in person vs online learning essay

Comparative Essay Example: In-Person vs. Online Learning

As technology advances, the way of living changes in all aspects. A major change that is occurring is the opportunity for students to attend in-person schooling, physically sitting at a desk along with other students, or learning online. The best way to learn is unique to the individual student, and whether learning is virtually or face-to-face, there will be many similarities and differences. The better fit for a student might be one they never considered would work for them. When evaluating the form of learning, it is important to look at the environment: resources, teaching style, flexibility, teachers, and structure. 

There are many similarities between in-person and online learning. To start, both types of classroom settings have access to many resources: tutors, teacher conferences, or extra study material. An example could be the Chemeketa writing center which offers meetings in person or virtually (College). In both forms of learning one could find many opportunities for extracurricular activities or clubs. The student can decide to arrange themselves to either scenario with a wide range of attendance options. A recent example of that would be a past parent theatre meeting, where those who could not make it in person to the auditorium, had the chance to attend via zoom. Another resemblance in learning would be the type of materials that teachers instruct their students with, which is overall the same. This could include, assignments and test material. The workload remains roughly the same as well. Although there are many similarities between in-person classes and online learning, they become different when it comes to the social aspect.

 In a classroom, students have the chance to learn with an active teaching style--one not easily offered through an online setting. Students during in-person learning, voluntarily participate in group discussions, while online learning is mainly silent zoom sessions. This is mainly because circumstances have changed for remote learning to happen and students’ lack of willingness to communicate to a screen (Morin). Human interaction is essential “in assisting the learner to organize their thoughts, reflect on their understanding, and find gaps in their reasoning,” although most of it is found through a physical classroom setting (Okita). Along with easier learning for group discussions, the more people participate, the wider the range of perspectives will be.  While in-person learning primarily has a structured schedule that only requires the student to complete work on certain days, self-directed skills are necessary to successfully pass online courses. Despite the distinct differences between the learning environments, there are positives to both sides.

One essential resemblance for remote earning and face-to-face would be the teachers or professors. They adapt and learn new techniques to engage their students. The instructor directing the students throughout all the material is what allows both resources to work. During in-person learning teaching could use more methods and experiments; in online learning, there are more virtual labs and videos. They both give out different information but are essential for each. For example during online learning, a teacher’s material could look like, recorded lectures, Youtube videos, or online assignments. The pace a student learns during either learning setting is dependent on the teacher. Ultimately, it is teachers who during online and virtual classes direct the information needed for students to learn. 

Another main difference stems from availability and flexibility for both ways of learning. In-person is more of a fixed environment, which can also limit the number of people attending. Students who go in person are required to go to class and meet attendance daily. Because of the difficulty to schedule around the school for students who work full time, it becomes an inconvenience to ever have free time.  For a smaller classroom setting the maximum number of students is no more than 25 in one place. Online that number can significantly increase and allow for more students to participate. This can also include students from a variety of locations around the world, where all they need is the internet to connect. There is a great deal of flexibility offered, in contrast to in-person learning with a strict schedule. Some students prefer an online setting because of the flexibility of the hours. 

It is important to evaluate the needs of individual students and not make a decision about how a child learns lightly. Both forms of learning have positives and negatives. For strong, individualists students, remote learning would be a better option. For students who need physical, human interaction to learn, then in-person learning could be a better fit. It is important to evaluate the essential needs of students like resources or preferred ways to learn.

Related Samples

• Voice Actor Application Letter Example
• Essay on Advantages of School Uniforms
• Comparing And Contrasting My Current Use of English and Academic Language Tier I Need to Success
• Research Paper on Students are Struggling and Mental Health Days Can Help
• Argumentative Essay: Does Homework Helpful?
• Persuasive Essay Sample: Homework Should Not Be Required
• My Experience As A Writer (Reflective Essay)
• What Does It Mean to Be Educated Essay Example
• Essay Sample: 8 Ways to Become Successful in life
• Persuasive Essay Example: Abolishing Homework

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Online? In Person? The Power of Letting Students Choose

Explore more.

• Classroom Management
• Course Design
• Digital Learning

I t’s been a full year since thousands of university faculty and millions of students made what’s likely the largest adjustment in instructional delivery in history, migrating mid-semester from physical classrooms to online ones. As the possible end of this great transition nears, higher education is exhaling a collective sigh of relief—but there is a new question facing most university faculty and administrators: now what?

Since last summer, university leaders have been busy determining when and how campuses can safely reopen. But as strategist and professor Vijay Govindarajan pointed out during an HBP webinar on COVID-19’s impact on the future of higher education last May , “while it’s important to attend to the challenge of the present, it’s equally important for universities and faculty to see the moment for what it is—a seismic shift within higher education.”

Those words ring even truer today. As most of us know by now, higher education is unlikely to fully return to pre–COVID-19 course delivery models. Millions of students have now experienced the intensive integration of technology into their courses, and this has likely reset their expectations for the future. Professor Govindarajan challenges us to use the lessons learned from the great transition to explore—more permanently—new models for instructional delivery.

Last fall, I did just that. I piloted a delivery approach, called the Choice Model, and implemented it in two of my principles-level business courses at Illinois College. The model, which allows students to choose, every day, whether they’ll attend class in person or online (via Zoom), was positively received by students. When surveyed, they said they preferred the Choice Model to all other delivery approaches combined (including fully in-person learning) by more than a two-to-one margin. Here, I will explain how I came up with and implemented this new model, how my students reacted, and how I plan to integrate it into my course design in the future.

What a Difference Autonomy Makes

While many colleges and universities have remained fully online since last March, many others—my institution among them—decided to open for face-to-face instruction for the Fall 2020 semester, with the first week and last two weeks taught remotely. As faculty, we were encouraged and supported to find ways to use technology to reduce student-to-student contact (per pandemic guidelines) and enhance learning. Empathizing with my students, I imagined that our announcement of in-person instruction was met with a combination of excitement about returning to the classroom and varying degrees of anxiety regarding the virus and what the fall might bring.

In times of stress, one of the factors that empowers individuals is the ability to exert a degree of control over their environment . I quickly determined that giving my students a choice in how they received their education would allow them to exert greater autonomy. Not to mention, developing students’ autonomy is a critical learning goal, and an explicit one in many UK universities .

This all got me thinking: if students were allowed to make choices in their education relative to the pandemic, perhaps their anxiety would decline and their performance would increase.

I developed the Choice Model in direct response to these factors. It’s similar to a hybrid model, but with one key distinction. The Choice Model lets each student choose—every day—whether they prefer to attend class in person or online.

Let’s dig more deeply into the model and how it came to be.

“One of the factors that empowers individuals is the ability to exert a degree of control over their environment.”

The Choice Model: Combining Flexibility and Engagement

During the summer of 2020, I began exploring students’ concerns about available course delivery options. Two common themes emerged:

Fear of the unknown. In conversations with former students, several said they would be hesitant to commit fulltime to a delivery format they weren’t familiar with (namely online learning). And they said risk was high: if the format wasn’t right for them, the only options would be to drop the course or to suffer through it for the entire semester.

Concerns about staying engaged and motivated. Several years ago, before my time at Illinois College, I conducted surveys with community college students about their experiences learning online. Their feedback was largely negative. Most had been in online courses that provided content, assignments, and a schedule of due dates, and students found it hard to be motivated or engaged.

Thus, an ideal course delivery system needed to provide students with a choice that enabled each student to move between delivery systems as their comfort level and environment changed. Giving students a daily choice could provide some feelings of control and reduced anxiety, while also allowing students new to digital course delivery to try it out. If it didn’t work for them, they could always return to attending in person.

For this model to work, however, I knew I needed a way to engage students both in the classroom and online. For me, the learning platform Echo360 became the critical link that elevated the Choice Model from other hybrid approaches. To keep in-class students and those participating on Zoom engaged in long class periods, I used Echo360 to ask students multiple choice questions every 10 minutes or so, checking in on students’ understanding of the content we had just covered in the session.

I graded responses on a mastery basis. Students received five points if they obtained a score of 70 percent or higher on the Echo360 questions asked on a given day, and zero points if they answered less than 70 percent correct. For students who paid attention and took notes, these questions were easy—for those who did not, they proved to be very difficult. As the semester progressed, the average scores on these questions increased (as did students’ exam scores, by one to two percent per exam). Similarly, student performance on an end-of-semester comprehensive final exam rose from 70.5 percent to 77.67 percent.

I also used the Echo360 platform to understand how my students would be attending class on any given day. The first question I always asked at the start of each session was, Are you attending today’s class:

A) In Person

B) Via Zoom

This allowed me to track not only what percentage of each student’s sessions were attended in-person versus on Zoom, but also the performance of in-person attendees versus Zoom attendees on the check-in questions asked throughout the session.

Positive Results, Positive Attitudes

What are the benefits of the choice model.

I’ve found the Choice Model, in which students can choose whether they attend class each day in person or online, benefits students, faculty, and administration in the following ways:

Student Benefits

Ease of attendance, ease of use. Requires only a smart phone and an internet connection to attend class. Echo360 is a free student download and takes five minutes to learn.

Fewer COVID-related anxieties. Students can decide whether to attend in person or online based on how secure they feel at the time of each class.

Faculty Benefits

Reduced risk of virus transmission. De-densifies the classroom, bringing fewer students into close contact with the professor and allowing for greater social distancing.

Relative ease of use. The only additional technology needed was a second webcam, a wireless lapel mic, and licenses for Zoom and Echo360.

Administration Benefits

Ability to maintain class sizes and avoid additional staffing. Due to the need to social distance in classrooms, a classroom that normally holds 35+ students might now only hold 15, necessitating additional classrooms and staffing. The Choice Model allows those students to voluntarily separate so that only one classroom and one educator is needed.

I also saw comprehensive final exam scores increase by seven points in a Choice Model class over another section taught fully in person a year earlier. Students credited the use of the check-in Echo360 questions during each class session as being helpful for keeping them engaged with the material during 70- and 100-minute classes.

Attendance also increased from 85 percent in Fall 2019 to 93 percent in Fall 2020, since the most common reasons for not being in class—not feeling well, being unable to get to campus, having to be out of town, etc.—were no longer barriers. An additional benefit of the Choice Model was the ease of teaching students who were placed in quarantine or isolation. In these instances, all I needed to do was to email the student to check on their health and well-being, and then to remind them to simply attend class using Zoom, if they were feeling up for it.

By the end of the fall semester, the Choice Model seemed to be a popular innovation with students. In a post-semester survey, I asked students to rate the model on a scale of 1 to 7 (with 7 being high), and the mean response was 6.7. When asked to rank the Choice Model among other course delivery alternatives—such as fully in person, fully on Zoom, and a 50/50 hybrid approach—30 out of 44 students ranked the Choice Model as their number-one preferred course delivery model, well ahead of fully in-person instruction.

Responding to Challenges

The model was not flawless, however. One challenge of the Choice Model was the passive nature of Zoom attendees. Echo360 was effective at engaging students with the course content, but getting students to engage with each other was another issue. Since these were principles-level classes, few of the students were familiar to me prior to the start of the course, which also made relationship building a slower process. In a post-COVID world, I intend to make greater effort to build those relationships when implementing this model.

A second challenge involved teaching quantitative material through the Choice Model. Students attending through Zoom seemed to struggle more with material that involved quantitative problem solving compared to their peers attending in person. Providing Zoom attendees with recordings of classes and additional video support was unsuccessful. A greater level of coaching on my part and increased diligence on the part of students was needed.

A third challenge was that, while giving students choices is generally positive and empowering, not every student choice is going to be a good choice. One of the unfortunate consequences of the Choice Model was that some students who needed the structure and peer-support of a classroom chose instead to attend through Zoom. The effect of not choosing wisely became apparent when grades were issued at midterm. While the number of poorly performing students was not significantly greater than usual, the extent of their poor performance was concerning, with most of the poor performers averaging below 50 percent.

Follow-up conversations with Zoom students who were performing poorly revealed that they had two other things in common—they attended class with their cameras off, and they were multitasking while attending (eating lunch, cleaning the room, working out, etc.). Most of the students with low performance said that they chose to attend via Zoom specifically for the convenience and so they could multitask. I had to explain to them that their strategy was not working. Many of those students chose to continue attending via Zoom, even after being told they would do better by being in the classroom. However, in most cases, students’ self-reported multitasking ended, their in-class quiz scores generally increased, and their performance improved to the point of passing.

“Giving students a daily choice could provide some feelings of control and reduced anxiety, while also allowing students new to digital course delivery to try it out.”

Imagining a Post-COVID Future That Includes the Choice Model

While there are some issues and limitations with the Choice Model that still need refinement, I am confident this model is applicable well beyond the current pandemic for the following reasons:

From a student perspective, the Choice Model adds value to the student experience by allowing students to choose the form their education will take each day. Even if a student chooses the same option every day, the fact that they have a choice at all still has value.

The model offers convenience and flexibility to students, especially for those who prefer in-person instruction but do not want to be locked into being on campus. For the type of student who often has work or personal conflicts, the Choice Model provides a Zoom option as a safety net. Conversely, a student who is unsure how well they will learn in an online environment also has a safety net, knowing there is an option for in-person instruction if needed.

For colleges and universities, the Choice Model has significant potential as a cost-effective alternative to online instruction. This is particularly true for online courses that are unlikely to enroll large numbers of students yet need to be offered. It is inefficient to offer an online course with only 12 students while also offering an on-campus section of the same course with 20 students. This requires twice the staffing resources compared to one section of 32 students taught through the Choice Model.

In March of 2020, higher education faced one of the greatest crises it’s ever encountered, certainly in my lifetime. In the months following, institutions and faculty responded swiftly. We were called to create new ideas and implement new solutions, recognizing that higher education has likely changed forever. The Choice Model is one emerging idea that has the potential to more permanently improve course delivery long term. As we look toward a post-COVID future, the lessons of the past year should propel us forward; we do not want to regress and lose the momentum. Our students deserve nothing less.

John Drea is is an instructional assistant professor of marketing at Illinois State University. Drea retired from full-time teaching in May 2023 after a 39-year career in higher education, with 21 years spent in public higher ed administration and 18 years as a full-time faculty member in marketing and sports management. Drea is Professor Emeritus at both Western Illinois University and Illinois College. His career has been highlighted with several awards for innovation and teaching excellence.

Related Articles

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .

Online Learning vs. In-Person Learning

With the rapid evolution of technology observed over the past couple of decades, the realm of education has been changed drastically, with innovative techniques, approaches, and tools being incorporated into the process. However, of all changes that the realm of education has experienced, the creation of online learning spaces is, perhaps, the most significant. Although the goals of online learning are precisely the same as those of offline one, the methods with the help of which teachers and students arrive at set goals are strikingly different. Due to the greater range of flexibility in online learning, it can offer better opportunities for time management and the creation of a personalized learning approach, whereas in-person learning provides a teacher with better control over the class.

Starting with the in-person learning as the most common type of education, one should address the opportunity to control the extent of students’ motivation and engagement carefully, adjusting the teaching approach accordingly. Since offline learning does not imply the same amount of control due to the restricted communication options and challenges in applying nonverbal communication techniques for spotting changes in learners’ attitudes, a teacher may have reduced control over the learners’ engagement in the offline setting. However, arguably, the extent of control over the learning process restricts the opportunities for building learners’ agency and implementing the guided discovery approach, where students take initiative in exploring the subject matter. Therefore, the level of control as an advantage is a rather contestable point.

In turn, the online learning setting has a range of advantages to offer both to students and to educators. The issue of time management is the most obvious one since, unlike the in-person learning process, students do not have to move from one room to another when switching from one class to another, which saves a significant amount of time. Additionally, learning in a familiar setting will imply a greater extent of comfort and, thus, will lead to increased motivation. One could argue that, unlike a classroom, which is always kept tidy and arranged in the way that allows maximizing its utility for learning, the home setting may be quite cluttered and not ergonomic enough to encourage learners to focus on studying. Therefore, online learning can also boast a more rational approach toward arranging the learning setting.

Given the range of characteristics mentioned above and the current focus on building independence, self-sufficiently, and agency in learners, the choice of the online setting appears to be more beneficial. Once a proper leadership approach to motivating students is developed, a teacher can utilize a broad range of tools and offer learning experiences that will be conducive to building academic curiosity in students. As a result, the online learning process needs to be considered as the next chapter in improving the current education system and promoting enhanced learning with additional opportunities for building critical skills.

Since offline learning does not require spatial arrangements, it offers greater flexibility both to students and to teachers, which improves time management; however, offline learning creates premises for better control over students. Thus, online learning can be considered more challenging in keeping learners motivated and engaged, which calls for the implementation of an appropriate leadership strategy and the development of interactive exercises that help students to remain proactive. Therefore, both types of learning have their advantages, yet online learning should be viewed as the course for the future development of the academic environment due to the potential that it offers for shared learning.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, August 16). Online Learning vs. In-Person Learning. https://studycorgi.com/online-learning-vs-in-person-learning/

"Online Learning vs. In-Person Learning." StudyCorgi , 16 Aug. 2022, studycorgi.com/online-learning-vs-in-person-learning/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Online Learning vs. In-Person Learning'. 16 August.

1. StudyCorgi . "Online Learning vs. In-Person Learning." August 16, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/online-learning-vs-in-person-learning/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Online Learning vs. In-Person Learning." August 16, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/online-learning-vs-in-person-learning/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Online Learning vs. In-Person Learning." August 16, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/online-learning-vs-in-person-learning/.

This paper, “Online Learning vs. In-Person Learning”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 13, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

The Benefits of In-Person School vs Remote Learning

How parents can use the most recent research to weigh the risks and rewards..

Posted August 20, 2021 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

• The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the education of about 95 percent of students around the world.
• Remote learning is associated with negative efects on social, emotional, physical, and mental health.
• Remote learning is also associated with lower scores on tests of academic abilities.
• Parents and caregivers should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of remote versus in-person learning.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the education of around 95 percent of the students in the world, representing the largest disruption to education in history, according to a report from the United Nations.

As children are returning to school this Fall and the Delta variant continues to spread, many parents may be wondering whether schools should continue to offer a remote learning option, and if so, whether they should choose that option for their child. In order to address these concerns, it may help to take a look at the emerging research on the psychological and educational impact of remote learning versus in-person learning.

Impact on mental and physical health

Research clearly indicates that remote learning (or even a hybrid model) has significant negative effects on children and parents' mental, emotional, social, and physical health. A study conducted by the CDC included 1,561 parents of children aged 5 to 12 years who were surveyed from October to November 2020. According to the research, parents of children who were attending school virtually were more likely to report poorer mental and emotional health, reduced physical activity, and less time spent with friends (either virtually or in-person) compared to children who were attending school in-person.

