Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4250 – 4254

5th World Conference on Educational Sciences - WCES 2013

A comparison of online/face-to-face students’ and instructor’s

experiences: Examining blended synchronous learning effects
Elson Szeto *
Department of Education Policy and Leadership,The Hong Kong Institute of Eduction, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, N.T., Hong Kong SAR, China

Abstract

The blended synchronous teaching and learning mode is gaining currency in higher education, while its effects on students’ and
instructors’ experiences are yet to be fully explored. Little research has been done to contextualize the teaching and learning
effects of this teaching and learning mode. This paper reports a qualitative study of the experiences of simultaneously teaching
online and face-to-face students in an engineering course. It aims to gain better understandings of the effects on the students’
learning and instructor’s teaching in terms of 3 dimensions: instructional, social and learning, in the advent of information and
communication technology. What teaching and learning effects were revealed in the blended mode? How did the effects impact
on attaining the intended learning outcomes? This paper focuses on the potential of blended synchronous teaching and learning
effects for quality educational experiences. The results reveal that (1) there were different teaching and learning effects on the
blended synchronous instruction; (2) an unexpected pattern of interactions emerged in the blended synchronous communication;
and (3) both the online and face-to-face students attained similar learning outcomes. This paper concludes that universities
adopting blended synchronous learning need to provide sufficient support for both the students and instructors in the
instructional, social and learning dimensions.
© 2013
© 2013 The
The Authors
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier Ltd. Open
Elsevier Ltd. accessreserved
All rights under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selectionand
Selection and/or
peer peer-review
review under under responsibility
the responsibility of Academic
of Prof. World Education and Research Center.
Dr. Servet Bayram
Keywords: blended synchronous instruction, interactions; learning effects, social dimension

1. Introduction

Blended synchronous approaches to learning and teaching are gaining currency in the changing higher education
landscape. Educators believe that this form of learning can engage online students at various locations in learning
with those on university main campuses, thus widening knowledge exchange and participation. Although studies
(Chen, Ko, Kinshuk, & Lin, 2005; Hastie, Hung, Chen, & Kinshuk, 2010) of the approach have shown positive
results, little research has been done to gain deeper understandings of its educational effects on both online and face-
to-face students’ learning and instructors’ teaching.
The aim of this study is thus to explore the effects on students’ and instructors’ experiences with the advance of
information and communication technology (ICT). What were these effects in a blended synchronous learning
situation? How did these effects impact on attaining the intended learning outcomes? The results are expected to
inform educators’ learning and teaching practices involving ICT. With respect to this aim, this study addressed two
questions:

* Corresponding Author: Elson Szeto Tel.: +852-29488434

E-mail address: eszeto@ied.edu.hk

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.926
 Elson Szeto / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4250 – 4254 4251

(1) What were the online/face-to-face students’ and instructor’s experiences in the blended synchronous
learning situation?
(2) How did these learning and teaching experiences impact on attaining the intended learning outcomes?

2. Various comparative studies of online and face-to-face learning and teaching

A proliferation of ICT-supported learning and teaching has recently offered various educational opportunities for
online and face-to-face students in higher education (Stacey & Wiesenberg, 2007; Szeto, 2011). Related studies
have spread across a range of topics, for example, comparison of the effectiveness of online and face-to-face
learning (Brown & Liedholm, 2002; Smith, Ferguson, & Caris, 2001), and students’ satisfaction and learning
attainment (Brabazon, 2012; Dykman & Davis, 2008; Gragg, Dunning, & Ellis, 2008). However, there are no
definitive findings with consistent evidence available to university senior management, educators or potential
students.
Indeed, online and face-to-face modes are not necessarily opposed in university learning and teaching. By
blending the two modes, students can benefit from enhanced instruction and timely interactions (Nicol, Minty, &
Sinclair, 2003; Tu & McIsaac, 2002), while instructors can explore innovative pedagogy for the enrichment of
educational experiences involving ICT (Chen et al., 2005). However, the effects of blended synchronous learning
and teaching are still as pedagogically and technologically controversial as the results of the comparison of the full
online and entire face-to-face modes. The experiences that have emerged in the blended learning process have
remained unattended. What is missing is the learning and teaching effects which emerge in synchronously blending
online and face-to-face modes in a course.
Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) first proposed the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework for studies of
educational experiences in asynchronous/synchronous online teaching and learning. As a widely-adopted
framework, quality education experiences emerge at the intersection of the teaching, social and cognitive presences.
This study adopted the CoI framework as a theoretical lens. The notions of the three presences represent three
dimensions: instructional, communicative and learning, through which the learning and teaching effects were
analysed. To realise the online learning experiences, Garrison et al. (2000) developed a coding structure of the
notions of the presences that this study adopted for the exploration. Table 1 shows the coding template for the three
dimensions.
Table 1: The coding template for the 3 dimensions.

