COMPARING FACE-TO-FACE AND ONLINE TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52634/mier/2017/v7/i2/1415Keywords:
Higher Education, Distance Education, Face-to-Face, Online Learning, ICT.Abstract
A comparison of face-to-face and online teaching and learning has been undertaken to ascertain the focal point that would justify the best-preferred option as far as teaching and learning in DE is concerned. This study is particularly important because as higher education institutions are faced with the challenge of huge number of prospective students seeking higher education in the midst of inadequate infrastructures, it becomes very necessary to look at DE as an option with a combination of different modes of delivering instruction. At the University of Education, Winneba (UEW), some faculties and departments, especially the distance education department, have adopted the face-to-face and online modes of delivering instruction. The pursuit of which would require a critical overview of the two modes to ascertain the strengths, weaknesses and how the two can complement each other for effective delivery of instruction to cater to a large number of students. The review suggested that academics or lecturers should endeavour to adopt the blended or hybrid mode in their teaching and learning. Policy decision makers can also use this study as it provides information on better practices as far as the blended mode of teaching and learning in higher education institutions is concerned.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Patricia Ananga, Isaac Kofi Biney
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The articles published in the MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends and Practics (MJESTP) are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
- Copyright on any open access article in the MIER Journal of Educational Studies, Trends and Practics (MJESTP) published by Model Institute of Education and Research (MIER) is retained by the author(s).
- Author(s) grant MIER a license to publish the article and identify himself/herself/themselves as the original publisher.
- Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its integrity is maintained and its original authors, citation details and publisher are identified.
- The Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 formalizes these and other terms and conditions of publishing articles.
References
Alghamdi, A. (2013). Pedagogical implications of using discussion board to improve student learning in higher education. Higher Education Studies, 3(5), 68-80. doi:10.5539/hes.v3n5p68.
Ang, C., Avni, E., & Zaphiris, P. (2008). Linking pedagogical theory of computer games to their usability. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 533-558.
Beyth-Marom R., Saporta K. & Caspi A. (2005). Synchronous vs. asynchronous tutorials: Factors affecting students' preferences and choices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Spring 2005, 37 (3).
Bottomley, J., & Calvert, J. (2003). Open and distance learning policy development (particular reference to dual mode institutions). Commonwealth of Learning Knowledge Series, Commonwealth of Learning, Vancouver, BC, Canada.http://www.col.org/knowledge/pdf /ks_pol icydev.pdf .pdf [Accessed March 4th, 2012].
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (1). Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Casey, G., & Evans, T. (2011). Designing for learning: Online social networks as a classroom environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 1-26.
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C. (2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge framework to design online learning environments and professional development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319-346.
Edwards, M., Perry, B., Janzen, K., & Menzies, C. (2012). Using the artistic pedagogical technology of photo voice to promote interaction in the online post-secondary classroom: The students' perspective. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 10(1), 32-43.
Freidhoff, J. R. (2008). Reflecting on the affordances and constraints of technologies and their impact on pedagogical goals. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(4), 117-122.
Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1987). Mapping the boundaries of distance education: Problems in defining the field. The American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 7-13.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36
Hadjerrouit, S. (2012). Investigating technical and pedagogical usability issues of collaborative learning with wikis. Informatics in Education, 11(1), 45-64.
Hazari, S., North, A., & Moreland, D. (2009). Investigating pedagogical value of wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 187-198.
Hestenes, D. (2012, January 1). Cited in Hanford, E., Physicists seek to lose the lecture as a teaching tool. NPR broadcast of American Radio works. Retrieved May 27, 2012, from http://www.npr.org/2012/01/01/144550920/physicists-seek-to-lose-the-lecture-asteaching-tool
Hewege, C. R., & Perera, L. C. R. (2013). Pedagogical significance of wikis: Towards gaining effective learning outcomes. Journal of International Education in Business, 6(1), 51-70.
Im, Y. & Lee, O. (2004). Pedagogical implications of online discussion for preservice teacher training. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 155-170.
Johnson, D., Sutton, P., & Poon, J. (2000). Face-to-face vs CMC: student communication in a technologically rich learning environment, Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/coffs00/papers/daniel_johnson.pdf.
Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education. (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Lambert, C. (2012). Twilight of the lecture. Harvard Magazine, 23-27.
Lauzon, A. (1992). Integrating computer-based instruction with computer conferencing: An evaluation of a model for designing online education. American Journal of Distance Education, 6 (2) 32-46.
Lee, T. T., & Osman, K. (2012). Interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agents: Formative evaluation. International Education Studies, 5(6), 50-64.
Makaza, D., & Madzima, K. (2008) The current state of e-learning at universities in Zimbabwe: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 4(2), 34-48.
Peters, O. (2002). Distance Education in transition. Oldenburg: Germany: Biblioteks-and informations system der Universität Oldenburg.
Roblyer, M. D., & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Svinicki, M., & McKeachie, W. J. (2011). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Tebeaux, E. (1995). Technical writing by distance: refocusing the pedagogy of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 4, 365-95.
UB (University of Botswana) (2005). Report: Mainstreaming Distance Education into University of Botswana policymaking process. Gaborone: University of Botswana.
Weimer, M. E. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
