Online Learning vs. Face-to-Face Learning

Mather, Meera, and Alena Sarkans. “Student Perceptions of Online and Face-to-Face Learning”. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, vol. 10, no. 2, 2018, pp. 61-76. Mather, Educator in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, and Sarkans, professor in the Communication Department at Centennial College, introduce this article as the method to define the differences in online and face-to-face learning. The authors’ experience of working in education, supervision, and planning can prove the credibility of the information. They conduct a qualitative study to determine that the perception of these two methods of learning differ in various categories. Mainly, the students reveal their preferences evaluating different aspects of studying, including the level of interaction with peers, faculty, and the quality of technologies. The authors explain that most students choose face-to-face learning because it allows them to communicate and interact more effectively with others. Some of the students choose an online method because they find it convenient. The learners, preferring the conventional teaching method, define the role of communication and content of the courses as the main factors contributing to the attractiveness of learning offline.

This article is similar to other works regarding online learning because it contains explanations of the students’ challenges during their online experience. However, it differs from the other texts because it focuses on the perceptions and opinions of the students. This research relates to the disadvantages of online education because it introduces the results of the analysis of the students’ views and evaluations. Consequently, it is a valuable source of data demonstrating the specific factors that might influence the learners’ experience and attitude. This analysis will be used as the source of arguments supporting the opinion that the traditional teaching method is a more effective and productive way of educating students. The strength of this article is its use of the multiple students’ opinions and unbiased evaluation of the role of these assessments in the authors’ conclusions. The weakness of the article is its coverage of a significant number of components, which distracts the readers and can lead to an incorrect understanding of the information.

Mpungose, Cedric B. “Emergent Transition from Face-to-Face to Online Learning in a South African University in the Context of the Coronavirus Pandemic”. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-9. Mpungose, professor in the School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal, specializing in Curriculum and Education Studies, presents the analysis of e-learning in times of pandemics’ role in student’s education. The article is a credible source of data because it is based on the author’s experience in the field of education and his application of appropriate readings and methods of research. The text explains the qualitative research results conducted during the transition from face-to-face to online learning due to the restrictions and social distancing regulations. The author’s access to information and ability to analyze the opinions and academic results of the students defines his role in the presentation of the appropriate outcomes. In particular, the scholar offers the idea that e-learning is a valuable teaching method and plays a significant role in the modern process of education. He analyzes various tools to understand that some of them still require additional software and websites.

Mpungose’s research is similar to Mather and Sarkans’ analysis because it also considers the students’ opinions using them to identify the effectiveness of learning methods (61). At the same time, it differs from other sources because it focuses on the advantages of online learning, defining its role during pandemics. This text is helpful for the research of the benefits of classroom learning because it demonstrates the opposing view, which helps to analyze the issue from different points of view. It will be used as a source of counterargument with an explanation of the opposite position. The strength of the analysis is its observation of the opinions of multiple students and their experiences. However, it also contains the weakness, focusing on the specific educational institution and its software, limiting the research demonstrating the results in a particular situation, which may differ in other circumstances. Moreover, its application of the specific conditions when people have to keep social distance and cannot attend schools defines its failure to analyze characteristics of e-learning from different sides.

Paulsen, Justin, and Alexander C. McCormick. “Reassessing Disparities in Online Learner Student Engagement in Higher Education”. Educational Researcher, vol. 49, no. 1, 2020, pp. 20-29. The article written by Paulsen, the Research Scientist in Indiana University Bloomington, and McCormick, National Survey of Student Engagement director in Indiana University Bloomington, analyzes the students’ experiences connected with different teaching modalities. Their professional focus on the quality of education and its tools and methods to improve learners’ engagement and results allows them to conduct research that is a credible source of information. This study assesses the differences in online and face-to-face learning perception among students with various characteristics and belonging to different groups. It proves that offline education is a more effective tool for enhancing collaboration between students and improving interaction with the faculty. Although the authors choose to regard the benefits of classroom learning from the point of view of different people, they still reveal that their study proves that online learning has its weaknesses. Consequently, it cannot outperform face-to-face learning because it fails to allow students to communicate personally and establish interpersonal relations.

