advantages and disadvantages of online classes research paper

Advertisement

A literature review: efficacy of online learning courses for higher education institution using meta-analysis

• Published: 04 November 2019
• Volume 26 , pages 1367–1385, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Mayleen Dorcas B. Castro   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6618-6958 1 , 2 &
• Gilbert M. Tumibay 3  

19k Accesses

167 Citations

148 Altmetric

11 Mentions

Explore all metrics

The Internet has made online learning possible, and many educators and researchers are interested in online learning courses to enhance and improve the student learning outcomes while battling the shortage in resources, facilities and equipment particularly in higher education institution. Online learning has become popular because of its potential for providing more flexible access to content and instruction at any time, from any place. It is imperative that the researchers consider, and examine the efficacy of online learning in educating students. For this study, the researchers reviewed literature through meta-analysis as the method of research concerning the use of ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation) framework for designing and developing instructional materials that can provide wider access to quality higher education. This framework can be used to list generic processes that instructional designers and training developers use (Morrison et al., 2010 ). It represents a descriptive guideline for building effective training and performance support tools in five phases, as follows: 1.) Analysis, 2.) Design, 3.) Development, 4.) Implementation, and 5.) Evaluation. The researchers collected papers relating to online learning courses efficacy studies to provide a synthesis of scientifically rigorous knowledge in online learning courses, the researchers searched on ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), ProQuest databases, PubMed, Crossref, Scribd EBSCO, and Scopus. The researchers also conducted a manual search using Google Scholar. Based on the analysis, three main themes developed: 1.) comparison of online learning and traditional face-to-face setting, 2.) identification of important factors of online learning delivery, and 3.) factors of institutional adoption of online learning. Based on the results obtained 50 articles. The researchers examine each paper and found 30 articles that met the efficacy of online learning courses through having well-planned, well-designed courses and programs for higher education institution. Also, it highlights the importance of instructional design and the active role of institutions play in providing support structures for educators and students. Identification of different processes and activities in designing and developing an Online Learning Courses for Higher Education Institution will be the second phase of this study for which the researchers will consider using the theoretical aspect of the ADDIE framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Adoption of online mathematics learning in Ugandan government universities during the COVID-19 pandemic: pre-service teachers’ behavioural intention and challenges

Geofrey Kansiime & Marjorie Sarah Kabuye Batiibwe

Ethical Considerations of Conducting Systematic Reviews in Educational Research

Online learning in higher education: exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement

Amber D. Dumford & Angie L. Miller

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class Difference$: Online Education in the United States. http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences

Alonso, F., Lopez, G., Manrique, D., & Vines, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (2), 217–235 http://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/publicaties/literatuur/2005_modelforwebbasedelearning.pdf .

Article   Google Scholar  

Arbaugh, J.B., Godfrey, M., Johnson, M., Pollack, BL., Niendorf, B., & Wresch, W., (2009). Research in online and blended learning in the business disciplines: Key findings and possible future directions. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751609000268 .

Bell, B. S., & Fedeman, J. E. (2013). E-learning in postsecondary education. The Future of Children, 23 (1), 165–185.

Chen, L., (2016). A Model for Effective Online Instructional Design. http://infonomics-society.org/wpcontent/uploads/licej/published-papers/volume-7-2016/A-Model-for-Effective-Online-Instructional-Design.pdf

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2014). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc..

Google Scholar  

Finch, D., & Jacobs, K. (2012). Online education: Best practices to promote learning. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics 56th Annual Meeting.

Gallagher, S., & LaBrie, J. (2012). Online learning 2.0: Strategies for a mature market. Continuing Higher Education Review, 76 , 65–73.

Intulogy. (2010) ADDIE Instructional Design Model. http://www.intulogy.com/addie/

Lorenzetti, J. (2013). Academic Administration - Running a MOOC: Secrets of the World’s Largest Distance Education Classes - Magna Publications.

McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., & Kalman, H. (2010). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

Neuhauser, C., (2010). Learning Style and Effectiveness of Online and Face-to-Face Instruction. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_4

Pape, L. (2010). Blended Teaching & Learning. School Administrator, 67 (4), 16–21.

Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2006–2007 (NCES 2009–044). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences . Washington, DC: US Department of Education http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf .

Patrick, S., & Powell, A., (2009). A Summary of Research on the Effectiveness of K-12 Online Learning. https://?id=ED/?id=ED509626

Quality Matters (2015). QM publisher rubric: https://www.qualitymatters.org/

Razali, S., Nadiyah, S.F., (2015). The Development of Online Project Based Collaborative Learning Using ADDIE Model. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815038719 .

Roblyer, M. D. (2015). Introduction to systematic instructional design for traditional, online, and blended environments . New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc..

Rubric for Online Instruction (2010). QOLT (Quality Online Teaching and Learning). http://courseredesign.csuprojects.org/wp/qolt/

Saba, F. (2012). A systems approach to the future of distance education in colleges and universities: Research, development, and implementation. Continuing Higher Education Review, 76 , 30–37.

Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Surkes, M. A. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72 , 271–291.

Serhat, K., (2017). ADDIE Model: Instructional Design. https://educationaltechnology.net/the-addie-modelinstructional-design/ .

Sherry, L. (1995). Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1 (4), 337–365.

Siemens, G., Gasevic, D., & Dawson, S., (2015). Preparing for the Digital University: A review of the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning. https://linkresearchlab.org/PreparingDigitalUniversity.pdf

Siragusa, L., Dixon, K. C., & Dixon, R., (2007). Designing quality e-learning environments in higher education. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/siragusa.pdf

Zhang, D., (2010). Interactive Multimedia-Based E-Learning: A Study of Effectiveness. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_3

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

DIT at Angeles University Foundation, Angeles City, Pampanga, Philippines

Mayleen Dorcas B. Castro

Faculty, BulSU Graduate School and College of Information & Communications Technology, Bulacan State University, Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines

ITE Program, Graduate School, Angeles University Foundation, Angeles City, Pampanga, Philippines

Gilbert M. Tumibay

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mayleen Dorcas B. Castro .

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

Castro, M.D.B., Tumibay, G.M. A literature review: efficacy of online learning courses for higher education institution using meta-analysis. Educ Inf Technol 26 , 1367–1385 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10027-z

Download citation

Received : 16 April 2019

Accepted : 25 September 2019

Published : 04 November 2019

Issue Date : March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10027-z

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 learning courses
• ADDIE framework
• Efficacy and meta-analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Advantages and Disadvantages of Online and Face-to-Face Peer Learning in Higher Education: A Review

• Education and Society

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

During the pandemic, many institutions shifted to online teaching, and in some cases, this included existing peer learning programs. As the pandemic receded, some of these peer learning programs returned to face-to-face operation and others adopted a blended format, while others remained online. Interestingly, the literature suggests that online peer learning is somewhat more effective than face-to-face peer learning. This might be because online peer learning enables responses at any time (which might be more thoughtful), anonymity, and a wider nexus of relationships, although it can create issues regarding the initial development of trust. There are a great many studies of both face-to-face and online peer learning, but relatively few that directly compare both. By way of addressing this gap, this paper aims to systematically review 17 papers that directly compare both, informed by and updating the only previous review in this area. Online performs better than offline learning in terms of cognitive outcomes, with a small to moderate effect size. However, the associated socio-emotional issues are more complex. Online learning offers flexibility regarding response time, but sacrifices the immediate dialogue of offline learning. Some cultures found accepting peer learning more difficult. Few studies undertook longer-term follow-up, although with more practice motivation, this might well improve. The results have implications for the type of peer learning chosen by pedagogical designers as appropriate to their own learning context.

• peer assisted learning
• peer tutoring
• peer assessment

Access to Document

• 10.3390/educsci13040326 Licence: CC BY
• Final Published Version Final published version, 264 KB Licence: CC BY

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Education Engineering & Materials Science 100%
• Learning Medicine & Life Sciences 86%
• Distance Education Medicine & Life Sciences 83%
• Teaching Engineering & Materials Science 51%
• learning Social Sciences 40%
• education Social Sciences 36%
• Pandemics Medicine & Life Sciences 31%
• Nexus Medicine & Life Sciences 20%

T1 - Advantages and Disadvantages of Online and Face-to-Face Peer Learning in Higher Education

T2 - A Review

AU - Topping, Keith James

N1 - Copyright: © 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

PY - 2023/4

Y1 - 2023/4

N2 - During the pandemic, many institutions shifted to online teaching, and in some cases, this included existing peer learning programs. As the pandemic receded, some of these peer learning programs returned to face-to-face operation and others adopted a blended format, while others remained online. Interestingly, the literature suggests that online peer learning is somewhat more effective than face-to-face peer learning. This might be because online peer learning enables responses at any time (which might be more thoughtful), anonymity, and a wider nexus of relationships, although it can create issues regarding the initial development of trust. There are a great many studies of both face-to-face and online peer learning, but relatively few that directly compare both. By way of addressing this gap, this paper aims to systematically review 17 papers that directly compare both, informed by and updating the only previous review in this area. Online performs better than offline learning in terms of cognitive outcomes, with a small to moderate effect size. However, the associated socio-emotional issues are more complex. Online learning offers flexibility regarding response time, but sacrifices the immediate dialogue of offline learning. Some cultures found accepting peer learning more difficult. Few studies undertook longer-term follow-up, although with more practice motivation, this might well improve. The results have implications for the type of peer learning chosen by pedagogical designers as appropriate to their own learning context.

AB - During the pandemic, many institutions shifted to online teaching, and in some cases, this included existing peer learning programs. As the pandemic receded, some of these peer learning programs returned to face-to-face operation and others adopted a blended format, while others remained online. Interestingly, the literature suggests that online peer learning is somewhat more effective than face-to-face peer learning. This might be because online peer learning enables responses at any time (which might be more thoughtful), anonymity, and a wider nexus of relationships, although it can create issues regarding the initial development of trust. There are a great many studies of both face-to-face and online peer learning, but relatively few that directly compare both. By way of addressing this gap, this paper aims to systematically review 17 papers that directly compare both, informed by and updating the only previous review in this area. Online performs better than offline learning in terms of cognitive outcomes, with a small to moderate effect size. However, the associated socio-emotional issues are more complex. Online learning offers flexibility regarding response time, but sacrifices the immediate dialogue of offline learning. Some cultures found accepting peer learning more difficult. Few studies undertook longer-term follow-up, although with more practice motivation, this might well improve. The results have implications for the type of peer learning chosen by pedagogical designers as appropriate to their own learning context.

KW - peer assisted learning

KW - peer tutoring

KW - peer assessment

KW - online

KW - offline

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85153706122&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3390/educsci13040326

DO - 10.3390/educsci13040326

M3 - Article

SN - 2227-7102

JO - Education Sciences

JF - Education Sciences

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, a comparative analysis of student performance in an online vs. face-to-face environmental science course from 2009 to 2016.

• Department of Biology, Fort Valley State University, Fort Valley, GA, United States

A growing number of students are now opting for online classes. They find the traditional classroom modality restrictive, inflexible, and impractical. In this age of technological advancement, schools can now provide effective classroom teaching via the Web. This shift in pedagogical medium is forcing 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 scores of 548 students, 401 traditional students and 147 online students, in an environmental science class were used to determine which instructional modality generated better student performance. In addition to the overarching objective, we also examined score variabilities between genders and classifications to determine if teaching modality had a greater impact on specific groups. 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. 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. 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.

Introduction

The advent of online education has made it possible for students with busy lives and limited flexibility to obtain a quality education. As opposed to traditional classroom teaching, Web-based instruction has made it possible to offer classes worldwide through a single Internet connection. Although it boasts several advantages over traditional education, online instruction still has its drawbacks, including limited communal synergies. Still, online education seems to be the path many students are taking to secure a degree.

This study compared the effectiveness of online vs. traditional instruction in an environmental studies class. Using a single indicator, we attempted to see if student performance was effected by instructional medium. This study sought to compare online and F2F teaching on three levels—pure modality, gender, and class rank. Through these comparisons, we investigated whether one teaching modality was significantly more effective than the other. Although there were limitations to the study, this examination was conducted to provide us with additional measures to determine if students performed better in one environment over another ( Mozes-Carmel and Gold, 2009 ).

The methods, procedures, and operationalization tools used in this assessment can be expanded upon in future quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method designs to further analyze this topic. Moreover, the results of this study serve as a backbone for future meta-analytical studies.

Origins of Online Education

Computer-assisted instruction is changing the pedagogical landscape as an increasing number of students are seeking online education. Colleges and universities are now touting the efficiencies of Web-based education and are rapidly implementing online classes to meet student needs worldwide. One study reported “increases in the number of online courses given by universities have been quite dramatic over the last couple of years” ( Lundberg et al., 2008 ). Think tanks are also disseminating statistics on Web-based instruction. “In 2010, the Sloan Consortium found a 17% increase in online students from the years before, beating the 12% increase from the previous year” ( Keramidas, 2012 ).

Contrary to popular belief, online education is not a new phenomenon. The first correspondence and distance learning educational programs were initiated in the mid-1800s by the University of London. This model of educational learning was dependent on the postal service and therefore wasn't seen in American until the later Nineteenth century. It was in 1873 when what is considered the first official correspondence educational program was established in Boston, Massachusetts known as the “Society to Encourage Home Studies.” Since then, non-traditional study has grown into what it is today considered a more viable online instructional modality. Technological advancement indubitably helped improve the speed and accessibility of distance learning courses; now students worldwide could attend classes from the comfort of their own homes.