Parents of children in virtual schooling were also more likely to report loss of work, emotional distress, difficulty sleeping , and problems with finding childcare. The findings suggest that in-person learning may be critical to the physical and mental health of many families.

In addition to providing education, schools also provide many services to families, including free or reduced-cost meals, social support, opportunities for physical activity, and mental health services. Virtual schooling places an undue burden on parents, who do not have the training, time, or resources to provide all of the services that a school can offer.

Impact on academic achievement

A large study from the Netherlands found lower standardized test scores in math, reading, and spelling following remote learning during the pandemic. On average, students' scores were three percentile points lower following the pandemic. Importantly, the effect was disproportionately greater in children from less-educated families (the size of the learning loss being up to 60 percent greater for these children).

The study involved 15 percent of Dutch primary schools and included students aged 8 to 11 years. The researchers examined the effect of an eight-week period of virtual schooling due to the pandemic by comparing test scores from 2020 to test scores from the three previous years.

The results suggest a lack of learning during this time or even a regression —that is, a loss of academic skills. The researchers point out that the Netherlands is a best-case scenario, as the the country had only a short period of school closure (eight weeks), high rates of internet access among children, and school funding that is relatively equitable. In other words, the results may be more dramatic in countries like the U.S., where school closures were typically longer and technological access is more limited.

Long-term effects

Although it is difficult to predict the long-term mental and emotional toll of remote learning, the World Bank estimates that school closures during the pandemic will result in a loss of between 0.3 to 1.1 years of schooling, when adjusted for the quality of education, and between $6,680 to $32,397 in lost lifetime earnings per student (in present value terms).

How to handle the schooling decision as a parent or caregiver

Although research suggests that a return to in-person learning is important for children’s academic achievement and physical and mental health, every family needs to make the decision based on their own unique circumstances. Some families may choose remote learning, and they should be supported in this choice.

However, if you do decide return to in-person learning, and it is an option in your area, how should you cope with your own and your child’s anxiety about returning to school?

The following strategies may help you and your child to transition successfully back to in-person learning:

1. Research the school’s mitigation strategies and create a book, picture, or visual aid to explain these strategies to your child. Create a “visual schedule” for your child with words and pictures that explains when they will wear their mask, when they will wash their hands, and other procedures

2. Talk to your child about how they are feeling about the upcoming school year. Recognize that their feelings may be complicated (for example, they may feel both excited and nervous) and different from your own feelings.

3. Explain to your child how you are feeling and what coping strategies you will be using to help yourself feel better (“I am feeling a little nervous about you returning to school since it’s been so long. When I start feeling nervous, I’m going to do some deep breathing and remind myself of everything your school is doing to keep you safe.”)

4. Validate your child’s worry and encourage them to face their fears (“I know you feel nervous about this, but I also know that you are so brave and can handle this!”)

5. Gradually (and safely) engage in activities and situations that might cause anxiety for you and/or your child before going back to school. Help your child to use coping strategies to address any anxiety that comes up during these activities. For example, engage in outdoor, socially distanced play dates before school starts.

6. Decide on the best way to separate from your child on the first day back and talk through (or write out) the plan. Stay calm and relaxed during the transition, as your child will likely reflect this feeling.

7. Drive by the school a few times prior to the first day. Meet the teacher or other children in the school, if possible.

8. Do not hesitate to talk with a mental health professional if you or your child are struggling with the transition. This is a difficult, unprecedented time, and many parents and children may need additional support.

Azevedo, J. P., Hasan, A., Goldemberg, D., Geven, K., & Iqbal, S. A. (2021). Simulating the potential impacts of COVID-19 school closures on schooling and learning outcomes: A set of global estimates. The World Bank Research Observer, 36(1), 1-40.

Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17).

Verlenden, J. V., Pampati, S., Rasberry, C. N., Liddon, N., Hertz, M., Kilmer, G., ... & Ethier, K. A. (2021). Association of children’s mode of school instruction with child and parent experiences and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic—COVID experiences Survey, United States, October 8–November 13, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(11), 369.

Cara Goodwin, Ph.D., is a licensed clinical psychologist who specializes in translating scientific research into information that is useful, accurate, and relevant for parents.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Online learning vs. in-person classes – what’s better?

With ever-changing landscapes and new global challenges, educators and learners around the world have had to adapt. In this new era, connecting with friends and family had to happen over WhatsApp, FaceTime, or Zoom, and so education has followed suit.

There’s no denying that digital learning is a valuable asset – and online education certainly has its merits. But, when the world returns to normal, will it still come out on top? Or can nothing really beat meeting face-to-face and learning in a classroom? Let’s explore the research.

Online learning makes education accessible

The emergence of online learning has ‘disrupted’ the education system . Schooling has traditionally happened in person, which has had limitations for individuals unable to attend. So, the most obvious benefit of offering learning opportunities online is that you open education up to many more people.

Digital education facilities have enabled many learners to gain qualifications and even retrain for new careers at any stage in their life, by offering online learning courses that can be taken over a long period of time. This opens up formal education for those who can’t leave full-time employment or other commitments to attend university, allowing them to study and achieve at home and at convenient times.

Scientists looking at the effectiveness of distance learning found that in some studies, distance education students performed slightly better in exams and grades than traditional classroom students, but that overall the average performance outcomes weren’t that different. This research also recognized an important opportunity for foreign language students. Interacting with native speakers is a proven method for achieving language competency, and online platforms can connect students easily with native-speakers in another country.

In classrooms (virtual or physical), technology offers teachers novel ways to explain things . Technology has also amplified the role of gamification, also known as play-based learning, in online education. Gamification is often seen in the use of language-learning apps , which enable the user to learn the lexicon of their chosen studied language through a series of virtual contests which have instant rewards. The obvious benefit of these apps is the potential for individuals to learn at their own comfort and pace.

But digital it has its limitations too

Delivering online learning requires different approaches and skills to delivering lessons in a physical classroom. Particularly this year, traditional classroom teachers have had to adapt and learn themselves, in order to teach students online. This could well have slowed down the progress of education, particularly as students also had to adjust to learning online.

For online or remote learning to work effectively, the content of the course being delivered has an impact on the student’s progress, and the content has to be of a very high standard , tailored to the online learning environment. Much like a successful physical class will have taken a great deal of preparation and an understanding of in-person teaching theory and best practice, the same is required of digital education.

Interactivity is key in a learning environment. A key barrier to learning, identified by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), is a teachers’ ability to connect with students and identify their needs. This can be harder to achieve without time spent in the physical classroom, particularly if online learning is delivered to a large class rather than in small tutored groups or one-on-one environments.

Plus, where students don’t have access to technology or are learning at the mercy of a poor internet connection, issues connecting to live video conferencing can leave them at a disadvantage. Digital skills are also not distributed evenly among students, and not all learners will have the required knowledge or understanding to get the most out of virtual education. If teachers don’t have the skills or time to support this skill development, students may get left behind.

In-person classes also have some drawbacks

Where students live and their socio-economic background can be a barrier to accessing education. With in-person class sizes capped to the capacity of the school and many schools only taking students who live locally, exclusively offering teaching in person will exclude some groups of individuals from learning. This is particularly true where education is not made freely available.

Though it has been the traditional way of learning for decades, some students’ learning style does not suit that of a full classroom. Many find speaking out in front of their peers intimidating and this limits their interaction and opportunity for valuable feedback. These students may find it easier to participate in class discussions when activities are hosted digitally.

But face-to-face learning wins out in the end

In the classroom, a teacher’s value extends beyond the class being delivered. To get the best out of their students, a teacher’s role is also to motivate, encourage and supervise – the latter being particularly difficult to do through video conferencing software. Technology can even be brought into the classroom as an effective supplement to in-person classes . For example, including animations, video content and game-based learning allows students to experience several of the benefits of online learning tools, and is more effective than online learning used exclusively.

Interactivity, personalization and effective communication are key ingredients for successful learning. You can’t beat the classroom as an environment for providing valuable feedback. Research has identified two-way dialogue as one of the most effective ways of communicating, and it is particularly important in education. This is learning with plenty of back-and-forths; education built on questions and answers – easiest achieved when in the same room. In a classroom, it has the potential even to go beyond teacher-pupil dialogue, with student-to-student and group learning interactions.

But particularly when learning a language , students often achieve the best results when learning in person – not just in a classroom, but also when living in the country whose language they’re embracing. Learning during a study abroad program or working in another country accelerates the rate of language learning and improves a learner’s language proficiency.

Culture is an important and enjoyable part of language learning; language and culture are tightly entwined and understanding the culture helps you to understand the roots of the language as well as its use on a deeper level. It changes the motivation of language learning to connection instead of learning for a purely functional purpose such as for career success. It’s even been shown to deepen a student’s sense of ‘self’ . And the best way to connect with the culture of the language and those who speak it, is to learn whilst embedded in amongst native speakers.

Remote vs In-person Classes: Positive and Negative Aspects Essay

Introduction, positive aspects of remote classes, negative aspects of remote classes, a mix of remote and in-person classes.

Educators and learners approach the new normal of remote learning with concern or enthusiasm, optimistically or skeptically. While each of them might have genuine concerns, it is essential to open-mindedly understand the advantages and disadvantages online learning creates for both learners and teachers. There are always pros and cons for every good or bad idea, and remote classes are no different. Students, instructors, and all stakeholders in the American education sector must weigh the pros against the cons of developing a resilient model for today’s learning environment.

Remote classes allow students to access learning materials at any time, from wherever they are, and at their speed. Such access creates high levels of convenience and efficiency in place and time, enabling learners to study at the best pace and style. Online class discussion forums support high-quality conversations and are student-centered (Criollo-C et al., 2018). The asynchronous nature of discussion forums gives learners time to understand and reflect on posts from their instructor or fellow students before offering their comments or feedback. Traditional in-person classes require learners to respond on the spot, which gives them limited time for the articulation of ideas and forethought.

Educators reap the benefits of remote classes through higher creativity in content delivery and learners’ engagement. Instructors have to match their lesson delivery to the self-directed and self-autonomous nature of online classes, which include interactive environments (Mukhtar et al., 2020). Unlike in-person classes, remote classrooms require educators to upgrade their instruction styles, and course objectives, and create new content suitable for the online learning environment (Mukhtar et al., 2020). For example, while in-person classes do not require video lessons, some concepts must be demonstrated in videos for online learners. Traditionally, in-person presentations could not be repeated in front of learners but now students can watch the uploaded video as many times as necessary to understand a concept.

Limitations around technology, accessibility, and equity are the major drawbacks of remote classes. Both learners and educators should have access to an internet connection to participate in classes. Logistic, technical, and economic reasons can hinder access to the learning environment (Criollo-C et al., 2018). Successful remote learning should establish mechanisms to restore access as quickly as possible to ensure equal learning opportunities for all students. Computer literacy levels might also limit the use of the classroom features and functionalities for both educators and learners, lest they drag down the program. Technology failures pose a threat to accessibility as such systems are bound to experience downtimes, only when such failures will occur is unpredictable (Mukhtar et al., 2020). Such failures can occur at the individual or school level, ranging from personal computer (PC) problems, server crashes, network downtimes, and software malfunctions.

While online learning creates convenience and independence, individual educators and students might lack the qualities necessary to succeed in the environment. The autonomous and asynchronous nature of remote learning requires highly responsible and disciplined students, who have excellent organizational and time management skills (Mukhtar et al., 2020). Dependent and young learners may not succeed in such an environment. Educators must receive adequate training to ensure a successful transition from physical to online teaching. The instructors should be good at written communication and create a supportive environment to compensate for the lack of physical closeness (Mukhtar et al., 2020). Nevertheless, a supportive environment cannot replace physical classrooms and some students might feel left out.

School should not be 100% remote or in-person but a hybrid of the two environments. Instructional and learning models cannot be translated from physical to remote classes without adjustments. Additionally, hands-on and practical subjects that require practice and movement to achieve learning cannot be successfully conducted online (Hapke et al., 2020). Young and dependent learners require physically present instructors to support their learning. My school design would incorporate both remote and in-person classes for all the students. I would want dependent and young learners to take partial online classes to gain experience with digital education tools but most of their learning would be in physical classrooms. Hands-on and practical classes would be 80% in-person and 20% online. For all other classes, I would require students to have physical mid and end of term exams and project presentations while everything else is completed virtually. Therefore, every learner would have an experience with both in-person and remote classes.

Hybrid classes will reduce school dropout and absenteeism, which are typical in purely remote and in-person learning, respectively. The hybrid style will also enhance the usage of resources as most of the students learn remotely and relieve resources to utilize for the practical subjects (Hapke et al., 2020). For example, staff will not be overworking and teachers will have time to create quality content for online learners. Physical classrooms will also be free for the learners in practical subjects, which is a vital resource for maintaining safe social distance during this pandemic period (Hapke et al., 2020). In comparison to pure in-person learning, hybrid learning expands access beyond geographical boundaries. Therefore, a hybrid model of virtual and in-person classes is the best school design for the current generation.

Teachers and students might have concerns about online learning vs. in-person classes. Virtual classes have their benefits and drawbacks, as well as physical classrooms. It is essential to open-mindedly understand the advantages and disadvantages online learning creates for both stakeholders. All the parties involved in the American education sector must weigh the pros against the cons of developing a resilient model for today’s learning environment. Additionally, school administrators must consider the value of hybrid environments.

Criollo-C, S., Luján-Mora, S., & Jaramillo-Alcázar, A. (2018). Advantages and disadvantages of M-learning in current education . In 2018 IEEE World Engineering Education Conference (EDUNINE), 1-6. IEEE.

Hapke, H., Lee-Post, A., & Dean, T. (2020). 3-in-1 hybrid learning environment. Marketing Education Review , 1-8.

Mukhtar, K., Javed, K., Arooj, M., & Sethi, A. (2020). Advantages, limitations and recommendations for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic era . Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences , 36 (COVID19-S4), 27.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, July 13). Remote vs In-person Classes: Positive and Negative Aspects. https://ivypanda.com/essays/remote-vs-in-person-classes-positive-and-negative-aspects/

"Remote vs In-person Classes: Positive and Negative Aspects." IvyPanda , 13 July 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/remote-vs-in-person-classes-positive-and-negative-aspects/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Remote vs In-person Classes: Positive and Negative Aspects'. 13 July.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Remote vs In-person Classes: Positive and Negative Aspects." July 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/remote-vs-in-person-classes-positive-and-negative-aspects/.

1. IvyPanda . "Remote vs In-person Classes: Positive and Negative Aspects." July 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/remote-vs-in-person-classes-positive-and-negative-aspects/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Remote vs In-person Classes: Positive and Negative Aspects." July 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/remote-vs-in-person-classes-positive-and-negative-aspects/.

• The Value of In-Person Human Interaction
• Digital Education and Global Inequality
• Online Classes Vs. Traditional Classes Essay
• Mediated Interpersonal Communication Tools
• E-Learning Should Replace the Traditional Approach
• Telemedicine as a Form of Healthcare Delivery
• Online Learning Perception and Effectiveness
• Telehealth: Legal and Ethical Considerations
• The Use of Telemedicine in Chronic Diseases
• Delivering Online Business Programs During Covid-19
• The Contraceptives Project Self-Evaluation
• The Role of Slavery for the American Society: Lesson Plan
• Programming for a Year 5 Class on Bullying
• Benchmark - Classroom Management Plan
• Curriculum Differentiation and Assessment in Gifted Education

Online college classes can be better than in-person ones. The implications for higher ed are profound.

Subscribe to the center for technology innovation newsletter, john villasenor john villasenor nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , center for technology innovation @johndvillasenor.

February 10, 2022

When the Covid pandemic started in early 2020, colleges shifted to remote learning out of necessity. With large in-person gatherings in classrooms suddenly off-limits, online instruction was viewed as the lesser of two evils—inferior to in-person classes, but infinitely better than no classes at all.

Two years later, something unexpected has happened. For many college courses, online instruction is proving to be far more effective than many people anticipated. Why? One key reason is that today’s communications networks and consumer devices enable much higher quality telepresence than was possible a decade ago. But another reason is that due to the pandemic, enormous numbers of students and instructors have gained proficiency with online learning software.

In particular, the mass adoption of Zoom in higher education has created a network effect where its utility as an instructional tool is amplified by the number of people who have become familiar with using it. The quality of a well-run synchronous (i.e., live, as opposed to pre-recorded) online class can now rival—and in some respects exceed—the quality of the in-person equivalent.

Supporting a broader range of learning styles

Synchronous online instruction allows a richer set of interactions. When I am teaching online, the Zoom “chat” window often becomes a nonstop stream of insightful ideas, reactions, and web links provided by students. Rather than distracting from the course, the chat dialog enriches it. Students ask and answer questions from me and from each other, offer thoughts, and react to posts from their peers. In a recent class discussion regarding the First Amendment, as soon as I mentioned several related Supreme Court cases, one of the students dropped links to the rulings into the chat. There’s simply no analog to this parallel form of engagement in a traditional in-person class.

I’ve also found that there are students who are reticent about speaking up during in-person classes, but comfortable using the chat function in online classes to provide written comments or questions. It makes me wonder: How many thoughtful, interesting perspectives went unexpressed in my pre-pandemic in-person classes? Clearly, there must have been students in those classrooms who would have been happy to provide their ideas in written form had that been feasible, but who instead stayed silent because it was not.

Another advantage of online instruction is the expanded ability to invite non-local guest speakers. In the past two years, I have hosted speakers in my online UCLA classes from as far away as Argentina. I now marvel at the time inefficiency of some of the pre-pandemic trips that I made when I was a guest speaker—when I would spend a full day, and sometimes more, to take a round trip plane flight in order to spend 90 minutes in a classroom at another university. It’s asking a lot to expect a guest speaker to devote that much time in order to participate in a single class meeting. By contrast, online guest appearances take only an hour or two of the speaker’s time, making the universe of people who are available to speak vastly larger.

In addition, at the many colleges that currently require students and instructors to be masked while in a physical classroom, there’s another advantage to online instruction that’s so obvious and fundamental that it often goes unstated: it’s a lot easier to understand what someone is saying when you can see their face.

Recognition of the potential advantages of online instruction isn’t new. A paper published back in 2001 noted that online courses could “address a variety of learning styles,” allow “access to a larger variety of quality resources,” and enable instructors to “use creative teaching methods in delivering material.” Due to the pandemic-induced mass adoption of online college instruction, those predictions have proven to be true on a scale that would have been hard to imagine two decades ago.

Challenges in online learning environments

Of course, online learning has downsides as well. As a 2018 paper addressing “Online learning in higher education” put it, “an online environment might benefit certain types of engagement, but may also be somewhat of a deterrent to others.”

