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

Ramlee Mustapha

QR Code Link :
Type :	Article
Subject :	L Education (General)
ISBN :	2705-0610
Main Author :	Ramlee Mustapha
Title :	A comparison of the level of the ESP language learners’ performance and engagement in a synchronous online course and the face-to-face course
Hits :	43

Place of Production :	Tanjung Malim
Publisher :	Fakulti Teknikal & Vokasional
Year of Publication :	2024
Notes :	Forum for Linguistic Studies
Corporate Name :	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
HTTP Link :	Click to view web link
PDF Full Text :	You have no permission to view this item.

Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

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. © 2023 Author(s).

References

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials.
You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.

Back to search page