SHS Web of Conferences 180, 04006 (2023) https://doi.org/10.

1051/shsconf/202318004006
ICEPCC 2023

Comparative study of online learning and face-to-face learning

Rongtan Sun1,*
1
Department of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, DH, United Kingdom

Abstract. Online learning is prompted by the pandemic and has become the second main learning method.
Considering the differences between face-to-face (F2F) and online learning, there should be significant
differences in students' learning experiences between the two learning methods. This study uses a course
experience questionnaire (CEQ) and an online course experience questionnaire (OCEQ) to investigate and
compare students' perceptions of two learning methods from six factors. The result indicates that the
differences between the two learning methods are significant in terms of the total score of the questionnaire,
the factor of good teaching (GT), the factor of clear goals (CG) and the factor of appropriate assessment
(AA). The lack of social interaction on campus could be the reason for this phenomenon based on the theory
of constructionism. That suggests online learning platforms and instructors take more action to increase the
interactivity of online learning to motivate students. The difference in the factor of emphasis on
independence is not significant, which is inconsistent with the findings from the previous study. The reason
could be attributed to the increasing flexibility of the combined learning methods.

1 Introduction teachers are the unique benefits of online learning

attracting them.
Since the lockdown due to COVID-19, many face- However, as a double-edged sword, online learning
toface learning transited to online learning to decrease has some unavoidable weaknesses. One of them is the
physical contact. Online learning has become need for physical contact and interaction with
increasingly prevalent [1]. Many students face two main instructors. Many studies have found this phenomenon
learning methods: online and face-to-face (F2F). Online among undergraduate students. For example, Kuong
learning breaks the restriction of time and place, giving conducted a qualitative study through survey, interview
students more flexibility and opportunities to complete and observation [3]. The result demonstrated that they
the course. However, previous studies have found that were unsatisfied with the lack of social connection,
online learning may negatively affect student's academic which decreases the motivation to ask for help from
performance and mental health compared with F2F classmates and decreases the sense of connectedness in
learning [2]. Therefore, the issue of the comparison the learning society. However, most participants were
between online learning and F2F learning has been satisfied with the online learning experience. Unlike
widely investigated by educators and psychologists to online learning, traditional F2F learning allows teachers
improve students' learning experiences. and students to stay in the room and communicate
faceto-face. Students can ask questions immediately
when they get lost in class. Jonason et al. conducted an
2 Literature review empirical study comparing students' ratings on a
Online learning and F2F are two main learning methods graduate online course and its F2F counterpart [4].
in recent years. As an emergent tool adaptive to Students in the F2F course group reflected more
COVID19, online learning has several strengths. For positive perceptions of the instructor and course quality.
example, it breaks the time and space restriction for Bali and Liu also compare students' perceptions of
students, allowing them to have lessons outside the online and F2F learning methods with other indicators
campus. Meanwhile, some online lessons have [5]. The result indicates that students evaluated online
recordings, so students can review them whenever they courses as having more social presence, social
want. That offers students more flexibility and interaction and satisfaction. Mather and Sarkans
opportunity to be exposed to knowledge and complete conducted a qualitative study on 313 Ontario students to
their course. Stoian et al. conducted a survey study to compare their perception of F2F and online learning in
identify students' preferred aspects of online learning various aspects [6]. More than 60% of students reflected
during the COVID19 pandemic [1]. Participants in that they prefer the F2F learning method, though the
Timisoara reflected that the access to online learning workload in the online format is more manageable than
material and individualised communication with the F2F format.
SHS Web of Conferences 180, 04006 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202318004006
ICEPCC 2023

Learning experience, as a comprehended concept, relationship between learning experience and course
has various definitions and components. Considering satisfaction [11]. The result indicated that CEQ is a
the valid instrument for investigating students' perceived
difference between the two learning methods, students teaching quality in Chinese universities.

