paper: defines and explains face-to-face learning, distance learning, student engagement

based on students’ performances and successful achievements via reviews of extensive relevant

literature on the topic, and finally, concludes this writing.

Defining and Explaining Face-to-Face Learning

In my perspective, face-to-face (F2F) learning is a pedagogical approach in which both

students and teacher are present and actively involved in the learning and teaching processes and

activities in the classroom environment. In my view, F2F learning fully engages students
 2

academically, physically, socially, emotionally, interactively, etc. more than distance learning

(DE). To explain this, Arias, Swinton, and Anderson (2018) reported in their quantitative

research that students in the F2F section have statistically significantly higher exam scores and

statistically greater improvement on the post-test instructor questions than the distance or online

delivery methodology. Moreover, this study’s literature review vividly explains the comparison

between F2F and DE modes of teaching and learning.

Differences Between Online and Face-to -Face Courses

According to Brown (2019) of Miami University Regionals, there are thirteen differences
between online and face-to-face courses, namely as follows:

Difference #1: Online courses are predominantly asynchronous: Unlike their face-to-face

counterparts on campus, online courses are predominantly asynchronous where the students (and

faculty) each determine when they will engage and participate in their online courses.

Asynchronous courses present an advantage to non-traditional students, like parents and working

professionals, who need a flexible schedule in order to pursue their education. Additionally,

asynchronous courses are also advantageous to students who learn best when they can review

course lectures and materials multiple times and through a variety of exercises.

Difference#2: Successful online learners must also be motivated, disciplined, self-

directed, and good at time management: Successful students in face-to-face courses must

actively listen and participate in class, take good notes, study and complete coursework. Showing

up to class goes a long way to successful completion. In the online environment, without an

instructor standing before you telling you exactly everything you need to know to pass the next

test or ace an upcoming writing assignment, successful online learners must also be motivated,

disciplined, self-directed, and good at time management.

 3

Difference #3: Diverse communication skills are paramount in online learning: In online

courses, many learning exercises and course materials involve diverse communication skills such

as reading written content, consume video and audio content, and interact with others in a variety

of communication styles. . . .to new learn content. . . .to see how new concepts are applied. . . .to

understand assignment descriptions. . . to get feedback on your performance. Diverse

communication skills are paramount in online learning. While different from its face-to-face

counterpart, which involves more lecture- and dialogue-based learning exercises, the advantage

of having diversely communicated course content is that students may read or view and Re-View

the course materials over and over again (as many times as needed), thereby better supporting

student achievement.

Difference #4: Students depend even more on the facilitation, assignment clarification,

and feedback provided by their instructor: In a face-to-face course, students can plan on getting

information and feedback about their learning and performance whenever they attend class. In

asynchronous online courses without the live in-person class component, students depend even

more on the facilitation, assignment clarification, and feedback provided by instructor. There are

lots of time-saving ways to add frequent and meaningful feedback through using both written

and multimedia strategies.

Difference #5: Majority of communication from student-to-instructor and student-to-

student involves ono-verbal asynchronous correspondence. In online learning, the vast majority

of communication from student-to-instructor and student-to-student involves non-verbal

asynchronous correspondence largely in the form of email, instant messages, video and audio

messages, discussion forums and reflections. While different from a face-to-face course which

also involves more in-person dialogue and conversations, an advantage of an online course is
 4

that you can generally communicate more ideas as well as clear, comprehensive messaging given

that students may view, reread and review again and again. In a face-to-face, they may only had

that one time it was said during class.

Difference #6: Digital and netiquette is a must: Digital literacy and netiquette are a must

– for instructors and for students. You do not need to be proficient at computer programming

languages and writing code to tach an online course. But, you do need to be comfortable working

within a learning management system and basic computing programs such as email, Google apps

and publisher software (such as word), as well as comfortable with helping students troubleshoot

basic technical difficulties. Netiquette (Links to an external site.) Links to external site, is also

vital to ensure that you are able to communicate and build relationships with others in a

productive manner without face-to-face interaction. While you do not have to be a computer

wizard, you should have a positive attitude and an open mind about learning new things and

interacting with others in the digital world.

Difference #7: Discussion in the online environment may offer more opportunity for

students to think about, research and even draft their discussion posts and responses: Rich and

complex student-driven class discussions may be facilitated in both environments, but with

distinctly different advantages and disadvantages. Because they are asynchronous and often

occur over longer periods of time (even days), discussions in the online environment may offer

more opportunity for students to think about, research and even draft their discussion posts and

responses. Furthermore, in the online environment, extroverted and introverted students stand on

equal footing, which may result in more even, open, and honest discussions.

