Face-to-face vs. Blended Learning: Effects on Secondary Students ‘Perceptions and Performance

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 89 ( 2013 ) 79 – 83

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Faculty of Education, Cyprusdoi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.813

ScienceDirect

2nd Cyprus International Conference on Educational Research, (CY-ICER 2013)

Face-to-face vs. blended learning: Effects on secondary students ‘perceptions and performance

Nigel V Smitha1 aLaidlaw College, 80 Central Park Drive, Henderson, Auckland 0650, New Zealand

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study explored the impact of blended vs. face-to-face tuition over one year in a K-12 school in Auckland, New Zealand. The same teacher taught two Year 11 classes concurrently; one (N = 11) partially online while the other (N = 19) experienced a traditional pattern of face-to-face lessons. Comparisons between the groups were based on assessed work, a survey of student perceptions and regular teacher reflections. No difference between the classes on any item of assessed work was observed. However, differences emerged between the classes in their perceptions of learning, connectedness, enjoyment and teacher support. Concerns about the effects of technology-mediated instruction may be partly allayed by these findings. While the displacement of the teacher from the centre of the learning process may be uncomfortable for teachers, the provision of a rich online learning environment may have positive benefits for students.

© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and or peer-review under responsibility of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Zehra Özçınar, Ataturk Teacher Training Academy, North Cyprus

Keywords: learning, online, blended, face-to-face, technology-mediated, secondary education, perceptions, performance;

1. Introduction

Technology continues to enable teachers to engage their students in ever-increasing ways. Online tools for learning can make education more democratic, allowing a wider variety of students to have a voice (Concannon, Flynn, & Campbell, 2005). The asynchronous nature of many online tools encourages students to spend more time thinking and reflecting on their learning (Meyer, 2003; Newman, Webb, & Cochrane, 1995; Warschauer, 1996) which in turn can improve student performance (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2010). Increasingly, students expect online technologies to be a part of their learning experiences (Concannon et al., 2005), reflecting a normalizing of online offerings that seem to promise ever increasing efficiency and effectiveness in the classroom (Churches, Crockett, & Jukes, 2010). These promises have been at least partly substantiated with technology-mediated learning being associated with improvements in student performance (Hoskins & Van Hooff, 2005; Means et al., 2010)

Alongside these positive developments, researchers and practitioners have identified risks and potential losses from the use of

technology-mediated learning tools. Decreases in social connectedness have been observed, although the ways this can be built online are also becoming more clearly understood (van Tryon & Bishop, 2009). Social connectedness is necessary for effective learning irrespective of the learning modality (Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P., 1989; Rovai, 2002). However the 21st century proliferation of information and communication technologies may undermine precisely this sense of social connection (Gergen, 1991; N. V. Smith & Morgan, 2010), even as it presents new opportunities for learning.

Therefore consideration of the effects of technology-mediated learning must be in terms of both performance and perceptions

if it is to adequately address the needs of 21st century learners. Research on the impact of online learning on student perceptions

* Corresponding author: Nigel V Smith. Tel: +64 9 8379748. E-mail address: [email protected].

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Faculty of Education, Cyprus

80 Nigel V. Smith / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 89 ( 2013 ) 79 – 83

has delivered mixed results. Compared with traditional face-to-face tuition, students have been reportedly more satisfied (O’Malley & McCraw, 1999) and have viewed their learning more positively (Richardson & Swan, 2003), but conversely have also been observed to prefer face-to-face instruction and even resent technology-mediated learning (Noble, 2002). The persistence of individual differences in familiarity and enjoyment of technology-mediated learning has also been noted (Meyer, 2003). Amongst teachers, other researchers have documented a mixture of positive and negative experiences (Christianson, Tiene, & Luft, 2002; G. G. Smith, Ferguson, & Caris, 2001).

Of particular concern in the present study is the way these issues may be constituted at the secondary level. Technology-

mediated instruction has increasingly become commonplace in secondary classrooms. Despite this, the vast majority of research is located at the tertiary level (Means et al., 2010). This study responds to this deficit by addressing the issues raised above within a secondary educational setting.

The aim of this study was to compare technology-mediated learning (within a blended approach) with face-to-face classroom

teaching at the secondary level, in terms of impacts on both student performance and student perceptions (of social connectedness; learning; enjoyment; teacher support and orientation towards technology).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The classes began with similar numbers (17 and 19 respectively). Six students were removed from the experimental class a few weeks after the course began, reducing it to 11 members. The number of boys and girls was approximately equal in both classes. No known differences existed between the two classes in terms of ability. Students were aged between 16 and 18 years old and were mostly of New Zealand European ethnicity.

2.2. Measures

Three types of measures were used in this study. First, comparison of the results of the two classes was based on the standard assessments they completed (a test, an essay plan, and an essay). These results were taken to be the main measure of learning effectiveness. Second, an online survey of the two classes was undertaken two-thirds of the way through the course. The survey included 10 Likert-style items measuring perceptions of learning; 10 Likert-style items measuring social connectedness (both adapted from Rovai, 2002);6 Likert-style items measuring teacher support (adapted from Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989);3 items measuring perceptions of enjoyment of the course and Likert-style items measuring preferences for face to face (3 items) and online learning (3 items) in general. In each case, separate items were combined additively to provide a composite score for the target construct. Third, the teacher, in a blog, regularly reflected on the progress of the classes2.

