Introduction
In today’s society of busy people and a high tech environment, classes which were traditional taught in the classroom are often taught online. There is a debate as to whether online learning or face to face learning is best for certain subjects. In addition, some propose that a combination of the two may be the best way to educate students. This topic has been explored by a number of researchers and has been the subject or a number of studies. Throughout this paper. I will evaluate literature which explores the topic of whether learners are more successful, academically, in a brick and mortar setting, a distance education (online) setting, or by combining the two for a hybrid setting.
Face to Face Versus Online Learning or Both
With more and more online institutions emerging every year and more and more people enrolling in online courses, there is a fair amount of scholarly literature out there concerning the differences and benefits of traditional brick and mortar learning as compared to non-traditional online course and e-learning. This literature includes studies conducted of whether students are more likely to do their own work in each type of institution as well as which type of institution is preferred by students and which type of institution most enhances students’ learning.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Online, Face to Face, or Hybrid Learning".
Whether or not students complete and submit their work for evaluation is important for the learning process. However, students often usurp this requirement through the use of plagiarized work. This can occur in both the traditional brick and mortar setting as well as the online setting. David C. Ison (2014) explored the subject of the likelihood of plagiarism in brick and mortar institutions versus online institutions in his article Does the Online Environment Promote Plagiarism? A Comparative Study of Dissertations from Brick and Mortar versus Online Institutions appearing in the Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. The article and the study which was a part of it focused the incidents of plagiarism in doctoral dissertations in the online learning environment versus the traditional learning environment. The researcher aimed to explore whether plagiarism was more prevalent in the online learning environment than it was in the traditional learning environment. The study sampled 184 dissertations from online institutions and 184 dissertations from traditional institutions. These dissertations were examined by both uploading them to Turnitin and scrutinizing them utilizing a Mann-Whitney U test with similar indices to Turnitin. In the study the researcher found that although there were more incidents of plagiarism in the dissertations from the online learning environment, the dissertations from the traditional learning environment that contained plagiarism contained far more egregious incidents of the act. The main strengths of the study were that fact that it used a large sample size and evaluated dissertations from both brick and mortar and online courses. One limitation of this study is that it was limited to assessing the prevalence of the fraudulent use of online sources in a student’s work which could be detected by the use of Turnitin. There are a number of other forms of academic dishonesty that the study did not assess which could have been present in the dissertations. Another weakness of the study was that it failed to take into account variables such as the competitiveness of the academic institution which can have an effect on the likelihood of students to engage in acts of plagiarism; the online programs have a less competitive admissions process which could lend them to have more students who are willing to engage in plagiarism.
Keith F. Corso (2010) examined whether the delivery of learning material in the learning style that is preferred by a student improved the student’s ability to learn the material in his dissertation article Learning Styles for Traditional College Students: Does Mode of Learning Improve Performance Outcome? The article examined different modes of delivery of learning material to students and whether modes such as computer and media delivery impact a student’s ability to learning the material that is presented over the traditional learning method of book reading; it tried to access whether the use of multimedia content improve the learning and retention of material by neomillennials.
Furthermore, the study examined whether the preference of the learner for this type of presentation had an impact on the learner’s ability to learn the material. This study was conducted using the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory which accessed the differing styles on the traditional neomillennial students who took the inventory assessment. The students’ dominant learning styles were accessed and materials were given to students that matched their dominant learning styles to ascertain whether this enhanced the students’ comprehension ability. The study found that students who utilized study and learning materials that matched their dominate and subordinate learning styles did not exhibit better comprehension than when these students utilized materials that did not match their learning styles. A strength of the study is that it included both a student’s dominate and subordinate learning styles in recognition of the fact that students often learn best by a combination of learning methods. A weakness of the study, however, is that it only evaluated comprehension of material through traditional and multimedia means; it did not evaluate student participation, likelihood to enroll in the course, or student enjoyment of the course. These are all important factors which may be enhanced by a multimedia / hybrid method of delivery of course material.
Mihai Paunescu (2013) examined patterns of student learning and students attitudes toward technology in the article Students’ Attitudes Toward Technology – Enabled Learning: A Change in Learning Patterns? The Case of a Master’s Course in Political Science. The study which is described in this article was conducted of 66 students in a Masters’ in public policy program. The students, who attended a brick and mortar institution, exposed to a hybrid course in order to assess their attitudes toward e-learning. The study was conducted through the use of a questionnaire. The study found that the virtual learning environment was not suited to completely replace face to face learning at that time; the students perceived the virtual learning environment as a supplement to traditional learning. Therefore, this study suggests that the traditional brick and mortar learning environment and the online learning environment function together best as hybrid learning. The fact that each student evaluated the virtual learning environment program that was offer was a strength of the study. In addition, this study, unlike Corso’s, explores the student perception of their experience with virtual learning instead of simply their comprehension. Through the individual student questionnaires, the researchers were able to gain an understanding of what each student’s experience was with virtual learning. A weakness of the study, however, is that the study was conducted of only 66 students of one program. This is not a significant sample size nor a cross section of the population. It is important to note that the study was conducted in Bucharest, Romania. It would be interesting to know how developed the virtual learning environment is in Romania as compared to the United States.
- Corso, K. (2010). Learning Styles for Traditional College Students: Does Mode of Learning Improve Performance Outcome? Capella University.
- Ison, D. C. (2014). Does the Online Environment Promote Plagiarism? A Comparative Study of Dissertations from Brick-and-Mortar Versus Online Institutions. Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Volume. 10, Number 2.
- Paunescu, M. (2013). Students’ Attitudes Toward Technology-Enabled Learning: A Change in Learning Patterns? The Case of a Master’s Course in Political Science. European Journal of Open, Distance, and e-Learning. Volume 16. Number 1.