The similarities between this study and other articles observing the issue of online versus face-to-face learning concern their focus on the role of collaboration and interpersonal relations between people during classroom studying. However, this analysis differs because it emphasizes the differences in perceptions of the experience by various students. This source is helpful for problem analysis because it provides the necessary information about the specific factors influencing the quality of face-to-face learning. Mainly, it demonstrates that collaboration and personal interaction play a significant role in the academic achievements of the classroom students, which can be used as evidence in the analysis. The strength of this source is its critical evaluation of the students’ opinions and its intention to make a new observation of the issue from the perspective of different groups of people. Its limitation is its emphasis on such characteristics as cooperation, personal interaction, and environments and disregard of other factors such as students’ academic performance and learning outcomes. Consequently, it might be a valuable source of knowledge about the significance of the interaction between people during studying.

Tratnik, Alenka et al. “Student Satisfaction with an Online and a Face-to-Face Business English Course in a Higher Education Context”. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 56, no. 1, 2017, pp. 36-45. Tratnik, the lecturer at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Maribor, focuses on analyzing different teaching modalities attempting to define their role in student satisfaction. The scholar’s experience in education and Business English provides the chance to conduct appropriate research indicating that researchers should analyze online and face-to-face learning differently. The authors use the study’s conclusions aimed at the Business English students to identify their perception and evaluation of the online course to understand how it differs from the traditional method of learning. They intend to demonstrate to the other scholars and lecturers how e-learning may influence the students’ experience. The main argument in the paper is that online studying lacks various components that help the students to achieve higher scores. Mainly, the research defines that such factors as motivation, knowledge sharing, participation, curiosity, and creativity are the elements of offline learning. It helps scholars define that classroom studying is a more effective and appropriate way of teaching students.

This article has similar features to Paulsen and McCormick’s study because it also introduces the idea that interpersonal communication and cooperation play an essential role in the quality of education and academic performance (20). At the same time, this paper differs from the other articles because it explains how all these factors are interconnected and displays the results regarding students’ academic progress. This research relates to the current study because it contains valuable information about the survey results analyzing the differences between online and face-to-face learning. It will be used as the source of evidence supporting the view that online learning is an insufficient teaching method and should not replace the conventional way of studying. The strength of this article is its presentation of multiple factors explaining why online learning lacks the features of face-to-face learning. However, its limitation is the focus on the specific course, which may distort the results because it fails to present the other courses’ analysis. Consequently, the presentation of the idea that classroom learning provides more opportunities to learn the subjects better helps to support the view presented in the current study.

Wright, Brenda M. “Blended Learning: Student Perception of Face-to-Face and Online EFL Lessons”. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 7, no. 1, 2017, pp. 64-71. Wright, the lecturer at the University Malaysia Sabah, the author of several articles analyzing the quality of education, explains the role of online studying in modern society. The scholar uses her experience and the results of the questionnaires to define how an online teaching method influences the students’ learning outcomes. Mainly, the research demonstrates that most students prefer to study in classrooms because it enables them to interact with each other, develop their motivation and interest in the subject, and understand the material better. Additionally, they regard that the traditional teaching method provides the chance to establish relationships that are more effective with the lecturers and benefit from the interaction with the faculty. All these conclusions help the author make the conclusions about the role of these factors in the learners’ academic performance. Moreover, they intend to present these results to the other lecturers to realize that the conventional teaching method is a necessary component of modern education. It should not be replaced with online learning because it has various significant features that allow the students to achieve their learning goals.

Wright’s analysis includes ideas that reflect Tratnik et al.’s arguments about the role of cooperation and motivation in the process of learning (36). However, this article differs from the other sources used for the research because it contains a more multidimensional analysis combining the qualitative and quantitative study results. This text is helpful for the current study because it includes evidence of the idea about the advantages of face-to-face learning. It helps to define the role of the components’ combination in the opinion of the students about the quality of education. It will be used as the source of evidence proving the academic progress of students studying in classrooms. The strength of this reading is its multidimensional analysis and the analysis of students’ opinions. The weakness of this work is its focus on a relatively small population, which may influence the results. However, identifying the essential factors explaining the students’ preferences is a valuable source of data, which can be used in the research.

Cite this paper

Select style


ChalkyPapers. (2023, April 15). Online Learning vs. Face-to-Face Learning. Retrieved from


ChalkyPapers. (2023, April 15). Online Learning vs. Face-to-Face Learning.

Work Cited

"Online Learning vs. Face-to-Face Learning." ChalkyPapers, 15 Apr. 2023,


ChalkyPapers. (2023) 'Online Learning vs. Face-to-Face Learning'. 15 April.


ChalkyPapers. 2023. "Online Learning vs. Face-to-Face Learning." April 15, 2023.

1. ChalkyPapers. "Online Learning vs. Face-to-Face Learning." April 15, 2023.


ChalkyPapers. "Online Learning vs. Face-to-Face Learning." April 15, 2023.