Qualities of Online and Traditional Face to Face (F2F) Classroom Education

Online and traditional education share many qualities. Students are still required to attend class, learn the material, submit assignments, and complete group projects. While teachers, still have to design curriculums, maximize instructional quality, answer class questions, motivate students to learn, and grade assignments. Despite these basic similarities, there are many differences between the two modalities. Traditionally, classroom instruction is known to be teacher-centered and requires passive learning by the student, while online instruction is often student-centered and requires active learning.

In teacher-centered, or passive learning, the instructor usually controls classroom dynamics. The teacher lectures and comments, while students listen, take notes, and ask questions. In student-centered, or active learning, the students usually determine classroom dynamics as they independently analyze the information, construct questions, and ask the instructor for clarification. In this scenario, the teacher, not the student, is listening, formulating, and responding ( Salcedo, 2010 ).

In education, change comes with questions. Despite all current reports championing online education, researchers are still questioning its efficacy. Research is still being conducted on the effectiveness of computer-assisted teaching. Cost-benefit analysis, student experience, and student performance are now being carefully considered when determining whether online education is a viable substitute for classroom teaching. This decision process will most probably carry into the future as technology improves and as students demand better learning experiences.

Thus far, “literature on the efficacy of online courses is expansive and divided” ( Driscoll et al., 2012 ). Some studies favor traditional classroom instruction, stating “online learners will quit more easily” and “online learning can lack feedback for both students and instructors” ( Atchley et al., 2013 ). Because of these shortcomings, student retention, satisfaction, and performance can be compromised. Like traditional teaching, distance learning also has its apologists who aver online education produces students who perform as well or better than their traditional classroom counterparts ( Westhuis et al., 2006 ).

The advantages and disadvantages of both instructional modalities need to be fully fleshed out and examined to truly determine which medium generates better student performance. Both modalities have been proven to be relatively effective, but, as mentioned earlier, the question to be asked is if one is truly better than the other.

Student Need for Online Education

With technological advancement, learners now want quality programs they can access from anywhere and at any time. Because of these demands, online education has become a viable, alluring option to business professionals, stay-at home-parents, and other similar populations. In addition to flexibility and access, multiple other face value benefits, including program choice and time efficiency, have increased the attractiveness of distance learning ( Wladis et al., 2015 ).

First, prospective students want to be able to receive a quality education without having to sacrifice work time, family time, and travel expense. Instead of having to be at a specific location at a specific time, online educational students have the freedom to communicate with instructors, address classmates, study materials, and complete assignments from any Internet-accessible point ( Richardson and Swan, 2003 ). This type of flexibility grants students much-needed mobility and, in turn, helps make the educational process more enticing. According to Lundberg et al. (2008) “the student may prefer to take an online course or a complete online-based degree program as online courses offer more flexible study hours; for example, a student who has a job could attend the virtual class watching instructional film and streaming videos of lectures after working hours.”

Moreover, more study time can lead to better class performance—more chapters read, better quality papers, and more group project time. Studies on the relationship between study time and performance are limited; however, it is often assumed the online student will use any surplus time to improve grades ( Bigelow, 2009 ). It is crucial to mention the link between flexibility and student performance as grades are the lone performance indicator of this research.

Second, online education also offers more program choices. With traditional classroom study, students are forced to take courses only at universities within feasible driving distance or move. Web-based instruction, on the other hand, grants students electronic access to multiple universities and course offerings ( Salcedo, 2010 ). Therefore, students who were once limited to a few colleges within their immediate area can now access several colleges worldwide from a single convenient location.

Third, with online teaching, students who usually don't participate in class may now voice their opinions and concerns. As they are not in a classroom setting, quieter students may feel more comfortable partaking in class dialogue without being recognized or judged. This, in turn, may increase average class scores ( Driscoll et al., 2012 ).

Benefits of Face-to-Face (F2F) Education via Traditional Classroom Instruction

The other modality, classroom teaching, is a well-established instructional medium in which teaching style and structure have been refined over several centuries. Face-to-face instruction has numerous benefits not found in its online counterpart ( Xu and Jaggars, 2016 ).

First and, perhaps most importantly, classroom instruction is extremely dynamic. Traditional classroom teaching provides real-time face-to-face instruction and sparks innovative questions. It also allows for immediate teacher response and more flexible content delivery. Online instruction dampens the learning process because students must limit their questions to blurbs, then grant the teacher and fellow classmates time to respond ( Salcedo, 2010 ). Over time, however, online teaching will probably improve, enhancing classroom dynamics and bringing students face-to face with their peers/instructors. However, for now, face-to-face instruction provides dynamic learning attributes not found in Web-based teaching ( Kemp and Grieve, 2014 ).

Second, traditional classroom learning is a well-established modality. Some students are opposed to change and view online instruction negatively. These students may be technophobes, more comfortable with sitting in a classroom taking notes than sitting at a computer absorbing data. Other students may value face-to-face interaction, pre and post-class discussions, communal learning, and organic student-teacher bonding ( Roval and Jordan, 2004 ). They may see the Internet as an impediment to learning. If not comfortable with the instructional medium, some students may shun classroom activities; their grades might slip and their educational interest might vanish. Students, however, may eventually adapt to online education. With more universities employing computer-based training, students may be forced to take only Web-based courses. Albeit true, this doesn't eliminate the fact some students prefer classroom intimacy.

Third, face-to-face instruction doesn't rely upon networked systems. In online learning, the student is dependent upon access to an unimpeded Internet connection. If technical problems occur, online students may not be able to communicate, submit assignments, or access study material. This problem, in turn, may frustrate the student, hinder performance, and discourage learning.

Fourth, campus education provides students with both accredited staff and research libraries. Students can rely upon administrators to aid in course selection and provide professorial recommendations. Library technicians can help learners edit their papers, locate valuable study material, and improve study habits. Research libraries may provide materials not accessible by computer. In all, the traditional classroom experience gives students important auxiliary tools to maximize classroom performance.

Fifth, traditional classroom degrees trump online educational degrees in terms of hiring preferences. Many academic and professional organizations do not consider online degrees on par with campus-based degrees ( Columbaro and Monaghan, 2009 ). Often, prospective hiring bodies think Web-based education is a watered-down, simpler means of attaining a degree, often citing poor curriculums, unsupervised exams, and lenient homework assignments as detriments to the learning process.

Finally, research shows online students are more likely to quit class if they do not like the instructor, the format, or the feedback. Because they work independently, relying almost wholly upon self-motivation and self-direction, online learners may be more inclined to withdraw from class if they do not get immediate results.

The classroom setting provides more motivation, encouragement, and direction. Even if a student wanted to quit during the first few weeks of class, he/she may be deterred by the instructor and fellow students. F2F instructors may be able to adjust the structure and teaching style of the class to improve student retention ( Kemp and Grieve, 2014 ). With online teaching, instructors are limited to electronic correspondence and may not pick-up on verbal and non-verbal cues.

Both F2F and online teaching have their pros and cons. More studies comparing the two modalities to achieve specific learning outcomes in participating learner populations are required before well-informed decisions can be made. This study examined the two modalities over eight (8) years on three different levels. Based on the aforementioned information, the following research questions resulted.

RQ1: Are there significant differences in academic performance between online and F2F students enrolled in an environmental science course?

RQ2: Are there gender differences between online and F2F student performance in an environmental science course?

RQ3: Are there significant differences between the performance of online and F2F students in an environmental science course with respect to class rank?

The results of this study are intended to edify teachers, administrators, and policymakers on which medium may work best.

Methodology

Participants.

The study sample consisted of 548 FVSU students who completed the Environmental Science class between 2009 and 2016. The final course grades of the participants served as the primary comparative factor in assessing performance differences between online and F2F instruction. Of the 548 total participants, 147 were online students while 401 were traditional students. This disparity was considered a limitation of the study. Of the 548 total students, 246 were male, while 302 were female. The study also used students from all four class ranks. There were 187 freshmen, 184 sophomores, 76 juniors, and 101 seniors. This was a convenience, non-probability sample so the composition of the study set was left to the discretion of the instructor. No special preferences or weights were given to students based upon gender or rank. Each student was considered a single, discrete entity or statistic.

All sections of the course were taught by a full-time biology professor at FVSU. The professor had over 10 years teaching experience in both classroom and F2F modalities. The professor was considered an outstanding tenured instructor with strong communication and management skills.

The F2F class met twice weekly in an on-campus classroom. Each class lasted 1 h and 15 min. The online class covered the same material as the F2F class, but was done wholly on-line using the Desire to Learn (D2L) e-learning system. Online students were expected to spend as much time studying as their F2F counterparts; however, no tracking measure was implemented to gauge e-learning study time. The professor combined textbook learning, lecture and class discussion, collaborative projects, and assessment tasks to engage students in the learning process.

This study did not differentiate between part-time and full-time students. Therefore, many part-time students may have been included in this study. This study also did not differentiate between students registered primarily at FVSU or at another institution. Therefore, many students included in this study may have used FVSU as an auxiliary institution to complete their environmental science class requirement.

Test Instruments

In this study, student performance was operationalized by final course grades. The final course grade was derived from test, homework, class participation, and research project scores. The four aforementioned assessments were valid and relevant; they were useful in gauging student ability and generating objective performance measurements. The final grades were converted from numerical scores to traditional GPA letters.

Data Collection Procedures

The sample 548 student grades were obtained from FVSU's Office of Institutional Research Planning and Effectiveness (OIRPE). The OIRPE released the grades to the instructor with the expectation the instructor would maintain confidentiality and not disclose said information to third parties. After the data was obtained, the instructor analyzed and processed the data though SPSS software to calculate specific values. These converted values were subsequently used to draw conclusions and validate the hypothesis.

Summary of the Results: The chi-square analysis showed no significant difference in student performance between online and face-to-face (F2F) learners [χ 2 (4, N = 548) = 6.531, p > 0.05]. The independent sample t -test showed no significant difference in student performance between online and F2F learners with respect to gender [ t (145) = 1.42, p = 0.122]. The 2-way ANOVA showed no significant difference in student performance between online and F2F learners with respect to class rank ( Girard et al., 2016 ).

Research question #1 was to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the academic performance of online and F2F students.

Research Question 1

The first research question investigated if there was a difference in student performance between F2F and online learners.

To investigate the first research question, we used a traditional chi-square method to analyze the data. The chi-square analysis is particularly useful for this type of comparison because it allows us to determine if the relationship between teaching modality and performance in our sample set can be extended to the larger population. The chi-square method provides us with a numerical result which can be used to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the two groups.

Table 1 shows us the mean and SD for modality and for gender. It is a general breakdown of numbers to visually elucidate any differences between scores and deviations. The mean GPA for both modalities is similar with F2F learners scoring a 69.35 and online learners scoring a 68.64. Both groups had fairly similar SDs. A stronger difference can be seen between the GPAs earned by men and women. Men had a 3.23 mean GPA while women had a 2.9 mean GPA. The SDs for both groups were almost identical. Even though the 0.33 numerical difference may look fairly insignificant, it must be noted that a 3.23 is approximately a B+ while a 2.9 is approximately a B. Given a categorical range of only A to F, a plus differential can be considered significant.

Table 1 . Means and standard deviations for 8 semester- “Environmental Science data set.”

The mean grade for men in the environmental online classes ( M = 3.23, N = 246, SD = 1.19) was higher than the mean grade for women in the classes ( M = 2.9, N = 302, SD = 1.20) (see Table 1 ).

First, a chi-square analysis was performed using SPSS to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in grade distribution between online and F2F students. Students enrolled in the F2F class had the highest percentage of A's (63.60%) as compared to online students (36.40%). Table 2 displays grade distribution by course delivery modality. The difference in student performance was statistically significant, χ 2 (4, N = 548) = 6.531, p > 0.05. Table 3 shows the gender difference on student performance between online and F2F students.

Table 2 . Contingency table for student's academic performance ( N = 548).

Table 3 . Gender * performance crosstabulation.

Table 2 shows us the performance measures of online and F2F students by grade category. As can be seen, F2F students generated the highest performance numbers for each grade category. However, this disparity was mostly due to a higher number of F2F students in the study. There were 401 F2F students as opposed to just 147 online students. When viewing grades with respect to modality, there are smaller percentage differences between respective learners ( Tanyel and Griffin, 2014 ). For example, F2F learners earned 28 As (63.60% of total A's earned) while online learners earned 16 As (36.40% of total A's earned). However, when viewing the A grade with respect to total learners in each modality, it can be seen that 28 of the 401 F2F students (6.9%) earned As as compared to 16 of 147 (10.9%) online learners. In this case, online learners scored relatively higher in this grade category. The latter measure (grade total as a percent of modality total) is a better reflection of respective performance levels.

Given a critical value of 7.7 and a d.f. of 4, we were able to generate a chi-squared measure of 6.531. The correlating p -value of 0.163 was greater than our p -value significance level of 0.05. We, therefore, had to accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis. There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of performance scores.

Research Question 2

The second research question was posed to evaluate if there was a difference between online and F2F varied with gender. Does online and F2F student performance vary with respect to gender? Table 3 shows the gender difference on student performance between online and face to face students. We used chi-square test to determine if there were differences in online and F2F student performance with respect to gender. The chi-square test with alpha equal to 0.05 as criterion for significance. The chi-square result shows that there is no statistically significant difference between men and women in terms of performance.

