Review of Related Literature

Foreign

Several studies (e.g., Bernard et al., 2014; Chigeza and

Halbert, 2014; González-Gómez et al., 2016; Israel, 2015; Northey

et al., 2015; Ryan et al., 2016; Southard, Meddaug and Harris,

2015) have compared F2F teaching to online learning and/or

blended learning in order to try to define which of the formats

provides, e.g., the highest learning outcome, creates the most

satisfied students or has the highest rate of course completion.

In the following, we make an introductory review of recent

comparative studies of the three formats mentioned. The main

focus will be on summing up the results developed by these

studies and discussing some of the limitations said to accrue to

comparative studies of teaching formats. In the literature

reviewed, it is often shown that teaching and learning are

influenced by more than teaching format alone as many other

factors play significant roles.

Before embarking on our comparative review of the three

different teaching and learning formats, we will begin by

clarifying how each of them is definable according to studies of

the different formats. Although there has not been complete

agreement among researchers about the precise definition or

meaning of the term ‘blended learning’ in particular (Bernard et

al., 2014; Chigeza and Halbert, 2014), consensus has still built
up around a sense of fairly clear distinctions between the three

formats. Definitional questions do not, however, seem to haunt

the terms ‘face-to-face learning’ and ‘online learning’ in the

same way as they do ‘blended learning’ in the articles reviewed.

Their meaning appears to be more or less agreed upon.

For instance, the F2F learning format is characterized as

“traditional” by many of the authors, referring to the fact that

this is the format with the longest history of the three formats

and in relation to which online and blended learning represent a

modern or innovative intervention (e.g., Chigeza and Halbert,

2014; Adams, Randall and Traustadóttir, 2015; Pellas and

Kazandis, 2015; González-Gómez et al., 2016). Generally, its

meaning derives from an understanding of an instructional format

that involves a physical classroom and the synchronous physical

presence of all participants (i.e., teachers and students). One

study emphasizes that even in-class use of computers and

educational technology does not affect the definition of the F2F

format so as to change it into blended learning (Bernard et al.,

2014).

Online learning is commonly defined in contradistinction to

F2F learning (e.g., Ryan et al., 2016). Its most prominent

feature is the absence of the physical classroom, which is

replaced by the use of web-based technologies offering

opportunities for out-of-class learning independent of time,

Northey et al., 2015; Israel, 2015; Potter, 2015). Ryan et al.

(2016) point out that “in the context of higher education, the

phrase online learning is often interpreted as referencing

courses that are offered completely online; [..]” (p. 286).

Typically, the online learning setting is launched through so-

called learning management systems (LMS) or virtual learning

environments (VLE) such as Moodle and Blackboard (Pellas and

Kazanidis, 2015).

The online environment offers a level of convenience for the

participant, because it can eliminate the need for travel,

childcare and scheduled class sessions. The online learning

format tends to be cost-effective and more appealing overall

(Holmes, Signer & MacLeod, 2010). In this study, Professional

Development at a Distance: A Mixed-Method Study Exploring

Inservice Teachers’ Views on Presence Online, researchers wanted

to know the participant’s perspective of their online

professional development experience relating to course

satisfaction, the factors and features that contribute to their

satisfaction and the impact on the active classroom from the

online professional development experience.

Results were mixed throughout the articles reviewed when

comparing online, blended and face to face instruction, with most

of the results showing little difference in the learning outcome

professional development. In a study, On-line Instruction: Are

the Outcomes the Same? ==the researchers wanted to know if the

achievement level of the participants was equal when comparing an

online course with a face-to-face format (Warren & Holloman,

2005).

Online and traditional education share many qualities.

Students are still required to attend class, learn the material,

submit assignments, and complete group projects. While teachers,

still have to design curriculums, maximize instructional quality,

answer class questions, motivate students to learn, and grade

assignments. Despite these basic similarities, there are many

differences between the two modalities. Traditionally, classroom

instruction is known to be teacher-centered and requires passive

learning by the student, while online instruction is often

student-centered and requires active learning.

In teacher-centered, or passive learning, the instructor

usually controls classroom dynamics. The teacher lectures and

comments, while students listen, take notes, and ask questions.

In student-centered, or active learning, the students usually

determine classroom dynamics as they independently analyze the

information, construct questions, and ask the instructor for

listening, formulating, and responding (Salcedo, 2010).

In education, change comes with questions. Despite all

current reports championing online education, researchers are

still questioning its efficacy. Research is still being conducted

on the effectiveness of computer-assisted teaching. Cost-benefit

analysis, student experience, and student performance are now

being carefully considered when determining whether online

education is a viable substitute for classroom teaching. This

decision process will most probably carry into the future as

technology improves and as students demand better learning

experiences.

Thus far, “literature on the efficacy of online courses is

expansive and divided” (Driscoll et al., 2012). Some studies

favor traditional classroom instruction, stating “online learners

will quit more easily” and “online learning can lack feedback for

both students and instructors” (Atchley et al., 2013). Because of

these shortcomings, student retention, satisfaction, and

performance can be compromised. Like traditional teaching,

distance learning also has its apologists who aver online

education produces students who perform as well or better than

their traditional classroom counterparts (Westhuis et al., 2006).

modalities need to be fully fleshed out and examined to truly

determine which medium generates better student performance. Both

modalities have been proven to be relatively effective, but, as

mentioned earlier, the question to be asked is if one is truly

better than the other.

Local

The Internet has made online learning possible, and many

educators and researchers are interested in online learning

courses to enhance and improve the student learning outcomes

while battling the shortage in resources, facilities and

equipment particularly in higher education institution. Online

learning has become popular because of its potential for

providing more flexible access to content and instruction at any

time, from any place. It is imperative that the researchers

consider, and examine the efficacy of online learning in

educating students. For this study, the researchers reviewed

literature through meta-analysis as the method of research

concerning the use of ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development,

Implementation and Evaluation) framework for designing and

developing instructional materials that can provide wider access

to quality higher education. This framework can be used to list

generic processes that instructional designers and training

descriptive guideline for building effective training and

performance support tools in five phases, as follows: 1.)

Analysis, 2.) Design, 3.) Development, 4.) Implementation, and

5.) Evaluation. The researchers collected papers relating to

online learning courses efficacy studies to provide a synthesis

of scientifically rigorous knowledge in online learning courses,

the researchers searched on ERIC (Education Resources Information

Center), ProQuest databases, PubMed, Crossref, Scribd EBSCO, and

Scopus. The researchers also conducted a manual search using

Google Scholar. Based on the analysis, three main themes

developed: 1.) comparison of online learning and traditional

face-to-face setting, 2.) identification of important factors of

online learning delivery, and 3.) factors of institutional

adoption of online learning. Based on the results obtained 50

articles. The researchers examine each paper and found 30

articles that met the efficacy of online learning courses through

having well-planned, well-designed courses and programs for

higher education institution. Also, it highlights the importance

of instructional design and the active role of institutions play

in providing support structures for educators and students.

Identification of different processes and activities in designing

and developing an Online Learning Courses for Higher Education

Institution will be the second phase of this study for which the
researchers will consider using the theoretical aspect of the

ADDIE framework.