Difference #8: Online courses are often more personal and individualized: Without

synchronized meeting times and places for the whole-class like in face-to-face courses, student
 5

engagement in learning in an online course may feel, or even actually be, more personal and

individualized than in a face-to-face setting, In online courses, teacher-led lectures and in-class

exercises are replaced with student-directed learning options that are universally designed for all

learners. Generally, instructors interact with students more frequently on an individual and

personal basis, facilitating the learning of each student throughout the course. Also, student-

student interactions are generally more abundant.

Difference#9: Bring together diverse people, cultures, communities, and cities:

Comprised of students logging in from all the nation, online courses may tap into endless

possibilities imaginable from bringing together diverse people, cultures, communities, and cities

that expand our learning opportunities based on unique experiences and perspectives outside of

our physical location.

Difference #10: Multi-dimensional content and learning exercises: When every aspect of

learning and engagement in a class takes place in the online environment, it is very easy to infuse

lots of multi-dimensional content and learning exercises throughout the course, including

numerous technology-based learning opportunities. This is different than a traditional face-to-

face course, which may rely more heavily on traditional-style delivery of content and classroom-

based learning exercises.

Difference #11: Active and frequent participation from everyone: Success in the online

environment requires active and frequent participation from everyone. For instructions, writing

lesson plans is replaced with preparing instructor presence plans, and facilitating learning for

students as they each work their way through the course and interact with their classmates.

Online courses are not harder and do not require more time, but the way you engage with them

is.
 6

Difference #12: Instructors are not on the stage: Class sessions in face-to-face courses are

a lot like on-stage performances. There is a script (lesson plan), a dress rehearsal (practicing and

preparing your lecture), and a performance (the class session itself). And, if you were not there to

witness it, you have missed the opportunity entirely. In online courses, instructors are not on the

stage. Instructional content can be written and re-written or recorded and re-recorded repetitively

until it is effective in meeting its intended instructional goal. Students can read and re-read or

watch and re-watch repetitively as many times as they need to until they feel confident that they

understand the content.

Difference #13: Instructor’s role is focused on facilitating student efforts to think

critically, apply and make sense of new knowledge: In both setting, the role of the instructor is to

teach. Though, teaching in the online environment looks different than that teaching in a face-to-

face class. All the information in the world is at the student’s fingertips. They can literally open

up a new tab and Google the answer. Teaching online becomes less about teaching information

and more about facilitating student efforts to think critically, apply and make sense of new

knowledge.

Prior Research

In a research study conducted by Ananga and Biney (2017), a comparison of face-to-face

and online teaching and learning has been undertaken to ascertain the focal point that would

justify the best preferred option as far as teaching and learning in distance education (DE) is

concerned. This study is particularly important because as higher education institutions are faced

with the challenge of huge number of prospective students seeking higher education in the midst

of inadequate infrastructures, it becomes very necessary to look at DE as an option with a

combination of different modes of delivering instruction. At the University of Education,

 7

Winneba (UEW), some faculties and departments, especially the distance education department,

have adopted the face-to-face and online modes of delivering instruction. The pursuit of which

would require a critical overview of the two modes to ascertain the strengths, weaknesses and

how the two can complement each other for effective delivery of instruction to cater to a large

number of students. The review suggested that academics or lectures should endeavor to adopt

the blended or hybrid mode in their teaching and learning. Policy decision makers can also use

this study as it provides information on better practices as far as the blended mode of teaching

and learning in higher education institutions is concerned.

In a study, Arias, Swinton, and Anderson (2018) contrasted the efficacy of online

delivery to face-to-face delivery using an enrollment protocol that would eliminate self-selection

bias. Only a few previous studies even attempt to control for sample selection. The study utilized

random assignment of the registrants of a Principle of Macroeconomics class into two alternative

venues: online and face-to-face (Arias et al., 2018). In this study, the same professor taught both

sections with the same course objectives and exams. Both the change in student scores from the

pre-test to the post-test and the student’s exam average were modelled as a function of the

course environment, the student’s SAT math score (or ACT equivalent), the student’s GPA prior

to taking the course, the student’s gender and the student’s overall credit hours prior to taking the

course (Arias et al., 2018). The pre-and post-test had both standardized and instructor-specific

questions.