Research Question 3

The third research question tried to determine if there was a difference between online and F2F varied with respect to class rank. Does online and F2F student performance vary with respect to class rank?

Table 4 shows the mean scores and standard deviations of freshman, sophomore, and junior and senior students for both online and F2F student performance. To test the third hypothesis, we used a two-way ANOVA. The ANOVA is a useful appraisal tool for this particular hypothesis as it tests the differences between multiple means. Instead of testing specific differences, the ANOVA generates a much broader picture of average differences. As can be seen in Table 4 , the ANOVA test for this particular hypothesis states there is no significant difference between online and F2F learners with respect to class rank. Therefore, we must accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis.

Table 4 . Descriptive analysis of student performance by class rankings gender.

The results of the ANOVA show there is no significant difference in performance between online and F2F students with respect to class rank. Results of ANOVA is presented in Table 5 .

Table 5 . Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for online and F2F of class rankings.

As can be seen in Table 4 , the ANOVA test for this particular hypothesis states there is no significant difference between online and F2F learners with respect to class rank. Therefore, we must accept the null hypothesis and reject the alternative hypothesis.

Discussion and Social Implications

The results of the study show there is no significant difference in performance between online and traditional classroom students with respect to modality, gender, or class rank in a science concepts course for non-STEM majors. Although there were sample size issues and study limitations, this assessment shows both online learners and classroom learners perform at the same level. This conclusion indicates teaching modality may not matter as much as other factors. Given the relatively sparse data on pedagogical modality comparison given specific student population characteristics, this study could be considered innovative. In the current literature, we have not found a study of this nature comparing online and F2F non-STEM majors with respect to three separate factors—medium, gender, and class rank—and the ability to learn science concepts and achieve learning outcomes. Previous studies have compared traditional classroom learning vs. F2F learning for other factors (including specific courses, costs, qualitative analysis, etcetera, but rarely regarding outcomes relevant to population characteristics of learning for a specific science concepts course over many years) ( Liu, 2005 ).

In a study evaluating the transformation of a graduate level course for teachers, academic quality of the online course and learning outcomes were evaluated. The study evaluated the ability of course instructors to design the course for online delivery and develop various interactive multimedia models at a cost-savings to the respective university. The online learning platform proved effective in translating information where tested students successfully achieved learning outcomes comparable to students taking the F2F course ( Herman and Banister, 2007 ).

Another study evaluated the similarities and differences in F2F and online learning in a non-STEM course, “Foundations of American Education” and overall course satisfaction by students enrolled in either of the two modalities. F2F and online course satisfaction was qualitatively and quantitative analyzed. However, in analyzing online and F2F course feedback using quantitative feedback, online course satisfaction was less than F2F satisfaction. When qualitative data was used, course satisfaction was similar between modalities ( Werhner, 2010 ). The course satisfaction data and feedback was used to suggest a number of posits for effective online learning in the specific course. The researcher concluded that there was no difference in the learning success of students enrolled in the online vs. F2F course, stating that “in terms of learning, students who apply themselves diligently should be successful in either format” ( Dell et al., 2010 ). The author's conclusion presumes that the “issues surrounding class size are under control and that the instructor has a course load that makes the intensity of the online course workload feasible” where the authors conclude that the workload for online courses is more than for F2F courses ( Stern, 2004 ).

In “A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education,” Bernard et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis evaluating three types of instructional and/or media conditions designed into distance education (DE) courses known as interaction treatments (ITs)—student–student (SS), student–teacher (ST), or student–content (SC) interactions—to other DE instructional/interaction treatments. The researchers found that a strong association existed between the integration of these ITs into distance education courses and achievement compared with blended or F2F modalities of learning. The authors speculated that this was due to increased cognitive engagement based in these three interaction treatments ( Larson and Sung, 2009 ).

Other studies evaluating students' preferences (but not efficacy) for online vs. F2F learning found that students prefer online learning when it was offered, depending on course topic, and online course technology platform ( Ary and Brune, 2011 ). F2F learning was preferred when courses were offered late morning or early afternoon 2–3 days/week. A significant preference for online learning resulted across all undergraduate course topics (American history and government, humanities, natural sciences, social, and behavioral sciences, diversity, and international dimension) except English composition and oral communication. A preference for analytical and quantitative thought courses was also expressed by students, though not with statistically significant results ( Mann and Henneberry, 2014 ). In this research study, we looked at three hypothesis comparing online and F2F learning. In each case, the null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, at no level of examination did we find a significant difference between online and F2F learners. This finding is important because it tells us traditional-style teaching with its heavy emphasis on interpersonal classroom dynamics may 1 day be replaced by online instruction. According to Daymont and Blau (2008) online learners, regardless of gender or class rank, learn as much from electronic interaction as they do from personal interaction. Kemp and Grieve (2014) also found that both online and F2F learning for psychology students led to similar academic performance. Given the cost efficiencies and flexibility of online education, Web-based instructional systems may rapidly rise.

A number of studies support the economic benefits of online vs. F2F learning, despite differences in social constructs and educational support provided by governments. In a study by Li and Chen (2012) higher education institutions benefit the most from two of four outputs—research outputs and distance education—with teaching via distance education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels more profitable than F2F teaching at higher education institutions in China. Zhang and Worthington (2017) reported an increasing cost benefit for the use of distance education over F2F instruction as seen at 37 Australian public universities over 9 years from 2003 to 2012. Maloney et al. (2015) and Kemp and Grieve (2014) also found significant savings in higher education when using online learning platforms vs. F2F learning. In the West, the cost efficiency of online learning has been demonstrated by several research studies ( Craig, 2015 ). Studies by Agasisti and Johnes (2015) and Bartley and Golek (2004) both found the cost benefits of online learning significantly greater than that of F2F learning at U.S. institutions.

Knowing there is no significant difference in student performance between the two mediums, institutions of higher education may make the gradual shift away from traditional instruction; they may implement Web-based teaching to capture a larger worldwide audience. If administered correctly, this shift to Web-based teaching could lead to a larger buyer population, more cost efficiencies, and more university revenue.

The social implications of this study should be touted; however, several concerns regarding generalizability need to be taken into account. First, this study focused solely on students from an environmental studies class for non-STEM majors. The ability to effectively prepare students for scientific professions without hands-on experimentation has been contended. As a course that functions to communicate scientific concepts, but does not require a laboratory based component, these results may not translate into similar performance of students in an online STEM course for STEM majors or an online course that has an online laboratory based co-requisite when compared to students taking traditional STEM courses for STEM majors. There are few studies that suggest the landscape may be changing with the ability to effectively train students in STEM core concepts via online learning. Biel and Brame (2016) reported successfully translating the academic success of F2F undergraduate biology courses to online biology courses. However, researchers reported that of the large-scale courses analyzed, two F2F sections outperformed students in online sections, and three found no significant difference. A study by Beale et al. (2014) comparing F2F learning with hybrid learning in an embryology course found no difference in overall student performance. Additionally, the bottom quartile of students showed no differential effect of the delivery method on examination scores. Further, a study from Lorenzo-Alvarez et al. (2019) found that radiology education in an online learning platform resulted in similar academic outcomes as F2F learning. Larger scale research is needed to determine the effectiveness of STEM online learning and outcomes assessments, including workforce development results.

In our research study, it is possible the study participants may have been more knowledgeable about environmental science than about other subjects. Therefore, it should be noted this study focused solely on students taking this one particular class. Given the results, this course presents a unique potential for increasing the number of non-STEM majors engaged in citizen science using the flexibility of online learning to teach environmental science core concepts.

Second, the operationalization measure of “grade” or “score” to determine performance level may be lacking in scope and depth. The grades received in a class may not necessarily show actual ability, especially if the weights were adjusted to heavily favor group tasks and writing projects. Other performance indicators may be better suited to properly access student performance. A single exam containing both multiple choice and essay questions may be a better operationalization indicator of student performance. This type of indicator will provide both a quantitative and qualitative measure of subject matter comprehension.

Third, the nature of the student sample must be further dissected. It is possible the online students in this study may have had more time than their counterparts to learn the material and generate better grades ( Summers et al., 2005 ). The inverse holds true, as well. Because this was a convenience non-probability sampling, the chances of actually getting a fair cross section of the student population were limited. In future studies, greater emphasis must be placed on selecting proper study participants, those who truly reflect proportions, types, and skill levels.

This study was relevant because it addressed an important educational topic; it compared two student groups on multiple levels using a single operationalized performance measure. More studies, however, of this nature need to be conducted before truly positing that online and F2F teaching generate the same results. Future studies need to eliminate spurious causal relationships and increase generalizability. This will maximize the chances of generating a definitive, untainted results. This scientific inquiry and comparison into online and traditional teaching will undoubtedly garner more attention in the coming years.

Our study compared learning via F2F vs. online learning modalities in teaching an environmental science course additionally evaluating factors of gender and class rank. 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. The social implications of this finding are important for advancing access to and learning of scientific concepts by the general population, as many institutions of higher education allow an online course to be taken without enrolling in a degree program. Thus, the 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.

Limitations of the Study

The limitations of the study centered around the nature of the sample group, student skills/abilities, and student familiarity with online instruction. First, because this was a convenience, non-probability sample, the independent variables were not adjusted for real-world accuracy. Second, student intelligence and skill level were not taken into consideration when separating out comparison groups. There exists the possibility that the F2F learners in this study may have been more capable than the online students and vice versa. This limitation also applies to gender and class rank differences ( Friday et al., 2006 ). Finally, there may have been ease of familiarity issues between the two sets of learners. Experienced traditional classroom students now taking Web-based courses may be daunted by the technical aspect of the modality. They may not have had the necessary preparation or experience to efficiently e-learn, thus leading to lowered scores ( Helms, 2014 ). In addition to comparing online and F2F instructional efficacy, future research should also analyze blended teaching methods for the effectiveness of courses for non-STEM majors to impart basic STEM concepts and see if the blended style is more effective than any one pure style.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Fort Valley State University Human Subjects Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

JP provided substantial contributions to the conception of the work, acquisition and analysis of data for the work, and is the corresponding author on this paper who agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. FJ provided substantial contributions to the design of the work, interpretation of the data for the work, and revised it critically for intellectual content.

This research was supported in part by funding from the National Science Foundation, Awards #1649717, 1842510, Ñ900572, and 1939739 to FJ.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their detailed comments and feedback that assisted in the revising of our original manuscript.

Agasisti, T., and Johnes, G. (2015). Efficiency, costs, rankings and heterogeneity: the case of US higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 40, 60–82. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.818644

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ary, E. J., and Brune, C. W. (2011). A comparison of student learning outcomes in traditional and online personal finance courses. MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach. 7, 465–474.

Google Scholar

Atchley, W., Wingenbach, G., and Akers, C. (2013). Comparison of course completion and student performance through online and traditional courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 14, 104–116. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1461

Bartley, S. J., and Golek, J. H. (2004). Evaluating the cost effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. Educ. Technol. Soc. 7, 167–175.

Beale, E. G., Tarwater, P. M., and Lee, V. H. (2014). A retrospective look at replacing face-to-face embryology instruction with online lectures in a human anatomy course. Am. Assoc. Anat. 7, 234–241. doi: 10.1002/ase.1396

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkesh, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 1243–1289. doi: 10.3102/0034654309333844

Biel, R., and Brame, C. J. (2016). Traditional versus online biology courses: connecting course design and student learning in an online setting. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 17, 417–422. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1157

Bigelow, C. A. (2009). Comparing student performance in an online versus a face to face introductory turfgrass science course-a case study. NACTA J. 53, 1–7.

Columbaro, N. L., and Monaghan, C. H. (2009). Employer perceptions of online degrees: a literature review. Online J. Dist. Learn. Administr. 12.

Craig, R. (2015). A Brief History (and Future) of Online Degrees. Forbes/Education . Available online at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2015/06/23/a-brief-history-and-future-of-online-degrees/#e41a4448d9a8

Daymont, T., and Blau, G. (2008). Student performance in online and traditional sections of an undergraduate management course. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 9, 275–294.

Dell, C. A., Low, C., and Wilker, J. F. (2010). Comparing student achievement in online and face-to-face class formats. J. Online Learn. Teach. Long Beach 6, 30–42.

Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., and Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Am. Sociol. Assoc . 40, 312–313. doi: 10.1177/0092055X12446624

Friday, E., Shawnta, S., Green, A. L., and Hill, A. Y. (2006). A multi-semester comparison of student performance between multiple traditional and online sections of two management courses. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 8, 66–81.

Girard, J. P., Yerby, J., and Floyd, K. (2016). Knowledge retention in capstone experiences: an analysis of online and face-to-face courses. Knowl. Manag. ELearn. 8, 528–539. doi: 10.34105/j.kmel.2016.08.033

Helms, J. L. (2014). Comparing student performance in online and face-to-face delivery modalities. J. Asynchr. Learn. Netw. 18, 1–14. doi: 10.24059/olj.v18i1.348

Herman, T., and Banister, S. (2007). Face-to-face versus online coursework: a comparison of costs and learning outcomes. Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. 7, 318–326.

Kemp, N., and Grieve, R. (2014). Face-to-Face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates' opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning. Front. Psychol. 5:1278. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278

Keramidas, C. G. (2012). Are undergraduate students ready for online learning? A comparison of online and face-to-face sections of a course. Rural Special Educ. Q . 31, 25–39. doi: 10.1177/875687051203100405

Larson, D.K., and Sung, C. (2009). Comparing student performance: online versus blended versus face-to-face. J. Asynchr. Learn. Netw. 13, 31–42. doi: 10.24059/olj.v13i1.1675

Li, F., and Chen, X. (2012). Economies of scope in distance education: the case of Chinese Research Universities. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 13, 117–131.

