PRESENTED BY SP21-BSSE GROUP

• Sheikh Abdul Rafay {GROUP LEADER}

(SP21- BSSE-0004)
• MUHAMMAD YASEEN IQBAL
(SP21-BSSE-0019)
• MUHAMMAD HUBAIB KHAN
(SP21-BSSE-0006)

2021
• OSAMA HAMID
(SP21-BSSE-0014)
 INTRODUCTION:
Online learning:
It is defined as a medium where content is delivered via the internet. The terms
online learning, e-learning, computer-based learning, distance learning and
virtual learning are used synonymously.

Physical learning: A learning environment is a combination of social

and physical qualities that create the classroom experience. It includes classroom
management, procedures, as well as the way the space is organized, furnished
and maintained.
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 affected 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 analyses this topic. Moreover, the results of this study serve as a
backbone for future meta-analytical studies.

Literature Review
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).

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-
centred and requires passive learning by the student, while online instruction is
often student-cantered and requires active learning.
In teacher-cantered, or passive learning, the instructor usually controls classroom
dynamics. The teacher lectures and comments, while students listen, take notes,
and ask questions. In student-centred, or active learning, the students usually
determine classroom dynamics as they independently analysed 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

MODERNIZATION
Our world is being modernized day-by-day. Every field of life is trending from a
traditional to digital way. We have online banking, online shopping, online
communication, online news and affairs, online business, online entertainment
and so on. This has reduced the burden on our shoulders and brain, and made
our life much fast, which gives us more time for leisure activities.

TRENDS IN EDUCATION Since the earliest times, education has

been one of the most important aspects of life. Earlier education was nothing but
passing of general knowledge orally generation-to generation. Then came a new
system of schools, in which a person, who has more knowledge then most of the
others on all or a particular topic, taught the children of their area. This lead to
invention of school. Soon schools started using written text, like scrolls, to aid the
students in learning. This lead to the invention of book. As time passed on,
schools became bigger and started using infrastructure, modernized ways of
teaching etc. Now education has a completely new phase. Modernization has
made education much faster, easier and accessible everywhere.

REGULAR EDUCATION
Regular education refers to learning at school where there are books, to introduce
new topics, stories and to give reference, and a teacher, to explain all the subjects
in detail and solve our problems. The books contain detailed information about
the topics that we need or desire to know. A teacher is a trained and well-
educated person who explains us all those topics in a way that could be
understood easily. She also helps us in clearing any doubts.

SYSTEM OF REGULAR EDUCATION

Regular education follow a system that involves reading the books, which provide
a detailed information of the topic, getting a detailed explanation by teachers,
solving the problems, if we have any, and performing practical tests and
experiments, if necessary. Finally, a written test is taken to ensure that the topics
have been cleared. If a student passes the test, then it means that the student is
ready to learn another topic, otherwise he has to study that topic again.

ADVANTAGES
The books provide an interesting way of explaining the topics through stories,
illustrations etc. The teachers know us, so they know that how they need to teach
effectively. Teachers give us the major points and notes so that we do not need to
read the whole book again and again. Schools provide us the environment we
need to concentrate on studies, and the infrastructure and facilities necessary, like
libraries, labs etc. Students are physically and mentally trained by instructors.

DISADVANTAGES
The education is mostly costly as schools have become large, and number of
books are needed. Few students, who are very weak at studying, are harsh-treated
and are not always understood. The rules of modern schools sometimes put
students into despair and tension. Students need to carry heavy bags, which put
stress on their body. There can be geographical and/or time barriers. Mobility of
education is absent. Students are unable to develop technological skills.

ONLINE EDUCATION
Online education (or E-learning) refers to the use of electronic media and
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in education. It uses all
forms of education technology like digital notes, e-books, teaching slides, video
conferencing, online tests and quiz etc. Digital notes are documents containing
important points for the topic. E-books have detailed information about the topic,
just like books. Teaching slides are videos that explain the topic effectively, like
teachers. Video conferencing can be used to talk to an expert to resolve any
problem. Online tests and quizzes enhance our knowledge further.

NECESSITIES FOR ONLINE EDUCATION

Since online education is totally dependent on electronic media, a
computer/laptop with an internet connection is the most basic need. A
Smartphone can be used as a portable access to the study plan, if it is stored on
internet. A speaker, microphone, printer and a digital are also required for best
results. Another important thing is a website that provides the facility of virtual
classroom and study material, and there are many such websites which provide
these things at a cost.

ADVANTAGES Students have improved open access to education,

including access to full degree programs. Data is renewed regularly so that
students have access to latest data. There are no geographical or time barriers.
Technological skills are improved automatically while studying. Improved
interaction is present between the student and instructor. No harsh rules are
present. Students are independent to choose their difficulty level and methods.

DISADVANTAGES
Ease of cheating. Children with less resources lack proper education. Equipment
is mostly costly. Discipline is absent. There is a lack of social interaction between
instructor and student. Students are unable to be trained with physical and mental
skills. A synchronic communication hinders fast exchange of information and/or
questions between instructor and student. Danger of procrastination is always
present.

REGULAR SYSTEM
Students need to go to school for studying. Printed books are used for studying.
Important notes and homework are written on a notebook. Written tests are
given. Teachers are present for explaining the subjects in detail and clearing
doubts. There is an environment of discipline and study. Heavy books and
notebooks stress the body of the student. The data provided is generally out dated.
There is a social interaction between instructor and the student. Cheating is not
very easy. Student cannot choose his/her own difficulty level.

ONLINE SYSTEM
Students can study at home or anywhere else. E-books are used for studying.
Important notes and homework are written on a computer. Online tests and
quizzes are given. Experts are present for explaining and clearing doubts. There is
no such environment. No such stress is present as only lightweight equipment are
needed. The data provided is updated regularly. A social interaction between
instructor and student is absent. Cheating is easy. Student is independent to
choose difficulty level of his/her choice.

COMPARISON BLENDED SYSTEM

Regular and online education have their own limitations. Therefore, most of the
modernized schools blend the two systems into one, which is why the system is
known as ‘Blended’ system. The main reason to blend these systems was to
combine their advantages and remove the disadvantages. In this system, there are
books, notebooks and teachers as well as ebooks, teaching slides and online
quizzes and tests. Student needs to buy just a few books. At schools, they are
taught through books, e-books and digital slides. Each student has a registered
email id on which he receives e-notes and homework. The homework is to be done
and sent to the teacher through email.

LIMITATION OF BLENDED SYSTEM

Although blended system of education is a great way to educate a child properly,
it has became very costly, as the schools providing blended education have to
offer a large number of facilities to the students, like computers for each student, a
large and highly secure network etc. Students also need computer at home, an
internet connection etc. This has made a good education system inaccessible to
people belonging to lower economic sections, and are thus unable to educate
themselves efficiently.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, we come to a conclusion that no method of providing education is
perfect for the students. Each method has some limitations of its own. Even the
blended system has a problem of cost. If economically-backward sections of the
society want to educate their child through the blended system, it will be highly
costly for them. They can come under a huge debt. So regular education is
preferred for them. Blended system is preferred by the economically rich people.
Somebody has said the truth – “Nothing is Perfect!”

References
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
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.
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
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