Dimension Coding category

Instructional (1) Instructional management; (2) Building understanding; and (3) Direct instruction
Communicative (1) Emotional expression; (2) Open communication; and (3) Group cohesion
Learning (1) Triggering events; (2) Exploration; (3) Integration; and (4) Resolution
  

 


#(&&&$
 



 "
 
 
 
  

 
 !


  

 
 
(

+*"'&)!

3. Research design

This paper reports the first phase of a larger study in a blended synchronous learning mode. Twenty-eight first-
year students enrolled in an intensive computer-aided engineering drawing course were randomly divided into an
online group, Group 2 (GP2, n = 14), and a face-to-face group, Group 1 (GP1, n = 14). One of the two instructors
was responsible for teaching 6 hours per day for 9 days, with a total of 54 hours. Adapting Hastie et al.’s (2010)
blended synchronous learning model, the course instructor taught the face-to-face group in an engineering
laboratory, while the online group synchronously attended the same sessions at a remote location via Internet-based
videoconferencing.
4252 Elson Szeto / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4250 – 4254

This study adopted a grounded theory approach (Strass & Corbin, 1990) to collecting and analysing data. The
CoI coding structure (Garrison, et al, 2000) was used as a preconceived coding scheme for data analysis (see Table
1). Then, the reliability of the analysis was enhanced through a cross-checking, comparing and auditing process by
another qualitative researcher involved in the study (Bush, 2002).

4. The results

Table 2: A comparison of the online/face-to-face students’ learning and the instructor’s teaching experiences.

GP2’s experience GP1’s experience The instructor’s experience

A positive perception of the
blended synchronous online
instruction.

Teaching was very
comprehensive.

Demonstration was really good
because the skill processes were
enlarged on a big screen.

Deliberately-repeated steps for
skills demonstration enhanced
clarity.

The teaching strategy seemed
better than face-to-face.

Received too much attention as if
they were under the spotlight.

Multi-screen projections of the
tutor’s teaching and Gp1 students
created a “real” sense of attending
‘face-to-face’ teaching.

Experienced short transactional
interactions with GP1 for cross-
group activities.
Collaborative activities with GP1
were indirect in the environment.

Transmission was occasionally
interrupted and the system was
restarted.

Satisfactory learning together
with GP1 in groups was facilitated
in a virtual ‘face-to-face’ learning
environment.

Engineering knowledge and
drawing skills were familiarized
more quickly.

Assignments could be completed
more easily.

Lacked live practice of the
knowledge learned together with
the tutor.
Instructional dimension

The presentation was very detailed
and at a steady pace.

Deliberately slowed down teaching
pace.

This was extraordinary compared
with what they had experienced in
normal class teaching.

The topic was exceptionally clear.

Overdone repetition might make
the teaching a bit unnatural.
Communicative dimension

The tutor spent longer facilitating
GP2 in the Q & A sessions.

Seemed to be neglected by the
tutor.

Interested in meeting other
students located at the remote site

Interaction with GP2 was difficult
because the students were not
physically present.

Screen projection of GP2 students
enhanced a sense of connected
learning communities at large.

Audio transmission was rough and
unstable.
Learning dimension

Engineering knowledge and
computer-aided drawing skills
were gained in these activities.

The technology should be reliable
and there should be zero technical
problems to achieve the expected
learning outcomes.

Responses to the tutor’s or GP2
students’ questions could
encourage knowledge sharing.

Different attention was paid to the GP2
students

GP1 seemed to be a ‘control group’ in
an experiment.

Encouraged questions and detected the
students’ understandings of the
content.

GP2 could fully grasp the content while
GP1 did not feel bored.

Teaching pace was adjusted for clarity.

Repetition was more important to GP2.

Experienced the pedagogical difference
and challenges.

Teaching was enjoyable in this mode.

Ensured that his “teaching
performance” was as real as possible
on the screen.

Pushed so hard to facilitate inter-group
communication

Adjusted his language use.

Facial expressions and other social cues
were used directly and explicitly.

Used hand gestures for the GP2
students to facilitate their responses.

The students were spontaneous when
engaging in group learning activities.

They might be disengaged sometimes.

The assignment and quiz results did not
show remarkable difference between
the GP2 and GP1 students.

Additional stimulation of group
communicative interactions was
required.

The results reveal the differences in the learning and teaching effects on the experiences of the online/face-to-
face students and the instructor. Table 2 shows the comparative results with the key meanings highlighted in bold
text. The table reflects that the two groups of students had different experiences in relation to the instructor’s
performance in the blended synchronous situation. The instructor faced the teaching challenges of drawing the
 Elson Szeto / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4250 – 4254 4253

online learning and face-to-face teaching as a whole, while the blended synchronous interactive pattern was
characterized in the blended synchronous communication between the two groups of students.