Liu, Y. (2005). Effects of online instruction vs. traditional instruction on student's learning. Int. J. Instruct. Technol. Dist. Learn. 2, 57–64.

Lorenzo-Alvarez, R., Rudolphi-Solero, T., Ruiz-Gomez, M. J., and Sendra-Portero, F. (2019). Medical student education for abdominal radiographs in a 3D virtual classroom versus traditional classroom: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Roentgenol. 213, 644–650. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21131

Lundberg, J., Castillo-Merino, D., and Dahmani, M. (2008). Do online students perform better than face-to-face students? Reflections and a short review of some Empirical Findings. Rev. Univ. Soc. Conocim . 5, 35–44. doi: 10.7238/rusc.v5i1.326

Maloney, S., Nicklen, P., Rivers, G., Foo, J., Ooi, Y. Y., Reeves, S., et al. (2015). Cost-effectiveness analysis of blended versus face-to-face delivery of evidence-based medicine to medical students. J. Med. Internet Res. 17:e182. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4346

Mann, J. T., and Henneberry, S. R. (2014). Online versus face-to-face: students' preferences for college course attributes. J. Agric. Appl. Econ . 46, 1–19. doi: 10.1017/S1074070800000602

Mozes-Carmel, A., and Gold, S. S. (2009). A comparison of online vs proctored final exams in online classes. Imanagers J. Educ. Technol. 6, 76–81. doi: 10.26634/jet.6.1.212

Richardson, J. C., and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to student's perceived learning and satisfaction. J. Asynchr. Learn. 7, 68–88.

Roval, A. P., and Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: a comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 5. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v5i2.192

Salcedo, C. S. (2010). Comparative analysis of learning outcomes in face-to-face foreign language classes vs. language lab and online. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. 7, 43–54. doi: 10.19030/tlc.v7i2.88

Stern, B. S. (2004). A comparison of online and face-to-face instruction in an undergraduate foundations of american education course. Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. J. 4, 196–213.

Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., and Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innov. High. Educ. 29, 233–250. doi: 10.1007/s10755-005-1938-x

Tanyel, F., and Griffin, J. (2014). A Ten-Year Comparison of Outcomes and Persistence Rates in Online versus Face-to-Face Courses . Retrieved from: https://www.westga.edu/~bquest/2014/onlinecourses2014.pdf

Werhner, M. J. (2010). A comparison of the performance of online versus traditional on-campus earth science students on identical exams. J. Geosci. Educ. 58, 310–312. doi: 10.5408/1.3559697

Westhuis, D., Ouellette, P. M., and Pfahler, C. L. (2006). A comparative analysis of on-line and classroom-based instructional formats for teaching social work research. Adv. Soc. Work 7, 74–88. doi: 10.18060/184

Wladis, C., Conway, K. M., and Hachey, A. C. (2015). The online STEM classroom-who succeeds? An exploration of the impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional student characteristics in the community college context. Commun. Coll. Rev. 43, 142–164. doi: 10.1177/0091552115571729

Xu, D., and Jaggars, S. S. (2016). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: differences across types of students and academic subject areas. J. Higher Educ. 85, 633–659. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2014.0028

Zhang, L.-C., and Worthington, A. C. (2017). Scale and scope economies of distance education in Australian universities. Stud. High. Educ. 42, 1785–1799. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1126817

Keywords: face-to-face (F2F), traditional classroom teaching, web-based instructions, information and communication technology (ICT), online learning, desire to learn (D2L), passive learning, active learning

Citation: Paul J and Jefferson F (2019) A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in an Online vs. Face-to-Face Environmental Science Course From 2009 to 2016. Front. Comput. Sci. 1:7. doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007

Received: 15 May 2019; Accepted: 15 October 2019; Published: 12 November 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Paul and Jefferson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jasmine Paul, paulj@fvsu.edu

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
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Advantages and Disadvantages of E-Learning Innovations during COVID-19 Pandemic in Higher Education in Poland

Associated data.

Data are contained within the article.

The paper presents the results of the research on the advantages and disadvantages of innovative e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in higher education. In the first stage, an internet questionnaire was used for the study. The research was carried out in Poland on a sample of 621 students. The results allowed the researchers to determine variables that are important for the proper implementation of innovative e-learning, and the emergent perspectives for this form of education after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the most significant disadvantages, there was a lack of direct contact with colleagues, difficulties with teaching practical subjects, lack of direct contact with the teacher, and too much time spent in front of a computer/telephone or other mobile device. The most important correlations included the following: students satisfied with e-learning assess the advantages highly and the disadvantages lower; all the advantages of innovative e-learning are positively correlated with the student’s assessment of the ease of acquiring content in e-learning, and negatively correlated with the student’s assessment of the ease of acquiring content in traditional education; the easier the student assimilates innovative e-learning content, the higher the student’s evaluation of the advantages of e-learning; students who perceive e-learning content as difficult to absorb have low motivation to learn remotely; the better the student knows information technology, the more highly the student evaluates the advantages of innovative e-learning; the better resources to participate in e-learning activities the student has, the higher the student’s evaluation of the advantages of e-learning; the more often innovative e-learning solutions are used in a given university, the better the student assesses the advantages of e-learning.

1. Introduction

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many universities around the world, including Polish ones, which previously used mainly traditional education [ 1 ], were forced to switch to e-learning. This new, innovative solution can be used in many universities to adjust the way of learning to the changing situation. The perception and evaluation of e-learning by students during the pandemic, and the identification of the advantages and disadvantages of this type of education, are interesting and worthy of investigation. It is also important to determine what variables may influence students’ perception of particular advantages and disadvantages of e-learning. This knowledge will allow researchers to determine variables that are important for the proper implementation of e-learning, and the understand the perspectives which are posed for this form of education after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Based on the analysis of the literature on the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning [ 2 , 3 , 4 ], comparison of traditional and e-learning [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ], practical e-learning [ 9 ], improving quality of teaching [ 10 , 11 ], e-learning innovative tools [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ] and services usage in e-learning [ 19 , 20 ], we have found the research gap in terms of advantages and disadvantages of innovative e-learning in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is worth noting that there has been no research about variables influencing the advantages and disadvantages of innovative e-learning. In the research, the following goals were set:

• • G1: To analyze the advantages and disadvantages of innovative e-learning that are the most important from the point of view of university students.
• • G2: To analyze the relation between the advantages and disadvantages of innovative e-learning at universities.
• • G3: To analyze the relation between the evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of innovative e-learning and the ease of acquiring content in traditional learning and e-learning by students.
• • G4: To analyze the relationship between the assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of innovative e-learning, and other investigated variables.

To realize the mentioned goals, the following scientific expectations were formulated:

• • E1: The most important advantages of innovative e-learning refer to the reduction in travel time and study expenses.
• • E2: Good contact with teachers and the teachers’ ability to communicate about the use of remote tools are important variables positively influencing e-learning.
• • E3: The easier the student assimilates e-learning content, the higher the student evaluates the advantages of e-learning.
• • E4: The better the student knows information technology, the higher the student evaluates the advantages of e-learning.
• • E5: The better resources to participate in e-learning activities the student has, the higher the student evaluates the advantages of e-learning.
• • E6: The more often innovative e-learning solutions are used in a given university, the better the student assesses the advantages of e-learning.

2. Literature Review

E-learning is a method that has been known and used for many years, long antedating the COVID-19 pandemic [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. The term e-learning has emerged because of the integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education fields [ 22 ]. The development of computer technology has made remote tools and methods more and more popular—this is also the case in education. Despite the fact that educational institutions mostly use traditional methods to provide knowledge to students, it has been predicted that e-learning’s popularity will grow [ 25 ]. According to Global Market Insight [ 25 ], the COVID-19 pandemic has had a positive impact on e-learning industry revenue. Employee safety concerns have encouraged corporations to implement work-from-home practices. The telecommunications and broadband sector has increased accessibility to economical internet connectivity plans. Nearly 4.9 billion individuals use the internet globally, while in 2019 it was 4.1 billion. As the number of internet users increases, more and more people will be able to access e-learning platforms to take courses or complete degrees. In addition to education, the use of remote work methods [ 26 , 27 , 28 ] and tools [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ] is also observed in different work areas. The COVID-19 pandemic had a strong impact on e-learning popularization and the change in the usage of innovative e-learning tools in university education [ 33 ]. According to research [ 33 ], the percentage of students familiar with the analyzed e-learning tools has increased significantly during the pandemic. There has been a visible rise, especially in the usage of the following tools: MS Teams, Zoom, and Google Classroom. Students have also used e-learning platforms. It is worth noting that e-learning tools were not used on a large scale before the pandemic [ 34 , 35 ].

On the other hand, the younger generation has been raised with the usage of mobile technology and the Internet. Children with smartphones follow YouTube channels, play games, and record and post videos—this is something common these days. Young people’s getting used to using mobile devices may make it difficult for them to focus on traditional lectures. Because of this, educators should also strive to use modern technologies and apply them to teaching purposes and involve students in lectures [ 36 , 37 ]. Mobile technologies enhance the e-learning opportunity [ 38 ]. Remote education meets the needs of young generations because, among other reasons, it is based on mobile technologies [ 39 ]. E-learning is a great opportunity to better adapt to the expectations of modern students [ 40 ]. Furthermore, social media can also be used for education [ 41 ]. However, it should be emphasized that e-learning should be accompanied by high standards of quality [ 42 ]. The usage of information technologies at universities is very attractive and fruitful; however, it does not always mean that the implementation of e-learning is easy and is done correctly [ 43 ]. Additionally, changes in learning can also lead to increased sustainability at universities [ 44 ].

The introduction of remote education is not sufficient if it is not followed by good quality content, teaching method, materials, ways of verifying knowledge and skills, and last but not least, competent academics [ 45 ]. Bylieva et al. [ 46 ] noticed that an important parameter that influences the behavior of students and their educational progress in general is precisely the focus on practice. In Assareh and Bidokht’s [ 47 ] research, four kinds of e-learning barriers were outlined. They include the following barriers:

• • Learners—who can have financial problems, motivation issues, problems with assessment of their progress, isolation from peers’ matters, inadequate skills and experience in distance learning, and problems with affection and the social domain;
• • Teachers—with barriers such as lack of adequate knowledge about the e-teaching environment, difficulty in the assessment of progress in the different domain;
• • Curriculum—ambiguity, quality, resources, teaching process, evaluation;
• • School—in this area, there are organizational and structural factors.

Overcoming the groups of barriers mentioned above requires more cooperation from such participants as curriculum developers, teachers, students’ parents, social authorities, technology specialists, and also the preparation of virtual and real interaction between students, teachers, and society [ 47 ]. According to Becker et al. [ 48 ] the critical issue in order to successfully implement e-learning is to ensure that users know about the nature of e-learning and to address concerns about its validity and usefulness. Providing opportunities to actively engage with the material, and potentially with other learners, is also very important. In many cases, it can only be accomplished by implementing a quality learning product that can then be experienced by individual learners. What is more, people responsible for e-learning adoption need to be aware of the fact that organizational issues such as support and time allocation should be part of any strategy to adopt e-learning. Knowing the barriers to the implementation of e-learning will help to successfully overcome them.

Some of the barriers are related to the disadvantages of e-learning. Hence, the identification of disadvantages, but also advantages [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ], of e-learning is an important issue [ 53 , 54 , 55 ]. There is much research on the topic of advantages and disadvantages, to name a few (e.g., [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]). Some of the research [ 9 , 10 , 11 ] is focused on the challenges and advantages of e-learning. There is also more detailed research which discusses the positive sides of e-learning with the use of WhatsApp [ 12 , 13 , 14 ], YouTube [ 19 , 20 ], tablet PCs [ 17 , 18 ], and smartphones [ 15 , 16 ]. Some authors [ 7 , 8 ] compare e- and traditional education in terms of pros and cons. From the university’s point of view, e-learning leads to some organizational savings, better use of the infrastructure, and increased flexibility in time [ 56 ]. More significantly, this type of learning offers greater opportunities for post-graduate study, and better attendance at classes [ 57 ]. On the other hand, e-learning leads to limited interpersonal contacts and isolation from peers, which might have affected the mental well-being of students [ 58 ]. It is worth noting that the results of research conducted on smaller research samples differs from each other; namely some results show that e-learning does not necessary cause isolation [ 59 ], and some other research pays attention to isolation among teachers [ 60 ]. An important issue related to the quality of e-learning is verification of the results, and this topic is broadly described in the literature, including e-cheating and its prevention [ 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. It is worth emphasizing that both traditional [ 1 ] and e-learning [ 7 ] have many positive sides and it is difficult to clearly define which of them is unambiguously better.

The possibility exists of using innovative learning solutions based on the use of widespread e-learning in recent years, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic [ 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ]. Using e-learning, we could base our approach upon the traditional innovation approach or use open innovation [ 75 , 76 , 77 ]. We can describe open innovation as a combination of external and internal ideas and a path to develop something, especially using new technology [ 78 ]. In e-learning, the open innovation approach can base its approach upon mixing external solutions—computer programs, applications, and technical solutions—with the internal experiences from within the organization [ 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 ]. This approach can lead to an increase in the effectiveness of innovative solutions used in the university’s learning. It is especially important to look for experience and expertise outside of the organization, because in the open innovation approach, external experts can create a significant amount of added value. Many e-learning solutions have an open character because we can use them without paying for them if we do not need the full version of the application. Such is the case, for example, with the use of Zoom platform in e-learning [ 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 ].