A key disadvantage to online instruction is that there are categories of courses for which it falls woefully short—think chemistry laboratories, studio art classes, and the like. An additional vitally important concern is that online learning can be isolating. An online class doesn’t allow the level of spontaneous interactions among students that occur before, in, and after in-person class meetings. That’s an important mechanism for students to find study partners and teammates for class projects, and more generally to socialize and to get to know their peers.

There are also well-documented equity concerns with online learning , including the fact that not all students have a home with access to reliable internet and a computer. But there are also equity issues on the other side of the ledger. Not all students are in a position to live on-campus or within easy commuting distance of one. And some students have caregiving responsibilities for a young child or elderly relative that limit their flexibility for leaving home. For those students, it can be more equitable to offer online instruction than to require their presence in a physical classroom.

Rethinking college online instruction

The bottom line is that the preconceived notions that I and many others in higher education had about the supposedly unambiguous inferiority of online classes have proven to be wrong. Unfortunately, few college administrators are likely to acknowledge the advantages of synchronous online instruction. Doing so would call into question the entire model of the residential college—a concept that is a multi-billion-dollar business, a central feature of the American cultural landscape, and a rite of passage all rolled up into one.

But a more objective, pandemic-seasoned appraisal of online learning would admit that thanks to technology, the campus classroom—the actual and symbolic core around which all that college has come to mean is constructed—no longer needs to be a physical room. We are probably not ready to imagine how higher education might look if it were redesigned from the ground up, taking full advantage of the opportunities created by technology to maximize student engagement and instructional quality, accessibility, and equity.

One thing is sure: It would look very different from the higher education ecosystem we have today.

Related Content

David Lundie, Andrej Zwitter, Dipayan Ghosh

January 31, 2022

John Villasenor

January 4, 2022

December 14, 2021

Education Technology Higher Education

Governance Studies

Center for Technology Innovation

Brad Olsen, John McIntosh

April 3, 2024

Darcy Hutchins, Emily Markovich Morris, Laura Nora, Carolina Campos, Adelaida Gómez Vergara, Nancy G. Gordon, Esmeralda Macana, Karen Robertson

March 28, 2024

Jennifer B. Ayscue, Kfir Mordechay, David Mickey-Pabello

March 26, 2024

• All Courses
• Awesome Stories
• Microgrants
• Give Monthly
• Founder Story
• Our Supporters

Distance/Online Learning vs. In Person Learning: Pros and Cons

The COVID-19 pandemic made distance learning part of our new normal. For many individuals with disabilities, this created unique opportunities as well as unique challenges. Whether you love learning from your couch or can’t wait to get back to meeting in-person, here are the benefits and challenges of online learning vs. in-person learning. We’ll also share some of our favorite tips for successful learning no matter where you are.

Advantages of Online Learning

One of the main advantages of online or distance learning is clear from the name. You can take a class or attend a meeting anywhere in the country – or even the world. With virtual classes, you can learn from anywhere as long as you have a reliable Internet connection. This can reduce transportation barriers.

If you’re taking a self-paced online class, you also have schedule flexibility. You can watch learning videos or read lessons whenever it’s convenient for you. Recordings and online content can also provide more options for using accessibility technology, such as captioning, transcripts, or screen readers. With self-paced classes, you can pause, rewind, or slow down recorded videos or screen readers as needed.

Disadvantages of Online Learning

It can be significantly more difficult to teach physical skills, such as knitting or cooking, when you aren’t able to see and feel the materials personally. The benefits of peer modeling or simply enjoying other people’s company while you learn are difficult to replicate on Zoom or a digital classroom. You may have to deal with technology failures, such as the Wi-Fi going down or certain software not working properly.

While you may gain flexibility when it comes to location and scheduling, those factors also provide much-needed structure. You may feel less motivated to show up to an online class or make time to learn on your own, compared to attending an in-person meeting with your friends or community members.

Success Tips for Online Learning

• Make a schedule for learning, even with self-paced courses.
• Ask your instructor for accessible materials, or for the standard materials ahead of time so you can apply the accessibility technology that you need.
• Set Set SMART goals for your learning and make a plan to reach them.

Advantages of In-Person Learning

There are many advantages to learning in-person. You can get immediate support from the instructor, which is particularly important if you’re learning a new skill. When you meet in-person, you can use all five senses to learn about something instead of just sight and sound.

Communication can also be easier in-person than over the Internet. It’s often easier to see and interpret nonverbal cues, such as eye contact and facial expressions, in-person. This gives students a way to ask for the support they need even if they don’t feel fully comfortable asking out loud.

In-person learning can adapt to more learning styles. Most people learn best by doing, rather than reading or watching content. During in-person learning, you can practice new skills with other people, do hands-on experiments, and learn from the experiences of others around you.

Disadvantages of In-Person Learning

The biggest limitation of in-person learning is the need to be at the physical location where the class or event is taking place. This means you can only access learning opportunities that are nearby. Or you will need to travel, which can be expensive, time-consuming, and stressful.

You are also bound by the meeting schedule. You will need to show up at a set time for the class, even if you’re tired, hungry, or want to be somewhere else.

You and the instructor may need to put in more effort to make the class more accessible. It can be hard to generate captions or use a screen reader when someone is presenting live. You may need to work with an interpreter or other educational aide instead.

Success Tips for In-Person Learning

• Put the class meeting times in your phone calendar or planner.
• Prepare for class by completing your assignments and bringing the materials you will need.
• Ask the instructor and your support network for help understanding the content and completing assignments.

We are excited to be able to host our in-person classes again someday, but until then you can register for Spark 101 , our starter online course about entrepreneurship.

Thanks for your interest in donating to Celebrate EDU with a check or giving in honor of someone.

Donations by Check:

Please make checks payable to Celebrate EDU. If you are donating in honor of someone or giving to the Microgrant program, please write that in the memo of your check. Unfortunately, we cannot accept donations to Trailblazer via check. You will be mailed a tax receipt for your donation within four after the donation has been processed. Please send checks to: Celebrate EDU PO Box 270742 Louisville, CO 80027

• Your Name: * First Last
• Your Email *
• Your Phone Number *
• The name of the person you are honoring with your donation * First Last
• By direct email from Celebrate EDU
• With a card I can print at home
• What is the honoree's email address? *
• How much do you wish to give to Celebrate EDU? *
• Your Name *
• Organization Name *
• Organization Website
• Phone Number *
• In order to qualify for a scholarship, you must be a person with a disability and explain why you are unable to pay the full course fee.
• Yes, I am the student
• No, I am a family member/friend of the student
• Student Name *
• State Student Lives In * Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Europe Armed Forces Pacific
• Student Email * We'll use this to register you for the Celebrate EDU site

The support of friends & family is really important to us. Please share with us your information as well so that we can best support the student through the program.

• Your Email Address *
• Family Member
• Start a Business
• How much would you be able to pay for this class? *
• Please provide a detailed description of why you require a scholarship *

Tips for Online Students , Tips for Students

In-person Learning v/s Online Learning: What’s Better?

Updated: August 17, 2022

Published: April 19, 2022

When you think of education, you likely picture a classroom setting with a teacher upfront by the board and students watching the lecture or lesson. The typical picture of in-person learning has shifted greatly, however, with the advent of online learning and the power of technology. 

For anyone who is questioning whether online learning or in-person instruction is better, we are going to share the pros and cons of each learning environment. 

What is In-Person Learning?

In-person learning is just what it sounds like – it’s learning that takes place face-to-face. This means that instruction and learning happen in the same place and at the same time.

What is Online Learning?

Thanks to technological innovations, online learning is growing in popularity. Online learning is education that happens over the internet. It’s also called remote learning, e-learning, or distance learning. 

Online learning may be synchronous learning or asynchronous . Synchronous learning describes any type of education or instruction that occurs at the same time, but not in the same place. For example, learning is considered synchronous if a lesson is taught via online video streaming from a teacher who is in one location to the students who are all logging on to learn from home. Asynchronous learning happens when both learning and instruction occur at different locations and also at different times. This could be the case when a teacher records a lecture and students log on to view it at a later time. 

Pros of In-Person Learning 

Let’s consider some of the benefits of in-person learning:

Academic experience 

Some people look forward to the academic experience they have when they are in-person with their peers and instructor. For some, it’s because it allows for hands-on learning and collaboration with peers at the same time and in the same place. For others, they may feel more comfortable asking questions in-person. When it comes to college, some students want the experience of living in a dorm, sitting in lecture halls, partaking in labs, and engaging in social activities. 

Distraction-free environment 

Entering a classroom comes along with fewer distractions. The space is designed and intended for learning and since a teacher is there, you may feel more inclined to focus. It can be harder to be distracted by cellphones or anything else inside a classroom. 

Cons of In-Person Learning 

Now that we’ve covered the upsides of in-person instruction, it’s time to look at some of the drawbacks. After reading these drawbacks, it may become more clear why so many people are eager to learn online. 

Lack of scheduling control 

When it comes to learning within an institution’s walls, students have no say as to when or where the class is offered. You simply receive a schedule and have to be there at that time. This can clash with one’s existing responsibilities. 

More expensive 

In the case of college, in-person learning tends to be much more expensive than online alternatives. That’s mostly because schools have high overhead costs, but they also can charge the tuition and fees that they want to, especially when they are privately owned. 

Commuting time

Since you have to be in a designated space at a certain time for traditional in-person learning, you have to factor in commuting time (and costs). 

Pros of Online Learning 

In 2021, 75% of schools planned to operate online in the United States. Granted, the pandemic had a major impact on this decision, but even so, many students realized the benefits of learning online (just as people witnessed how it was to work from home). 

The benefits of online learning are plenty and include:

Flexibility

Since education takes place online, you have more flexibility in setting your own schedule. This is especially the case with pre-recorded lectures. Even without pre-recorded lectures, you have more flexibility in your schedule because you don’t have to commute anymore to a location to learn. 

Accessibility 

For students in many countries, obtaining an education seems like a dream when there are no physical school locations or geographical barriers to making it to a specific place. With online learning, accessibility to education has been maximized, allowing for people from all over to take part in obtaining an education. 

Cost-effective

Given less overhead costs, online education tends to be much more cost-effective than in-person learning. In some cases, online learning can be totally free, such as from platforms like YouTube. If you’re seeking to earn a degree online, you can do so at a tuition-free institution like the University of the People. 

Networking globally 

Online learning removes geographic barriers. As such, you can learn alongside students from all over the world. The internet has made it possible to connect to people from every corner of the globe, and when it comes to doing so in an educational setting, students benefit from diverse perspectives. Additionally, you could connect with someone in another location that might become your next business partner or employer. 

Cons of Online Learning

Despite the immense upsides of online learning, students need to be aware of potential hurdles. While all these are possible to overcome, it requires awareness and a desire to do so. 

Technical issues 

It’s of utmost importance that students who wish to learn online have the capability to do so with a strong internet connection and a compatible device. If technical issues occur, students should know what steps to take to resolve them in a timely manner so as to not miss out on learning. 

Distractions 

Since online learning can take place from anywhere, it’s up to students to choose a distraction-free environment. Check out these tips for finding a quiet study place near you. 

Self-motivation 

It takes self-motivation to succeed in any educational environment. But, when it comes to online learning, there may be a new level of self-motivation necessary since you have the freedom to choose when to learn and how much time you dedicate to doing so. 

Closing Thoughts

When comparing in-person learning to online learning, it’s hard to say that one is better than the other. That’s because it typically comes down to a student’s preference. 

As you can see from this entire article, there are pros and cons to both styles of learning. Depending on your unique situation, you can determine which feels more fitting for you and your goals. 

If you’re interested in learning more about online, accredited, and tuition-free educational opportunities at the University of the People, check out our program offerings here ! 

Related Articles

• Exam Prep >
• Prepare for Business School >
• Business School & Careers >
• Explore Programs >
• Connect with Schools >
• How to Apply >
• Help Center >

Every journey needs a plan. Use our Career Guide to get where you want to be. 

Creating an account on mba.com will give you resources to take control of your graduate business degree journey and guide you through the steps needed to get into the best program for you.

• About the Exam
• Register for the Exam
• Plan for Exam Day
• Prep for the Exam
• About the Executive Assessment
• Register for the Executive Assessment
• Plan for Assessment Day
• Prepare for the Assessment
• NMAT by GMAC
• Shop GMAT Focus Official Prep
• About GMAT Focus Official Prep
• Prep Strategies
• Personalized Prep Plan
• GMAT Focus Mini Quiz
• Executive Assessment Exam Prep
• NMAT by GMAC Exam Prep

Prepare For Business School

• Business Fundamentals
• Skills Insight

Business School & Careers

• Why Business School
• Student Experience
• Business Internships
• B-School Go
• Quiz: Are You Leadership Material?
• MBA Return on Investment (ROI) Calculator
• Estimate Your Salary
• Success Stories
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Women in Business
• Explore Programs
• Top Business School Programs
• Quiz: Which Post Graduate Program is Right for You?
• Quiz: Find the Best Program for Your Personality
• Business School Rankings
• Business Master's Programs
• MBA Programs
• Study Destinations
• Find Programs Near Me
• Find MBA Programs
• Find Master's Programs
• Find Executive Programs
• Find Online Programs

Connect with Schools

• About GradSelect
• Create a GradSelect Profile
• Prep Yourself for B-School
• Quiz: Can You Network Like An MBA?
• Events Calendar
• School Events
• GMAC Tours Events
• In-Person Events
• Online Events

How to Apply

• Apply to Programs
• The Value of Assessments
• Admissions Essays
• Letters of Recommendation
• Admissions Interviews
• Scholarships and Financing
• Quiz: What's Your Ideal Learning Style?

Help Center

• Create Account
• Choose and Compare Programs

In-person vs. Online Learning: The Pros and Cons

Propelled by the global pandemic, online learning has come a long way, resulting in a vast range of options of formal education for potential business school students from in person classes, hybrid learning, or a fully remote online degree.

Whereas online learning compared to a traditional classroom setting was previously considered perhaps less engaging, business schools and students are now realizing the advantages. In fact, according to a recent report by the Association of MBAs (AMBA) and the Business Graduate Association (BGA), 75% of business schools now use virtual classrooms.

Due to this rise in popularity of online classes and the learning curve of shifting to remote learning during Covid, business schools are enhancing the way they deliver online programs. 82% plan to invest more in EdTech – Educational Technology – to enhance the experience of online classes and ensure there is effective communication between faculty and students.

For example, INSEAD have invested in Virtual Reality (VR) to give students an immersive experience from their own homes. During lockdown, students were able to take part in interactive online courses that explored business cases in Singapore and Zanzibar.

These advancements mean that whether you decide to study your business degree online or in person, you'll be gaining a top-quality education that enhances your career prospects. So, how do you choose the right learning experience for you?

You'll need to think about whether the degree fits in with your lifestyle, if you want to travel to study or continue working, and if you learn more effectively from face-to-face interactions.

Here's everything to consider when deciding between in person classes vs online learning.

Which courses are on offer?

The first thing you should do is explore all the courses that are on offer from online to in person, MBA to EMBA.

More and more top business schools are introducing online learning to their offerings. For example, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania this year became the first M7 school to announce the launch of an online Executive MBA program.

The 22-month EMBA is set to launch in May 2023 and graduates from the program will earn that same quality degree as their full-time, in person counterparts. European top-ranked business schools such as Warwick Business School and Imperial College London offer online MBA programs.

The Financial Times Online MBA ranking 2022 names the top 10 distance learning MBA programs, if you need a good place to start.

Do your research

Once you have found some target business schools, take a closer look at what each course offers so you can make an informed decision. Many business school higher education programs involve hands on learning initiatives such as global immersions and trips.

On both the University of California Berkeley Haas School of Business full-time MBA program and Evening and Weekend MBA, which can be completed online, students can take part in an exchange program where they can study at partner schools in Hong Kong, Spain, France, or the UK.

There is also the chance for students to explore innovative business in Amsterdam or sustainable capitalism in Copenhagen as part of the programs.

Of course, for students taking online classes, this may mean having time out of work to travel but online students benefit from the same exciting opportunities as full-time students at many business schools.

How is the program delivered?

Everyone is receptive to learning in different ways, so choosing the format of teaching that is right for you is essential for staying focused.

While all graduate management programs require a lot of self-motivation, consider whether studying online and working more to your own schedule will require a higher degree of self-discipline and if this suits you.

When you attend in person classes, you'll meet regularly with your professors and cohort in set sessions throughout the week. During many MBA and EMBA programs, you'll also engage in group work on projects, interactive challenges, and attend in person recruitment events.

So, how is an online program delivered?

Fast-forward from the early days of the pandemic when online schooling largely meant logging into online classes via Zoom or Microsoft Teams, business schools have quickly become more innovative in delivering a high-quality, interactive learning environment.

The Warwick Business School Distance Learning MBA is ranked number one in the world by the Financial Times. Through an online learning platform that removes geographical barriers, students can connect with one another and their professors in real-time no matter where in the world they are. The platform also allows students to participate in global study groups.

Virtual classrooms also no longer require all students to be present at once, meaning you can structure your own class schedule around your work and personal life.

Some business school programs also offer a mix of both online and in person learning, known as hybrid learning. Duke Fuqua offers a 22-month weekend Executive MBA which combines three-day campus residences once a month with weekend distance learning sessions.

Last year, NYU Stern also introduced a hybrid MBA program. Students complete the core curriculum, which is the first half of the program, entirely online. The second half of the program is comprised of elective modules completed through week-long intensive in person classes or regular in person classes on evenings and Saturdays.

As with fully online programs, hybrid learning gives increased flexibility. This means that students can fit their learning around their personal life whilst still experiencing in person social interaction with other students.

Work out your time commitment

Whilst all graduate management education programs are time consuming, online learning courses are generally much more flexible than attending regular in person classes. So, if you are struggling with the time commitment, then this may be the better option for you.

With an online program, you have more control over how you fit your classes around your other commitments. So, unlike when you're studying a full-time MBA or EMBA program, online courses mean you can continue working alongside your degree.

You'll be able to upskill and apply your learning in your current role, perhaps even leading to a promotion.

However, an online MBA or EMBA program will usually also take longer to complete than in person classes. At Warwick Business School, the full-time MBA lasts one year whereas the Distance Learning MBA takes students two years to complete.

Consider whether you're willing to commit to studying and achieving your goals in the long-run, or if you want a fast-track to your dream career.

At some business schools such as INSEAD, students who enroll on the full-time MBA are able to accelerate the program, completing their education in just 10 months.

What is the best fit for your goals?

Before choosing between in person learning vs online learning, ask yourself: what are your goals? Are you making a career switch or seeking a promotion? What skills and experiences do you want to get from the program?

The answers to all these questions will influence your decision and ensure a successful learning experience.

If your goal is to network and build relationships, then attending business school in the traditional way may ensure stronger connections with your fellow students and faculty as you work on projects together and attend in person classes.