Findings revealed that students in the face-to-face section have statistically significantly

higher exam scores and statistically significantly greater improvement on the post-test instructor

questions, and there is no statistical difference in the improvement on the post-test overall nor in

the improvement in the post-test standardized questions (Arias et al., 2018). These mixed results
 8

suggest that both course objectives and the mechanism used to assess the relative effectiveness of

the two modes of education may play an important part in determining the relative effectiveness

of alternative delivery methods.

Additionally, Beach’s (2020) study examined the types of online resources preservice

teachers utilized when planning for their literacy instruction and whether the identified resources

are research based. The study conducted an online survey distributed to preservice teachers

enrolled in a literacy education course. The results divulged that participants (N=77) use a mix of

research-based professional resources, popular search engines, and content-sharing networks.

The reasons for use included accessibility and convenience, content variety, visual aesthetics,

literacy content, and source credibility. This research study has implications for teacher

educators and associate teachers, who are often the first to disseminate information to preservice

teachers about effective literacy practices.

In Martin and Bolliger’s (2018) quantitative research study, the researchers believed that

student engagement increases student satisfaction, enhances student motivation to learn, reduces

the sense of isolation, and improves student performance in online courses. This survey-based

research study examined student perception on various engagement strategies using in online

courses based on Moore’s interaction framework. The participants included 155 students who

completed a 38-item survey on learner-to-learner, learner-to-instructor, and learner-to-content

engagement strategies. Findings divulged that learner-to-instructor engagement strategies

seemed to be most valued among the three categories; the Icebreaker/introduction discussions

and working collaboratively using online communication tools were rated the most beneficial

engagement strategies in the learner-to-learner category. Whereas sending regular

announcements or email reminders and providing grading rubrics for all assignments were rated
 9

most beneficial in learner-to-instructor category. Furthermore, Martin and Bolliger (2018)

reported that in the learner-content category, students mentioned working on real-world projects

and having discussions with structured or guiding questions were the most beneficial.

Additionally, this study analyzed the effect of age, gender, and years of online learning

experience differences on students’ perception of engagement strategies. The results of the study

have implications for online instructors, instructional designers, and administrators who wish to

enhance engagement in the online course.

In Faidley’s (2018) dissertation work, the author explained that online education

continues to evolve and grow dramatically at colleges and universities across the globe. Also, the

author clarified that today’s society is comprised of people who are increasingly busy with work

and family obligations and who are looking for more flexible and expedited avenues for higher

education and consequently, institutions seek to meet these new demands by offering online

distance educational opportunities while increasing cash flow for their college (Faidley, 2018).

The author remarked that unfortunately the pitfalls to this rush to meet online demand resulted in

what some researchers assert are inadequate quality content and curriculum and others indicated

that there are not significant differences in the outcomes from online learning compared with

traditional face-to-face (F2F) classes. Further, Faidley (2018) explained that much of the

research has been conducted on nonquantitative courses, quantitative courses with small sample

sizes, or large sample sizes that are not controlled for quality of online content, delivery, or

verification of learning.

The purpose of this quasi-experimental ex-post-facto study was to compare student

outcomes from two Principles of Accounting courses both delivered in two methods of

instruction: traditional face-to-face (F2F) and an online asynchronous format. The online content
 10

for both courses was developed with assistance of academic technology professionals at the

participating university. Student learning was measured as final course grade where all exams

were administered by a testing center in a proctored environment. The sample size included 124

students from the online sections and 433 students from the traditional face-to-face sections.

Eight research questions were examined using independent samples T-test for 6 of the analyses,

ANOVA for 1 question, and multiple regression for predictors of mean final course grade.

The results indicated students performed significantly better in the face-to-face classes

than the online sections. Female students scored significantly higher than male students in both

methods of instruction. ACT composite score, ACT math score, GPA, gender, and method of

instruction all were significantly related to final course grade. Age was not a significant predictor

of final course grade but in the online sections nontraditional students (age 25 and older) scored

significantly higher than students under the age of 25 (Faidley, 2018).

In a qualitative research study, Farrell and Brunton (2020) explored online student

engagement experiences in a high education institution. The authors remarked that there are few

studies providing in-depth perspectives on the engagement of online students; and the project

adopted a case study approach, following 24 online participating students over one academic

year. The setting for the study was an undergraduate online Humanities program at Dublin City

University. The research question of this study was: What themes are central to online student

engagement experiences? For data collection, the researchers collected data from participant-

generated learning portfolios and semi-structured interviews and analyzed following a data-led

thematic approach.

