A comparison of the level of the ESP language learners' performance and engagement in a synchronous online course and the face-to-face course

Authors

  • Seyyed Ali Hosseini

    School of Nursing, Larestan University of Medical Sciences
  • Asma Dabiri

    Department of English Language, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
  • Sara Kashefian-Naeeini

    Department of English Language, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences;
    Philosophy of Life and Healthy Lifestyle Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
  • Ramlee Mustapha

    Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59400/fls.v6i1.1935

Abstract

Evidence is steadily mounting on the prominence of online and technology-enabled learning in higher education. The present study intended to investigate whether virtual, interactive, real-time, instructor-led (VIRI) online learning has the potential to yield comparable student performance and engagement results to that of a traditional face-to-face (F2F) course. This is of great significance since the study delves into the possibilities of synchronous online learning in environments where resources are scarce and provide valuable insights into how technology can contribute to improving medical education and accessibility to educational resources in Iran and other comparable educational contexts. The participants were 18–30-year-old male (n = 16) and female (n = 24) students of nursing (n = 20) and operating room (n = 20) who enrolled in synchronous online and face-to-face courses as the requisite for the fulfilment of a bachelor's degree. T-tests and descriptive statistics were the study employed T-tests and descriptive statistics to assess variations in both student performance and engagement results. The results revealed that a synchronous course conducted through VIRI classroom technology yields equivalent student performance outcomes to a traditional face-to-face (F2F) learning environment. The findings further showed that while the students did not appear to differ in terms of the levels of expected interest in the course and paying attention in class for the F2F and VIRI courses, they perceived themselves as displaying a different behaviour in the two courses in terms of attending class, participating in class, academic workload and instructor interactions. In fact, the post-semester findings showed that despite the students' earlier expectations, they displayed different behaviour on all six student engagement factors. The findings of this study could have direct implications for the creation, development, and delivery of synchronous online courses in higher education, including medical ones.

Keywords:

synchronous online learning, virtual, interactive, real-time, instructor-led, learning

References

[1] Abuatiq A, Fike G, Davis C, et al. (2017). E-learning in nursing: Literature review. International Journal of Nursing Education 9(2): 81. doi: 10.5958/0974-9357.2017.00041.1

[2] Ahmed R, Abdu AK. (2021). Online and face-to-face peer review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(1): 169-201.

[3] Ali W (2020). Online and remote learning in higher education institutes: A necessity in light of COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Studies 10(3): 16. doi: 10.5539/hes.v10n3p16

[4] Bi J, Javadi M, Izadpanah S (2023). The comparison of the effect of two methods of face-to-face and E-learning education on learning, retention, and interest in English language course. Education and Information Technologies 28(10): 13737-13762. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11743-3

[5] Butts F, Heidorn B, Mosier B (2013). Comparing student engagement in online and face-to-face instruction in health and physical education teacher preparation. Journal of Education and Learning 2(2): 8-13. doi: 10.5539/jel.v2n2p8

[6] Cavanaugh J, Jacquemin SJ (2015). A large sample comparison of grade based student learning outcomes in online vs. face-to-face courses. Online Learning 19(2). doi: 10.24059/olj.v19i2.454

[7] Chaw LY, Tang CM (2023). Learner characteristics and learners’ inclination towards particular learning environments. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning 21(1): 1-12. doi: 10.34190/ejel.21.1.2537

[8] Croxton RA (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 10(2): 314.

[9] Duncan K, Kenworthy A, McNamara R (2012). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous participation on students’ performance in online accounting courses. Accounting Education 21(4): 431-449. doi: 10.1080/09639284.2012.673387

[10] Falloon G (2011). Making the connection: Moore’s theory of transactional distance and its relevance to the use of a virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 43(3): 187-209. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2011.10782569

[11] Fishman B, Konstantopoulos S, Kubitskey BW, et al. (2013). Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professional development in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of Teacher Education 64(5): 426-438. doi: 10.1177/0022487113494413

[12] Francescucci A, Foster M (2013). The VIRI (virtual, interactive, real-time, instructor-led) classroom: The impact of blended synchronous online courses on student performance, engagement, and satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 43(3): 78-91. doi: 10.47678/cjhe.v43i3.184676

[13] Francescucci A, Rohani L (2019). Exclusively synchronous online (VIRI) learning: The impact on student performance and engagement outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education 41(1): 60-69. doi: 10.1177/0273475318818864

[14] Gacusan JC, Dangis SJ, Afalla BT (2023). Tailoring education for alpha learners: Harnessing learning styles for maximum learning outcomes. Nurture 17(3): 302–313. doi: 10.55951/nurture.v17i3. 335

[15] Garrels V, Zemliansky P (2022). Improving student engagement in online courses through interactive and user-centered course design: Practical strategies. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 17(2): 112-122. doi: 10.18261/njdl.17.2.3

[16] Geremew M, Abdissa Gurmesa D (2015). Factors that influences students academic performance: A case of rift valley university. Jimma, Ethiopia, Journal of Education and Practice 22(6): 1735-2222.