However, in response to the AMBA survey, 70% of business school leaders said international collaboration and being able to work more easily with international groups was a key benefit of online education. This is testament to the advancements in technology that have made online classes more cutting-edge and similar to learning in a physical classroom.

What's more, with a digital skills gap , exposure to new technologies through online education could help students develop the tech savvy skills needed in the new digital business landscape.

Your future career goals will also play into your decision. If you're making a big career switch, taking time out of work to immerse yourself in in person learning is probably the right path for you. You'll enhance your skillset and business acumen, as well as working closely with the careers team to tailor your experience towards a new career.

Whereas if you're seeking a big promotion or want to upskill at your current company, studying an online course will allow you to work at your own pace and manage your workload outside of your working hours.

At Washington University's Olin Business School, the online MBA program timeline is 30 months, but students can choose to take up to five years if they need to.

For every student, the choice between online learning and traditional learning will be entirely unique to your circumstances, career goals, and learning preferences. Yet, with any higher education program at top business schools, you'll be learning from successful academic leaders and gaining skills that will propel your career to new heights.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 09 January 2024

Online vs in-person learning in higher education: effects on student achievement and recommendations for leadership

• Bandar N. Alarifi 1 &
• Steve Song 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  86 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

3517 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

This study is a comparative analysis of online distance learning and traditional in-person education at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia, with a focus on understanding how different educational modalities affect student achievement. The justification for this study lies in the rapid shift towards online learning, especially highlighted by the educational changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. By analyzing the final test scores of freshman students in five core courses over the 2020 (in-person) and 2021 (online) academic years, the research provides empirical insights into the efficacy of online versus traditional education. Initial observations suggested that students in online settings scored lower in most courses. However, after adjusting for variables like gender, class size, and admission scores using multiple linear regression, a more nuanced picture emerged. Three courses showed better performance in the 2021 online cohort, one favored the 2020 in-person group, and one was unaffected by the teaching format. The study emphasizes the crucial need for a nuanced, data-driven strategy in integrating online learning within higher education systems. It brings to light the fact that the success of educational methodologies is highly contingent on specific contextual factors. This finding advocates for educational administrators and policymakers to exercise careful and informed judgment when adopting online learning modalities. It encourages them to thoroughly evaluate how different subjects and instructional approaches might interact with online formats, considering the variable effects these might have on learning outcomes. This approach ensures that decisions about implementing online education are made with a comprehensive understanding of its diverse and context-specific impacts, aiming to optimize educational effectiveness and student success.

Similar content being viewed by others

Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

Sayed Fayaz Ahmad, Heesup Han, … Antonio Ariza-Montes

A cross-verified database of notable people, 3500BC-2018AD

Morgane Laouenan, Palaash Bhargava, … Etienne Wasmer

Interviews in the social sciences

Eleanor Knott, Aliya Hamid Rao, … Chana Teeger

Introduction

The year 2020 marked an extraordinary period, characterized by the global disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Governments and institutions worldwide had to adapt to unforeseen challenges across various domains, including health, economy, and education. In response, many educational institutions quickly transitioned to distance teaching (also known as e-learning, online learning, or virtual classrooms) to ensure continued access to education for their students. However, despite this rapid and widespread shift to online learning, a comprehensive examination of its effects on student achievement in comparison to traditional in-person instruction remains largely unexplored.

In research examining student outcomes in the context of online learning, the prevailing trend is the consistent observation that online learners often achieve less favorable results when compared to their peers in traditional classroom settings (e.g., Fischer et al., 2020 ; Bettinger et al., 2017 ; Edvardsson and Oskarsson, 2008 ). However, it is important to note that a significant portion of research on online learning has primarily focused on its potential impact (Kuhfeld et al., 2020 ; Azevedo et al., 2020 ; Di Pietro et al., 2020 ) or explored various perspectives (Aucejo et al., 2020 ; Radha et al., 2020 ) concerning distance education. These studies have often omitted a comprehensive and nuanced examination of its concrete academic consequences, particularly in terms of test scores and grades.

Given the dearth of research on the academic impact of online learning, especially in light of Covid-19 in the educational arena, the present study aims to address that gap by assessing the effectiveness of distance learning compared to in-person teaching in five required freshmen-level courses at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. To accomplish this objective, the current study compared the final exam results of 8297 freshman students who were enrolled in the five courses in person in 2020 to their 8425 first-year counterparts who has taken the same courses at the same institution in 2021 but in an online format.

The final test results of the five courses (i.e., University Skills 101, Entrepreneurship 101, Computer Skills 101, Computer Skills 101, and Fitness and Health Culture 101) were examined, accounting for potential confounding factors such as gender, class size and admission scores, which have been cited in past research to be correlated with student achievement (e.g., Meinck and Brese, 2019 ; Jepsen, 2015 ) Additionally, as the preparatory year at King Saud University is divided into five tracks—health, nursing, science, business, and humanity, the study classified students based on their respective disciplines.

Motivation for the study

The rapid expansion of distance learning in higher education, particularly highlighted during the recent COVID-19 pandemic (Volk et al., 2020 ; Bettinger et al., 2017 ), underscores the need for alternative educational approaches during crises. Such disruptions can catalyze innovation and the adoption of distance learning as a contingency plan (Christensen et al., 2015 ). King Saud University, like many institutions worldwide, faced the challenge of transitioning abruptly to online learning in response to the pandemic.

E-learning has gained prominence in higher education due to technological advancements, offering institutions a competitive edge (Valverde-Berrocoso et al., 2020 ). Especially during conditions like the COVID-19 pandemic, electronic communication was utilized across the globe as a feasible means to overcome barriers and enhance interactions (Bozkurt, 2019 ).

Distance learning, characterized by flexibility, became crucial when traditional in-person classes are hindered by unforeseen circumstance such as the ones posed by COVID-19 (Arkorful and Abaidoo, 2015 ). Scholars argue that it allows students to learn at their own pace, often referred to as self-directed learning (Hiemstra, 1994 ) or self-education (Gadamer, 2001 ). Additional advantages include accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility (Sadeghi, 2019 ).

However, distance learning is not immune to its own set of challenges. Technical impediments, encompassing network issues, device limitations, and communication hiccups, represent formidable hurdles (Sadeghi, 2019 ). Furthermore, concerns about potential distractions in the online learning environment, fueled by the ubiquity of the internet and social media, have surfaced (Hall et al., 2020 ; Ravizza et al., 2017 ). The absence of traditional face-to-face interactions among students and between students and instructors is also viewed as a potential drawback (Sadeghi, 2019 ).

Given the evolving understanding of the pros and cons of distance learning, this study aims to contribute to the existing literature by assessing the effectiveness of distance learning, specifically in terms of student achievement, as compared to in-person classroom learning at King Saud University, one of Saudi Arabia’s largest higher education institutions.

Academic achievement: in-person vs online learning

The primary driving force behind the rapid integration of technology in education has been its emphasis on student performance (Lai and Bower, 2019 ). Over the past decade, numerous studies have undertaken comparisons of student academic achievement in online and in-person settings (e.g., Bettinger et al., 2017 ; Fischer et al., 2020 ; Iglesias-Pradas et al., 2021 ). This section offers a concise review of the disparities in academic achievement between college students engaged in in-person and online learning, as identified in existing research.

A number of studies point to the superiority of traditional in-person education over online learning in terms of academic outcomes. For example, Fischer et al. ( 2020 ) conducted a comprehensive study involving 72,000 university students across 433 subjects, revealing that online students tend to achieve slightly lower academic results than their in-class counterparts. Similarly, Bettinger et al. ( 2017 ) found that students at for-profit online universities generally underperformed when compared to their in-person peers. Supporting this trend, Figlio et al. ( 2013 ) indicated that in-person instruction consistently produced better results, particularly among specific subgroups like males, lower-performing students, and Hispanic learners. Additionally, Kaupp’s ( 2012 ) research in California community colleges demonstrated that online students faced lower completion and success rates compared to their traditional in-person counterparts (Fig. 1 ).

The figure compared student achievement in the final tests in the five courses by year, using independent-samples t-tests; the results show a statistically-significant drop in test scores from 2020 (in person) to 2021 (online) for all courses except CT_101.

In contrast, other studies present evidence of online students outperforming their in-person peers. For example, Iglesias-Pradas et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a comparative analysis of 43 bachelor courses at Telecommunication Engineering College in Malaysia, revealing that online students achieved higher academic outcomes than their in-person counterparts. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Gonzalez et al. ( 2020 ) found that students engaged in online learning performed better than those who had previously taken the same subjects in traditional in-class settings.

Expanding on this topic, several studies have reported mixed results when comparing the academic performance of online and in-person students, with various student and instructor factors emerging as influential variables. Chesser et al. ( 2020 ) noted that student traits such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extraversion play a substantial role in academic achievement, regardless of the learning environment—be it traditional in-person classrooms or online settings. Furthermore, Cacault et al. ( 2021 ) discovered that online students with higher academic proficiency tend to outperform those with lower academic capabilities, suggesting that differences in students’ academic abilities may impact their performance. In contrast, Bergstrand and Savage ( 2013 ) found that online classes received lower overall ratings and exhibited a less respectful learning environment when compared to in-person instruction. Nevertheless, they also observed that the teaching efficiency of both in-class and online courses varied significantly depending on the instructors’ backgrounds and approaches. These findings underscore the multifaceted nature of the online vs. in-person learning debate, highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of the factors at play.

Theoretical framework

Constructivism is a well-established learning theory that places learners at the forefront of their educational experience, emphasizing their active role in constructing knowledge through interactions with their environment (Duffy and Jonassen, 2009 ). According to constructivist principles, learners build their understanding by assimilating new information into their existing cognitive frameworks (Vygotsky, 1978 ). This theory highlights the importance of context, active engagement, and the social nature of learning (Dewey, 1938 ). Constructivist approaches often involve hands-on activities, problem-solving tasks, and opportunities for collaborative exploration (Brooks and Brooks, 1999 ).

In the realm of education, subject-specific pedagogy emerges as a vital perspective that acknowledges the distinctive nature of different academic disciplines (Shulman, 1986 ). It suggests that teaching methods should be tailored to the specific characteristics of each subject, recognizing that subjects like mathematics, literature, or science require different approaches to facilitate effective learning (Shulman, 1987 ). Subject-specific pedagogy emphasizes that the methods of instruction should mirror the ways experts in a particular field think, reason, and engage with their subject matter (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner, 2005 ).

When applying these principles to the design of instruction for online and in-person learning environments, the significance of adapting methods becomes even more pronounced. Online learning often requires unique approaches due to its reliance on technology, asynchronous interactions, and potential for reduced social presence (Anderson, 2003 ). In-person learning, on the other hand, benefits from face-to-face interactions and immediate feedback (Allen and Seaman, 2016 ). Here, the interplay of constructivism and subject-specific pedagogy becomes evident.

Online learning. In an online environment, constructivist principles can be upheld by creating interactive online activities that promote exploration, reflection, and collaborative learning (Salmon, 2000 ). Discussion forums, virtual labs, and multimedia presentations can provide opportunities for students to actively engage with the subject matter (Harasim, 2017 ). By integrating subject-specific pedagogy, educators can design online content that mirrors the discipline’s methodologies while leveraging technology for authentic experiences (Koehler and Mishra, 2009 ). For instance, an online history course might incorporate virtual museum tours, primary source analysis, and collaborative timeline projects.

In-person learning. In a traditional brick-and-mortar classroom setting, constructivist methods can be implemented through group activities, problem-solving tasks, and in-depth discussions that encourage active participation (Jonassen et al., 2003 ). Subject-specific pedagogy complements this by shaping instructional methods to align with the inherent characteristics of the subject (Hattie, 2009). For instance, in a physics class, hands-on experiments and real-world applications can bring theoretical concepts to life (Hake, 1998 ).

In sum, the fusion of constructivism and subject-specific pedagogy offers a versatile approach to instructional design that adapts to different learning environments (Garrison, 2011 ). By incorporating the principles of both theories, educators can tailor their methods to suit the unique demands of online and in-person learning, ultimately providing students with engaging and effective learning experiences that align with the nature of the subject matter and the mode of instruction.

Course description

The Self-Development Skills Department at King Saud University (KSU) offers five mandatory freshman-level courses. These courses aim to foster advanced thinking skills and cultivate scientific research abilities in students. They do so by imparting essential skills, identifying higher-level thinking patterns, and facilitating hands-on experience in scientific research. The design of these classes is centered around aiding students’ smooth transition into university life. Brief descriptions of these courses are as follows:

University Skills 101 (CI 101) is a three-hour credit course designed to nurture essential academic, communication, and personal skills among all preparatory year students at King Saud University. The primary goal of this course is to equip students with the practical abilities they need to excel in their academic pursuits and navigate their university lives effectively. CI 101 comprises 12 sessions and is an integral part of the curriculum for all incoming freshmen, ensuring a standardized foundation for skill development.

Fitness and Health 101 (FAJB 101) is a one-hour credit course. FAJB 101 focuses on the aspects of self-development skills in terms of health and physical, and the skills related to personal health, nutrition, sports, preventive, psychological, reproductive, and first aid. This course aims to motivate students’ learning process through entertainment, sports activities, and physical exercises to maintain their health. This course is required for all incoming freshmen students at King Saud University.

Entrepreneurship 101 (ENT 101) is a one-hour- credit course. ENT 101 aims to develop students’ skills related to entrepreneurship. The course provides students with knowledge and skills to generate and transform ideas and innovations into practical commercial projects in business settings. The entrepreneurship course consists of 14 sessions and is taught only to students in the business track.

Computer Skills 101 (CT 101) is a three-hour credit course. This provides students with the basic computer skills, e.g., components, operating systems, applications, and communication backup. The course explores data visualization, introductory level of modern programming with algorithms and information security. CT 101 course is taught for all tracks except those in the human track.

Computer Skills 102 (CT 102) is a three-hour credit course. It provides IT skills to the students to utilize computers with high efficiency, develop students’ research and scientific skills, and increase capability to design basic educational software. CT 102 course focuses on operating systems such as Microsoft Office. This course is only taught for students in the human track.

Structure and activities

These courses ranged from one to three hours. A one-hour credit means that students must take an hour of the class each week during the academic semester. The same arrangement would apply to two and three credit-hour courses. The types of activities in each course are shown in Table 1 .

At King Saud University, each semester spans 15 weeks in duration. The total number of semester hours allocated to each course serves as an indicator of its significance within the broader context of the academic program, including the diverse tracks available to students. Throughout the two years under study (i.e., 2020 and 2021), course placements (fall or spring), course content, and the organizational structure remained consistent and uniform.

Participants

The study’s data comes from test scores of a cohort of 16,722 first-year college students enrolled at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia over the span of two academic years: 2020 and 2021. Among these students, 8297 were engaged in traditional, in-person learning in 2020, while 8425 had transitioned to online instruction for the same courses in 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2020, the student population consisted of 51.5% females and 48.5% males. However, in 2021, there was a reversal in these proportions, with female students accounting for 48.5% and male students comprising 51.5% of the total participants.

Regarding student enrollment in the five courses, Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown by average class size, admission scores, and the number of students enrolled in the courses during the two years covered by this study. While the total number of students in each course remained relatively consistent across the two years, there were noticeable fluctuations in average class sizes. Specifically, four out of the five courses experienced substantial increases in class size, with some nearly doubling in size (e.g., ENT_101 and CT_102), while one course (CT_101) showed a reduction in its average class size.

In this study, it must be noted that while some students enrolled in up to three different courses within the same academic year, none repeated the same exam in both years. Specifically, students who failed to pass their courses in 2020 were required to complete them in summer sessions and were consequently not included in this study’s dataset. To ensure clarity and precision in our analysis, the research focused exclusively on student test scores to evaluate and compare the academic effectiveness of online and traditional in-person learning methods. This approach was chosen to provide a clear, direct comparison of the educational impacts associated with each teaching format.

Descriptive analysis of the final exam scores for the two years (2020 and 2021) were conducted. Additionally, comparison of student outcomes in in-person classes in 2020 to their online platform peers in 2021 were conducted using an independent-samples t -test. Subsequently, in order to address potential disparities between the two groups arising from variables such as gender, class size, and admission scores (which serve as an indicator of students’ academic aptitude and pre-enrollment knowledge), multiple regression analyses were conducted. In these multivariate analyses, outcomes of both in-person and online cohorts were assessed within their respective tracks. By carefully considering essential aforementioned variables linked to student performance, the study aimed to ensure a comprehensive and equitable evaluation.

Study instrument

The study obtained students’ final exam scores for the years 2020 (in-person) and 2021 (online) from the school’s records office through their examination management system. In the preparatory year at King Saud University, final exams for all courses are developed by committees composed of faculty members from each department. To ensure valid comparisons, the final exam questions, crafted by departmental committees of professors, remained consistent and uniform for the two years under examination.

Table 3 provides a comprehensive assessment of the reliability of all five tests included in our analysis. These tests exhibit a strong degree of internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients spanning a range from 0.77 to 0.86. This robust and consistent internal consistency measurement underscores the dependable nature of these tests, affirming their reliability and suitability for the study’s objectives.

In terms of assessing test validity, content validity was ensured through a thorough review by university subject matter experts, resulting in test items that align well with the content domain and learning objectives. Additionally, criterion-related validity was established by correlating students’ admissions test scores with their final required freshman test scores in the five subject areas, showing a moderate and acceptable relationship (0.37 to 0.56) between the test scores and the external admissions test. Finally, construct validity was confirmed through reviews by experienced subject instructors, leading to improvements in test content. With guidance from university subject experts, construct validity was established, affirming the effectiveness of the final tests in assessing students’ subject knowledge at the end of their coursework.

Collectively, these validity and reliability measures affirm the soundness and integrity of the final subject tests, establishing their suitability as effective assessment tools for evaluating students’ knowledge in their five mandatory freshman courses at King Saud University.

After obtaining research approval from the Research Committee at King Saud University, the coordinators of the five courses (CI_101, ENT_101, CT_101, CT_102, and FAJB_101) supplied the researchers with the final exam scores of all first-year preparatory year students at King Saud University for the initial semester of the academic years 2020 and 2021. The sample encompassed all students who had completed these five courses during both years, resulting in a total of 16,722 students forming the final group of participants.

Limitations

Several limitations warrant acknowledgment in this study. First, the research was conducted within a well-resourced major public university. As such, the experiences with online classes at other types of institutions (e.g., community colleges, private institutions) may vary significantly. Additionally, the limited data pertaining to in-class teaching practices and the diversity of learning activities across different courses represents a gap that could have provided valuable insights for a more thorough interpretation and explanation of the study’s findings.

To compare student achievement in the final tests in the five courses by year, independent-samples t -tests were conducted. Table 4 shows a statistically-significant drop in test scores from 2020 (in person) to 2021 (online) for all courses except CT_101. The biggest decline was with CT_102 with 3.58 points, and the smallest decline was with CI_101 with 0.18 points.