*
Corresponding author: [email protected]

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
should have different perceptions of the different Yin et al. modified CEQ to Online Course
learning experiences. Besser and Flett researched Experience Questionnaire (OCEQ) to adopt CEQ as a
students' subjective learning experiences due to the measure of online learning experience, which has been
transition from face-to-face learning to online learning, proven to have acceptable reliability and validity [12].
and they referred to the learning experience as three Yin has adopted OCEQ to explore students' engagement
components: affective reactions, cognitive reactions and and learning experience [13].
behavioural reactions [7]. The result indicated that This study would adopt CEQ to investigate students'
participants tend to have more negative F2F learning experience and OCEQ to investigate
(affective/cognitive/behavioural) reactions towards the students' online learning experience. Based on the
necessary online format. However, Park and Kim chose various differences between the two learning methods
learning engagement and satisfaction as indicators to found in previous studies, the present study supposes
represent the learning experience when they there should be significant differences in learning
investigated the effect of students' perception of the experience regarding the six factors between online and
instructor on the online learning experience [8]. The F2F learning.
interactivity of communication tools is positively
correlated with students' engagement and learning 3 Method
satisfaction in online learning.
This paper investigates students' overall learning
experience in F2F and online learning. A survey called 3.1 Participants
the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), designed The studies in the literature review used university
based on a theory framework, will be used in this study students as participants. Since primary and high school
[9]. CEQ is one of the most typical and widespread students tend to have purely traditional F2F learning on
instruments used to investigate university students' campus, this study chooses university students as
evaluation of teaching quality. The CEQ is based on a participants.
theory of university teaching that considers that The researcher published the study issue on social
students' approach to learning and learning quality is media and invited university students to participate in
determined by the curriculum, instrument and this study. The interested people would direct message
assessment [10]. Compared with other indicators the researcher and the researcher would send them a
measuring the difference between F2F and online link to the secure online questionnaire.
learning, such as academic performance, learning A total of 152 participants joined the study
motivation and well-being, the learning experience is a voluntarily and filled in the online questionnaire. All of
comprehended indicator with six aspects. The learning them are university students and have both F2F and
experience is more suitable to measure pedagogical online learning in the last three months. Eighty of the
characteristics and inspire instructors to improve the students are males and 72 of the students are females.
teaching process. Their age ranged from 17 to 24 years. One hundred
It measures six aspects of university learning: clear fiftytwo students entered the Wenjuanxing platform's
goals and standards (CG), generic skills (GS), emphasis questionnaire webpage, and all completed and uploaded
on independence(IN), good teaching(GT), appropriate the questionnaire. Therefore, this study analysed 152
workload(AW), and assessments (AA) focusing on valid data.
students' understanding of course contents [10]. CEQ is
originally from and widely used in the Western context.
Early in 2016, Yin et al. translated the CEQ into
Chinese version and used it to investigate the

2
SHS Web of Conferences 180, 04006 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202318004006
ICEPCC 2023

3.2 Material 3.3 Procedures

The questionnaire has two sections: demographic The secured online questionnaires would include
information and course experience questionnaire informed consent, demographic background, and the
investigating students' online or F2F learning main body of the questionnaire. Meantime, participants
experience. The present study uses the Chinese version were free to withdraw from the study at any time.
of the 36item CEQ [11] that has six factors: clear goals 3.4 Data analysis
and standards (CG, five items), generic skills (GS, six
items), emphasis on independence (IN, six items), good The secured online questionnaires would include
teaching (GT, eight items), appropriate workload (AW, informed consent, demographic background, and the
five items) and appropriate assessment (AA, six items). main body of the questionnaire. This study used JASP
The OCEQ has six factors but has three fewer items: as the analysis tool to run an internal consistency test
Item 24 in CG, Item 31 in GT, and Item 19 in AW. All and comparative t-test. The coefficient of Cronbach's
the items on both CEQ and OCEQ are scored on a 4- alpha detects the internal consistency and accuracy of
point Likert Scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 the questionnaire.
(strongly agree). CEQ and OCEQ have permitted In this study, the independent variable is the two
validity to assess Chinese university student learning learning methods and the dependent variable is the
experience [11-13]. different factors of learning experience measured by
CG refers to students having a clear goal on what CEQ and OCEQ. The second analysis is an independent
they need to learn and knowing how the knowledge t-test investigating whether there is a significant
would be assessed. GS refers to the transferable and difference in six factors (CG, GS, IN, GT, AW, AA) and
practical skills students learn from the class, including the total score.
but not limited to analysing problems, teamwork and
communication. IN refers to the flexibility and
independence in how to accomplish the course. GT 4 Result
refers to the perceived teaching quality of the instructor. The Cronbach's alpha of CEQ and OCEQ are higher
AW refers to the workload of accomplishing the course. than 70, which is permitted for this study. This study
AA refers to the student's evaluation of the property of compared the average scores among six factors and the
the assessment. total score of learning experience. One group of data IN
(W=.95, p< .001) was not normally distributed so the
Wilcoxon signed-rank was used in this group. Other
groups were compared by paired sample t-test. The
descriptive data, including mean and standard deviation,
is shown in Table 1.
There is
Table 1. Descriptive Data for Average Learning Experience Total Score and the Scores among Six no
Factors between F2F Learning and Online Learning significant
N Mean SD SE difference
GT-F2F-A 152 3.186 0.589 0.048 between the
factor of the
GT-online-A 152 3.171 0.652 0.053
emphasis on
GS-F2F-A 152 3.182 0.628 0.051
GS-online-A 152 3.136 0.710 0.058
CG-F2F-A 152 2.512 0.516 0.042
CG-online-A 152 2.276 0.334 0.027
AW-F2F-A 152 3.096 0.650 0.053
AW-online-A 152 3.041 0.683 0.055
AA-F2F-A 152 2.830 0.449 0.036
AA-online-A 152 3.128 0.699 0.057
IN-F2F-A 152 3.194 0.576 0.047
IN-online-A 152 3.109 0.717 0.058
total-F2F-A 152 17.990 2.365 0.192
total-online-A 152 16.997 2.413 0.196

