Running

head: FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

The Benefits of Face-to-Face Learning over Online Learning

Sheryl Schiefelbein
Western Oregon University

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

Online education has grown rapidly in the last decade, and for many students
online classes have become a common way to take courses in postsecondary
education. According to the Department of Education, over five million students were
enrolled in an online course, or online education, at the postsecondary level in the fall of
2013 (Fastfacts, 2013). Additionally, nearly three million students were enrolled
exclusively in online education, while other students took a combination of face-to-face
and online courses. As an online student for over nine years, the experiences vary
greatly between schools and courses. From a hybrid class that met on campus and
online to fully online undergraduate and graduate work, each experience was slightly
different. Online education evolves constantly.
Traditional face-to-face classes are offered at nearly every postsecondary
school, but may require more funding on a day-to-day basis than online classes, for
building maintenance and required staffing needs (Bejerano, 2008; Levinson, 2015).
Face-to-face classes are also limited by size, which allows for communication among
classmates and personalized attention to questions during instructional time. Online
courses can also connect students with other students in online courses to help create a
sense of community. High-demand classes can also be implemented online to facilitate
higher enrollment while not overcrowding classrooms or requiring additional staffing
(Bejerano, 2008; Levinson, 2015; Smith Jaggers, 2014). Online classes are effective for
many students and content areas, but have several drawbacks that impact a students
education such as lack of community, sense of support, and the additional time
requirements needed.

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

Students who enroll in online courses receive 80% or more of their instruction for
that course in an online format (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Some online classes hold a few
meetings face-to-face over the duration of the class, called hybrid classes (Hybrid
Courses: About Hybrid). Online learning requires students to log in multiple times a
week to their learning management system, such as BlackBoard or Moodle, to access
materials and engage with the curriculum in the ways their instructor sees fit. Students
can feel disengaged from their classmates and instructors rather quickly when
appropriate measures are not taken (Rovani, 2007). Too often, the first task in an online
course is an introduction forum where students give a quick personal introduction and
then are required to welcome their peers or respond in some other manner to their
classmates (Rovai, 2007). Not only is this a tiring practice for students who take several
online classes, but also it does not facilitate real conversations among classmates.
There is little to no feeling of community after this introduction forum. Students complete
it as a requirement, not to seek potential friends or engage with one another as they
would in face-to-face classes.
Another factor that influences student engagement is forum or discussion board
requirements. Discussion boards, or forums, are meant to replace conversations that
normally occur in the classroom. In several classes, there are minimum response
lengths, such as 500 words to receive full credit (Schiefelbein, 2016). Students may feel
trapped or pushed to fill up space in a response because of these imposed length
requirements. While the instructor may see this as a way to further engage students,
students may see it as an unnecessary way to write fluff into a response to receive a
passing grade (Schiefelbein, 2016). Forums should contain carefully crafted questions.

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

These questions should prompt students to engage in conversations rather than answer
them and move on. Discussion forums need to prompt students to engage with each
other, and not be a place where students post nearly identical answers that does not
promote further discussion.
Face-to-face, or traditional, classes offer opportunities for students to engage in
interpersonal relationships with peers. Students also have access to these on-campus
peers when struggling in a class, and can converse about their struggles with school.
Brick-and-mortar classes offer students opportunities to grow with their cohorts and
participate in campus activities together (Frankola, 2001). This peer support is crucial in
postsecondary schools. Traditional classes provide students access to education while
having modern conveniences of email, videos, and class websites. The previously
mentioned modern additions allow students more opportunities to access curriculum
and ask questions of their instructors.
Student engagement in online classes is also driven by self-motivation (Frankola,
2001). Online learning, also referred to as e-learning or online learning, requires
students to set their own time blocks up to engage with materials and complete
assignments. While this is a convenient way to learn for some who maintain full time
jobs or would otherwise not have access to courses, it requires careful planning and
dedication to be successful.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, face-to-face classes have an immediate
sense of community and knowledge of resources available according to D. Randy
Garrisons 2005 research on cognitive presence in online learning. Students look
around and see familiar faces and engage in conversations with one another before the