Pertinently, Farrell and Brunton (2020) reiterated that the five central themes that make

up their study’s findings highlight key issues of students’ sense of community, their support
 11

networks, balancing study with life, confidence, and their learning approaches. Findings

indicated that successful online student engagement was influenced by psychosocial factors such

as peer community, an engaging online teacher, and confidence and by structural factors such as

life-load and course design. A limitation of the study is: it is a relatively small qualitative study,

and its findings provide insights into how online degrees can support online students to achieve

successful and engaging learning experiences (Farrell & Brunton, 2020).

Moreover, Harron, Petrosino, & Jenevein (2019) positioned their study in the context of

experiential learning and reported findings of a virtual reality field trip (VRFT) in conjunction

with an in-person field trip involving preservice teachers in an elementary science methods

course to a local natural history museum. The findings included that virtual reality (VR) is best

used after a field trip to encourage students recall of the experience, but only when done for a

limited time to avoid VR fatigue. The types of experiences that preservice teachers thought VR

would be good for in their science classrooms included the ability to visit either inaccessible or

unsafe locations, to explore scales of size that are either too big or too small, and to witness

different eras or events at varying temporal scales (Harron et. al., 2019). Furthermore, this study

uncovered potential equity issues related to VRFT’s being seen as a viable alternative if students

could not afford to go on field trips…. Further research need to be conducted to better

understand the impact of VRFT’s on student learning outcomes and take advantage of recent

improvements in VR technology.

In Butts, Heidorn, and Mosier’s (2013) quantitative study, the purpose of the study was to

see if there was a significant difference in engagement among undergraduate health and physical

education majors when comparing online instruction to traditional lecture format. Method: The

participants in this study were 22 undergraduate health and physical education majors enrolled in
 12

the summer semester, in a three-hour class. Two sections of the course were offered to the

students. One section was delivered online and the other was delivered by traditional lecture in a

face-to-face setting. The course curriculum and assignments were identical for the online and

face-to-face courses. Analysis: Thirty-four Likert-scaled questions were used to determine

student perception of engagement in the course. Difference in responses of the two study groups

were examined using the Mann-Whitney test (Probability =.05). Results: The results of this

study showed no significant difference in 33 of the 34 variables used to measure engagement.

Conclusions: It seems clear from this study that students in undergraduate physical education

teacher preparation courses can be engaged in course content, whether that content is offered

completely online, or in a traditionally based face-to-face format.

In another study, Kemp and Grieve (2014) are convinced that as electronic

communication becomes increasingly common, and as students juggle study work, and family

life, many universities are offering their students more flexible learning opportunities. According

to the authors, classes once delivered face-to-face are often replaced by online activities and

discussions; and there is scarce research comparing students’ experience and learning in these

two modalities. This study aimed to compare undergraduates’ preference for, and academic

performance on, class material and assessment presented online vs. in traditional classrooms.

The participants in the study who are Psychology students (N=67) at an Australian

university completed written exercises, a class discussion, and a written test on two academic

topics. The activities for one topic were conducted face-to-face, and the other online, with topics

counterbalanced across two groups. The results showed that students preferred to complete

activities face-to-face rather than online, but there was no significant difference in their test

performance in the two modules, (Kemp & Grieve, 2014). In their written responses, students
 13

expressed a strong preference for class discussions to be conducted face-to-face, reporting that

they felt more engaged, and received more immediate feedback, than in online discussion.

A follow-up study with a separate group (N=37) confirmed that although students

appreciated the convenience of completing written activities online in their own time, they also

strongly preferred to discuss course content with peers in the classroom rather than online. The

study concluded that online and face-to-face activities can lead to similar levels of academic

performance, but that students would rather do written activities online but engage in discussion

in person (Kemp & Grieve, 2014). The authors recommended that developers could aim to

structure classes so that students can benefit from both the flexibility of online learning and the

greater engagement experienced in face-to-face discussion.

In an article, Melton, Miller, and Brobst (2019) described key features of a hybrid

professional development (PD) program that was designed to prepare elementary classroom

teachers to mentor preservice teachers for effective science instruction. Five classroom teachers

who were new mentor training participated in the study to document the impacts of the PD

sequence. The PD program combined in an in-person immersion into the components of

effective science instruction with online modules centered on learner-supportive mentoring

practices. The authors detailed key aspects of this hybrid program and discuss its impacts on the

cooperating teachers’ ability to facilitate effective mentor conversations with preservice teachers.