Usually, when discussing advantages and disadvantages, the authors refer to the period before the pandemic; however, some research on e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic has also been published lately. These works usually discuss the process of organization and the application of the e-learning method and tools in the education field [ 57 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 ]. Some authors [ 89 , 90 , 96 , 97 ] noticed that the implementation of remote learning in universities was a great challenge. Universities, even technological ones, did not expect a rapid need to switch to distance learning [ 98 ] from traditional learning [ 1 ]. Therefore, to continue courses during the so-called waves of the pandemic, education had to face the challenge of preparing and operating educational or videoconferencing platforms, acquiring e-learning skills and knowledge, and overcoming barriers, as well as resistance to the new. One important issue is also the motivation of students to learn online. Authors [ 99 , 100 ] conducted a study identifying factors influencing student motivation in remote learning during the pandemic.

Based on the analysis of research publications, it can be claimed that there is much research on the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning that was done before the pandemic. There is also some research on e-learning during the pandemic. However, there is a lack of papers that discuss and identify advantages and disadvantages of e-learning during the pandemic of COVID-19. We found only two papers that refer to the topic of pros and cons of e-learning during the pandemic. The first one [ 53 ], is focused only on advantages. The other one [ 101 ] discusses the challenges and opportunities, therefore it can be treated as discussing advantages. However, there are no satisfactory studies on identifying and evaluating advantages and disadvantages by students during the pandemic of COVID-19. Therefore, it was justified to conduct research on this topic.

3. Methodology

The paper presents the results of the research conducted in Poland in December 2021. The participants included a sample of 621 students from Polish universities. An internet—Google—questionnaire was used for the study. Google Forms offers survey administration, which means that in addition to the possibility of creating a form with questions, it allows researchers to automatically collect data and save them to an MS Excel file. We used in our research a non-random process approach to collect our data, but a convenient sample. It was not possible to use a random sample, because we did not have the list of all students. Questionnaires were sent to and posted on Facebook pages of Polish technical universities. In the research, a quantitative data collection method was used. The next stage included the statistical analysis of the collected data. In our data analysis we used the following quantitative technics: standard deviation analysis, histograms analysis, and Spearman’s rank correlation.

In the below text and tables, correlations statistically significant at the level of statistical significance α = 0.05 are shown in bold and green.

According to the calculator of the minimum research sample, for an unknown population size and the assumed statistical significance α = 0.05, the sample is 386 students [ 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 ]. The number of questionnaires obtained meets the condition of the minimum research sample. A five-point Likert scale was used for all questions in the survey.

The first part of the research referred to the advantages of using e-learning in higher education.

In this case, the following variables were used:

• • A1—Saving time;
• • A2—Lack of travel necessity;
• • A3—Possibility of learning from own home country/city;
• • A4—Lower costs;
• • A5—Individualization of the learning process;
• • A6—Easy access to materials;
• • A7—Good contact with the teacher;
• • A8—Higher availability of academic teachers;
• • A9—Ease of student progress tracking;
• • A10—Less mental and physical stress;
• • A11—Possibility of interaction (discussion on the forum, sending reactions);
• • A12—Convenience;
• • A13—Limiting the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The second part of the questionnaire contained variables concerning the disadvantages occurring in the case of using e-learning in the university. The following disadvantages were taken into account in the research:

• • D1—Lack of direct contact with the teacher;
• • D2—Lack of direct contact with colleagues;
• • D3—Necessity to purchase e-learning equipment (computer/laptop/smartphone/headphones/microphone etc.);
• • D4—Low quality of e-learning materials;
• • D5—Difficulties with motivation to learn;
• • D6—Discomfort resulting from the use of information technology;
• • D7—Poor preparation of academic teachers for e-learning;
• • D8—Difficulties with teaching practical subjects;
• • D9—Difficulties in accessing traditional academic resources (e.g., libraries, reading rooms);
• • D10—Lack of possibility of using other academic activities (e.g., science clubs, sports sections);
• • D11—Difficulties with collaborating with colleagues;
• • D12—Cyber-threats;
• • D13—Risk of being recorded/photographed/“screenshot” etc.;
• • D14—Lack of possibility to verify student’s knowledge/skills reliably (e.g., due to the ease of cheating during tests via the Internet);
• • D15—Lack of/decreased privacy;
• • D16—Technical problems on the part of the lecturer;
• • D17—Technical problems on the part of the participants;
• • D18—Too much time spent in front of a computer/telephone or other mobile device
• • D19—Increase in electricity costs;
• • D20—Excessive use of own equipment;
• • D21—Difficult conditions to use e-learning in the place of residence.

During studying the variables influencing the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning at university, the following variables were taken into account in the survey:

• • Students’ evaluation of acquiring content in traditional education [ 1 ];
• • Students’ evaluation of acquiring content in e-learning;
• • The student’s familiarity with information technology;
• • Having the proper resources by students to participate in e-learning activities;
• • Innovative e-learning solutions used by the university.

The STATISCICA-13.3 software was used to analyze the collected data.

In the first stage of the research, the advantages of using innovative e-learning at universities were studied. Table 1 presents the results of the analysis for all variables. They included values of the averages, medians, and standard deviations.

The advantages of innovative e-learning in higher education.

Source: Authors.

As important advantages the students evaluated the following ones (rated over 4.0 out of 5.0, as already stated):

• • Lack of travel necessity—4.82;
• • Possibility of learning from own home country/city—4.62;
• • Saving time—4.54;
• • Lower costs—4.45;
• • Convenience—4.44;
• • Limiting the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus—4.37;
• • Easy access to materials—4.14.

For all the variables mentioned above, the median value was 5—which is the highest possible level.

It is worth noting that the highest-rated advantages are mostly those related to the convenience of studying and savings—time and money (related to travel to the university). In Poland generally, a substantial portion of the students come from outside of university cities [ 106 , 107 ]. Also, in recent years, we can observe an increasing number of students outside Poland studying in Polish universities [ 108 , 109 ]. This situation can have an impact on problems connected with costs of traveling to and from university and the cost of living in university cities. The use of innovative e-learning significantly reduces the cost of studying and facilitates studying for people from smaller towns, for whom, in the case of traditional education, the costs of travel and accommodation in a large city can be a great obstacle to studying. Ease of access to materials, despite the fact that it is also important, is a factor of less importance compared to the aspects related to saving time and money.

Another very important factor was limiting the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It is interesting that, although innovative e-learning was introduced in Polish universities due to the pandemic, limiting the spread of the virus was rated only in the sixth place among the examined advantages. It proves that even though the pandemic initiated the widespread use of e-learning at universities, its use made students pay attention to other advantages of this type of learning. The results may suggest that e-learning could also be used after the end of the pandemic. Perhaps it will not be the basic form of teaching for all students, but its advantages may make it an alternative to traditional classes in some fields of study. Some earlier studies after the time of the pandemic pointed out the advantages of e-learning over traditional learning from the point of view of learners’ satisfaction. For example R. Tawafak [ 110 ], Alghazo [ 111 ], Titthasiri [ 112 ] or Hurlbut [ 113 ] wrote about it.

The rest of the studied advantages were rated below 4.0. In particular, it is worth noting that the lowest-rated advantage was good contact with the teacher (3.06). This suggests that e-learning does not improve contact with teachers and, thus, traditional learning works better.

We have analyzed histograms for the two highest rated advantages, which are lack of travel necessity and the possibility of learning from own home country/city. They are characterized by asymmetry—skewed—towards upper values in the scale. Most of the surveyed students (556) considered the lack of necessary travel to be a very important advantage of e-learning. Among the respondents, only six people decided that this advantage was not significant (1 or 2 points on the five-point Likert scale). In the case of the possibility of learning from their own home country or city, 493 people assessed this issue as very important (5 points), while 22 people considered it as unimportant (1 or 2 points).

Table 2 presents the results of research on the studied disadvantages of using e-learning. The average, median, and standard deviation values are given for each disadvantage. The research shows that the students did not consider any of the studied disadvantages of e-learning to be very significant;the average never exceeded 4.0, and the median never reached a value of 5.0. It should be noted that significant disadvantages are those whose average value exceeds 3.0, and whose median is 4.0. In this category, there are the following disadvantages: lack of direct contact with colleagues (rate 3.71), difficulties with teaching practical subjects (3.60), lack of direct contact with the teacher (3.41); too much time spent in front of a computer/telephone or other mobile device (rating 3.31).

The disadvantages of innovative e-learning in higher education.

The data analysis shows that the most important drawbacks of e-learning are connected with the reduction of social contacts; first of all, it concerns contacts between students, but also contacts between the student and the lecturer. Human beings are naturally social beings, and the lack of interpersonal contacts or limiting them to the Internet is not a natural and healthy matter. Many studies have shown the problematic effects of e-learning on social contacts between students and students and teachers. For example, the problem was analyzed by H. Baber [ 114 ], Di Pietro at al. [ 115 ], and Al Rawashdeh et al. [ 116 ]. A long-term reduction of direct social contact is a very important barrier [ 117 , 118 ]. Overcoming this issue largely determines the effectiveness of using e-learning in teaching at the level of higher education.

It should also be noted that not all fields of study are suitable for e-learning in the same way. The respondents indicated that an especially significant problem is the difficulty in teaching practical subjects. While there are no major difficulties in teaching theoretical subjects with the use of e-learning, efficient remote education is hard to realize in the case of practical skills and subjects. Research results suggest that practical courses/subjects should be taught in a traditional way after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, while e-learning can be used to teach theoretical subjects. This approach can permit universities and students to use the advantages of e-learning, i.e., reducing the costs and time of traveling, as well as offer the study of efficiently practical skills, while at the same time not exposing students to social isolation.

The obtained results support the E1 expectation, which was formulated as follows: the most important advantages of innovative e-learning refer to the reduction in travel time and study expenses.

Subsequently, the disadvantage of e-learning may also be the difficulties with motivation to learn (the average value of 3.04, and the median value of 3.0), and the presence of technical problems on the part of students (the average value 3.14, at the median value of 3.0).

Research has shown that students do not feel discomfort resulting from the use of new technologies (2.08). In addition, the surveyed students did not consider the threats related to cybersecurity (rating 3.25) and the decrease in the level of privacy (rating 2.14) to be significant.

Table 3 contains an analysis of the relationship between the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning perceived by the surveyed students. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used to analyze the relationship between the variables. The respective values of the coefficients are presented in Table 3 .

Spearman’s rank correlation between variables concerning the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning in universities.

When analyzing Table 3 , negative correlation coefficients between assessments of advantages and disadvantages by the studied students are observed in most cases. Students who are not satisfied with e-learning evaluate the disadvantages higher and the advantages lower. It is worth noting that the average value of advantages is higher than the average value of disadvantages. It shows that the university students who participated in the survey believe that the advantages of e-learning outweigh its disadvantages.

The analysis of cases for which the correlations have the highest values leads to interesting conclusions—they are statistically significant and exceed 0.4. This kind of situation can be observed for the D5 variable—difficulties with motivation to learn. This variable is negatively correlated at the level below −0.4 with the following variables: A7 (good contact with the teacher), A8 (high availability of academic teachers), A10 (less mental and physical stress), and A11 (possibility of interaction). The conducted research shows that to avoid problems with motivation in e-learning, students should be provided with good-quality contacts with academic teachers, including easy access to them via electronic means and the possibility of interaction with both teachers, and other students. This reduces stress and motivation problems.

Variable D11—difficulties with collaborating with colleagues—is also negatively correlated at a level below −0.4 with several studied advantages. They include the following: A7 (good contact with the teacher), A8 (higher availability of academic teachers), A9 (ease of student progress tracking), A10 (less mental and physical stress), and A11 (possibility of interaction). In this case, a similar phenomenon as for the discussed variable D5 can be observed: good contacts and the possibility of interaction with the teacher and students “protect” against problems related to the difficulties of cooperation with colleagues from the group.

Similar results were obtained for the D1 variable—lack of direct contact with the teacher; D2—lack of direct contact with colleagues; D8—difficulties with teaching practical subjects; and D14—lack of possibility to verify student’s knowledge/skills reliably (e.g., due to the ease of cheating during tests via the Internet).

Based on the conducted research, it can be claimed that good contact with academic teachers has a significant impact on reducing the occurrence of e-learning disadvantages. The teachers must be properly prepared to give e-learning classes. In particular, such classes must be easily accessible and enable students to quickly and separately contact their teacher and classmates. Good contact with teachers, as well as their high communication skills with the use of remote tools, can significantly reduce the occurrence of many disadvantages of e-learning. The obtained results support the expectation E2, which was formulated as follows: good contact with teachers and their ability to communicate on the use of remote tools are important variables positively influencing e-learning.

In the next stage of the research, an analysis of the Spearman correlation between the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning and the assessment of the ease of acquiring content during traditional classes and e-learning classes by students were performed. Accordingly, Table 4 presents Sperman’s correlations between the advantages of using e-learning and the ease of acquiring content by students in traditional learning and e-learning, and Table 5 shows the results of correlations between the disadvantages of using e-learning and the ease of acquiring content by students in traditional learning and e-learning.