However, such simple comparison of means between the two years (via t -tests) by subjects does not account for the differences in gender composition, class size, and admission scores between the two academic years, all of which have been associated with student outcomes (e.g., Ho and Kelman, 2014 ; De Paola et al., 2013 ). To account for such potential confounding variables, multiple regressions were conducted to compare the 2 years’ results while controlling for these three factors associated with student achievement.

Table 5 presents the regression results, illustrating the variation in final exam scores between 2020 and 2021, while controlling for gender, class size, and admission scores. Importantly, these results diverge significantly from the outcomes obtained through independent-sample t -test analyses.

Taking into consideration the variables mentioned earlier, students in the 2021 online cohort demonstrated superior performance compared to their 2020 in-person counterparts in CI_101, FAJB_101, and CT_101, with score advantages of 0.89, 0.56, and 5.28 points, respectively. Conversely, in the case of ENT_101, online students in 2021 scored 0.69 points lower than their 2020 in-person counterparts. With CT_102, there were no statistically significant differences in final exam scores between the two cohorts of students.

The study sought to assess the effectiveness of distance learning compared to in-person learning in the higher education setting in Saudi Arabia. We analyzed the final exam scores of 16,722 first-year college students in King Saud University in five required subjects (i.e., CI_101, ENT_101, CT_101, CT_102, and FAJB_101). The study initially performed a simple comparison of mean scores by tracks by year (via t -tests) and then a number of multiple regression analyses which controlled for class size, gender composition, and admission scores.

Overall, the study’s more in-depth findings using multiple regression painted a wholly different picture than the results obtained using t -tests. After controlling for class size, gender composition, and admissions scores, online students in 2021 performed better than their in-person instruction peers in 2020 in University Skills (CI_101), Fitness and Health (FAJB_101), and Computer Skills (CT_101), whereas in-person students outperformed their online peers in Entrepreneurship (ENT_101). There was no meaningful difference in outcomes for students in the Computer Skills (CT_102) course for the two years.

In light of these findings, it raises the question: why do we observe minimal differences (less than a one-point gain or loss) in student outcomes in courses like University Skills, Fitness and Health, Entrepreneurship, and Advanced Computer Skills based on the mode of instruction? Is it possible that when subjects are primarily at a basic or introductory level, as is the case with these courses, the mode of instruction may have a limited impact as long as the concepts are effectively communicated in a manner familiar and accessible to students?

In today’s digital age, one could argue that students in more developed countries, such as Saudi Arabia, generally possess the skills and capabilities to effectively engage with materials presented in both in-person and online formats. However, there is a notable exception in the Basic Computer Skills course, where the online cohort outperformed their in-person counterparts by more than 5 points. Insights from interviews with the instructors of this course suggest that this result may be attributed to the course’s basic and conceptual nature, coupled with the availability of instructional videos that students could revisit at their own pace.

Given that students enter this course with varying levels of computer skills, self-paced learning may have allowed them to cover course materials at their preferred speed, concentrating on less familiar topics while swiftly progressing through concepts they already understood. The advantages of such self-paced learning have been documented by scholars like Tullis and Benjamin ( 2011 ), who found that self-paced learners often outperform those who spend the same amount of time studying identical materials. This approach allows learners to allocate their time more effectively according to their individual learning pace, providing greater ownership and control over their learning experience. As such, in courses like introductory computer skills, it can be argued that becoming familiar with fundamental and conceptual topics may not require extensive in-class collaboration. Instead, it may be more about exposure to and digestion of materials in a format and at a pace tailored to students with diverse backgrounds, knowledge levels, and skill sets.

Further investigation is needed to more fully understand why some classes benefitted from online instruction while others did not, and vice versa. Perhaps, it could be posited that some content areas are more conducive to in-person (or online) format while others are not. Or it could be that the different results of the two modes of learning were driven by students of varying academic abilities and engagement, with low-achieving students being more vulnerable to the limitations of online learning (e.g., Kofoed et al., 2021 ). Whatever the reasons, the results of the current study can be enlightened by a more in-depth analysis of the various factors associated with such different forms of learning. Moreover, although not clear cut, what the current study does provide is additional evidence against any dire consequences to student learning (at least in the higher ed setting) as a result of sudden increase in online learning with possible benefits of its wider use being showcased.

Based on the findings of this study, we recommend that educational leaders adopt a measured approach to online learning—a stance that neither fully embraces nor outright denounces it. The impact on students’ experiences and engagement appears to vary depending on the subjects and methods of instruction, sometimes hindering, other times promoting effective learning, while some classes remain relatively unaffected.

Rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach, educational leaders should be open to exploring the nuances behind these outcomes. This involves examining why certain courses thrived with online delivery, while others either experienced a decline in student achievement or remained largely unaffected. By exploring these differentiated outcomes associated with diverse instructional formats, leaders in higher education institutions and beyond can make informed decisions about resource allocation. For instance, resources could be channeled towards in-person learning for courses that benefit from it, while simultaneously expanding online access for courses that have demonstrated improved outcomes through its virtual format. This strategic approach not only optimizes resource allocation but could also open up additional revenue streams for the institution.

Considering the enduring presence of online learning, both before the pandemic and its accelerated adoption due to Covid-19, there is an increasing need for institutions of learning and scholars in higher education, as well as other fields, to prioritize the study of its effects and optimal utilization. This study, which compares student outcomes between two cohorts exposed to in-person and online instruction (before and during Covid-19) at the largest university in Saudi Arabia, represents a meaningful step in this direction.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Allen IE, Seaman J (2016) Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States . Babson Survey Group

Anderson T (2003) Getting the mix right again: an updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn , 4 (2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149

Arkorful V, Abaidoo N (2015) The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. Int J Instruct Technol Distance Learn 12(1):29–42

Google Scholar  

Aucejo EM, French J, Araya MP, Zafar B (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey. Journal of Public Economics 191:104271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104271

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Azevedo JP, Hasan A, Goldemberg D, Iqbal SA, and Geven K (2020) Simulating the potential impacts of COVID-19 school closures on schooling and learning outcomes: a set of global estimates. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper

Bergstrand K, Savage SV (2013) The chalkboard versus the avatar: Comparing the effectiveness of online and in-class courses. Teach Sociol 41(3):294–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X13479949

Article   Google Scholar  

Bettinger EP, Fox L, Loeb S, Taylor ES (2017) Virtual classrooms: How online college courses affect student success. Am Econ Rev 107(9):2855–2875. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151193

Bozkurt A (2019) From distance education to open and distance learning: a holistic evaluation of history, definitions, and theories. Handbook of research on learning in the age of transhumanism , 252–273. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8431-5.ch016

Brooks JG, Brooks MG (1999) In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms . Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Cacault MP, Hildebrand C, Laurent-Lucchetti J, Pellizzari M (2021) Distance learning in higher education: evidence from a randomized experiment. J Eur Econ Assoc 19(4):2322–2372. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvaa060

Chesser S, Murrah W, Forbes SA (2020) Impact of personality on choice of instructional delivery and students’ performance. Am Distance Educ 34(3):211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1705116

Christensen CM, Raynor M, McDonald R (2015) What is disruptive innovation? Harv Bus Rev 93(12):44–53

Cochran-Smith M, Zeichner KM (2005) Studying teacher education: the report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Choice Rev Online 43 (4). https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.43-2338

De Paola M, Ponzo M, Scoppa V (2013) Class size effects on student achievement: heterogeneity across abilities and fields. Educ Econ 21(2):135–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2010.511811

Dewey, J (1938) Experience and education . Simon & Schuster

Di Pietro G, Biagi F, Costa P, Karpinski Z, Mazza J (2020) The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: reflections based on the existing literature and recent international datasets. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

Duffy TM, Jonassen DH (2009) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation . Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

Edvardsson IR, Oskarsson GK (2008) Distance education and academic achievement in business administration: the case of the University of Akureyri. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn, 9 (3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i3.542

Figlio D, Rush M, Yin L (2013) Is it live or is it internet? Experimental estimates of the effects of online instruction on student learning. J Labor Econ 31(4):763–784. https://doi.org/10.3386/w16089

Fischer C, Xu D, Rodriguez F, Denaro K, Warschauer M (2020) Effects of course modality in summer session: enrollment patterns and student performance in face-to-face and online classes. Internet Higher Educ 45:100710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100710

Gadamer HG (2001) Education is self‐education. J Philos Educ 35(4):529–538

Garrison DR (2011) E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838761

Gonzalez T, de la Rubia MA, Hincz KP, Comas-Lopez M, Subirats L, Fort S, & Sacha GM (2020) Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PLOS One 15 (10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239490

Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66(1):64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Hall ACG, Lineweaver TT, Hogan EE, O’Brien SW (2020) On or off task: the negative influence of laptops on neighboring students’ learning depends on how they are used. Comput Educ 153:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103901

Harasim L (2017) Learning theory and online technologies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846933

Hiemstra R (1994) Self-directed learning. In WJ Rothwell & KJ Sensenig (Eds), The sourcebook for self-directed learning (pp 9–20). HRD Press

Ho DE, Kelman MG (2014) Does class size affect the gender gap? A natural experiment in law. J Legal Stud 43(2):291–321

Iglesias-Pradas S, Hernández-García Á, Chaparro-Peláez J, Prieto JL (2021) Emergency remote teaching and students’ academic performance in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study. Comput Hum Behav 119:106713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106713

Jepsen C (2015) Class size: does it matter for student achievement? IZA World of Labor . https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.190

Jonassen DH, Howland J, Moore J, & Marra RM (2003) Learning to solve problems with technology: a constructivist perspective (2nd ed). Columbus: Prentice Hall

Kaupp R (2012) Online penalty: the impact of online instruction on the Latino-White achievement gap. J Appli Res Community Coll 19(2):3–11. https://doi.org/10.46569/10211.3/99362

Koehler MJ, Mishra P (2009) What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemp Issues Technol Teacher Educ 9(1):60–70

Kofoed M, Gebhart L, Gilmore D, & Moschitto R (2021) Zooming to class?: Experimental evidence on college students’ online learning during COVID-19. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3846700

Kuhfeld M, Soland J, Tarasawa B, Johnson A, Ruzek E, Liu J (2020) Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educ Res 49(8):549–565. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x20965918

Lai JW, Bower M (2019) How is the use of technology in education evaluated? A systematic review. Comput Educ 133:27–42

Meinck S, Brese F (2019) Trends in gender gaps: using 20 years of evidence from TIMSS. Large-Scale Assess Educ 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-019-0076-3

Radha R, Mahalakshmi K, Kumar VS, Saravanakumar AR (2020) E-Learning during lockdown of COVID-19 pandemic: a global perspective. Int J Control Autom 13(4):1088–1099

Ravizza SM, Uitvlugt MG, Fenn KM (2017) Logged in and zoned out: How laptop Internet use relates to classroom learning. Psychol Sci 28(2):171–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679761667731

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sadeghi M (2019) A shift from classroom to distance learning: advantages and limitations. Int J Res Engl Educ 4(1):80–88

Salmon G (2000) E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203816684

Shulman LS (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Edu Res 15(2):4–14

Shulman LS (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harv Educ Rev 57(1):1–22

Tullis JG, Benjamin AS (2011) On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. J Mem Lang 64(2):109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.002

Valverde-Berrocoso J, Garrido-Arroyo MDC, Burgos-Videla C, Morales-Cevallos MB (2020) Trends in educational research about e-learning: a systematic literature review (2009–2018). Sustainability 12(12):5153

Volk F, Floyd CG, Shaler L, Ferguson L, Gavulic AM (2020) Active duty military learners and distance education: factors of persistence and attrition. Am J Distance Educ 34(3):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1708842

Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sports and Recreation Management, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Bandar N. Alarifi

Division of Research and Doctoral Studies, Concordia University Chicago, 7400 Augusta Street, River Forest, IL, 60305, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Bandar Alarifi collected and organized data for the five courses and wrote the manuscript. Dr. Steve Song analyzed and interpreted the data regarding student achievement and revised the manuscript. These authors jointly supervised this work and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bandar N. Alarifi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at King Saud University on 25 March 2021 (No. 4/4/255639). This research does not involve the collection or analysis of data that could be used to identify participants (including email addresses or other contact details). All information is anonymized and the submission does not include images that may identify the person. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alarifi, B.N., Song, S. Online vs in-person learning in higher education: effects on student achievement and recommendations for leadership. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 86 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02590-1

Download citation

Received : 07 June 2023

Accepted : 21 December 2023

Published : 09 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02590-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Remote and In-Person Learning: Utility Versus Social Experience

Panos photopoulos.

1 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece

Christos Tsonos

2 Department of Physics, University of Thessaly, Lamia, Greece

Ilias Stavrakas

Dimos triantis, associated data.

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The massive transition from in-person to remote teaching increased the impact of technology on the everyday life of the universities. Without the face-to-face component, learning and teaching became a completely different experience for students and teachers. Recording the attitudes and perceptions of the undergraduate students on the new situation became necessary for the faculties to support them effectively. This research collected quantitative and qualitative data from 336 students of all the years of studies. The students preferred in-person teaching and reported higher engagement, learning, and understanding during classroom teaching. More senior students, who had developed face-to-face ties with their colleagues before the pandemic, found it easier to continue their interactions remotely. They were interested in matching learning with the duties and needs at the particular period of their life, despite their beliefs concerning the effectiveness of in-person teaching. The first-year students found it challenging to develop relationships remotely, and they were the most frustrated. Overall, students in the first years of their studies perceived remote teaching as dissatisfactory compared to the more senior students. Similar to other publications, the respondents of this study challenged the effectiveness of remote teaching and the concomitant transition from in-person to remote social relationships.

Introduction

The period of remote teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic was a challenge for Higher Education. In March 2020, the Greek ministry of education announced that all the educational activities would go online. The University of West Attica purchased laptops for the academic and administrative staff, organised webinars on educational platforms, and provided a venue for sharing practices, methods and ideas. A few weeks after the COVID-19 outbreak, more than 95% of the undergraduate courses were delivered remotely [ 1 ]. The transition from onsite to remote teaching caused a tremendous workload for teachers and students [ 2 , 3 ]. The teachers had to digitise teaching materials and devise methods to secure learning continuity in the new environment. Before the pandemic, communication with the students was happening all the time. After March 2020, communication became more complicated, requiring consecutive mails to resolve simple issues. The fast transition from in-person to remote teaching gave the impression of continuity in Higher Education. The lectures were delivered remotely and synchronously, the students appeared to follow the lectures, and at the end of the semester, they sat distance examinations. A new order prevailed but with less emotional energy.

Crises and extreme events are not simply overgrown routine events; they require a successful interplay between centralisation and local improvisation [ 4 ]. Centralised decisions and guidelines diffuse the expertise of the few knowledgeable individuals across remote sites, allowing local actors to take initiatives on more specific issues. However, during the COVID crisis, the support received from central authorities was somewhat limited [ 5 ]. Until the end of the spring semester, June 2020, no COVID-specific quality teaching policy was communicated. The feedback questionnaires administered to the students collected the same information as the years before the COVID-19 crisis. With the Universities closed, traditional feedback mechanisms were barely adequate.

Under these circumstances, a short survey was administered to students of the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering to collect information on how they experienced distance teaching. The findings of this survey, presented at the International Conference CSEDU 2021, explored the students’ preference towards face-to-face and remote teaching and studied the variation of the answers with the year of enrolment [ 6 ]. This publication revisits the findings of our previous work and expands further on the text answers collected at the same period.

Our research conclusions guided our pedagogical practices during the period of the movement restrictions to support students’ learning endeavour. However, international organisations like OECD and UNICEF promoted the idea of a complete transition of in-person education to online. In some cases, politicians, business leaders, and part of the media further enhanced their vision to articulate persuasive accounts regarding higher education in the post-COVID era [ 6 ]. Such descriptions influence the way people understand and interpret reality, and in the case of Higher Education, they affect the interpretation of the research findings. We identify two issues that significantly affect research in education. The first is the researcher’s background beliefs regarding technology, and the second is the relationship between learning and education.

This publication aims to understand students’ modality preferences and the criteria for making preference decisions. Because of the importance of these questions, “Technology and Education” of this publication outlines our understanding of technology. “The Significance of the “No Significant Difference”” discusses the “no significant difference” argument and its importance within a dialogue that overemphasises learning. “Past Research Findings on ERT” gives a snapshot of the literature regarding students’ experiences during the period of emergency remote teaching. “ Methods” comments on the methodology of our research. The results and discussion of the findings are the subjects of “Results and Discussion”, and the publication ends with some conclusive remarks.

Technology and Education

In Western culture, technology is considered an autonomous entity, which proceeds almost naturally along a predetermined path. From this perspective, technology is an external factor determining our society’s adjustments [ 7 ]. Mechanical arrangements, integrated circuits, or computer programs are considered the successful outcome of human efforts to push boundaries back in an endless course of progress [ 8 ]. Technology is considered inherently progressive and politically neutral, bringing changes to work and education. It is a force beyond particular interests that dictates changes in society. Society can only take full advantage of technological achievements if education, employment, or healthcare adjust to technology. Technology not only drives but also legitimises change.

Technology has always had an impact on education. Individualised learning has been the aim of technological innovations since 1966 [ 9 ]. Computers were introduced in Higher Education in the seventies with the promise to customise education to the individual [ 10 , 11 ]. Computers were a decentralised technology operating at the faculty or university level to enrich classroom learning [ 12 , 13 ]. Ideas about replacing the teacher and subsuming the individual learner to the computer system were also circulated in those days. A finely tuned computer system promising improved attention during learning unavoidably led to comparisons between computer-assisted and in-person instruction [ 11 ]. Teaching machines, like Autotutor, were used in the UK to “supplement the shortage of specialist mathematics teachers [ 10 ], i.e. the replacement of expertise by automation. Regarding the learner, the collection of “information on behaviours such as eye movement or irrelevant body responses during Computer Assisted Instruction” was deemed desirable although unattainable back then [ 11 ].

The idea of the supremacy of the automatic systems has been dominant since the beginning of the twentieth century, and it was reheated every time a new technology was considered capable of inflicting the decisive blow to in-person teaching. Around 2000, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) innovations, hand-in-hand with the interest of big corporations to compete in the education market [ 14 – 16 ], revitalised the rhetoric of individualised learning. Courses delivered over the internet [ 17 ] became the alternative to classroom teaching. In the new setting, students do not have to commute to the campus or follow lectures in crowded auditoria, but they are responsible for fitting learning into a schedule of personal duties and interests [ 3 ]. The teacher’s new role is that of the “Guide on the Side” [ 18 , 19 ]. References to technology replace the role of the human actors of education in public policy texts [ 20 ], educators’ knowledge and skills are subsumed to the technological artefact [ 21 ], and the teachers are portrayed as mainly ancillary to students’ learning [ 16 ].