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

instructor begins class. Students engage one another from the minute they come
together in a classroom, which is unable to happen in the online classroom. Since
students choose whom to sit near and talk with, students are empowered to make their
own choices about who to associate with. Engagement is also influenced by the manner
in which materials are presented. Students should feel that there is still a teacher
presenting material- a sentiment that Garrison (2005) mentioned as well. Online
learning does not always resonate a sense of teacher engagement, as teachers take a
backseat in discussion forums.
The learning styles of students in a class are vast, and they can be more easily
addressed in a face-to-face setting, where instructors can gauge engagement and
answer specific questions in real time. Traditionally, students are required to read
materials before class and come prepared to participate in conversation about those
materials with guiding questions. In face-to-face education, students appear at
scheduled times to discuss the weeks materials. In online education, this is not the
case, and depending on the class size, it is possible that no one is ever logged in at the
same time (Hybrid Courses: About Hybrid, 2016). This prevents true discussion of the
weeks materials. Having set times to engage in curriculum allows instructors and
students to be prepared for that particular session. Synchronous discussions are a
powerful tool. This also allows students to carefully plan their time outside of class if
they did not complete their work during the allotted meeting time.
Online courses require different planning than traditional classes for both the
instructor and the student. When instructors plan for online courses, they need to have
closed captioning on their instructional videos, and all documents should be in a widely

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

accepted format, such as PDF or Word files. Instructors should check their learning
management system several times a week to ensure problems are solved in a timely
manner and any questions regarding assignments are addressed. Instructors also need
to consider their feedback for students. Feedback on assignments is critical and an
integral part of students being successful in any class. Instructors should carefully craft
comments to be meaningful and help students to be more successful with the next
assignment. Comments should also be timely so that students can apply the feedback
in meaningful ways before completing their next assignment (Schiefelbein, 2016).
Instructors who use screencast tools to record comments about assignments may build
rapport with online students, by creating a connection that is usually not present in
online learning.
Face-to-face experiences vary from online experiences in teacher preparation in
several ways. Instructors appear in classrooms at scheduled times with lessons
prepared based on the previous sessions outcomes. Concepts that needed to be
covered again due to lack of understanding can be reviewed at the beginning of class
and then progress through the assignments and tasks for the day. Hard copies of
assignments, study guides, syllabi, and other important documents are available for
immediate use to write questions on or highlight important dates or facts.
Engaging with students in conversation is an important piece of online learning
that can be overlooked by instructors. Instructors need to create ways to facilitate
conversation among the classmates that creates genuine conversations, not just
respond because the have to make a comment. Instructors should engage with
students in forums to push the conversation to have depth and meaning and facilitate

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

further peer-to-peer interactions. Peer discussions should create meaningful

conversations among classmates, even though they are not happening in real-time.
This is a difficult task, and discussion prompts need to be carefully crafted to avoid
boring repetitions of information when students respond all in the same manner. Dale
Hudson points out students are struggling more in school because of four major
factorselevated exasperation, decreased patience, deteriorated writing skills, and less
physical interactivity among peers. Students will struggle in school when they face
obstacles such as dropped internet signal, software malfunctions, and other technical
glitches. There are numerous struggles when enrolled in online education, which may
lead to students dropping out of online courses when they otherwise may not have
dropped out of a face-to-face course.
While online classes require careful crafting of questions to ensure responses by
everyone in the class, face-to-face classes have a wider forum for class discussions.
Students can connect in pairs, small groups, or a large group discussion. Students can
bounce ideas off one another before coming to a final position. While students struggle
with decreased patience due to the increase of technology, they are more apt to discuss
these trials and turbulences of life with the peers they connect with in classes.
Instructors also see when students are struggling by seeing them on a weekly basis and
are able to check in with them regularly.
Another consideration that is more difficult to address is the learning needs and
styles of diverse students in these classes. Crafting assignments to align with and meet
the needs of special needs and IEP plans is difficult and documentation is of upmost
importance in K-12 education, but in secondary education accommodations are made