Sperman’s rank correlations between the advantages of using innovative e-learning and the ease of acquiring content by students in traditional learning and e-learning.

Sperman’s rank correlations between the disadvantages of using innovative e-learning and the ease of acquiring content by students in traditional learning and e-learning.

All calculated correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the level of statistical significance α = 0.05. Research shows that all the advantages of e-learning are positively correlated with the student’s assessment of the ease of acquiring content in e-learning by students, and negatively correlated with the student’s assessment of the ease of acquiring content in traditional education. The obtained research results support the expectation E3 formulated as follows: the easier the student assimilates e-learning content, the higher the student evaluates the advantages of e-learning.

The opposite situation occurs for the disadvantages of e-learning. They are positively correlated with the ease of acquiring the content in traditional learning, and negatively correlated with the ease of acquiring the content in e-learning. On the basis of the results, we can say that the worse the student assimilates e-learning content, the higher the student evaluates the disadvantages of e-learning.

When analyzing the data on the advantages of e-learning, it can be observed that the highest level of correlation (above 0.5) between the studied advantages and the student’s perception of the ease of acquiring e-learning content occurs for the following variables: good contact with the teacher (correlation coefficient at a level of 0.56); possibility of interaction (0.52); higher availability of academic teachers (0.52), and less mental and physical stress (0.51). Again, the importance of the preparation of academic teachers for interpersonal communication with the use of remote tools is observed. The results support the expectation E2—good contact with teachers and their ability to communicate on the use of remote tools are important variables positively influencing e-learning.

In the case of the relationship between the disadvantages of using e-learning in universities and the ease of acquiring traditional and e-content, it can be observed that the highest negative correlation coefficient (−0.64) occurs between the ease of acquiring e-learning content and difficulties in motivation to learn. There are many international research efforts about the advantages and disadvantages of using e-learning in high education. For example, the topic is described V. Arkorful and N. Abaidoo [ 2 ], M. Curelary et al. [ 119 ] and A. Alsoud and A. Harasis [ 120 ]. People who perceive e-learning content as difficult to absorb have low motivation to learn remotely. The problem of importance of motivation in effectiveness of e-learning was analyzed by N. Elayan [ 121 ], M. El-Seoud et al. [ 122 ] and M. Ja’ashan [ 123 ]. The perceived difficulties of the content discourage them from this type of learning and make them not motivated enough. The problems connected with the impact of difficulty of content on e-learning was also analyzed by G. Bora [ 124 ] and L. Li and H. Zhang [ 125 ]. A similar relationship occurs in the case of cooperation with colleagues within groups. The problems connected with the impact of e-learning on collaboration between students was analyzed by Hurajowa et al. [ 126 ].

The last stage of the research considers the relationship between the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning, and variables such as the student’s knowledge of information technology, the student’s possession of resources necessary for e-learning, and the level of innovation of e-learning solutions used by university at which the given student studies.

The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used for the analysis. Table 6 shows the results for the advantages, and Table 7 the disadvantages.

Sperman’s rank correlations between the advantages of using e-learning and the student’s knowledge of information technology, the student’s possession of resources necessary for e-learning, and the innovation of e-learning solutions used by university at which the given student studies.

Sperman’s rank correlations between the disadvantages of using e-learning and student’s knowledge of information technology, student’s possession of resources necessary for e-learning, and innovation of e-learning solutions used by university in which the given student studies.

In the case of the advantages of e-learning, the following relationships were observed in the study:

• • All studied advantages are positively correlated with students’ knowledge of information technology;
• • All studied advantages are positively correlated with the student’s possession of resources necessary for e-learning,
• • All studied advantages are positively correlated with innovation of e-learning solutions used by university in which the given student studies.

The results confirm expectations E4, E5, and E6. The mentioned expectations were formulated as follows: E4—the better the student knows information technology, the higher the student evaluates the advantages of e-learning, E5—the better resources to participate in e-learning activities the student has, the higher the student evaluates the advantages of e-learning, 6—the more often innovative e-learning solutions are used in a given university, the better the student assesses the advantages of e-learning.

In the case of e-learning disadvantages, all correlation coefficients in Table 7 are statistically significant. The results for which statistical significance does not occur are marked with an asterisk.

The following relationships were observed in the research:

• • The studied disadvantages (except for two) are negatively correlated with the student’s knowledge of information technology;
• • All studied disadvantages are negatively correlated with the student’s possession of resources necessary for e-learning;
• • The studied disadvantages (except for one) are negatively correlated with the innovation of e-learning solutions used by university in which the given student studies.

The results of the research permit the conclusion that Polish university students’ knowledge of information technology and possession of resources necessary for e-learning are variables that positively affect the implementation of the e-learning process at a university. Students in Polish universities with the mentioned knowledge and resources assess the advantages of e-learning at a higher level and its disadvantages at a lower level. The efficiency of e-learning in Polish Universities is, to a large extent, conditioned by possession of the proper equipment which is sufficient for the comfortable e-learning and the level of knowledge and skills that allows for trouble-free operation during e-learning.

Another factor that positively influences the evaluation of e-learning by students in Polish universities is the use of innovative e-learning solutions at a given university. When such solutions are used at a given Polish university, students perceive all advantages of e-learning higher and evaluate most of its disadvantages lower.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Many papers refer to advantages and disadvantages of innovative e-learning, but usually they are theoretical, descriptive, debatable, or review-based [ 2 , 4 , 5 , 9 ]—this refers also to the papers from the last two years, for example: [ 53 , 54 , 55 ]. In our research, the advantages and disadvantages were evaluated with a questionnaire. The students, as evaluators, were able to show their points of view on the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning. This research has been useful and justified to conduct since it provides measurable and quantitative data. A comparison of our research with the practical research of other authors is presented below.

In our research, the importance of advantages of innovative e-learning was rated higher than the importance of disadvantages. In the literature, there are also some research projects, in which the advantages are placed on the first place. Kaliyaperumal and Raman [ 49 ] investigated the satisfaction and sense of comfort with e-learning of nursing students in a Coimbatore college. The sample was 382 students. The students were highly satisfied with various aspects of the lecture, such as the teacher’s motivation, the question session at the end of the lecture, and the virtual film about the procedure, according to the results. Students were at ease attending e-learning classes since they are used to using a computer device, according to the findings. At this point, another research limitation can be identified. Our study referred to e-learning in general and was not focused on the given subject of study. Concentrating on the specific subjects, like mathematics, management etc. may bring different results. Other authors—Naveed et al. [ 50 ]—emphasize the advantages of e-learning, such as flexibility, no need to travel to school, and low costs. In another research study [ 51 ], the following positive aspects of online education were identified among teachers: the ease of teaching online, the flexibility of the work schedule, the adaptability to broad learning styles, the variety of tools available at hand, and the ease in monitoring and documenting teaching activities. The students and parents surveyed identified flexibility in work time, the comfort of working from home, as well as the variety of sources of documentation as the main advantages of the e-learning system. Gherheș et al. [ 52 ] also identified the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning. The main three advantages of e-learning, as pointed out by the respondents, were time efficiency, convenience, and accessibility. On the other hand, the respondents believed that lack of interaction was the main drawback of e-learning, supported by those who stated that they missed interacting with their peers. The rest of the important disadvantages were the technical problems encountered during the Internet connection, and lack of practical applications, which could mean a huge problem for students undertaking technical studies.

Our research has shown that in the case of Polish universities, the most important drawback of e-learning in the universities is the reduction of social contacts. This concerns contacts between students in the first place, but also includes contacts between the student and the lecturer. Rutkowska et al. [ 58 ] share the same opinion in their research. Isolation from peers and distance learning have significantly limited interpersonal contacts, which might have affected the mental well-being of students. The aim of their study was to investigate the prevalence of depressive symptoms and the level of perceived stress during e-learning among Slovak students and to identify the variables that have the most significant impact on mental health among students. The study included 3051 participants with a mean age of 22.37 years. Almost all study participants were characterized by an increased stress level and 47% of them were depressed. Furthermore, isolation affected women more, especially in terms of social life and economics. Other research has shown similar results [ 51 ]. According to them, students’ main dissatisfaction is the lack of student/teacher interactions, the lack of socialization with colleagues, and the lower level of quality of teaching.

Ibraheem et al. [ 59 ] in their paper described the results of a study using a method similar to the one that we used in our research. The research sample consisted of 199 male and female students from the College of Education for Human Sciences and College of Education for Pure Sciences, University of Basra, for the academic year 2020–2021. The results showed the following: the research sample does not suffer from social isolation; there are no statistically significant differences in social isolation according to the gender variable; there are statistically significant differences in social isolation according to the ‘class’ variable; there are no statistically significant differences in social isolation according to the field or specialization variable. To the contrary, Parte and Herrador-Alcaide [ 60 ] conducted isolation research during the COVID-19 pandemic among teachers. It was concluded that the isolation perception of tutors was not high, while the sense of belonging among the teaching community was high.

Article [ 57 ] summarizes the interviews of 15 respondents from Lithuanian higher education institutions and how their informants met changes, opportunities, and identified quality variables addressed to the successful e-learning during a pandemic period. Based on the results of this study, the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning can be identified. The research differs from ours because we utilized questionnaires and they employed interviews as a research method. Using only a questionnaire with closed questions can be assumed to be a research limitation. Extending the survey with, for example, interviews would further increase the quality of the research. The interviews allowed authors the collection of more detailed information and more subjective opinions from specific academics. However, the research was limited as it was carried out on only 15 people, while our research allowed more than 600 respondents to be examined. According to their results, e-learning has been a great opportunity and can bring many advantages. They emphasized flexible schedules and communication, time and cost savings, greater opportunity for post-graduate study, and better attendance at classes. It is worth noting that the authors found that theoretical lectures can be conducted at a distance, but that the laboratories and exercises should be offline. The interviewers claimed that in active classes there are things that cannot be changed due to the use of e-technology. In our research, the respondents did not consider the disadvantage of “difficulties with teaching practical subjects” to be very significant (average value 3.6, median value 4 out of 5). The reason for this difference in both studies is the respondents: in our research they were students, and in the authors’ research they were teachers. It means that teachers see more obstacles in learning practical subjects, whereas students find it easy to prepare and take on. It is because the perspectives of teaching and learning are different. Moreover, the authors also noticed that it is not possible to provide absolutely everything remotely because social skills will be lost. E-learning limits body language as well. For teachers, it is difficult to assess what they actually see on the other side of the screen. To the contrary, Bylieva et al. [ 46 ] concluded that an important parameter that influences the behavior of students and their educational progress in general is precisely the focus on practice. Thus, the predominance of the online component in blended learning is appropriate for practical courses. Within the theoretical and general education courses, the predominance of face-to-face learning can positively affect the educational process and results of learning. In this research, the authors have applied Moodle data mining from learning portfolios of 1500 students (N = 1500). Comparative analysis of the courses under review showed significant differences in the behavior of the same students. For the theoretical course, students spent less time than for the practice-oriented one. The progress of the students in the form of points and the demand for non-binding elements of the course differed significantly in favor of the practical course.

The issue of cheating in e-learning is interesting from the research point of view. The disadvantage of “lack of possibility to verify student’s knowledge/skills reliably (e.g., due to the ease of cheating during tests via the Internet)” was rated low (average value 2.72, median value 3) by the students. After conducting a literature review, it appeared that there are many papers on e-learning’s quality which refer to the e-cheating problem. The authors of other papers usually find e-cheating very easy and common. The authors of [ 2 ] claim that since tests for assessments in e-learning are possibly done with the use of a proxy, it is be difficult, if not impossible, to control or regulate bad activities like cheating. According to Jones et al. [ 61 ] cheating in e-learning is a major disadvantage and has a high risk of occurrence. The existence of a wealth of information on a wide range of topics helps, and at the same time, tempts. Connors [ 62 ] notices that academics who once praised the Internet for giving students more access to information are now worried it is providing students with easy access to pre-written essays. Using the Internet to cheat during online tests also poses the threat of collecting incorrect and unreliable information written by random people [ 63 ]. Nowadays, e-cheating is a subject of research; for example, Shoaib and Zahran [ 64 ] have concluded that academic misconduct was directly influenced by a rapid transition to e-learning, social culture, and subjective norms, all of which contributed to shifts in ethical perceptions, leading to increased reports of cheating. The study was carried out with ten graduates of the Saudi Arabian English as a Foreign Language program in a higher education institution through in-depth interviews through qualitative interpretative phenomenological analysis. Another research [ 65 ], in which 214 participants from different institutes and fields of study from Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University took part, revealed that students do not notice any serious forms of deception and they evaluate the motives for cheating quite neutrally, but at the same time demonstrate their propensity and interest in the possibility of cheating. On the other hand, solutions are also sought to the apparent problems of online cheating. Some studies find ways to prevent cheating [ 66 , 67 ], and some work on smart cheating detection [ 68 , 69 ].