Immediately after the pandemic broke out, education companies and platform owners intensified their efforts to expand the EdTech industry and prepare the ground for future profits [ 14 , 22 ]. During the movement restrictions, they offered their services free of charge to smooth the transition from onsite to any format of non-traditional education. The explosive growth of online education before 2019 [ 14 , 23 ] was further amplified in 2020 as several EdTech companies treated the pandemic as a business opportunity. The expected increase in capital investments in EdTech [ 22 ] was realised and reported in January 2021, showing that during a disruptive year in education, EdTech venture capital investments in the US increased by 30% [ 24 ], while globally, this percentage reached 100% [ 25 ]. The expansion of existing partnerships between international organisations, prestigious universities, and big corporations [ 15 , 26 ] allowed private platform owners to penetrate public education further.

Collecting learning data during the transition from onsite to remote teaching was presumably an opportunity for EdTech companies and scholars to record the behaviour of students and teachers during the pandemic [ 10 , 22 ], although for the latter, collecting information on student experiences during the pandemic was a prerequisite for responding meaningfully to their needs [ 27 , 28 ].

Technology and automation have a century’s history in education. As Leo Marx has convincingly argued [ 8 ], most technologies have the legal status of private property, and individual businessmen, corporate managers, and government officials make vital decisions concerning their design. The corporations invest capital and expertise and anticipate enjoying returns on their investments. Focusing our attention solely on technology usage without considering its design characteristics and ownership status, we remain blind to much that is intellectually and practically crucial.

Based on the above arguments, this publication asserts that low preference for remote teaching does not indicate a problem for technology, nor a lack of understanding or conservativism for the students. Computer-aided instruction does not have to be a substitute for in-person education. Numerous publications have shown that computer-aided instruction can be an effective strategy in learning. They provide examples of technology applications symbiotic with face-to-face education’s social relationships. These are technology applications designed for several purposes, such as: to reduce the administrative burden of large classes, maintain student interest and deliver learning outcomes [ 29 ], expand the physical learning space and enrich the learning experience [ 30 ], to assist students facing learning difficulties [ 31 ] to enrich teaching and learning using simulations [ 32 , 33 ] and to offer the opportunity to follow the lecture remotely for students who are ill or abroad [ 34 ].

Remote teaching can supplement face-to-face education, and it does not necessarily imply a complete transition from education to online learning. For example, virtual microscopes can be used remotely and offer students an engaging learning experience. However, this cannot substitute the experience of using a real microscope during a lab session [ 32 ]. Although visiting a virtual Museum is instructive to the students, “The authentic experience of being present at the museum, being able to look around or to be absorbed in a painting, listen to the sounds of the visitors’ talk or whisper and the rattle of coffee cups, the sensation of the hardness of the floor, the temperature in the room, etc., all of this cannot be reproduced through video or image” [ 30 ].

The Significance of the “No Significant Difference”

Jerome Bruner in 1966 described teaching as a call for participation in a process that makes possible the establishment of knowledge. Teaching aims not to produce living libraries but to get students to think. Knowing is a process, not a product. Gert Biesta has resisted the overemphasis on learning, noticing that education is about learning and socialisation and subjectification [ 35 ].

Learning is the dominant term in mainstream technology discourse. If online learning is equally effective to in-person learning, it could be an alternative to traditional teaching; otherwise, its benefits would be highly suspected. From this perspective, the possibility of the transition from in-person to online learning requires the firm assurance that there is no significant difference between the two modalities in the learning outcomes. Media comparison studies compare the level of achievement of two groups of learners who have taken the same course delivered by different media. Such research is considered of weak design because student performance is not a question of the medium alone. No medium is inherently better or worse than another; it is the medium and the design of the course which must be considered together [ 36 , 37 ].

A vital assertion extracted from media comparison studies is the no significant difference phenomenon. According to this, “a large number of media comparison studies have found no statistical difference between learning outcomes of different delivery methods” [ 17 ]. Self-selection bias is a problem associated with comparisons between online and in-person learning. In online learning, self-selection bias means that certain factors that influence students’ level of achievement also influence their modality preference. A student’s persistence in learning, engagement with learning, maturity, and human capital endowment, which influence his/her learning achievements, may also influence the choice of a particular modality. Students who choose online courses are probably more comfortable in that format and perform better [ 17 , 36 ]. Self-selection bias is a point for attention in education and other research fields [ 38 ]. There is evidence suggesting that self-selection bias undermines the meaningfulness of the research supporting the no significant difference phenomenon [ 17 ].

In March 2020, Zimmerman [ 39 ] proposed that the transition from in-person to distance teaching offered a unique opportunity to examine how students “perform in these courses compared to the face-to-face kind, without worrying about self-selection bias.” The next day, George Veletsianos published on his webpage a reply to Zimmerman stating that this is a piece of bad advice for two reasons: the first was the large body of literature showing that there are “no significant differences between in-person and online courses.” The second said that online courses prepared in a week would not be as good as those prepared in months or even years.

Two weeks later, Thomas Tobin commented that if self-selection bias is a problem for students who follow online courses, it is also a problem for those who choose face-to-face programs: “The two types of instruction are apples and oranges” [ 40 ]. Finally, Hodges et al. [ 37 ] shifted the attention from methodology to terminology. Their article insisted that the type of instruction offered in response to the COVID-19 crisis should be named emergency remote teaching (ERT) because it has nothing in common with well-designed online courses. They also warned the educators that “The rapid approach necessary for emergency remote teaching may diminish the quality of the courses delivered.”

Hodges et al. drew a line between the experiences of the academic community since the pandemic outbreak and the idealisation of online learning. Synchronous remote teaching during the pandemic is different from asynchronous online learning. However, both of them are non-in-person learning modalities. According to Susan Ramlo, ERT impoverishes our understanding of the online experience [ 41 ] because it separates the latter from lessons learned during the pandemic. Besides, it does not clarify what research findings would serve as evidence for or against the claim regarding ERT quality. Students and teachers use the ERT experience to get an idea of their lives under online education. Research findings from different countries indicate a strong desire to return to classroom relationships. Are these findings irrelevant to the online proposal? Does the students’ verdict indicate that the rapidness of the transition from in-person to remote teaching diminished the quality of teaching? Research findings on students’ attitudes towards ERT offer valuable considerations regarding the prospects of online education in the post-COVID era.

Past Research Findings on ERT

In July 2021, we searched the Scopus database using the keywords “emergency remote teaching” and “research.” The search returned 72 documents. Twenty-one of them were research articles recording students’ experiences and attitudes during ERT. Thirteen were based on quantitative research, seven on qualitative, and one on mixed methodology.

Quantitative studies published soon after the movement restrictions reported that students consider ERT useful for their studies [ 42 , 43 ]. More recent publications have verified this conclusion [ 2 , 44 ]. Petchamé et al. [ 44 ] compared students’ perceptions of Face-to-Face, ERT and Smart Classroom teaching during the pandemic and found that students perceived face-to-face classes as better than the other two options in most facets, except in the amount of time that students spend arriving at the University. Students reported better student–teacher interaction, a higher concentration level, and more effective teamwork when in the classroom. However, some academic teachers considered needing more resources and training [ 45 ] to perform effectively in the remote digital environment.

Recent publications have moved further from questions regarding the preference and effectiveness of learning during ERT to the nuances of students’ lives. Publications based on qualitative research [ 3 , 27 , 28 , 41 , 46 ] made more explicit some of the students’ experiences during ERT capturing their feelings during the pandemic. Despite the rigid procedures and centralisation characterising professional bureaucracies, university teachers responded flexibly to the new situation and moved away from conventional obligations to take care of the well-being of their students [ 47 ]. Research conducted at the University of San Diego found that students reported similar or lower stress levels and found their remote courses similarly or less challenging. The students spent approximately the same number of hours on their courses, and there were no notable increases in dropouts, failure rates, or disparities [ 47 ]. The faculty members were interested in the well-being of the students and made changes in their practices to ensure educational continuity [ 3 ]. Research has successfully captured the compassion and flexibility shown by faculty members to ease the students’ lives [ 27 ], while the students appreciated policy changes to classes and grading. Academic teachers took care of course continuity and the human aspect of teaching, responding promptly to questions, providing clear and transparent information, or connecting the students to resources or people to help them. “ERT created a physical divide between faculty and students, but it also required the faculty to pay more attention to their students’ personal lives” [ 27 ].

Several interesting issues emerged from the research conducted on ERT. Publications from different countries having different research objectives are summarised under the following headings: students’ preference, student–instructor interaction, student’s concentration/motivation, teamwork/interaction with peers, time to commute to the University, technical ease, workload, and emotions–loneliness–stress.

Students’ Preference

A few publications communicated results showing preference or satisfaction with distance learning [ 47 , 48 ]. In most of the studies, the students preferred in-person education. This was manifested as a lack of interest in continuing with the online mode [ 2 ]; positive emotions during face to face classes [ 44 , 49 ]; preference for face to face albeit the initial enthusiasm with the online format [ 45 ]; significant reluctance towards emergency remote teaching from first-year students [ 50 ]; and problems with the withdrawal of the teacher in remote assessment [ 51 ].

Student–Instructor Interaction

Students value direct communication with their teachers during face-to-face classes [ 44 ] regarding learning effectiveness and social exchanges between the community members. In that respect, the disruption of social relationships has affected both the students and the teachers [ 2 ]. Especially for the students, the unmediated social interactions (didactic and socio-relational) with instructors and peers [ 45 ] has been described as a reason for preferring the in-person modality. The students considered that the in-person courses enhance their ability to connect and interact with their teachers [ 46 ].

Level of Concentration/Distraction, Motivation

Low motivation, low concentration, and distraction caused by the home environment are commonly reported problems during ERT. This was accompanied by difficulty to understand the content [ 2 ], low engagement with the course and the course material [ 46 ] and difficulty to remain engaged when studying at home [ 50 , 52 ].

Teamwork/Interaction with Peers

Face-to-face interaction makes teamwork more effective than virtual online teams. The students considered that non-face-to-face teaching does not benefit the communication between classmates [ 26 ], with the students in introductory classes being more affected [ 47 ]. Other problems were interference from family obligations, higher drop/fail rates in some classes [ 47 ], and the reduced ability of the students to interact with their colleagues [ 46 ].

The Time Needed to Commute to the University

Whenever asked, the students express their pleasure for not commuting to the campus: students consider the amount of time needed to commute to the university negative [ 44 ]. The main three advantages of e-learning are time efficiency, convenience, and accessibility [ 52 ].

Technical Ease

A practical recommendation that emerged during the pandemic was to record the lectures and make them available for future use: “recording and posting lectures and offering asynchronous or makeup exams and quizzes… could be carried over into non-pandemic quarters to help improve the student experience” [ 47 ]; “Recording class sessions in the Smart Classroom modality is considered a useful option” [ 44 ]; “the factor most highly ranked was watching recorded lecture videos” [ 46 ].

Some articles commented on the increase in workload for both teachers and students [ 2 ]. Other publications reported lower stress and less time on the courses or an equal amount of work for the two modalities [ 47 ].

Emotions–Loneliness–Stress

One of the most interesting findings in ERT literature is the students’ desire to restore their social relationships [ 50 , 52 ]. This is expressed as a desire to return to the classrooms or frustration for losing contact with peers. This point has been raised mainly in qualitative research findings. Quantitative research based on models like the technology acceptance model usually misses this point’s details. The classroom environment offered a higher degree of positive feelings [ 44 ]. The switch to emergency remote teaching has been a stressful experience. The loss of interaction and communication with instructors and fellow students has been described as a source of frustration and diminished learning [ 46 ]. The students missed their academic rituals and interactions with peers and teachers. As Cernicova-Buca, and Dragomir notice, “students feel comfortable within human interaction (colleagues and not robots, familiar/class teacher, not other teachers)” [ 51 ]. The lack of human interaction and unmediated social relationships are the most significant factors affecting the psychological state of the students and the effectiveness of learning. The possibility of a total transformation of education through technology under the promise of more efficient learning includes risks of less learning not because of the lack of sophistication of the digital learning tools but because of the absence of human interaction and coherent social relationships. The consequences of such decisions require careful thinking since very little is known about their long-term effects [ 53 ].

To draw sound conclusions from the literature review, the various findings are understood within the context of the movement restrictions imposed and the concomitant feelings of stress, disappointment and frustration due to the disruption of the social relationships. In that respect, the non-preference for remote education is partly the result of frustration due to the disruption of normal social relationships during the pandemic. However, it conveys a message for the future, saying that separating learning from social experience undermines learning itself. The research findings of Petchamé et al. [ 44 ] are illuminating as they show that even the well-prepared and well-structured Smart Classroom did not attract the students’ preference compared to in-person teaching.

A second conclusion is the flexibility and adaptability of the academic teachers to the new situation despite the rigid procedures of the bureaucratic universities. The university teachers not only transferred their teaching material to digital form within a few days but also paid particular attention to supporting their students during the difficult period of movement restrictions. We speculate that the characteristics of the technological basis did not much affect teachers’ actions dictated by compassion and professionalism.

Despite the widely held beliefs that technology frees people from the excess workload, research findings have shown that the situation is the opposite. Digitisation of the material and the communication increased the workload for students and teachers.

The most important lesson learnt from the literature review is the positive influence of student–student and student–teacher face-to-face relationships in effective learning. However, teachers’ interest in students’ well-being cannot effectively combat feelings of isolation in the long run [ 47 ]. Current findings indicate that well-prepared distant teaching lags in terms of psychological support to the students [ 44 ] and the development of competencies like teamwork and peer-to-peer cooperation [ 2 , 44 , 46 , 47 ]. Our interpretation of the literature review concludes that socialisation is not just a feature of education but a prerequisite for successful learning, and therefore learning outside the social context is a risky strategy [ 53 ].

Students consider the broader environment and their experiences during the global pandemic, and they miss classroom socialisation and learning [ 3 ]. Students do not perceive learning as distinct from the rest of their life. They adopt a holistic approach where learning is embedded in their social activities and is part of their social experiences. A life depleted from experiences of face-to-face communication is not the proper context for effective learning [ 54 ]—student engagement occurs when learning is integrated with meaningful social experiences.

The data were collected using an anonymous questionnaire administered to the students via the Open eClass platform, an Integrated Course Management System offered by the Greek University Network (GUNET) to support asynchronous e-learning services. The respondents were full-time students of the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of West Attica. A 25-item questionnaire was administered to gauge the students’ perceptions, attitudes, and experiences during ERT compared to face-to-face teaching. The questionnaire included one open-ended question, asking the respondents to express their views and feeling on the new learning reality. The data were collected between September and October 2020. The students were encouraged to fill out the questionnaire, but participation was voluntary. A total number of 336 students replied to the questionnaire.

Demographic data included gender, age, and year of enrolment. Thirty-nine per cent of the respondents were first-year students enrolled in 2020, 21% enrolled in 2019 (second year), 10% in 2018, 11% enrolled in 2017, and the rest 19% were students enrolled in 2016 or earlier. The first-year students did not have experience of in-person university lectures, but they had experienced remote teaching during the final year of their Lyceum studies. The gap between students’ expectations regarding university life and reality can cause anxiety [ 55 ], poor academic performance, and increased drop-out rates [ 56 ] if not managed successfully. The research method, the questionnaire, the theoretical underpinning of its items and the quantitative findings have been presented in another publication [ 6 ]. This publication focuses in the analysis of the text answers collected.

Results and Discussion

The quantitative findings presented in a previous publication [ 6 ] show variations in the preference of the teaching modality with the year of studies. This article makes a brief reference to the quantitative results, focusing on the text answers of the respondents.

The Questionnaire Findings

Overall, the majority (60%) preferred face-to-face teaching, 31% preferred remote teaching, and 9% expressed no particular preference. First and second-year students expressed a stronger preference for in-person teaching. Eighty-five percent of the first-year and 59% of the second-year students preferred face-to-face teaching, while 61% of the senior students (fourth or fifth year) preferred remote education.

The students were asked which modality they would choose if there were no restrictions. The percentages were close to those of preference: 63% would choose in-person, and 30% remote courses. However, 42% of the students replied that ERT was a pleasant solution given the movement restrictions and 33% characterized remote teaching as an unpleasant solution.

Overall, 77% of the respondents expressed positive feelings for not having to commute to the campus. This percentage was high (68%) even among the students who preferred in-person teaching, while it reached 93% among the respondents who preferred distance teaching. Not commuting to the campus was not a factor differentiating the students’ difference in modality preferences, and therefore it cannot explain the modality choices.

Table ​ Table1 1 shows the students’ replies on active participation during lectures, e.g. asking questions, expressing ideas easily, remaining concentrated to the lecture for longer, understanding, remaining concentrated during the classes, and more effective communication with the teacher.

Class participation ( N  = 336)

Forty-four percent of the respondents reported that they express their ideas and ask questions more easily during in-person classes, while the respective percentage for remote teaching was 22%. The majority of the respondents replied that they remained more time concentrated, understand better, are more engaged with learning, and communicate more effectively with the teacher during in-person classes. Another 34% replied that the teaching modality does not influence class participation. These results varied with the year of studies. First-year students considered face-to-face teaching more effective in all aspects, followed by second-year ones. Overall the students considered that in-person teaching facilitates learning compared to remote classes.

The quantitative results showed that the students who prefer in-person teaching consider that this modality makes learning more effective. These students considered that during face-to-face classes, communication with the teacher is more effective (66%), understanding the material is better (81%), concentration is longer (73%), and better (76%), and expression of ideas is more straightforward (56%). The preference for face-to-face teaching was influenced by perceptions of effectiveness in learning and communication.

However, this is not the case with the students who prefer remote teaching. Only 33% of these students agreed that expressing ideas is easier during remote lectures. Only 27% considered that remoteness makes communication with the teacher more effective, 42% said they understand better, and 44% said they remain concentrated for longer. Overall their preference for remote teaching was not strongly influenced by perceptions of higher effectiveness of the particular modality in terms of learning, engagement, class participation, and communication.

Our findings show that a higher preference for remote teaching is not proof of superiority in terms of learning but is mainly related to pressures for accommodating life demands to education. Fitting the preferred teaching modality to the way of living was an essential factor of the two groups of students, 67% for those who preferred in-person teaching and 61% for those preferring remote. Compared with the percentages to the answers related to learning effectiveness, fitting education modality to life duties is more critical than learning effectiveness for students who prefer remote teaching.

Text Answers

The text answers allowed students to explain their attitudes in their own words. The comments showed the perplexity of the modality preference question, particularly for the students who preferred remote teaching.