Findings indicated that mentors who engaged in the hybrid face-to-face and online PD more

effectively coached their mentees and displayed specific shifts in their approach to mentor

conversations. The participants showed statistically significant increases in their ability to use

coaching as a default mentoring stance, to focus on evidence of students’ science learning, and to

draw on a consistent framework for effective science instruction for their conversation. The
 14

authors concluded that these findings support a hybrid model of PD for mentoring and create

potential for exploring a fully online sequence to promote effective mentoring in future work.

Paul and Jefferson (2019) remarked that a growing number of students are now opting for

online classes and they find the traditional classroom modality restrictive, inflexible, and

impractical. The authors stated that in this age of technological advancement, schools can now

provide effective classroom teaching via the Web and this shift in pedagogical medium triggers

academic institutions to rethink how they want to deliver their course content. The overarching

purpose of this research was to determine which teaching method proved more effective over the

8-year period. The study used the scores of 548 students, 401 traditional students and 147 online

students, in an environmental science class to determine which instructional modality generated

better student performance. In addition to the overarching objective, this comparative study

examined score variabilities between genders and classification to determine if teaching modality

had a greater impact on specific groups.

Findings revealed no significant difference in student performance between online and

face-to-face (F2F) learners overall, with respect to gender, or with respect to class rank were

found, and these data demonstrate the ability to similarly translate environmental science

concepts for non-STEM majors in both traditional and online platforms irrespective of gender or

class rank (Paul & Jefferson, 2020). The authors concluded that a potential exists for increasing

the number of non-STEM majors engaged in citizen science using the flexibility of online

learning to teach environmental science core concepts.

In another dissertation study, Pearcy (2009) asserted that as distance learning evolved,

course designers and teachers quickly recognized the value of integrating online features into the

classroom. The result was blended learning, a combination of online and face-to-face
 15

components. This complex and dynamic new form of education has raised many questions about

the role of computer-mediated communication in education and has provided new opportunities

for extending research in learning and communication. The purpose of the study was to

determine whether a blended class will produce different (and possibly better) results in terms of

student perceptions of the overall learning experience and student satisfaction than traditional

lecture-based face-to-face instruction or learning that is delivered entirely online. The main goals

of this study were to compare the effectiveness of face-to-face, online, and blended instruction,

and to examine the role of interactions in the effectiveness of each educational method.

Also, Pearcy (2009) reported that while form of instruction received very positive

feedback from both students and instructors and the newly introduced blended courses proved

very successful in terms of overall satisfaction with the learning experience, the traditional

lecture-based courses produced more positive attitudes toward the subject matter. The possible

causes of these discrepancies between some of the quantitative and qualitative results point

toward the role of previous experience with online learning, cognitive development, and learning

styles.

In another study, Rajabalee, Santally, and Rennie (2019) stated that the concept of online

learning has witnessed an increase in the higher education sector, where enrollment rates in

online courses have significantly grown in recent years. According to the literature reviewed, one

of the critical components of quality online education is to ensure learner engagement. In short,

the need to effectively measure learner engagement is imperative to determine the performances

and the successful achievements of learners. In this research, the aim was to understand the

relationship between students’ engagement in an online module with their overall performances

by analyzing students’ learning activities in an online module. Three measurable indicators were
 16

identified and considered relevant within the current research context and based on the available

data, and from research literature for assessing learner engagement within the module. These

were (1) the number of completed learning activities, (2) importance level (as per course

outcomes) of completed learning activities; and (3) activities requiring platform presence.

Moreover, Rajabalee et al. (2019) reported that findings revealed that there was a

significant but weak positive correlation between the engagement of students in the online

module and their performances in the final learning activity. The researchers further observed

that when continuous learning activities were considered, there was a very strong positive

correlation between engagement and performances. In general, the average engagement level of

students was significantly higher for good performers as compared to low performers. Similarly,

the mean performance of highly engaged students was significantly better than those with low

engagement levels.

In addition, Slagoski’s (2019) qualitative study investigated the domain and practice of

an online community of practice formed by English language teachers (ELTs) on Twitter as a

professional learning network (PLN). A “Communities of Practice” framework (Wenger, 1998;

Wenger-Trayner & Amp; Wenger-Trayner, 2015) was applied to the qualitative analysis of

interviews and publicly accessible social media data of 20 participants. This paper reported on

the extent to which members of the PLN use social media for professional purposes and their

perceptions of the value of social media in comparison to more traditional means of professional

learning: reading ELT textbooks, reading scholarly articles on pedagogy and applied linguistics,

and participating in ELT conferences. Findings demonstrated that this PLN functioned as a

community of practice that valued social media as a tool in conjunction with the more traditional

means of professional learning. The participants expressed that social media had specific
 17

advantages, including accessibility, brevity, and low cost. The paper concluded with suggestions

for future research and implication for hybrid ELT professional learning practices.