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, universities around the world were forced to switch to e-learning. Innovative e-learning was a great opportunity to continue learning despite the limitations and restrictions related to the occurrence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In this paper, a study of the identification and evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of e-learning has been presented. The students considered as the most important the following advantages (average value rated over 4.0): lack of travel necessity (4.82), possibility of learning from own home country/city (4.62), saving time—4.54, lower costs (4.45), convenience (4.44), limiting the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (4.37), easy access to materials (4.14). For all the variables mentioned above, the median value was 5—which is the highest possible level. As the most significant disadvantages, in turn, the students rated lack of direct contact with colleagues (3.71), difficulties with teaching practical subjects (3.60), lack of direct contact with the teacher (3.41), too much time spent in front of a computer/telephone or other mobile device (3.31). For the mentioned variables, the average value exceeded 3.0, and the median was 4.0. It is worth noting that the advantages of e-learning were evaluated as being more important than its disadvantages. It means that, according to the surveyed students, the positive sides of e-learning are much more important than its negatives. The results allow one to draw a conclusion of an overall positive assessment of e-learning used during the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland. The results confirmed that e-learning could also be used after the end of the pandemic. Its advantages may make it an alternative to traditional classes in some fields of study. It is worth noting that although it is not necessary for health safety reasons, some e-learning tools, for example the remote education platform, are used at our university all the time. Also, we should know that e-learning is especially effective when we use a mixed, open innovation approach using both internal and external knowledge.

Other important conclusions from the research include the following:

• • Innovative e-learning significantly reduces the cost of studying and facilitates studying for people from smaller towns, for whom the costs of travel and accommodation in a large city can be a great obstacle to studying in the case of traditional education;
• • Students satisfied with innovative e-learning assess the advantages highly and the disadvantages lower; on the contrary, students who are not satisfied with e-learning evaluate the disadvantages higher and the advantages lower;
• • Limiting the spread of the virus was rated only in the sixth place among the examined advantages. It proves that even though the pandemic initiated the widespread use of e-learning at universities, its use made students pay attention to other advantages of this type of learning;
• • Good contact with academic teachers has a significant impact on reducing the occurrence of e-learning disadvantages; the teachers must be properly prepared to give e-learning classes; classes must be easily accessible and enable students to quickly and separately contact the teacher and classmates;
• • Good contact with teachers as well as their high communication skills with the use of remote tools can significantly reduce the occurrence of many disadvantages of e-learning;
• • All the advantages of e-learning are positively correlated with the student’s assessment of the ease of acquiring content in e-learning by students, and negatively correlated with the student’s assessment of the ease of acquiring content in traditional education; the easier the student assimilates e-learning content, the higher the student evaluates the advantages of e-learning;
• • The disadvantages are positively correlated with the ease of acquiring the content in traditional learning, and negatively correlated with the ease of acquiring the content in e-learning; the worse the student assimilates e-learning content, the higher the student evaluates the disadvantages of e-learning;
• • Students who perceive e-learning content as difficult to absorb have low motivation to learn remotely; the perceived difficulties of the content discourage them from this type of learning and make them not motivated enough;
• • The better the student knows information technology, the higher the student evaluates the advantages of e-learning;
• • The better resources to participate in e-learning activities the student has, the higher the student evaluates the advantages of e-learning;
• • The more often innovative e-learning solutions are used in a given university, the better the student assesses the advantages of e-learning.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.S. and R.W.; literature review, K.S. and R.W.; methodology, K.S. and R.W.; validation, K.S. and R.W.; formal analysis, R.W.; investigation, K.S. and R.W.; writing—original draft preparation, K.S.; writing—review and editing, K.S.; funding acquisition, K.S. and R.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

According to our University Ethical Statement, following, the following shall be regarded as research requiring a favorable opinion from the Ethic Commission in the case of human research (based on document in polish: https://prawo.polsl.pl/Lists/Monitor/Attachments/7291/M.2021.501.Z.107.pdf ): research in which persons with limited capacity to give informed or research on persons whose capacity to give informed or free consent to participate in research and who have a limited ability to refuse research before or during their implementation, in particular: children and adolescents under 12 years of age, persons with intellectual disabilities persons whose consent to participate in the research may not be fully voluntary prisoners, soldiers, police officers, employees of companies (when the survey is conducted at their workplace), persons who agree to participate in the research on the basis of false information about the purpose and course of the research (masking instruction, i.e., deception) or do not know at all that they are subjects (in so-called natural experiments); research in which persons particularly susceptible to psychological trauma and mental health disorders are to participate mental health, in particular: mentally ill persons, victims of disasters, war trauma, etc., patients receiving treatment for psychotic disorders, family members of terminally or chronically ill patients; research involving active interference with human behavior aimed at changing it research involving active intervention in human behavior aimed at changing that behavior without direct intervention in the functioning of the brain, e.g., cognitive training, psychotherapy psychocorrection, etc. (this also applies if the intended intervention is intended to benefit (this also applies when the intended intervention is to benefit the subject (e.g., to improve his/her memory); research concerning controversial issues (e.g., abortion, in vitro fertilization, death penalty) or requiring particular delicacy and caution (e.g., concerning religious beliefs or attitudes towards minority groups) minority groups); research that is prolonged, tiring, physically or mentally exhausting. Our research is not done on people meeting the mentioned condition. Any of the researched people: any of them had limited capacity to be informed, any of them had been susceptible to psychological trauma and mental health disorders, the research did not concern the mentioned-above controversial issues, the research was not prolonged, tiring, physically or mentally exhausting.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Advantages, Disadvantage And Suggestions Of Online Learning

Educational institutions like schools, colleges, and universities in India are currently using traditional methods of learning, they follow the method of offline lectures in a classroom. Although many of the institutions have also started blended learning which include both offline and online, But still a lot of them are following old procedures. In 2019, a deadly disease called Covid-19 caused by a Virus shook the entire world by its effects. All educational activities suddenly stopped in India and learners were not able to move schools and colleges because all institutions were closed by the government because of the Covid-19. Sudden detonation of this virus taught us that change is mandatory.Covid-19 impetus the world of education to grow the platforms of online learning, which we did not use before on a grand scale. Education system's traditional mode of teaching challenged by the Covid-19 and forced educators to shift to an online method of teaching from offline. Many educational institutions that were earlier reluctant to change their traditional approach of teaching had no option instead of shifting entirely overnight from traditional method to online teaching-learning method. This paper includes the overview of Covid-19, its impact on education, advantage and disadvantage of online learning and the Indian government's initiative regarding online learning. This Research paper also discusses about growth of EdTech startups during lockdown in the country by government because of deadly Covid-19 virus and also includes suggestions for educational institutions of how to deal with the challenges related to online learning.

Related Papers

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology IJSRSET

The paper presents curricular and pedagogical reforms for online and digital education. It develops a platform for open online courses supported by various portals in improving the quality of education with the initiatives of NEP, 2020 policy. The recent rise in epidemics and pandemics necessitates that HEI’s are ready with alternative modes of quality education whenever and wherever traditional and in-person modes of education are not possible. In this regard, the NEP, 2020 recognizes the importance of online and digital education.

Science Journal of Education

Anil Kumar Biswas

Human society is facing serious challenges due to outbreak of COVID-19. Education is one of the basic human rights, paralyzed due to the feared situation. 1.6 billion students across world were forced to confined home and 25 crore students from 15.5 lakh schools in India have been affected due to the pandemic. Students from vulnerable communities especially tribal people those who are working in tea gardens as labours are immensely affected. Tribal poor labours of tea garden of western duars region are badly affected due to the adverse situation; although government has taken initiative for online education. In this context the main objects of the paper are to analysis the impact of COVID-19 on the Right to Education of labour of tea gardens in India in general and western duars region in particular and also analysis whether the existing governmental arrangements is able to combat the situation. The empirical study funded by the Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi, India, under IMPRESS scheme based on primary and secondary data. The researcher purposively selected thirty-six tea gardens from 145 as sample and eighteen primary and upper primary schools where students of the gardens are studying. Primary data collected from the students, teachers, guardians and garden management by using structured questioners. As secondary sources researcher consulted with published books, journals, newspapers and government records. Content analysis also followed for the completion of research work. After collection of primary and secondary data researcher used simple statistical tools for drawing findings. The major findings of the research are education rights of the children of labour of tea gardens are totally paralyzed in the pandemic situation, due to the poor socioeconomic condition children from the tea gardens cannot able to receive the facilities of online mode of education. In conclusion it is say that there is need to special attention to the children of labours of tea gardens in particular and tribal children in general. Participation of garden management, NGO's, local government and civil society will be able to protect and promote the education rights of the communities.

International Journal of Current Research, 12, (07), 12582-12586

Pravat Kumar Jena

The impact of pandemic COVID sectors of India as well as world are badly affected by this. It has enforced the world wide lock down creating very bad effect on the stu schools/colleges and all educational activities halted in India. The outbreak of COVID us that change is inevitable. It has worked as a catalyst for the educational institutions to grow an for platforms with technologies, which have not been used before. The education sector has been fighting to survive the crises with a different approach and digitising the challenges to wash away the threat of the pandemic. This paper highlights some seamless education in the country. Both the positive and negative impacts of COVID are discussed and some fruitful suggestions are also pointed to carry out educational activities during the pand

Journal of Education Culture and Society

Pooja Mann (SUSLG Lecturer)

Aim. This paper aims to bring forth how the basic right of education got adversely affected due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The unplanned and immediate shift to online classes adversely affected the students’ physical and mental health as several issues that the students faced were related to the lack of adequate resources. Methods. The data for this paper were collected through a self-prepared and structured questionnaire, using Google forms, which was then circulated among different stakeholders of the educational institutes. The statistical analysis of the collected data was done using Microsoft Excel. Results and conclusion. According to the analysis of the survey, smartphones (75% of the total respondents) are relatively more accessible by students in comparison to computers or laptops (53%). And even if students had internet connectivity (57%), they faced issues of low data bandwidth (39%) leading to poor quality of online interaction in classes. Another important analysis sugge...

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research (IJMER)

Covid-19, as a global pandemic, has called for social distancing. It has made people mandatory to sit indoor and sitting idle indoor may lead to mental stress. Hence to keep people engaged and free from mental stress, online learning can play important role. Online learning is the best solution during this pandemic situation. Teachers can use virtual classrooms to teach from home with all necessary tools which makes the online sessions as effective as traditional ones. Pandemics often compel the learners to stay at home for long period of time and obstruct teaching-learning process. This article emphasizes on how online learning is beneficial during times of crises like work absences or pandemics. Therefore, some tools and techniques for online learning which can ensure the continuity of learning are highlighted. Some emerging approaches of Government of India for online learning are presented. Merits and demerits of online learning platform are also discussed. Perceptions of learners and educators on Online Learning system during lockdown are pointed.

Khazanah Pendidikan Islam

Educational institutions around the world have been closed since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Around 1.6 billion students worldwide were forced to be held in these homes. In India, educational institutions were closed in March 2020. As a result, 25 crore students from 15.5 lakh schools were forced to be confined to their homes. The 2009 'Right to Education' Act ensured everyone's education, but the coronavirus outbreak stopped people's basic rights. In this context, various online platforms such as 3 elearning platforms, namely the National Education Resource Warehouse, DIKSHA, E

Shivangi Maurya

The COVID-19 pandemic brought drastic changes in lives across the globe. Be it work, family, lifestyle, or education, not a single aspect was left untouched by its effect. The complete inclusion of the internet in education has always remained a topic of discussion among experts and digital education was perceived as the future of the education sector. But, the sudden outbreak of COVID-19 resulted in an indefinite lockdown and brought a halt in our lives. The educational institutions were shut down in India and the whole education system relied upon internet technology. The objective of this paper is to explore the method adopted by education institutions to continue classes through the online mode and the challenges faced by both the teachers and students in adapting to the new face of education amid the lockdown. The study presented in this paper is descriptive and analytic in nature and to achieve the objective of this paper, the data has been collected from secondary sources like blogs, news articles, and journals. The findings have revealed that, though various initiatives have been taken, still there is a need to work on several factors to enhance the learning and teaching experience of the students and teachers respectively.

International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research

WARSE The World Academy of Research in Science and Engineering

Digital Technology was unavailable for a common man just two decades ago in a country like India. Still, now after the outbreak of CORONA VIRUS in November 2019, it is helping millions of people of India and worldwide keeps them on working any time anywhere and assisting the Governments in developing health and public establishment to fight with Corona Virus. Digital technology worldwide supports the entire education system very useful in this Pandemic time. Online Education, an effect of Digital humankind, have bring a group on learning stand at each and every one stages of Education; start in preschools equipped higher-stage organizations, colleges, and Universities. In this paper, the authors have discussed the current situation that has given us an impulse to go faster to accept technology and experimentation with online learning and evaluate its victory for higher Education.

isara solutions

International Res Jour Managt Socio Human

The effects of the pandemic may be observed in all aspects of life. This pandemic has had a particularly negative impact on education, which is the largest area that has been negatively impacted. It caused several big nations to implement lockdown, effectively halting all activity for a period of time. From major corporations to educational institutions, the Pandemic has changed everything. From major corporations to educational institutions, the Pandemic has completely changed and destroyed the conventional methods of doing things. The pandemic encourages educational institutions and stakeholders to engage in remote learning while also posing a new challenge to global economies. This article discusses the problems that higher education faces in the face of the Covid-19 epidemic, as well as possible alternatives for continuing education. This paper attempts to describe the influence of higher education in India as a result of Covid-19, as well as to offer strategies to further the Indian higher education system's goals. In order to maintain smooth online learning system in India according to the conclusion thorough study. Furthermore, offering awareness and training for both students and staff on online teaching and learning materials may provide opportunities to establish a world-class education system even beyond Covid-19. The educational industry has been battling to stay afloat throughout the recent economic downturn. This pandemic has radically changed teaching, learning, and evaluation techniques. In order to deliver a seamless education, digitization of education became a need. This article will look at the issues that students in India who are pursuing higher education are facing as a result of the pandemic revolutionize the teaching & learning process to improve the experience of both; teachers and learners during the pandemic.