We received 82 text answers in total. Twenty-seven of them were from students with a preference for remote teaching, 50 from students with a preference for in-person teaching, and five from students who expressed no particular preference for any of the two modalities. Some of the students replied in a very emotional way. For example, two students commented on remote education: “It is horrible!”, (S121, Enrolment: 2020, preference: in-person). “At the beginning, it looked nice and welcomed, but soon it became too tiresome.” (S217, Enrolment: 2020, preference: in-person). A second-year student expressed a particularly negative view of this modality: “Every time I follow a remote lecture, I feel something is dying inside me. I have already failed in the past semester. I am afraid I will fail this semester despite my efforts to be consistent with my studies. Distance education is the worst thing that happened in my academic life.” (S218, Enrolment: 2019, preference: in-person). Opposite to these considerations, a third-year student noticed: “I dream of a day in the future when I will have the opportunity to complete a course even if I cannot, or I do not want to follow the lectures in-person” (S67, Enrolment: 2017, preference: remote).

The respondents commented on the following issues:

Socialisation (17 comments). The students expressed negative feelings for the lack of face-to-face communication during the classes, e.g., S12: “in-person teaching is superior because it allows direct interaction between the people.” (Enrolment: 2014, no-preference); S37: “Remote lectures don’t allow socialisation” (Enrolment: 2020, preference: remote); S67: “I miss socialising with my colleagues at the refectory, I miss the mushroom soup and tichou” (Enrolment 2017, preference: remote); S69: “Socialisation between the students is diminished” (Enrolment: 2016, preference: remote); S135: “Sadly, socialisation is reduced giving rise to addiction to technology” (Enrolment: 2020, preference: in-person); S143: “There are no social relationships and this is something we don’t like. The screen is not our friend and computer communication is not like face-to-face” (Enrolment: 2020, preference: in-person); S146: “I have the gut feeling, that this teaching modality (remote) will increase the distance between humans and accustom them to staying in front of a screen the whole day” (Enrolment: 2019, preference: in-person); S181: “The lack of direct contact with other persons during the day or during the lessons, generates feelings of isolation and alienation, affecting our psychological health” (Enrolment: 2017, preference: in-person).

Student–teacher communication (14 comments). Half of the comments made were from the students who preferred in-person learning. Quite interestingly, some students who preferred remote teaching commented on the importance of the student–teacher interaction, e.g., S51: “Remote learning is not like in-person, where one can communicate directly with the teacher.” (Enrolment: 2018, preference: remote); S169: “There is no face-to-face interaction with the teachers, and this makes teaching difficult for both the students and teachers” (Enrolment: 2018, preference: in-person); S81: “The absence of physical presence hampers the development of a relationship between the student and the teacher” (Enrolment: 2020, preference: remote).

Technical issues (13 comments), e.g., S100: “The biggest problem is the internet connection. It would be convenient if the lectures were recorded and uploaded on the LMS platform” (Enrolment: 2017, no preference).

Contingency issues (19 comments). e.g., S15: “Given the health risks because of the pandemic, remote lecturing is the best way to protect ourselves and the others” (Enrolment: 2019, preference: remote).

Fatigue/convenience (22 comments). Students commented on the convenience of not having to commute to the university, but also on the so-called “zoom fatigue” [ 57 ], e.g., S143: “(remote teaching) is convenient because we can do whatever we want behind the screen in the comfort and warmth of the home environment” (Enrolment: 2020, preference in-person); S109: “Remote teaching is very convenient for me because it allows me to work.” (Enrolment: 2019, preference: remote); S3: “Looking at the screen for long hours is not good for the eyes” (Enrolment:2020, no-preference); S72: “eye-fatigue is obvious after 5 or 6 hours of lectures” (Enrolment: 2016, preference: remote); S128 “At the end of an ordinary day I feel exhausted” (Enrolment: 2020, preference: in-person); S182: “being in front of a screen for 6 to 12 hours is bad for my physical and psychological health.” (Enrolment: 2017, preference: in-person).

Saving of money (4 comments). Some students linked “not having to commute” with saving money. e.g., S33: “I do not have to commute from the town I live to Athens. I do not spend money, and I do not get tired” (Enrolment: 2020, preference: remote).

Learning/understanding/concentration (7 comments). Most of these text answers considered the higher effectiveness of the classroom environment; e.g., S209: “The opportunity for deep quality discussions is limited because we spent a lot of time on technical issues related to the platform or questions on practical issues” (Enrolment: 2020, preference: in-person); S69: “It is easier to follow a remote lecture because there is no classroom noise and distance from the board” (Enrolment: 2016, preference: remote); S108: “In-person education is more effective because you have to follow a strict schedule of lectures and this is very helpful for people who have other responsibilities as well” (Enrolment: 2019, preference: in-person); S164: “There were too many students in the auditoria, and I lost contact with the lectures” (Enrolment: 2018, no preference); S114: “I want to follow the (remote) lectures, but I cannot get concentrated” (Enrolment 2020, preference: in-person); S160: “When students follow a lecture in the classroom, they remain concentrated because they know that their fellow students are trying as hard as they do” (Enrolment: 2019, preference: in-person);

Labs (7 comments). All the respondents agreed, irrespectively of the modality of preference, that remote labs are inefficient compared to on-site delivery; e.g., S89: “Doing the labs remotely is a disaster. During the previous semester, I followed the labs remotely, but I learned very few things.” (Enrolment: 2019, no preference); S108: “Doing labs remotely is ridiculous.” (Enrolment: 2019, in-person); S131: “Labs must be done with a physical presence.” (Enrolment: 2018, preference: remote).

Exams (14 comments). The students complained of not having enough time to complete their answers. The comments regarding distance exams were mixed. Some students questioned the fairness of the remote exams, while others happily commented on the possibility to pass the exams more easily; e.g., S108: “Distance examination is unfair, especially for the students who are consistent with their responsibilities. They cause much anxiety because they are impersonal.” (Enrolment: 2019, preference: in-person); S139: “Distance exams are less stressful because I can use my notes” (Enrolment: 2018, preference: in-person); S180: “Getting help from my friends is precious during the exams!” (Enrolment: 2019, preference: in-person); S157: “I have problems with the time given to answer the exam questions” (Enrolment: 2019, preference: in-person); S78: “… 80% of the exams are easier to pass (crucial to me)” (Enrolment: 2015, preference: remote).

Discussion of the Text Answers

Analysis of the text answers illuminated aspects of students’ life during the period of the movement restrictions [ 30 ]. It provided a richer picture regarding the students’ preference towards the two modalities and raised the issues of remote examinations and labs.

Laboratory education is central in engineering studies, and it is a challenge to deliver remotely. Some publications attribute the observed lag of engineering education in adopting online teaching to the difficulties of remote lab education [ 58 ]. Students enrolled in 2019 or earlier raised the issue of remote lab education in their text answers. These students had the experience of on-site labs compared to the experience of remote synchronous labs. The respondents contrasted the two experiences and commented on the perceived ineffectiveness of the latter. Labs in electrical and electronic engineering involve psychomotor and sensory faculties, which are difficult to exercise remotely [ 59 ]. The students appreciated the teachers’ effort to ensure the continuation of lab education, but they considered that lack of direct contact with the apparatus undermines the essence of lab education.

Cheating during remote exams includes accessing resources, collusion, and impersonation. The transition from in-person to remote assessment added new problems to existing ones [ 60 ]. The students focused on inadequate time given during remote exams [ 61 , 62 ], anxiety, and increased opportunities for cheating. For some students, the internet connection quality was a source of anxiety during the exams, while for others, the home environment and the teacher’s absence reduced stress and anxiety. Some of the respondents commented enthusiastically on the possibility of cheating during remote exams. Considerations regarding the easiness of remote exams appear to influence the modality preference [ 63 ].

Other publications have reported reduced stress when the examination is taken from home, accompanied by feelings of easiness for being alone without the teacher’s presence [ 51 ]. Recommendations for diminishing unfair practices [ 62 ] assume that remote exams are a manageable problem. However, as students’ replies showed, instructions for stricter time limits to prevent dishonest behaviours have generated more problems [ 64 ] than those intended to solve.

Understanding the students’ modality preference:

Student satisfaction was significantly lower during ERT because of the absence of in-person interaction with peers and teachers [ 65 – 67 ]. Even in periods of political unrest, when the design characteristics of online learning undermined students’ solidarity, teachers and students preferred working together, meeting at coffee shops, or elsewhere outside the university [ 68 ].

The students were concerned with the disruption of the social relationships when teaching moved online. Social relationships are influenced by the materiality of the environment [ 69 ]. The fast transition to remote teaching challenged the taken-for-granted materiality of in-person education, which included official learning activities (e.g., classrooms, labs), extracurricular activities (e.g., attending seminars, students’ union), and physical places (e.g., library, coffee shop) [ 70 ]. Students who had developed valuable relationships in the traditional university felt uneasy when obliged to confine themselves to the digital space of ERT. Some students expressed their appreciation for face-to-face interactions while preferring remote learning options [ 41 ].

Qualitative information collected via free-text answers provides student-specific details on the rationale of their choices. According to the text answers, preference for remote teaching is influenced by the need to accommodate the fulfilment of personal duties or needs with education. O’ Neil et al. [ 63 ] found that students with experience in online courses, students who avoid academic work and those competent in time management are more likely to take a course online. However, our quantitative findings indicate that preference for remote education is not strongly related to beliefs of more effective learning.

The quantitative and qualitative findings show that preference for remote teaching is triggered by pressures to accommodate personal needs, duties or personality characteristics with education, and it is less related to perceived effectiveness in learning. Students who already had a job were more positive towards remote education, hoping that, in the new environment, they would manage to continue their studies while working. One student who felt uncomfortable when surrounded by many people welcomed remote teaching (text answer 73).

Moreover, preference for remote teaching was related to the pressures or needs during a particular period of students’ lives. Belonging comprises four dimensions: affect, place, social relationships, and politics [ 70 , 71 ]. Conceptualising belonging in a time–space context makes the transition from belonging to un-belonging more intelligible. Students may feel closer to the university space at a certain period of their life, attaching themselves to in-person teaching, while in another period, they may feel that the university is not an important setting for them to belong to [ 72 , 73 ]. Some of the text answers emphasised the contextual factors (timing, family or job obligations) to explain their preference for remote teaching. Remote teaching is the preferable option in response to temporal and contextual pressures.

Balancing learning with personal responsibilities and duties was central for students who preferred remote teaching. Some of the students appreciated the importance of face-to-face interactions and explained their preference for remote teaching by referring to their obligations at the particular period of their lives. This is far from considering that the convenience of studying from home is attractive to all the students. The following text answers clarify this point: S12: “My preference for remote teaching is based on my duties during this period of my life. I prefer remote teaching because I save time for my job. However, in-person teaching is superior because it allows interaction between the people.” (Enrolment: 2014, no-preference); S51: “I have been in the classrooms for years… remote teaching is suitable for me now.” (Enrolment: 2018, preference: remote); S60: “The reason I prefer remote lectures during this period is that I have to pass some previous-semester exams. Remote education allows me to follow more classes.” (Enrolment: 2018, preference: remote); S73: “I get very anxious when people surround me, and remote lectures help me feel calm.” (Enrolment: 2016, preference: remote); S83: “Remote lectures are an opportunity for the students who have a job, and they would not come to the campus anyway, to follow the lectures.” (Enrolment: 2014, preference: remote).

The qualitative data collected show that students see ERT as an alternative modality and make complicated decisions based on the specific needs they face during a specific period of their student life. The importance of not commuting to the campus is challenged by the text answers collected [ 74 , 75 ]. Although the vast majority of the respondents considered “not having to commute to the campus” attractive, only a tiny portion of them explained their preference on the basis of learning from the comfort of their home environment. Other students preferred ERT in response to practical difficulties they faced during a specific period of their life, such as family and job obligations or studies. Some of them preferred remote teaching to avoid in-person assessment [ 63 ]. Therefore, preference for remote teaching is not proof of the superiority of online education characteristics.

The effectiveness of learning is essential for the students who prefer in-person teaching. These students consider that class participation, concentration during the lectures and understanding of the taught material is more effective when classes are taken in person, and they explain their preference in terms of more effective learning. Their text answers indicate the importance they attribute to the cultivation of social relationships to increase student engagement and make learning and understanding more probable. However, the role of social relationships is not confined to effective learning. They also stressed the importance of socialisation for their psychological and mental health. Therefore, they consider learning and socialisation complementary aspects of education.

Preference for in-person teaching was primarily influenced by the belief that the classroom is a more effective learning environment [ 76 ]. Although not commuting to the university was considered attractive, the effectiveness of learning and socialisation were considered more important. These students value face-to-face relationships and consider their importance for learning and personality development. They also expressed worries regarding the prolonged absence of face-to-face communication and addiction to technology on psychological health and human relationships [ 77 ].

As described in the introduction, the objective of this publication is to understand the modality preference and the criteria of preference decisions. Our interpretation of the information collected indicates that the criteria underlying preference decisions are different for the two modalities. The survey results showed that the students who prefer in-person teaching consider this modality more effective in learning. However, only a minority of the students who prefer remote teaching consider that their preferred modality makes learning more effective.

Table ​ Table2 2 resumes the different preference criteria of the two groups of students. This list is not exhaustive, and further research can enrich our understanding of the differences between the two preferences. However, the findings of this publication indicate that students consider that the characteristics of classroom teaching facilitate learning, and for this reason, they prefer in-person teaching. For other students accommodating education with family and job obligations or health issues or convenience and comfort is more important, and consider remote teaching is the best option for them.

Preference criteria

The students who prefer in-person teaching consider that the classroom environment, student–student and student–teacher direct communication, facilitates learning. They enjoy university socialisation which presumably satisfies their need of belonging. The situation is more complicated with the students who prefer remote education. Some of them appreciate the importance of in-person social relationships with their colleagues and teachers despite their preference for remote teaching. Others were detached from the university environment and preferred the comfort and convenience of the home environment. A third group admitted the importance of social relationships, but they explained that they did not need them during the current period of their life. Finally, some students explained their preferences based on the easier remote exams.

The students who preferred in-person teaching adopted a more collectivistic approach. They compared the two modalities on the basis of what is good or bad or what makes learning more effective for the students as a whole. The main focus of their answers was not on fulfilling particular individual needs. The majority of the in-person preference texts commented on the positive influence of socialisation and communication between teachers and students on learning. Two of the respondents adopted a more collegial view emphasising the role of a community of peers in learning. S160: “When students follow a lecture in the classroom, they remain concentrated because they know that their fellow students are trying as hard as they do” (Enrolment: 2019, preference: in-person); S199: “(during in-person classes) the students gather together and pursue a common goal. This generates a friendly environment.” (Enrolment: 2020, preference: in-person). These comments correspond to mutual focus attention, i.e., feelings of interpersonal solidarity generated when some people focus their attention on the same thing and are all aware of that [ 77 ].

The students who preferred remote teaching adopted a rather individualistic perspective in explaining their modality preference. Half of the text answers (14 out of 27) received from these students explained how remote teaching serves better some of their duties or needs. S19: “With remote teaching, … I have the comfort and the cleanliness of my home” (Enrolment:2017, preference: remote); S78: “I get up 5 min before the lecture. I have breakfast during the lesson. I can follow the lecture from any place in my home. I can make notes easily by taking screenshots. Finally, 80% of the exams are easier to pass (crucial to me).” (Enrolment:2015, preference: remote); S67: “Remote lectures are convenient. I do not have to commute to the campus and move from one classroom to another. My armchair is far more comfortable than the wooden seats of the classroom, where I get sweaty. The temperature at home is nice…” (Enrolment:2017, preference: remote); S37: “(Remote lectures) are convenient until I get my driving license.” (Enrolment:2020, preference: remote).

Students who preferred in-person teaching focused on effective learning, and although they expressed their satisfaction for not commuting to the campus, they raised the problem of “zoom fatigue.” They were interested in preserving and developing face-to-face relationships with their colleagues and teachers. They stressed the importance of face-to-face interactions in learning, socialisation, and psychological health and viewed education in a collectivistic way rather than focusing on fulfilling their individual needs.

Students with a preference towards remote learning emphasised accommodating learning with other personal interests and duties and adopted a rather individualistic approach in their text answers. The students linked their preference for remote teaching to the fulfilment of duties facing at the particular period of their life, rather than an all-purpose any-time solution. In-person education was not considered less effective to remote while expressing worries about disrupting face-to-face relationships and “zoom fatigue.”

Views on maintaining social experiences and in-person interactions, and utility were identified among the respondents. ERT maintained order in Higher Education, although the students felt frustrated with the difficulty of carrying out satisfactory social relationships remotely.

Open access funding provided by HEAL-Link Greece.

Data availability

Declarations.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

This article is part of the topical collection “Computer Supported Education” guest edited by James Uhomoibhi and Beno Csapó.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• May 17, 2021

In-Person vs. Online Learning — Can They Compare?

Updated: Sep 22, 2023

Online vs. In-Person Class for Learning — What is Best?

Many may believe with the changes in the way students are being taught that there is one medium of teaching that is better than the other. As technology has developed, we’ve been able to connect with people all over the world through apps like WhatsApp, FaceTime, Zoom, WeChat, etc. Needless to say, education has also evolved to connect students and instructors in virtual classrooms.

It’s clear that things are not the way they used to be before 2020, and many have debated whether or not in-person learning is better than online learning. But how do the two compare? Is one really better than the other?

What is the difference between in-person and online learning?

Online learning is exactly what it sounds like: classrooms and subject materials are all covered virtually. In-person learning is the traditional way of learning, where students attend face-to-face classes at allotted times. Let’s dig into the pros and cons of each type of learning environment.

Pros of Online Classes

Throughout the course of the pandemic, there’s been an increase in students enrolling for online programs. According to InsideHigherEd , women and Black Americans prefer online learning. 60% of Black Americans have confidence in the quality of online education, and 48% (nearly half!) of women would choose to pursue an education online. With so many opting to pursue online degrees, what are the pros of online learning?

1) Virtual classrooms provide great accessibility for students .

Online classes open the gate for many people who don’t have the means to attend in-person classes or for people who want to go back to school, but may also have other commitments. Online education is great for single parents, military personnel, or full-time employees. Online courses offer the opportunity for a larger group of people to receive formal education. Ultimately, when the barriers of an in-person classroom are removed, all students benefit from the freedom of choosing when to do their coursework on an online platform.

2) Online classes offer self-paced learning and schedule flexibility .

For people who do not appreciate the structure of in-person classroom meetings, online learning is a great alternative. Students all work and learn at different paces , and online classes offer the ability for students to follow their own schedules. With flexible scheduling students can mold the classroom to whatever learning environment and class schedule works best for them.

3) Online learning can be cheaper than in-person learning .