2.3. Procedure

Two pre-existing Year 11 theory of knowledge classes (taught by the same teacher) was selected for comparison. The 'traditional' class was timetabled for 3 lessons per cycle which were delivered predominantly in a face-to-face modality, and experimental’ class was timetabled for 2 lessons per cycle plus a supervised study period. Students in the ‘experimental’ class were expected to complete learning activities based on an online platform in lieu of the 3rd face-to-face lesson.

Standard assessments were completed in line with school policies. The test was sat under examination conditions. The essay

plan and essay were graded according to standard rubrics. The survey was administered online in a single lesson in a computer laboratory, for both classes, during the same week.

3. Results

3.1. Performance of the measures

All measures were presented as one-dimensional in the literature, although the scales measuring learning and social connectedness (Rovai, 2002)were originally also combined into a composite construct labeled ‘classroom community’. Unfortunately, the small sample size (N = 30) precluded using factor analysis to check the observed structure of the measures used. Acknowledging this weakness in the data, I present the following exploratory analysis based on the face validity of the collections of items used to measure each construct. Where required, scores have been converted to Z-scores from their original

2Available athttp://reflectingonrisk.blogspot.co.nz


4, 5 or 7 point Likert original setting3. Assessment means scores are also presented as Z-scores. A higher score represents a more positive perception or performance.

The measures of performance (test, essay plan and essay) show modest spread around each of the means. Perceptions about

connectedness with each other, levels of learning, enjoyment and teacher support were positive. These measures of perceptions show moderate spread although online and face-to-face preferences, and enjoyment show a higher amount of spread around the mean than other measures of perceptions. All measures of perceptions show moderate to good levels of reliability (α’s range between .64 and .88).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics

Descriptives Correlations

Mean S.D. α Ess

ay

Ess

ay p

lan

Tes

t

Face

to fa

ce

pref

eren

ce

Enj

oym

ent

Tea

cher

su

ppor

t

Lea

rnin

g

Social connectedness 0.62 0.15 0.87 0.65** 0.65** 0.77** Learning 0.65 0.17 0.88 -0.42* 0.69** 0.67** Teacher support 0.86 0.12 0.64 0.57** 0.42* Enjoyment 0.52 0.21 0.86 Online preference 0.60 0.22 0.87 -0.40* Face to face preference 0.70 0.20 0.83 Test 0.69 0.13 0.49** 0.43* Essay plan 0.66 0.18 0.50** Essay 0.60 0.15

Note: All no significant coefficients were omitted. ** P< .01; * p < .05.

The three measures of performance were moderately strongly correlated with each other, as were perceptions of social connectedness, learning, teacher support and enjoyment. Preference for working online correlated with little else, except negatively with preference for working face to face (r = -.40), which is, as one would expect. Those students who prefer working face to face were also more likely to perceive good levels of teacher support (r = .57). Perhaps the most striking overall finding is the almost total lack of any significant observed correlations between assessed performance and student perceptions of the course. The exception is the negative relationship between performance on the test and perceptions of learning (r = -.42).

3.2. Comparison of the groups

Due to the small sample sizes non-parametric Mann Whitney tests of difference were used to explore differences between the two classes. There was no significant difference (at p < .05) between the two classes on any measure of performance. Neither did differences emerge between the classes in terms of their preferences for face-to-face or online learning. No differences emerged on any variable by gender or other demographics measured.

However, significant differences (all at p < .01) were observed between the classes in terms of their perceptions of social

connectedness, learning, teacher support and enjoyment. On all these variables (Table 2), the experimental class was significantly more positive than the traditional class.

Table 2.Comparison between the groups

Experimental class Traditional class

N U-value Median Mean S.D. Median Mean S.D.

Social connectedness 26 12 .72 0.69 0.17 .53 0.58 0.13

Learning 27 15.5 .74 0.73 0.18 .63 0.60 0.16

Teacher support 25 14.5 .94 0.93 0.09 .83 0.82 0.13

Enjoyment 26 6.5 .64 0.58 0.29 .44 0.48 0.14

3 The questionnaire is available from the author on request.


4. Discussion

4.1. Relationships between the constructs measured

The two distinct groupings of inter correlations (Table 1) reinforce the two main types of measures reported in this study. The three assessment tasks logically show relationship to each other. Likewise, perceptions of enjoyment and teacher support are related to perceptions of learning and social connectedness amongst students. It is notable that preference for face-to-face learning was negatively correlated with preference for online learning. Teachers and researchers alike need to recognize that there is diversity of preference for the use of technology in education amongst students.

The striking lack of correlations observed between the two main types of measures (perceptions and performance; Table 1) is

at first more surprising. This implies that students who demonstrate higher levels of learning were no more likely than other students to perceive higher (or lower) levels of enjoyment, teacher support or social connectedness. From the teacher’s point of view, this is ideal; student experience of the learning environment is generally not dependent on their level of performance. The single exception to this provocatively suggests that the test assessment may have been poorly understood by students; those who perceived their learning to be the most positive did worst on the test.