Vandana Vandana

The infectious COVID-19 has triggered an irremediable global health crisis and has increased the burden of stress, anxiety, and depression, the most categorized mental health problems among the general population. The present study is to understand the current status quo of digital learning in India and aims to suffice students' mental health issues attending online classes. It also intends to examine the role of psychological capital (PsyCap) in mitigating the problems of students' mental health. The present study is a qualitative in which different newspapers and pertinent studies were analyzed using a thematic research design. The findings showed that shifting to online education has gained momentum during the pandemic. Both central and state governments have launched multiple initiatives like Swayam Prabha, e-pathshala, VidyaDaan, SMILE, KITE's Victers TV channel, and Ghar Se Padhao Abhiyan. However, the study has found different issues of online education inducing mental health problems among students. Further, it was found that the students' PsyCap has a great potential helping students in coping with various mental health issues. Herewith, it was convinced that developing PsyCap in students can be proven as a protective factor that helps them engage online actively and helps in reducing their mental health issues.

RELATED PAPERS

Vijayakumar A B

Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews

Dr. Gulbir Singh

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology IJSRST

GESJ: Education Science and Psychology

George G. Tumanishvili

International Journal of Library and Information Studies

Pankaj Bhati

IJARIIT,Aravind N and Dr.S.Jenefa

ARAVIND NARAYANAN NAIR

IAEME Publication

Prof. Bholanath Dutta, IAF Veteran

IAEME PUBLICATION

Akinik Publisher New Delhi

deivam muniyandi

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology IJSRSET , H. M. NAVEEN

LULU PULICATION

Sivakumar .A , Parthiban vadivel

International Journal of Educational Research Open 1 (2020) 100012

Tushar gupta

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning

International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (IJERT)

IJERT Journal

IJIRT Journal

Sustainability

Ramesh Chander Sharma , Aras Bozkurt , Ebba Ossiannilsson

Tandra Sharma

Shree Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, India

SUBHAJIT PANDA

Nawar Al-Saadi

Cultural, Social and Political dimensions of Non European Societies: Case Study of selects societies in Asia and the Middle East

Beata Pietkiewicz-Pareek

RESEARCH REVIEW International Journal of Multidisciplinary

amita patra

http://www.alleducationjournal.com/archives/2020/vol5/issue3/5-3-27

Journal of Educational Technology Systems

Kamal Gulati

ComFin Research

Dr. M. Manida

Open Journal of Social Sciences - ISSN 2327-5960

Rishi Wadhwani

Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry/Science Research Society

Muhammad Khusairy Bakri

The Impact of COVID-19 on Education Systems in the Commonwealth

James Keevy , Godfrey Steele , Dr Chaya Surajbali-Bissoonauth , Veronica McKay

Library Herald

Sandeep Sharma (Assistant Librarian)

Gopal Sagar

IOSR Journals

Parthapratim Das

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

20 Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Classes

Online learning has become more accessible in the past decade as potential students discover that they can find ways to obtain a preferred degree while handling their daily obligations. It is a way that encourages post-graduate learning while staying within life and career schedules. Most accredited colleges and universities are now offering programs that make it possible to take some, if not all, of the required courses on the Internet.

Public and private institutions offer online classes more today than ever before in history. This education format is a way to reach students who may have social or economic situations that don’t allow them to enjoy the traditional on-campus learning lifestyle.

As more people have access to high-speed Internet connections, online education opportunities have continued expanding. It has become acceptable in most circles to earn a degree at any level with these opportunities, allowing students to have legitimacy and more accessibility with what they earned.

The advantages and disadvantages of online classes continue to evolve, but these are the current key points to consider if you’re thinking about becoming a student.

List of the Advantages of Online Classes

1. Online classes provide more flexibility to incorporate multiple learning styles. Although you can earn a healthy salary without going to college in some trades, many employment opportunities require an undergraduate degree or higher to obtain a position. That means it can be challenging to get through classes when your learning style might be different than what a local institution offers. Taking an online class allows you to have more control over how you retain the available information.

You can listen to music while you are writing a paper. Online classes let you interact in forums while watching television. Instead of being stuck in a stuffy classroom listening to a lecture, you have the flexibility to learn using the style that works best for your needs.

2. Your classes can fit better into your schedule. Online classes are the perfect solution for anyone who works a full-time job, has a family to raise, is housebound for some reason, or lives in a rural area. These obstacles can make it challenging to enroll in a traditional institution. As long as you have an Internet or data connection, then you can access your study materials whenever you need them. Many professors are even uploading lectures or providing texts that supplement the learning process.

If you have a busy lifestyle and want to get ahead in your career, then learning at your own pace with an online class is an intelligent way to obtain your next college or university degree.

3. It takes advantage of technology innovations. Online classes at many institutions take advantage of the technological innovations that occur every year. These changes get applied in convenient and practical ways, such as the implementation of a rolling semester. Some colleges and universities make their courses dominant from an independent standpoint, making it possible for students to complete their curriculum based on a schedule they said instead of what the professor requires.

As more degree programs become 100% online opportunities, many colleges and universities are finding that the independent and innovative approach makes it easier for modern students to achieve their goals.

4. Online classes are typically cheaper than traditional enrollment. Students that take online classes find that the cost of their college degree is usually less expensive than it would be if they took courses on campus. There are usually fewer textbook purchases to consider, travel cost reductions, and room and board considerations that can cut the cost of a college or university degree by 50% or more. That means each person who uses this opportunity can start their career with lower debt levels.

5. It teaches students how to be disciplined and responsible. If you can access the Internet, then your online course work is immediately available. That means each student must have the discipline to maintain the continuity of their schedule while keeping themselves on track for a successful outcome. The freedom that comes with classes that you take online comes with the need to have higher levels of responsibility. Students must stay organized and adhere to a workable schedule.

Putting all of your time to the completion of an online degree can backfire if you neglect the other critical areas of your life. Take advantage of the flexibility that this option provides so that you can spend some time with your family members and friends.

6. You can receive a degree from an accredited institution. A degree that you earn online from an accredited institution has the same weight in today’s career marketplace as one earned from the traditional approach. That means your credentials and applications will get taken seriously when you are ready to pursue new career opportunities. This advantage also means that you can take the credits earned to other programs, pursue graduate-level courses, or go after that doctorate degree that you’ve always wanted.

7. Online classes offer location independence. Some students may not have access to the program that best fits their needs. It might be across town from them, in another state, or even on the other side of the world. The availability of online classes makes it possible for students to participate in and graduate from their preferred program with less difficulty. These programs do not generally have the same geographic restrictions that you’d find with a traditional institution.

Since moving isn’t an option for many of today’s students, especially adult learners who have career and family responsibilities, online classes allow each person to enroll in the program that’s right for them regardless of where they live.

8. It provides students with real-life career preparation opportunities. When students go to college, then it can feel like you’re living in a bubble. You receive the necessary and valuable information that will let you establish a career one day, but it is not always easy to start developing the practical skills necessary to become good at your future job. Online classes require the same skill sets that many people use every day when working, which means you can enter a job market better prepared for what to expect.

An online class is quite similar to a desk job at almost any company. You must stay in touch through email, manage software solutions, and keep track of your time to ensure that you’re fulfilling all of your obligations. You get tasked with remote work while still engaging with a team to complete projects before a deadline.

9. You form social connections with your classmates. Although it is more difficult to make social connections with an online class, it isn’t an impossible circumstance. Today’s technology makes it possible to form relationships that go beyond sitting behind a computer. Your digital classmates could organize a group video hangout, facilitate conversations, and even do icebreakers that help everyone get to know each other better.

It may not be exactly the same as a face-to-face connection, but technology makes it very close. Video calls and other tools can help you to see each other even if you live on the other side of the planet.

10. It eliminates the need for verbal expression in a classroom environment. Many online students find that it is easier for them to express their opinions in this structure because there isn’t a public speaking component to the education process. You don’t need to worry about a professor calling you up to the front of the classroom to explain a concept or create a diagram. You can express yourself through writing instead, which means if something can get fixed if it doesn’t sound right in the first draft.

This advantage often leads to high-quality dialogs where each learner can carefully reflect the quality of their thinking on each comment, chapter, or project. Then you can move on to the next one whenever you feel like you’re ready.

11. Online classes create more opportunities for a varied learning experience. An online course makes it easier to include guest experts or past students in the classroom environment. Even people from other institutions can get involved in the conversations that take place to facilitate the learning process. Students can receive exposure to a worldwide perspective in their preferred subject instead of being limited to the local point of view. That means the experience has more value to potential employers in the future.

List of the Disadvantages of Online Classes

1. It can take longer to earn a degree when using online classes. If a student is not thoroughly committed to earning their degree, then it can take several years for that person to complete their online classes. Everything that the course requires is up to you. That means you must complete your assignments, read the required materials, interact with your professor, talk with your peers, and take exams according to the rules presented upon enrollment. It can be tempting to ignore your obligations when there isn’t a direct line of accountability as there is when you attend a physical classroom.

2. Some of your required course work might require in-person activities. If you are taking online classes, then there may be some stipulations where you must attend classes or take tests in a proctored environment. If a third-party observer is necessary, then it is up to each student to find an organization that will monitor this process. That means the cost of your classes each semester will go up based on the number of exams you must take.

Some institutions will even require a specific amount of on-campus time before they will award a degree. This requirement can last anywhere from two weeks to two months for U.S.-based colleges and universities.

3. You still need to take the time to fulfill your classroom requirements. Online classes can help students save a lot of time on their learning obligations, but the structure will not eliminate the need to put in some work. If you do not have a lot of free time during the day, then it may be impossible to fulfill the obligations of your enrollment. That’s why the flexibility of this arrangement can be an advantage since you only need to take one class at a time – but that can still be problematic for some people.

It is possible to avoid some of this disadvantage by taking independent learning courses online. When you can complete the work at your own pace, then the pressure of deadlines can disappear. You must still have trust in the program and remain dedicated to a result to turn this education opportunity into a real investment for you.

4. Online classes don’t provide the same face-to-face connections. Colleges and universities provide numerous opportunities for in-person social networking. When you can have face-to-face conversations with your professors and peers, then it can enhance the educational foundations that you receive. Networking functions can serve as essential connections for future career opportunities. The structure of online classes negates many of those potential advantages.

Even though you might have an institution that focuses on small class sizes and curriculum requirements that mandate interaction, a forum conversation or online chat isn’t the same as sharing coffee or lunch with someone.

5. Some online institutions don’t have full accreditation. You must verify that the college or university providing the online classes you want has full accreditation. Many facilities are not accredited even with the expansion of Internet access. That means your degree and qualifications might not receive the recognition you expect from potential employers. It may not receive serious consideration from other professionals in your preferred industry. This disadvantage also means that any credits earned might not be transferable to another institution.

The outcome of this disadvantage can be a costly mistake in terms of time and money. You’ll want to make sure to verify the specific accreditation of any school you’re considering before you even turn in an application.

6. You must have access to the Internet to complete your work. Online classes require you to have access to the Internet so that you can complete your assignments on time. If you don’t have the equipment at home to do the work or a connection that is fast enough to handle your course work, then it may be challenging to have a successful experience with this learning option. You’ll need a computer or tablet PC, a home-based ISP, and any peripherals necessary for your degree program.

Some public libraries and other institutions may offer computer access, but it may come with limited time or additional costs. You would also need to access that equipment during their regular working hours, which may not be possible with your specific schedule.

7. Many online classes require students to complete more work. The average online course in the United States requires a greater amount of reading and student interaction than a traditional class. Students must prove remotely that they have mastery over the material in question, which means your curriculum will involve a lot of independent study and Internet-based group work. Although the average amount of time one needs to dedicate to their course work is about 10 hours per week for each class, it is not unusual for individual courses at accredited colleges and universities to require 15-20 hours per week of work.

8. Technology scheduling issues can limit learning opportunities. Students must ensure that their computer is updated frequently with the latest operating system and software components to facilitate their learning. Some people may need to learn new or enhanced troubleshooting skills to manage their boot-up time, Internet connection, or software platforms that a professor requires. If you are a person who considers themselves to be technically challenged, then the tasks of this disadvantage could be a significant barrier to your current and future learning opportunities.

9. Time variations could be problematic for some students. Students who take online classes must plan and adjust their schedules to meet the deadlines set by their professors. American institutions often base deadlines on the time zone of the institution, so a West Coast student would need to account for the three-hour difference for an East Coast deadline. If international students are taking online courses, then this disadvantage could be significant.

This issue becomes problematic for students with opposite schedules. If you study at night and your partner works during the day, then there will be significant lag time between each response.

If you have a hectic schedule or zero access to a college or university, then online classes are a way to pursue your academic goals. It only requires Internet access or a data connection, and then you can begin fulfilling the requirements of your course work. The modern structure of this learning opportunity does an excellent job of simulating the traditional classroom experience.

This option may not be a first-choice selection for someone who struggles with their organization or focus. If you’re already putting in 40 hours each week with your job, then it may be unreasonable to put in another 20-40 hours after you get home to fulfill your learning obligations.

These advantages and disadvantages of online classes must receive individualized consideration. If you live at home full-time and want a self-directed education, then this innovation can be a positive experience. When you prefer social interactions and a traditional classroom, then it may not be the best choice to pursue.