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

on an as-needed basis. For veteran teachers, adapting tests and assignments is an

everyday occurrence and can be done with ease. Simplifying directions or shortening
tests/assignments are easy accommodations that teachers do everyday in classrooms.
Shortening assignments is an example of a common accommodation for struggling
students, which can easily be addressed by having students only do the odd numbered
problems. In-class adaptations in post secondary education such as having note-takers
and interpreters is also much easier accessed in face-to-face class than in online class.
Teachers can also have additional tools available to help struggling students, such as
hard copies of the notes, study guides, and recording lectures for later access.
Instructors can also more easily assess understanding of concepts in face-toface settings through informal and formal measures than in an online forum. In a
traditional classroom, a teacher can scan a room at any given moment and tell whether
students are engaged or how many students appear puzzled by a particular concept. In
face-to-face classrooms, students are also on campus to access resources needed for
success. Writing centers, tutoring, study groups, libraries, and a sense of community all
exist on campuses where they are nonexistent online. This sense of support made by
attending traditional classes may help students be successful and complete programs
and/or degrees according to Bejeranos 2008 study. In an online setting, instructors
must anticipate the needs of online students and execute supports in their recorded
lectures and/or screencasts, and be available to support students in ways that oncampus students do not need help (Rovai, 2007). Teachers must be available to
troubleshoot throughout the course when issues arise as well.

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

Students expect to learn a certain curriculum or specific set of skills when

enrolling in a class. The method of transmission is a key deciding factor in enrollment.
From experience, online classes mainly consist of texts with supplementary screencasts
or PowerPoints, while face-to-face courses are balanced with text, discussions, videos,
and other media. Face-to-face classes offer stability and predictability for students to
arrange other classes and schedules around. This predictability creates accountability
for students to complete their work and maintain peer relationships. Online courses are
popular among students that already have busy lives at home or work full time jobs.
These online courses offer flexibility, convenience, and time efficiency (Garrison, 2005)
that these students require. In addition, online courses offer K-12, postsecondary, and
continuing education for individuals in remote areas that would not have access to these
opportunities. Schools also have the option of offering classes to K-12 schools. This
allows higher education instructors to deliver content online to advanced students who
are still in the K-12 setting (Wicks, 2010).
For students who enroll in online classes, the major deciding factor may be their
schedule. Garrison (2005) reports that over 80% of students enrolled in an online class
also held a full-time job. With online classes, students can access their instruction when
it is convenient for them, regardless of their work schedule, childrens schedule, or other
commitments. Productivity is key. If a student is more productive during a certain time
frame, then they can accomplish their assignments during that time and generate
quality work during a time that better suites their learning needs. Online classes also
create opportunities to access and review instructional materials at any given time. As a

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

10

student, being able to replay a piece of a lecture is an invaluable tool when learning
difficult material without direct access to the instructor.
Another expectation in learning is group work. The expectation of group work,
even in online settings, can be frustrating for some students (Garrison 2005; Herman &
Banister, 2007; Wright). Group work is tricky in a traditional classroom, and this is no
exception when it comes to online courses. With competing schedules and the
inevitable procrastinator in one of the groups, group work is exasperating and difficult to
complete when not seeing each other face-to-face. Online group work is difficult
because of the need to explain your ideas to classmates explicitly without them being
able to read nonverbal cues or actions. This requires a format that works for all students
to access and edit as needed. When partners are not available at one single time it
makes even the best group work difficult to accomplish when online (Schiefelbein,
2016). Google is one option for this that works in K-12 education, since GoogleDocs
allows users to edit the work and allows the teacher to see the project as it is being
worked on (Schiefelbein, 2016).
On the other hand, group work is much easier to accomplish in a traditional faceto-face setting. Classmates can gather around tables and explain ideas all at once,
dividing and conquering work as needed and receiving instantaneous feedback from
both the group members and the instructor. Questions are also able to be answered as
they arise by either classmates or the instructor, instead of waiting for an email or video
response. The other expectation is for work to be completed by the time the class starts.
When classes meet face-to-face, students come prepared with materials, assignments,
and ready to learn material. Students are also able to bounce ideas off of each other