In Stern’s (2004) study, the author examined the similarities and differences for one

course, Foundation of American Education, when offered in traditional face-to-face and online

formats. The data analysis used both qualitative and quantitative measures. The following

conclusions were reached: (1) for the course to be effective, the time that must be allotted for

online teaching will remain an issue that instructors may struggle with as the workload is

significantly higher; (2) for students, a familiarity with their own learning styles and the desire

and motivation to shoulder responsibility for online learning will be major factors in their

success; (3) while the instructor can, and should design and monitor the course to ensure that all

students are kept on track and participating, student time management and organizational skills

will remain of paramount importance; and (4) students with more proficient reading and writing

skills will perform better in online classes. The study suggested for further research that includes

focusing on whether or not certain types of courses are more appropriate for online instruction

and developing a repertoire of instructional strategies to accommodate a range of learning styles.

Conclusion

This reflection sought to highlight the effect of distance learning experiences on students’

engagement via determining their performances and successful achievements after undergoing

distance learning (DL) in comparison to face-to-face (F2F) learning. Also, this paper defined and

explained F2F and DL modes of instructions, defined and explained student engagement that is

students’ performances and successful achievements through review of pertinent literature on the

topic. Analyzing the above literature review, it is evident that F2F and DE are both effective

when utilized in a blended or hybrid mode of instruction in higher education.

 18

References

Ananga, P. & Biney, I. K. (2017, November). Comparing face-to-face and online teaching and
learning in higher education. MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends & Practices,
7(2), 165-179.

Arias, J. J., Swinton, J., & Anderson, J. (2018, September). Online vs. face-to-face: A
comparison of student outcomes with random assignment. e-Journal of Business
Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 12(2), 1-23.

Beach, P. (2020). Planning for literacy instruction: An evaluation of online resources used by
preservice teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(30).

Brown, R. (2019, January 16). 13 Differences between online and face to face courses. Retrieved
from MIAMI Regionals E-Campus:
miamioh.edu/regionals/eccoe/news/2019/01/differences-between-f2f-and-online.html

Butts, F., Heidorn, B., & Mosier, B. (2013, April 2). Comparing student engagement in online
and face-to-face instruction in health and physcial education teacher preparation. Journal
of Education and Learning, 2(2).

Faidley, J. (2018, August). Comparison of learning outcomes from online and face-to-face
accounting courses (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University). Retrieved
from https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3434

Farrell, O. & Brunton, J. (2020, April 29). A balancing act: A window into online student
engagement experiences. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
education, 17(25).

Harron, J. R. & Petrosino, J. R. (2019). Using virtual reality to augment museum-based fieldtrips
in a preservice elementary science methods course. Contemporary Issues in Technology
and Teacher Education, 9(4), 687-707.

Kemp, N. & Grieve, R. (2014, November). Face-to-face or face-to-screen?

undergraduates'opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning.
Retrieved from Public Full-texts: doi: 10.3389/psyg.2014.01278

Melton, J., Miller, M. & Brobst, J. (2019). Mentoring the mentors: Hybridizing professional
development to support cooperating teachers' mentoring practice in science.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 23-44.

Pearcy, A. G. (2009, August). The perfect blend: a comparative study of online, face-to-face,
and blended instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas). Retrieved from:
digital.library.unt.edu/ark%3A/67531/metadc11015/m2/1/high_res_d/dissertation.pdf
 19

Paul, J., & Jefferson, F. (2019, November 12). A comparative analysis of student performance in
an online vs. face-to-face environmental science course from 2009 to 2016. Retrieved
from Frontiersin.org: https://doi.org/10.3389/comp.2019.00007

Slagoski, J. D. (2019). Professional learning practices and beliefs of an online community of

english language teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,
19(1), 97-116.

Stern, B. S. (2004). A comparison of online and face-to-face instruction in an undergraduate

foundations of american education course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 4(0, 196-213.

Rajabalee, B. Y., Santally, M. I., & Rennie, F. (2019, October 2017). A study of the relationship
between students' engagement and their academic performances in an eLearning
environment. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753019882567