Engagement dynamics in information technology education: A comparative analysis of online vs. face-to-face instruction

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether taking a course online or face-to-face matters in terms of student engagement and achievement. Gender differences were also examined. The level of student engagement in an information technology course in a freshman sample from a school of education was surveyed and compared in two consecutive years where the course was taught online in the first year and face-to-face in the second year. There were a total of 129 students, 62 in the online mode and 67 in the face-to-face mode. Data were collected using a survey that included a student engagement scale, as well as midterm and final exams. Non-parametric analyses were used due to data with non-normal distributions for some of the dependent variables, with the Mann–Whitney U test being the main form of analysis for group comparisons. Regarding gender, female students who received face-to-face instruction lost interest in the course toward the final exams, as evidenced by significantly lower engagement scores for both active learning and paying attention. The results show that online versus face-to-face delivery of the computer science course can be more efficient in terms of student engagement, and a similar performance score as in the face-to-face mode can be achieved with less effort to be present at school. In addition, it is evident that female students need more support for greater engagement when the mode of delivery must be face-to-face.

Keywords

• Student engagement
• achievement
• delivery format
• gender
• online
• face-to-face

References

1. Alarifi, B. N., & Song, S. (2024). Online vs in-person learning in higher education: effects on student achievement and recommendations for leadership. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 86. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02590-1
2. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital Learning Compass: Distance Education Enrollment Report 2017.
3. Bettinger, E. P., Fox, L., Loeb, S., & Taylor, E. S. (2017). Virtual Classrooms: How Online College Courses Affect Student Success. American Economic Review, 107(9), 2855–2875. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151193
4. Çiğdem, H., & Öncü, S. (2023). Learner Engagement in the Metaverse (pp. 17–36). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-6513-4.ch002
5. Cigdem, H., Ozturk, M., Karabacak, Y., Atik, N., Gürkan, S., & Aldemir, M. H. (2024). Unlocking student engagement and achievement: The impact of leaderboard gamification in online formative assessment for engineering education. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12845-2
6. Elshami, W., Taha, M. H., Abdalla, M. E., Abuzaid, M., Saravanan, C., & Al Kawas, S. (2022). Factors that affect student engagement in online learning in health professions education. Nurse Education Today, 110, 105261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105261
7. 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. The Internet and Higher Education, 45, 100710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100710
8. Fishman, B., Konstantopoulos, S., Kubitskey, B. W., Vath, R., Park, G., Johnson, H., & Edelson, D. C. (2013). Comparing the Impact of Online and Face-to-Face Professional Development in the Context of Curriculum Implementation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 426–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113494413

9. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
10. Freidhoff, J. R. (2021). Michigan’s k-12 virtual learning effectiveness report 2019-20.
11. Gonzalez, T., de la Rubia, M. A., Hincz, K. P., Comas-Lopez, M., Subirats, L., Fort, S., & Sacha, G. M. (2020). Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PLOS ONE, 15(10), e0239490. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239490
12. Hutain, J., & Michinov, N. (2022). Improving student engagement during in-person classes by using functionalities of a digital learning environment. Computers & Education, 183, 104496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104496
13. Iglesias-Pradas, S., Hernández-García, Á., Chaparro-Peláez, J., & Prieto, J. L. (2021). Emergency remote teaching and students’ academic performance in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 119, 106713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106713
14. Johnson, H. P., Mejia, M. C., & Cook, K. (2015). Successful online courses in California’s community colleges. Public Policy Institute.
15. Khan, M. O., & Khan, S. (2024). Influence of online versus traditional learning on EFL listening skills: A blended mode classroom perspective. Heliyon, 10(7), e28510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28510
16. Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Trajectories of school engagement during adolescence: Implications for grades, depression, delinquency, and substance use. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021307
17. Martin, F., & Borup, J. (2022). Online learner engagement: Conceptual definitions, research themes, and supportive practices. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2089147
18. Okyere, C. Y., Otchere, F., Darko, J. K., & Osei, C. K. (2024). COVID-19 and child education outcomes in Southern Ghana. Heliyon, 10(4), e26238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26238
19. Öncü, S. (2015). Online Peer Evaluation for Assessing Perceived Academic Engagement in Higher Education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1343a
20. Orthner, D. K., Akos, P., Rose, R., Jones-Sanpei, H., Mercado, M., & Woolley, M. E. (2010). CareerStart: A Middle School Student Engagement and Academic Achievement Program. Children & Schools, 32(4), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/32.4.223
21. Picton, C., Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). ‘Hardworking, determined and happy’: first-year students’ understanding and experience of success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(6), 1260–1273. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1478803
22. Ping, C. S., Tahir, L. M., Rosli, M. S., Atan, N. A., & Ali, M. F. (2024). Challenges and barriers to e-leadership participation: Examining the perspectives of Malaysian secondary school teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 29(8), 10329–10367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12206-5
23. Qazi, A., Hasan, N., Abayomi-Alli, O., Hardaker, G., Scherer, R., Sarker, Y., Kumar Paul, S., & Maitama, J. Z. (2022). Gender differences in information and communication technology use & skills: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 4225–4258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10775-x
24. Raimondi, C., Pratto, M., Otegui, X., Fernández, L., & Luna, C. (2023). Analysis of The Perceived Usefulnes of Recorded Lectures in Students of The School of Engineering in Uruguay. 7180–7186. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2023.1785
25. Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268
26. Saqr, M., López-Pernas, S., Helske, S., & Hrastinski, S. (2023). The longitudinal association between engagement and achievement varies by time, students’ profiles, and achievement state: A full program study. Computers & Education, 199, 104787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104787
27. Shastri, K., & Hogan, B. (2024). Education Delivery Modes: A Post-COVID Study of Traditinal and Online Classes in Managerial Accounting. 2.
28. Trust, T. , & Whalen, J. (2020). Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 189–199.
29. Villamor, A. L., Keith, L., Cabig, L., Eryne, N., Romero, O., Guevarra, D. T., Pamintuan, J. A., Santos, J. M., Tadeo, A., Aquino, G. T., Montemayor, J. N., Louise, J., & Marcaida, M. (2024). Measuring The Impact of Face-To-Face Learning on Humss Students’ School Productivity. Ignatian International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 2. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10983060
30. Zen, Z., Reflianto, Syamsuar, & Ariani, F. (2022). Academic achievement: the effect of project-based online learning method and student engagement. Heliyon, 8(11), e11509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11509
31. Zhang, Y., Gros, T., & Mao, E. (2021). Gender Disparity in Students’ Choices of Information Technology Majors. Business Systems Research Journal, 12(1), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2021-0006
32. Zhu, L., Defazio, J., Huang, E., & Hook, S. (2023). The Impact of Attendance and Participation on Undergraduate Student Performance in Face-to-Face and Online Courses. IUPUI ScholarWorks.