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

11

more easily and quickly when sitting in a classroom. Having a dedicated meeting time
allows students to readily engage so they get the most out of their education.
Diane Wrights study for the National Social Science Association claims there are
no significant differences in grades or instructional quality among face-to-face classes
and online classes based on student performance. However, there is a significantly
higher dropout rate among online courses than face-to-face courses, 18% and 3%,
relatively (Wright). Students enjoy the convenience of online courses, but become
disengaged more quickly due to the lack of support and feeling of community, as well as
accountability (Wright). Online instructors must ensure that students feel engaged with
them, classmates, and the curriculum to have a successful experience. Though out of
control of the instructor, the learning management system (LMS) should be easy to
navigate and designed with students of all generations in mind. A traditional classroom
doesnt experience as many issues with engagement, interpersonal connections, and
fewer issues with accountability. Students engage with each other and keep each other
motivated to stay on task and complete necessary assignments and tasks for the class
to be successful.
While online education has taken off in the last decade and more students enroll
in these classes, there are several drawbacks for students. Lack of personal connection
and interaction, unstructured time to complete coursework, and changes in expectations
are all reasons to consider when enrollment in online coursework. Students entering
into postsecondary education still need the structure and support of face-to-face classes
and to engage with others on campus. Students with experience in postsecondary

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

education can experiment with online learning, but need to evaluate the drawbacks
associated with this new educational format.

12

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

13
Bibliography

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United
States, 2009. Babson Survey Research Group.
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J (2011). Going the Distance: Online Education in the United
States, 2011. Babson Survey Research Group.
Bejerano, A. R. (2008, June). Face-to-Face or Online Instruction? Face-to-Face is
Better. Retrieved March 12, 2016, from
https://www.natcom.org/CommCurrentsArticle.aspx?id=884
Carr, N. G. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York:
W.W. Norton.
Fast Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2016, from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80
Frankola, K. (2001). Why online learners drop out. Workforce, 80(10), 52-60.Johnson,
S.D., Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating Cognitive
Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough. American Journal of
Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148. Retrieved March 13, 2016.
Herman, T., & Banister, S. (2007). Face-to-face versus online coursework: A
comparison of costs and learning outcomes. Contemporary Issues in Technology
and Teacher Education, 7(4), 318- 326.
Hudson, D. (2013, June 4). 4 Negative Side Effects Technology is Having on Children.
Retrieved from Relevant Childrens Ministry:
http://www.relevantchildrensministry.com/2013/06/4-negative-side-effectstechnology-is.html

FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING

14

Hybrid Courses: About Hybrid. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2016, from
http://www4.uwm.edu/ltc/hybrid/about_hybrid/
Levinson, M. (2015, October 26). Face-to-Face vs. Online Learning: Why Is It
Either/Or? Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/face-toface-vs-online-why-either-or-matt-levinson
Lim, C. (2004, July). Engaging learning in online learning environments. TechTrends:
Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 48(4), 16-23
Lorenzetti, J.P. (2002). Before they drift away: Two experts pool retention insights.
Distance Education Report, 6(8)
McGovern, G. (2004, June). Teaching Online vs. Face-to-Face. CLENExchange.
Retrieved March 12, 2016, from
http://www.ala.org/learnrt/sites/ala.org.learnrt/files/content/newsletter/0604.pdf
Rovai, A.P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher
Education, 10(1). 77-88.
Smith Jaggers, S. (2014). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses:
Community college student voices. The American Journal of Distance Education.
Retrieved March 12, 2016, from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/onlinedemand-student-voices.html
Schiefelbein, S. (2016, April 20). Online Coursework [Personal interview].
Wicks, M. (2010). A National Primer on K-12 Online Learning. Evergreen Education
Group.
Wright, D. (n.d.). National Social Science Association. Retrieved March 12, 2016, from
http://www.nssa.us/tech_journal/volume_4-1/vol_4-1_article6.htm