Note. (GT-good teaching, GS-general skills, CG-clear goals, AW-appreciate workload,

AAappreciate assessment, IN-emphasis on independence)
3
SHS Web of Conferences 180, 04006 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202318004006
ICEPCC 2023

independence (IN) between F2F learning (M=3.2, including instructors, peers, materials, and learning
SD=.58) and online learning (M=3.1, SD=.72, W=4700, environment [14]. Personal motivational factors,
p=.351) from the Wilcoxon signedrank test. learning behaviours and environmental factors can
The result of the paired sample t-test is shown in interact. Therefore, increased interaction could give
Table 2. The difference in learning experience is students a better perception of teaching quality and a
significant in terms of good teaching (GT), clear goals greater sense of connectivity. That would motivate
(CG), appropriate assessment (AA) and the total score students to learn more, leading to a more precise
of learning experience between F2F learning and online learning goal.
learning. However, the difference between general skill Based on this finding, it is rational to suggest that
(GS) and appropriate workload (AW) is not significant. the online learning platform add more interactive
Participants reflected higher GT score in F2F functions to increase its interactivity, such as group
learning (M=3.2, SD=.59)compared with online discussion and role-play activities. However,
learning (M=3.0, SD=.65, t=.28, p=.004), higher CG considering that many platforms (TencentMeeting,
score in F2F learning (M=2.5, SD=.52) compared with Micro Teams) have been equipped with efficient
online learning (M=2.3, SD=.33, t=5.4, p<.001), higher interactive modules, instructors and schools could
AA score in F2F learning(M=3.2, SD=.65) compared increase students' self-efficiency in joining the class
with online learning(M=3.0, SD=.65, t=.28, activity by utilising psychology theory, such as using
p=.004).However, the difference in neither AW between prizes as positive feedback. Furthermore, instructors
F2F learning (M=3.1, SD=.65) and online learning could encourage students to reflect on their feeling
(M=3.0, SD=.68, t=.78, p=.435), nor GS between F2F about the teaching process and their goals for learning.
learning (M=3.2, SD=.563) and online learning (M=3.1, Nevertheless, GT and CG are not direct indicators of
SD=.71, t=.76, p=.448) is significant. social interaction. Thus, a more detailed exploratory
survey is worthwhile to determine the reason for the
Table 2. Paired Samples T-Test for GT, GS, CG, AW, AA and significant differences in GT and CG between the two
the total score of F2F and online learning learning methods.
F2F Learning Online Learning t df p However, for the factor of AA, students reflect a
more negative sense of F2F learning. This phenomenon
GT-F2F-A - GT-online-A 0.275 151 0.004
is a need for more explanation from previous studies.
GS-F2F-A - GS-online-A 0.761 151 0.448 The possible reason is that students are more
CG-F2F-A - CG-online-A 5.407 151 < .001 comfortable with online exams because they can stay in
their familiar environment, such as home and library,
AW-F2F-A - AW-online-A 0.783 151 0.435 rather than in the classroom. The available online
AA-F2F-A - AA-online-A -4.952 151 < .001 material gives students more opportunity to plan for
total-F2F-A - total-online-A 7.735 151 < .001
their assessment with deeper thinking on how they
could perform better academically without enquiring
Note. Student's t-test. from instructors.
There is no significant difference in independence
between F2F learning and online learning. This result is
5 Discussion in contrast with the deduction from previous studies.
There is a significant difference in the total mark of Online learning can provide students more flexibility to
learning experience between the two types of learning. address their workload, such as having the online class
This finding is consistent with the deduction from wherever students want and watching the recording as
previous studies. Students with different perceptions of students need. Therefore, students should have a greater
learning engagement and social connection in different sense of independence in online classes. In this study,
learning methods are prone to have different learning participants could have equal or even more
experiences. independence on what and how to learn in F2F learning.
Participants reflect significantly higher GT and CG In other words, the teachers in F2F learning give
scores on F2F learning among six factors. This finding students more flexibility.
could be attributed to the need for more This study investigates whether students have
studentinstructor interaction. For F2F learning, students different learning experiences in six different factors.
have more physical contact with their teachers and The study confirms the idea that both F2F learning and
peers, so they are prone to interact more in class, such online learning have different strengths and weaknesses.
as asking and answering class questions. Thus, considering how to combine two learning
According to the theory of constructionism, children methods to improve students' learning experiences is
learn from their interaction with their surroundings, worth discussing further. For example, Peachter and