5. Discussion and conclusion

Referring to the above results, the teaching and learning effects differ from those of recent studies (Chen et al.,
2005; Hastie et al., 2010; Nicol, Minty, & Sinclair, 2003) in the three dimensions. Further discussion is needed.

5.1. Instructional difference

The instructional performance was transformed from either online teaching or a blend of the two modes in
separate sessions of a course to a blended synchronous learning situation. The instructor tended to focus on the
online students, while his instructional strategy emphasized a slow pace, clarity and repeated probing. The GP2
students experienced clear explanations and ease of understanding of the topics. In contrast, the GP1 students felt
bored in some sessions because the instructor unintentionally paid too much attention to the remote GP2 students. In
fact, the instructor tried hard to synchronously bring his teaching across to the two groups in a virtual learning
environment mediated by the videoconference. This is the challenge he faced in the blended synchronous situation.

5.2. Unexpected interaction pattern

Synchronous interactions between the two groups were expected to be conducted in the virtual environment.
However, a pattern of interactions emerged in the blended synchronous communication between the online/face-to-
face students and the instructor (see the Social dimension in Table 2). Immediate face-to-face interactions were
sought within the group first by the GP2 students, but immediate support from the teacher was more sought after by
the GP1 students. The GP2 students were more active in terms of interacting with the GP1 students than the GP1
students were in this blended mode. However, the pattern reflects that the two groups did not learn in such cross-
group interactions. Rather, they looked for affective support from within their own groups when they encountered
frustration and confusion. Tu and McIsaac (2002) argued that online interactions could provide peer support for
better learning. However, for the two groups, the instructor was still the primary source of learning.

5.3. Similar learning attainment of the online and face-to-face students

Despite the challenging blended synchronous instruction and unexpected interaction pattern, the intended
learning outcomes were attained. The instructor’s overall assessment of the students’ learning indicates that the
online and face-to-face groups achieved a similar level of attainment in the learning process. The two groups still
managed to acquire the engineering drawing knowledge and skills. It seems that both the online and face-to-face
students can benefit from stronger instruction as studies (e.g., Nicol, Minty, & Sinclair, 2003) have revealed. Thus,
these similar results are of interest for further research.
Nonetheless, this study is significant in that it provides universities, educators and students with a better
understanding of the blended synchronous learning and teaching effects. In practice, stronger support for the
blended synchronous learning and teaching in the instructional, communicative and learning dimensions is required.
Indeed, this study provides a small step forward in seeking a wider community of student participation and
knowledge exchange involving ICT.

6. References

Bianco, M. B., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2007). Exploring qualitiative methologies in online learning environments. In R. Luppicini (Ed.), Online
Learning Community. Charlotte: IAP.
Brabazon, T. (2012). The magic of face-to-face teaching. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.
asp?storyCode=403280&section code=26
4254 Elson Szeto / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (2014) 4250 – 4254

Brown, B. W., & Liedholm, C. E. (2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in Principles of Microeconomics? The American Economic
Review, 92(2), 444-448.
Bush, T. (2002). Authenticity - reliability, validity and triangulation. In M. Coleman & A. Briggs (Eds.), Research Methods in Educational
Leadership and Management (pp. 58-72): Paul Chapman Publishing.
Chen, N.-S., Ko, H.-C., Kinshuk, & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using the Internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 42(2), 181-194.
Dykman, C. A., & Davis, C. K. (2008). Online education forum: Part two - teaching online versus teaching conventionally. Journal of
Information Systems Education, 19(2), 157-164.
Garrison, D. R., et al. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and
Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Gragg, C. E., Dunning, J., & Ellis, J. (2008). Teacher and student behaviours in face-to-face and on-line courses: Dealing with complex concepts.
Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 115-128.
Hastie, M., Hung, I.-C., Chen, N.-S., & Kinshuk. (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9-24.
Nicol, D. J., Minty, I., & Sinclair, C. (2003). The social dimensions of online learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
40(3), 270-280.
Smith, G. G., Ferguson, D., & Caris, M. (2001). Teaching college courses online vs face-to-face. T.H.E. Journal, 28(9), 18- 16.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stacey, E., & Wiesenberg, F. (2007). A Study of Face-to-Face and Online Teaching Philosophies in Canada and Australia. Journal of Distance
Education, 22(1), 19-40.
Szeto, E. (2011). Transforming learning and teaching in higher education: The impact of ICT on pedagogy, peer interaction and support in a
networked virtual learning environment. International Journal of Learning, 17(11), 205-214.
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 16(3), 131-150.