Traditional schooling tends to be more expensive than online schooling because there are in person experience costs. This includes extracurriculars, dorming, dining halls, etc. These are all amenities that students are typically happy to pay for, but the realities of the pandemic lead many students to realize that their want for that experience is less significant. Prospective students now tend to enroll in online classes for the affordability of a formal education with increased convenience and decreased cost.

Cons of Online Classes

Despite the positive aspects of the virtual classroom setup, there are undeniably some things lacking that in-person classrooms have. It is important to note that regular online classes have a different set of downsides in comparison to online classes that had to shift rapidly due to the pandemic. Certain subjects had a more difficult time modifying to the online realm. Nonetheless, here are some of the drawbacks of online learning.

1) There’s been an increase in online fatigue.

If you heard the phrase ‘ Zoom fatigue ’ floating around the internet, that’s because it’s very real. After a whole year of online meetings, Zoom meetings, and whatever it may be, it can start to feel dreary. Every live meeting is the same each time with little simulation, so it’s unavoidable that we all will get online fatigue.

2) There can be a lack of engagement in virtual classrooms.

This is mainly because teacher/student or student/student relationships are hard to maintain virtually - or at least we have less practice in this new learning environment. It’s difficult to get to know people through video calls, and without a palpable connection, students tend to lose focus during online classes because it doesn’t matter to them. Students are also reluctant to learn when attending online classes because they know they’ll just have to watch and memorize along the way (a.k.a. passive learning ). When students do put in the effort to build relationships, they are usually hit with technical issues like spotty Wi-Fi, crunchy mic sounds, or awkward lags.

3) Certain subjects are hard to accommodate online.

Subjects like chemistry, nursing, or culinary arts have a hard time being translated into an online teaching method because, quite literally, those classes are hands-on and require a physical classroom . Instructors in these fields were not prepared for the abrupt changes of the pandemic, so it was difficult for them to come up with ways to teach their students through a screen. Students, as well, likely had a hard time learning because of the lack of materials they had at home.

Pros of In-Person Class

In person, instructors can actively monitor what is going on in the classroom, from discussions to exams to student relationships. Online learning takes away many of these factors. Let’s dig into the pros of in-person learning.

1) Being in person in a lecture makes it easier for instructors to conduct discussions.

For example, students benefit from live conversation on case studies and live role playing activities that can be very effective. When instructors engage students in conversation and see that other students have the same enthusiasm, it naturally pulls them into the conversation to learn as well. Effective communication is key to successful learning. Some instructors may prefer in person classes because they are able to control the dialogue in the classroom more fully than online.

2) There can be more community and relationship connection opportunities.

Without the right tools, building relationships online is often not as effective as building them in person. Connections and relationships can be a great resource or reference, and with in-person classes, they don’t have to feel like they are stuck in uncomfortable isolation. In person classes allow for the before and after chatter in a classroom, catching up on weekends and working through tough problems with fellow students. That chatter is what helps students to feel comfortable , even if the subject is challenging for them. Mental health is a critical aspect of education that often gets overlooked, and in-person friendships and social interactions can greatly reduce levels of stress and anxiety.

3) There are less distractions in the classroom.

At home, when taking classes online, learners tend to be distracted easily. Daily disturbances of the internet or common disruptions at home can make students and instructors loose focus frequently , adding to the lack of engagement. However, when students are sitting in a classroom setting with their peers where they can’t turn their camera off to do something else, they have more of an opportunity to be involved with the lesson because there is nothing else they can do in a more structured learning environment.

Cons of In-Person Class

One of the major disadvantages of traditional in-person learning is that it’s not always easily available to people. This is especially true for higher education institutions. Here are some of the drawbacks of in-person classes.

1) For some students, their local college may not offer their field of study.

Even for those who think they prefer in person classes, going going away for college might be completely out of their budget. This makes learning inaccessible and inefficient. Traditional colleges are expensive , and traveling to out of state colleges is even more expensive, which turns people away from enrolling in either. Online classes offer the ability to find a program that works for them at a more reasonable price.

2) Going to class can be time-consuming.

When attending school in a traditional classroom setting, you have to take into account the commute time and lecture length. Many students will have a class schedule that contains 3-4 classes each day that are at least an hour long, in addition to class time you must consider the additional time to walk, bike, bus, or drive to those classes which makes hours of the day disappear. In-person classes are not as flexible as online classes, which can frustrate many students that pay for the college experience, but have little time to indulge. For example, student athletes miss classes quite often due to athletic events, but are expected to keep up with the rest of their class even though their lectures may not be recorded for them to learn the material.

3) Some students’ learning styles do not align with physically being there.

Social anxiety has been a big issue in younger generations, so there is usually a division in bigger classroom sizes. Quieter, shyer students will tend to sit in the back, which can lower engagement if they can’t hear the professor or see the board. In some cases, big group discussions make students feel afraid to speak up, holding them back from fully participating as well. Online communities offer students the time and space to put together their thoughts, so that they don't feel that social stress that the typical physical classroom experience causes. Allowing students to have course conversations in an online platform like Yellowdig, as opposed to in-person, allows students who may be taking the course in their second language an equal opportunity to participate. This online conversation model enables students who would typically not speak in live classes the opportunity to shine through a less stressful social interaction.

At the End of the Day, Which is Better?

With all the pros and cons laid out about each type of learning sphere, it’s hard to say that one is better than the other. With increasing advancements in technology, there’s no way to avoid using it in the classroom altogether. Due to the impact of COVID-19, everyone has put the idea of online classes at the forefront of education. Whether it be in-person learning or online learning, both mediums can be great options and achieve exemplary educational outcomes.

We’ve seen many creative solutions arise, whether it is accommodating alternate in-person courses, shifting rapidly to online, or seeking out hybrid delivery modalities at a faster rate in the last year than ever before. While it is not clear that one modality is superior to the other, what can be seen is that the best way to support academic outcomes is by generating active learning communities both inside and outside the classroom.

Yellowdig recognizes that many students do not truly engage in discussion with their peers through traditional discussion boards, which only further constrains relationship building and effective communication. These two aspects are intrinsic to successful learning, which is why our platform was created to build that human bridge. For Yellowdig, learning should not just happen inside the classroom, but outside the classroom as well. Learn how it works here .

Want to talk more about building learning communities in your classrooms? The Yellowdig Client Success team is comprised of former teachers who now support the development of healthy communities in online, hybrid, and in-person classes.

• A Student Perspective

Recent Posts

8 Tips for High-Quality, Open Conversations

Using Discussion Boards to Increase Student and Class Engagement: Effective? Clichéd? Let’s discuss.

Q&A: Face To face Learning And The Importance of Adding An Asynchronous Element

Online Vs in Person Classes: a Paradigm Shift in Education

• Categories: Online Courses Online Vs. Traditional Classes

About this sample

Words: 2075 |

11 min read

Published: Jul 3, 2023

Words: 2075 | Pages: 5 | 11 min read

Table of contents

Oline vs in person classes: definitions and comparison, to what extent can online classes replace traditional classroom, is online education is more effective that in person classes.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1505 words

1 pages / 628 words

1 pages / 580 words

2 pages / 966 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Online Vs. Traditional Classes

Online education has become an increasingly popular option for students seeking to further their education and obtain a degree. With the advancement of technology, the accessibility and convenience of online education have made [...]

The benefits of online education cannot be underestimated. Defined as the type of education delivered to students through the internet to their home computers (Means et al. 6), online education is currently widely used in the [...]

Most of the college using the electronic textbook which purchase from some website or using the PowerPoint nowadays. A traditional textbook is made by hundreds of pages of information, but all of this information is being write [...]

E-Learning Industry. (2021). E-learning Statistics and Facts For 2021. 5(4).

10 Minute School is the largest online educational platform of Bangladesh. It was introduced or created by Ayman Sadiq with his goal to destroy all kinds of barriers of ensuring quality education to all across Bangladesh. It can [...]

Whether or not to take an online class is something almost every college student has to decide at some point in their college career. Taking an online class has both advantages and disadvantages, and students differ on their [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Why Is In-Person Learning Better Than Online

In the current era, innovation disruption has diversely allowed the advancement and acceptance of technology. The education sector has also been affected, and there is an option today to either choose online or in-person learning, especially at the tertiary or high school level. The teaching method has undergone a significant shift, given the technological advancements. Online education has developed into a versatile method of instruction that allows students to quickly access study resources without leaving their homes’ convenience (Tomasik et al., 2021). Students may promptly gauge their learning pace if they have the right tools and a reliable internet connection. Education that takes place away from a computer is called “offline,” and it is the precursor to the modern trend of online learning. Online learning may be the future wave, but it cannot change the fundamentals of education just yet. Offline or in-person learning allows students to create and maintain a consistent schedule, and it is unaffected by technical difficulties. Students benefit more from in-person learning since there is direct engagement among the students, the teachers, and peers, while they acquire practical experience as instructors gradually review their progress.

In-Person Learning

Lessons learned through in-person, hands-on methods provide a richer, more immersive educational experience. An advantage of in-person education is networking with other students and teachers in a real-world environment (Tomasik et al., 2021). In contrast to online education, face-to-face interactions are crucial for better clarity and understanding. To truly benefit from hands-on education, human interaction is essential. Learning by doing, or “hands-on learning,” describes a method of instruction that emphasizes direct interaction between the student and the instructor (Tomasik et al., 2021). Children of all ages can benefit tremendously from the hands-on education provided by physical learning settings which come with in-person learning. It has been shown through studies that students of all ages perform better academically when they are taught in an interactive physical environment throughout their education.

There is better student-teacher interaction and practical learning in the offline setting. Discussions and arguments between students and teachers may flourish because of the accessible information flow (Bali & Liu, 2018). Students can also get instant responses to their inquiries and comments in offline learning from their instructors compared to some of the online techniques used. As a result, teachers are modifying their methods to engage their students better. On the other hand, offline lessons provide an engaging environment that blends theoretical and practical parts of education (Bali & Liu, 2018). This blending of theoretical and practical components of education helps students learn and grow intellectually. Furthermore, learning through the in-person technique helps students better understand concepts and learn and adjust to new courses or subjects more rapidly because of the readily available collaborative help from the teachers and fellow students.

In-person learning is better because it instills self-discipline and time-management techniques. When attending in-person sessions, students are expected to adhere to a timetable set by their instructors (McCutcheon et al., 2015). Students will be required to complete assignments and projects on time because of the emphasis on interactive learning caused by the physical presence of instructors who can do follow-ups accordingly. In addition, students learn to focus better and complete their work on time in a traditional classroom setting. When teaching a course offline, technical difficulties are seldom an issue (McCutcheon et al., 2015). There are no technical difficulties because most learning still occurs in traditional classrooms, where neither students nor instructors need to be very tech-savvy since almost all of it takes place on paper or a computer.

Online Learning

The most significant advantage of online classes is their flexibility; however, they might still be ineffective because many students face time management barriers with online courses. This advantage allows learners to work at their own pace without feeling pressured. Course materials are available online; students may log in whenever it is most convenient. However, students taking online courses sometimes struggle to track their time (Wang et al., 2019). Those who choose to take their courses online often have a disorganized schedule and other commitments that pull them away from their studies. Students who benefit from online classes’ flexibility may struggle to maintain a regular study routine and give in to procrastination (Wang et al., 2019). In addition, students are expected to devote a considerable amount of time to their online courses, which might lead them to look for entertainment elsewhere online or check their social media accounts.

Despite online learning being cost-effective, practical knowledge and technical issues affect its effectiveness compared to in-person learning. These aspects hinder students’ participation in hands-on activities, which are crucial to their education. For instance, chemistry, physics, biology, art, and athletics need students’ physical presence for either live experimentation or active participation; however, they are absent in online learning (Gherheș et al., 2021). In addition, online courses often experience technical difficulties. To participate in an online course, students need access to a computer, camera, microphone, headphones, and a stable internet connection. Further, technical obstacles like a poor internet connection or a lack of suitable technical infrastructure may impede the smooth learning process, especially if the classes are on a real-time basis. Attending lectures in person or obtaining lecture materials like videos or online notes might be difficult for certain students.

In conclusion, in-person learning is better than online learning despite each having pros and cons. In-person learning ensures students benefit from a better interactive learning environment than online learning. It facilitates real-time communication between students and teachers, where they can get instant replies and comments from teachers and fellow students. Discussions and collaborative learning from fellow students is an added advantage of in-person learning, and it allows students to learn better amongst themselves. In a traditional classroom setting, students must be present and prepared for instruction at the regularly scheduled meeting time. Online learning has significant advantages like flexibility and cost-effectiveness; however, it lacks many other beneficial factors to the students, as discussed in in-person learning.

• Bali, S., & Liu, M. C. (2018, November). Students’ Perceptions Toward Online Learning and Face-to-Face Learning Courses. Journal of Physics: Conference Series , vol. 1108, IOP Publishing, Nov. 2018, p. 012094. Crossref . https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012094.
• Gherheș, V., Stoian, C. E., Fărcașiu, M. A., & Stanici, M. (2021). E-learning vs. face-to-face learning: Analyzing students’ preferences and behaviors.  Sustainability ,  13 (8), 4381.
• McCutcheon, K., Lohan, M., Traynor, M., & Martin, D. (2015). A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face‐to‐face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education.  Journal of advanced nursing ,  71 (2), 255-270.
• Tomasik, M. J., Helbling, L. A., & Moser, U. (2021). Educational gains of in‐person vs. distance learning in primary and secondary schools: A natural experiment during the COVID‐19 pandemic school closures in Switzerland.  International Journal of Psychology ,  56 (4), 566-576.
• Wang, C., Hsu, H. C. K., Bonem, E. M., Moss, J. D., Yu, S., Nelson, D. B., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2019). Need satisfaction and need dissatisfaction: A comparative study of online and face-to-face learning contexts.  Computers in Human Behavior ,  95 , 114-125.
• Academic Success
• Child Observation
• Early Childhood Education
• High School
• Homeschooling
• Is College Worth It
• School Uniforms
• School Violence

Argumentative Essay Example: In-Person vs. Online Learning

For the last 18 months students had to sit at home with the discomfort of not seeing new friends and making new connections. I believe that in person school is superior to online school. I also believe that online school is not a good substitute for in person. This essay will show you research that supports in person attendance over online school.

Online school has caused serious learning delays that teachers have seen in their students. A study done by Mckinsey and Company showed that kids in online learning have a learning delay of up to three months. This can be bad for kids because when they come back in person they will be far behind the rest of the class and in some instances end up failing.  A survey done by Horace Mann shows that 97% of educators saw learning loss within their students.

Another reason that in person learning is superior to online is that teachers rate online learning very low in effectivness. A Mckinsey and Company study found that teachers rated online 5/10 all over the world. In another study by the RAND Corporation ⅔ of teachers said most of their online students were less prepared. Even though in person learning is clearly more effective there are some people who still disagree.  

Despite the evidence there are some people that say online school is superior. They say that it provides parents and opportunity to monitor and control their kid’s learning enviorment. According to an Ed Choice survey, 68% said flexibility for kid’s was an important factor in their decision to do online schooling, However this evidence is not valid because flexibility does not mean more effective education. It is not a persuasive argument.

Online school can cause serious learning delays as shown by surveys of teachers. Online learning is also much less effective as reported by teachers. In person school is clearly a better option.

In conclusion, in person school is much more effective than online learning. Online learning produces learning delays and is much less effective. In person learning should be the preferred method whenever possible.

Related Samples

• Should College Athletes Be Paid Essay Example
• Benefits of Homework Essay Example
• Improving the Accessibility of Education for Disabled Children Essay Example
• Against School Dress Codes and Uniforms Essay Example
• Reflective Essay Sample about Writing
• Importance of School Clubs Essay Example
• Argumentative Essay Example: Schools Should Not Have a Later Start Time
• Persuasive Essay Sample: Students Should Go to College
• The Impact of COVID-19 on Education Essay Example
• Advantages of Distance Learning Essay Example

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• April 7, 2024 The Sunday Read: ‘What Deathbed Visions Teach Us About Living’
• April 5, 2024   •   29:11 An Engineering Experiment to Cool the Earth
• April 4, 2024   •   32:37 Israel’s Deadly Airstrike on the World Central Kitchen
• April 3, 2024   •   27:42 The Accidental Tax Cutter in Chief
• April 2, 2024   •   29:32 Kids Are Missing School at an Alarming Rate
• April 1, 2024   •   36:14 Ronna McDaniel, TV News and the Trump Problem
• March 29, 2024   •   48:42 Hamas Took Her, and Still Has Her Husband
• March 28, 2024   •   33:40 The Newest Tech Start-Up Billionaire? Donald Trump.
• March 27, 2024   •   28:06 Democrats’ Plan to Save the Republican House Speaker
• March 26, 2024   •   29:13 The United States vs. the iPhone
• March 25, 2024   •   25:59 A Terrorist Attack in Russia
• March 24, 2024   •   21:39 The Sunday Read: ‘My Goldendoodle Spent a Week at Some Luxury Dog ‘Hotels.’ I Tagged Along.’

The Sunday Read: ‘What Deathbed Visions Teach Us About Living’

Researchers are documenting a phenomenon that seems to help the dying, as well as those they leave behind..

By Phoebe Zerwick

Read by Samantha Desz

Produced by Jack D’Isidoro and Aaron Esposito

Narration produced by Anna Diamond and Emma Kehlbeck

Original music by Aaron Esposito

Engineered by Sophia Lanman and Sharon Kearney

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify

Chris Kerr was 12 when he first observed a deathbed vision. His memory of that summer in 1974 is blurred, but not the sense of mystery he felt at the bedside of his dying father. Throughout Kerr’s childhood in Toronto, his father, a surgeon, was too busy to spend much time with his son, except for an annual fishing trip they took, just the two of them, to the Canadian wilderness. Gaunt and weakened by cancer at 42, his father reached for the buttons on Kerr’s shirt, fiddled with them and said something about getting ready to catch the plane to their cabin in the woods. “I knew intuitively, I knew wherever he was, must be a good place because we were going fishing,” Kerr told me.

Kerr now calls what he witnessed an end-of-life vision. His father wasn’t delusional, he believes. His mind was taking him to a time and place where he and his son could be together, in the wilds of northern Canada.

Kerr followed his father into medicine, and in the last 10 years he has hired a permanent research team that expanded studies on deathbed visions to include interviews with patients receiving hospice care at home and with their families, deepening researchers’ understanding of the variety and profundity of these visions.

There are a lot of ways to listen to ‘The Daily.’ Here’s how.

We want to hear from you. Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at [email protected] . Follow Michael Barbaro on X: @mikiebarb . And if you’re interested in advertising with The Daily, write to us at [email protected] .

Additional production for The Sunday Read was contributed by Isabella Anderson, Anna Diamond, Sarah Diamond, Elena Hecht, Emma Kehlbeck, Tanya Pérez and Krish Seenivasan.

Advertisement