EDSIGCON Proceedings 2020

Virtual Conference, November 2020

Conference Highlights


2021 EDSIG Proceedings: Abstract Presentation


Comparison of Online, Hybrid, and Face-to-Face Classes: A Case Study


Cindy Tu
Northwest Missouri State University

Joni Adkins
Northwest Missouri State University

Abstract
COVID-19 pandemic has brought big challenges to this world. With the changes of the pandemic situation, colleges and universities have adopted different teaching methods to ensure the health of the students, professors, and staff. Students switched from traditional face-to-face class to remote online learning, including synchronous online class, asynchronous online class and hybrid online class. A synchronous online class means that instructor and students meet at the same virtual place (i.e. Zoom) at the same time. An asynchronous online class means that instructor and students do not meet at same time; instead materials are posted to the learning management system (LMS ,i.e. Canvas) for students to view. A hybrid online class means that part of students take the class face to face and the rest of students take the class online. The objective of this study is to compare the effects of different teaching methods on students’ learning performance. Data was collected in from a class at a regional state university in the Midwest. This class includes graduate and undergraduate students, who have completed more than one year study in this university and experienced both in-person class and online class. Students were given five extra points as incentives to take the anonymous survey. The survey included 21 pair of multiple choice questions and 4 open-ended questions, after giving definitions of the different online classes. Thirty six responses were collected in April 2021. Among the 36 participants, 83.33% took synchronous online classes, 25% took asynchronous classes, 91.67% took hybrid classes, while 100% of them took face to face classes. Main results are briefed in Table 1. Students’ Perception Most Least class engagement face to face (61.11%) asynchronous (44.44%) connect to classmates face to face (75%) asynchronous (44.44%) connect to instructor face to face (83.33%) asynchronous (40%) use effort in class face to face (63.89%) asynchronous (36.11%) feel motivated in class face to face (66.67%) asynchronous (41.67%) attend class face to face (58.33%) asynchronous (42.86%) participate in class face to face (66.67%) asynchronous (40%) devote time to assignments face to face (44.44%) asynchronous (33.33%) no difference (33.33%) procrastinate synchronous (22.22%) face to face (38.89%) asynchronous (22.22%) face to face (22.22%) no difference (22.22%) group work effectiveness face to face (66.67%) asynchronous (42.86%) need online tools synchronous (63.89%) N/A need help with course work synchronous (37.14%) face to face (38.89%) easy to get help on course work face to face (58.33%) asynchronous (38.89%) easy to reach out to instructor face to face (61.11%) asynchronous (44.44%) easy to reach out to the TA/GA face to face (63.89%) asynchronous (36.11%) course work performance face to face (69.44%) asynchronous (38.89%) difficult to finish course work asynchronous (33.33%) face to face (41.67%) easy to cheat on course work no difference (31.43%) face to face (51.43%) Overall, like the class face to face (55.56%) asynchronous (47.22%) Overall, the flexibility hybrid (38.89%) face to face (36.11%) Table 1: Students’ perception on different class settings