4.2. Differences between the classes

The fact that no significant differences emerged between the classes in their actual performance in assessments can be taken two ways. On the one hand, this is evidence that technology-mediated learning is likely to be at least as effective as face to face learning. On the other hand, the lack of any observed difference in results challenges the idea that blended or technology-mediated learning is any more effective per se than face-to-face learning. It is also notable that although no differences in actual performance were observed, students in the experimental class rated their own levels of learning more highly than those in the traditional class (Table 2). Perhaps their perceptions were unfounded, or perhaps this discrepancy reflects learning not fully captured by the standardized assessments used in this study

Also interesting is the fact that differences emerged in a range of other perceptions the students had about their learning

environment. The experimental class, who experienced less face-to-face time and more online time, rated their sense of connectedness with each other, their enjoyment of the course, and their sense of being supported by the teacher more highly than the traditional class (Table 2). While this is in line with findings elsewhere (O’Malley & McCraw, 1999; Richardson & Swan, 2003), the following extract from the reflective blog kept by the teacher clearly indicates perception that the opposite was true: that the experimental class was becoming less engaged and interested as the course progressed:

“Actually, it sometimes feels that my standard class are more engaged - they get more time engaging face to face with

me... maybe what is rare nowadays is not whizz-bang online stuff but genuine human interaction... and that's driving a higher level of engagement in the 'standard class'.”

The findings of the survey therefore directly contradicted the teacher’s subjective experience of the class, which is

particularly interesting. Student experiences in the experimental class were positive in spite of any expectation effects that may have been in play (Harris & Rosenthal, 1985). Further, while there may be negative effects of technology-mediated teaching on teachers (Christianson et al., 2002; G. G. Smith et al., 2001), this does not automatically imply that student experiences of the same learning environment will be similarly negative. This is a stark reminder that teacher intuitions about student experience need to be tested and checked against empirically based data before being assumed valid.

4.3. Limitations and further research

The sample size in this study (N = 30) is small. Consequently, the statistical findings should be viewed with caution (although the tests of difference and correlation analyses used are valid for small sample sizes). The teacher was acutely aware of the potential impact of his own expectations on the performance of students; the impartiality of marking; and neutrality of the classroom environment. Differences in the teacher’s approach to the two classes may have had an impact. However, the fact that the findings are in some cases contrary to the teacher’s expectations reduces the likelihood that this is a serious problem.

Further research with larger sample sizes is critical if the exploratory findings in this study are to be more fully substantiated.

This would allow both a more robust assessment of the validity of the measures used and lower levels of potential error caused by individual differences amongst the participants (not controlled for in this study). It would also strengthen the generalizability of the phenomena observed here if studies with different year levels and in different jurisdictions could be compared.


5. Conclusion

This project has shed light on the differences between technology-mediated (blended) and face-to-face learning. They may be less important than is sometimes proclaimed as no differences in assessed performance were observed in this study. There is a diversity of preference amongst the student body for online vs. face-to-face learning. The addition of active online interaction may strengthen student perceptions of learning, social connectedness, enjoyment and teacher support. While teachers may feel they become less connected to their classes when utilizing technology-mediated approaches, this is not necessarily related to the effects of such learning approaches on students.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided by Kristin School in the form of a scholarship and reduced teaching load for the author during the duration of the project.

References

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Christianson, L., Tiene, D., & Luft, P. (2002). Examining online instruction in undergraduate nursing education. Distance Education, 23(2), 213–229. Churches, A., Crockett, L., & Jukes, I. (2010). The Digital Diet: Today’s Digital Tools in Small Bytes. Kelowna, BC: 21st Century Fluency Project. Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 36(3), 501–512. Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books. Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 363–386.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.363 Hoskins, S. L., & Van Hooff, J. C. (2005). Motivation and ability: which students use online learning and what influence does it have on their achievement?

British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 177–192. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of

online learning studies. Retrieved from http://eprints.cpkn.ca/7/ Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3),

55–65. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high

school. Child development, 981–992. Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group

learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3(2), 56–77. Noble, D. (2002). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. New York: Monthly Review Press. O’Malley, J., & McCraw, H. (1999). Students perceptions of distance learning, online learning and the traditional classroom. Online journal of distance learning

administration, 2(4). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter24/omalley24.html Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examing social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Retrieved from

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/18713 Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197–211. Smith, G. G., Ferguson, D., & Caris, M. (2001). Teaching College Courses Online versus Face-to-Face. The Journal, 28(9), 18–22. Smith, N. V., & Morgan, M. (2010). Politics and pedagogy: discursive constructions in the IB Theory of knowledge–Guide. The Curriculum Journal, 21(3), 299–

312. van Tryon, P. J. S., & Bishop, M. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education,

30(3), 291–315. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face to face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO journal, 13(2/3), 7–26.

Documents

Face-to-face vs. Blended Learning: Effects on Secondary Students ‘Perceptions and Performance