4
SHS Web of Conferences 180, 04006 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202318004006
ICEPCC 2023

Maier surveyed 2196 university students to reflect on 7. A. Besser, G. L. Flett, and V. Zeigler-Hill. Schol
their preference for F2F and online learning [15]. The Teach Lear Psych. 8, (2020).
result identifies that when the course prioritises 8. C. Park and D. Kim. J Infor Tech Ed: Res. 19, 475–
conceptual knowledge and the skills for applying the 488, (2020).
knowledge, students prefer F2F learning. When the
course needs students to acquire self-regulated learning 9. J. T. E. Richardson. Ass& Eval High Educ. 30, 387–
skills, students tend to attend online classes. There are 415, (2005).
some limitations to this study. First, this study did not 10. K. L. Wilson, A. Lizzio, and P. Ramsden. Stud High
explore the potential reasons behind the differences. As Educ. 22, 33–53, (1997).
the lack of interaction is one of the crucial differences 11. H. Yin, W. Wang, and J. Han. High Educ. 71, 39–
between online and F2F learning, further study could do 57, (2015).
a mediating analysis to investigate whether social
12. H. Yin, G. Lu, and X. Meng. Ass & Eval High
interaction is a mediating factor between learning
methods and learning experience. Second, adolescents Educ. 47, 1–14, (2022).
of different ages and stages tend to have different levels 13. H. Yin. Fut Educ Res.1-13, (2023)
of adaptability and cognitive abilities, so it is suggested 14. Q. Cao, T. Griffin, H. Wayne, and X. Bai, J Inform
to repeat this study among high school and primary Syst Educ. 20, 331-338, (2009).
school students.
15. M. Paechter and B. Maier. Intern High Educ. 13,
292–297, (2010).
6 Conclusion
In conclusion, this study uses an online survey to collect
quantitative data on students' learning experience and
compare whether there is a significant difference in
learning experience between F2F learning and online
learning. The result shows that the difference between
the two learning methods is significant and some
measures could be taken to improve students' online
learning experience from various factors. The result
suggested that the course designer increase the class
student-instructor and student-student interactivity in
online lessons to let students perceive higher teaching
quality. In the meantime, instructors could communicate
more with students to ensure that students have a clear
goal during the learning process and are happy with the
assessment. Meanwhile, the proper combination of F2F
and online learning is worth further exploring.

References
1. C. E. Stoian, M. A. Fărcașiu, G.-M. Dragomir, and
V. Gherheș. Sustainability. 14, 12812, (2022).
2. S. Zhou et al. BMC Psychiatry. 22, (2022).
3. H. C. Kuong. Pr-Soc Beh Sc. 191, 1002–1005,
(2015).
4. S. D. Johnson, S. R. Aragon, and N. Shaik. J Int
Lear Res. 11, 29–49, (2000).
5. S. Bali and M. C. Liu. J Phys: Confe Ser. 1108,
012094, (2018).
6. M. Mather, and A. Sarkans, Intern J Curr Instr. 10,
61-76, (2018).