[17] Getachew B (2018). Factors affecting student’s academic performance in Ahuntegen general secondary school, North Wollo Zone, Ethiopia. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn) 12(2): 198-206. doi: 10.11591/edulearn.v12i2.8404

[18] Ghorbani F, Montazer GA (2015). E-learners’ personality identifying using their network behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior 51: 42-52. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.043

[19] Giesbers B, Rienties B, Tempelaar D, et al. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 30(1): 30-50. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12020

[20] Gordon S, Reid A, Petocz P (2010). Educators’ conceptions of student diversity in their classes. Studies in Higher Education 35(8): 961-974. doi: 10.1080/03075070903414305

[21] Hansen DE (2008). Knowledge transfer in online learning environments. Journal of Marketing Education 30(2): 93-105. doi: 10.1177/0273475308317702

[22] Hashim H, David WK C, et al. (2017). Students’ perceptions of live online virtual e-problem based learning (LOVE-PBL) using Google Hangouts. Education in Medicine Journal 9(4): 31-39. doi: 10.21315/eimj2017.9.4.4

[23] Haythornthwaite C (2002). Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and sustaining distributed learning communities. In: Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. pp. 159-190.

[24] Herastinski S (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly 31(4): 51-55.

[25] Husni NH, Jumaat NF, Tasir Z (2022). Investigating student’s cognitive engagement, motivation and cognitive retention in learning management system. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 17(09): 184-200. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v17i09.29727

[26] Jaggars SS, Edgecombe N, Stacey GW (2013). What We Know About Online Course Outcomes. Research Overview Community College Research Center, Columbia University.

[27] Jones IS, Blankenship D (2017). Learning style preferences and the online classroom. Research in Higher Education Journal 33.

[28] Kashefian-Naeeini S, Sheikhnezami-Naeini Z (2020). Communication skills among school masters of different gender in Shiraz, Iran. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology 29(2): 1607-1611.

[29] Kintu MJ, Zhu C, Kagambe E (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 14(1): pp.1-20. doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

[30] Konuralp H, Topping KJ (2023). Underlying factors influencing the quality of online EFL teaching in higher education: An Iranian case study. Interchange 54(3): 353-377. doi: 10.1007/s10780-023-09499-3

[31] Krasnova T, Vanushin I (2016). Blended learning perception among undergraduate engineering students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) 11(01): 54. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v11i01.4901

[32] Lapitan LD, Tiangco CE, Sumalinog DAG, et al. (2021). An effective blended online teaching and learning strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education for Chemical Engineers 35: 116-131. doi: 10.1016/j.ece.2021.01.012

[33] Linton G (2013). Online Learning Grows in Popularity. Knoxville News Sentinel.

[34] Marcus VB, Atan NA, Md Salleh S, et al. (2021). Exploring student emotional engagement in extreme e-service learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) 16(23): 43-55. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v16i23.27427

[35] May SC (2018). A Comparative Analysis of Student Success and Perceptions of Engagement Between Face-To-Face and Online College Courses [PhD thesis]. Lindenwood University.

[36] McLaren CH (2004). A comparison of student persistence and performance in online and classroom business statistics experiences. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 2(1): 1-10. doi: 10.1111/j.0011-7315.2004.00015.x

[37] Nguyen T (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 11(2): 309-319.

[38] Nortvig AM, Petersen AK, Balle SH (2018). A literature review of the factors influencing e-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement. Electronic Journal of E-learning 16(1): 46-55.

[39] Poon J (2013). Blendedlearning: An institutional approach for enhancing students’ learning experiences. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9(2): 271-283.

[40] Ramani PJ, Deo S (2020). Challenges faced by students due to online learning during this COVID-19 pandemic situation. Dimensions 7: 7.

[41] Richardson JC, Maeda Y, Lv J, et al. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 71: 402-417. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001

[42] Strang K (2013). Cooperative learning in graduate student projects: Comparing synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 24(4): 447-464.

[43] Susilawati E, Lubis H, Kesuma S, Pratama I (2022). Antecedents of student character in higher education: The role of the Automated Short Essay Scoring (ASES) digital technology-based assessment model. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 98(98): 203-220.

[44] Taqizade A, Hatami J (2019). Investigating the relationship among educational, social and cognitive presences with students’ academic performance in e-learning courses. A path analysis study. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 11(5): 169-177.

[45] Torrisi-Steele G, Drew S (2013). The literature landscape of blended learning in higher education: The need for better understanding of academic blended practice. International Journal for Academic Development 18(4): 371-383. doi: 10.1080/1360144x.2013.786720

[46] Valizadeh M, Soltanpour F (2021). Focused direct corrective feedback: Effects on the elementary English learners’ written syntactic complexity. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(1): 132-150.

[47] Watts L (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 17(1): 23.

[48] Xu D, Jaggars SS (2014). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. CCRC Working Paper No. 57.

Downloads

Issue

Vol. 6 , Iss. 1 (March 2024)

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2024 Seyyed Ali Hosseini, Asma Dabiri, Sara Kashefian-Naeeini, Ramlee Mustapha

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.