Vol. 15(8), pp. 487-494, August, 2020
DOI: 10.5897/ERR2020.4005
Article Number: C5D518764503
ISSN: 1990-3839
Copyright ©2020
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR
Educational Research and Reviews
Full Length Research Paper
Students’ transition from face to face learning to online
learning at higher education: A case study in Trinidad
and Tobago
Gabriel Julien1* and Rhonda Dookwah2
1
Department of Programme Delivery Department with the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of the West Indies, St.
Augustine, Open Campus, Trinidad and Tobago.
2
Cipriani College of Labour and Cooperative Studies., Trinidad and Tobago.
Received 22 May, 2020; Accepted 21 July, 2020
This action research highlights the experiences of undergraduate students as they transit from face to
face learning to online learning at a higher education institution in Trinidad and Tobago. A review of the
existing literature within the local context indicated that there exists a dearth of information about the
experiences of these students. It is imperative that policy makers pay more attention and consideration
to the voices of these students especially when they are formulating policies that pertain to online
learning. Consequently, a case study was conducted to carefully ascertain students’ experiences
during this transition. Fifteen undergraduates participated in this study. Informal structured interviews
and semi-structured questionnaires were employed. Data were analyzed with the use of three major
thematic headings: Online learning (ONL) is a possible instructional option, Face to Face learning (F2F)
is essential for Mathematics and Face to Face learning (F2F) is necessary for human interaction.
Recommendations for the use of more ONL education were offered.
Key words: Online education, face to face education, case study.
INTRODUCTION
The transition from face to face learning (F2F) to online
learning (ONL) at higher education could be considered a
relatively new phenomenon in Trinidad and Tobago. For
the purpose of this paper, the higher education institution
at which this study was conducted will be referred to as
Institution A. Over the years teaching/learning was
conducted strictly via F2F although several attempts have
been made to introduce ONL. ONL was never fully
materialized and the conventional form of learning, F2F
dominated. Several discussions, chiefly among policy
makers, regarding the proper execution of ONL
continued, and, in January 2020, a pilot programme was
implemented. ONL was finally offered in several subject
areas.
Many
were
excited
about
this
new
teaching/learning strategy and gave it their full support
and commitment.
Lecturers and students were strongly encouraged to
utilize the new online platform for teaching and learning.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: gabrieljulien7@gmail.com, rddookwah@gmail.com.
Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
488
Educ. Res. Rev.
Many lecturers and students with great enthusiasm
continued to support this innovation. Initially there were
problems such as: the lack of connectivity, the
unavailability of laptops and computers for lecturers and
students. In addition, some lecturers and students were
unable to adequately manipulate the platform. As time
progressed some of these issues were satisfactorily
addressed. While ONL continued to stimulate great
interest, no one took heed of the voices of students. They
began to express their opinions concerning ONL.
Students’ voices about advantages and limitations of the
use of ONL experiences remained unheard. Students
began to scrutinize their realities about the shift from F2F
to ONL. Listed below are some of their voices:
“Great! Don’t have to come to school and spend money
on printing assignments for courses. Everything is
online.”
“No assignments cost, no laptop cost, or internet cost
because I pay for them every month. No added cost for
me. For me online is cheaper.”
“Oh well to be honest the class has more interaction
compared with online. Lack of communication. There are
barriers to communication.”
These voices clearly express the experiences that some
students encounter with the transition from Face to Face
Learning (F2F) to Online Learning (ONL) at Institution A
in Trinidad and Tobago. Their voices are extremely
significant since there is a dearth of information about
their experiences within the literature in the local context.
It is also felt that their experiences must be taken into
consideration by policy makers when creating guidelines
that govern ONL.
Very often, policies in education, at this institution are
implemented with little or no consultation of students.
Thus, the principal objective of this study is to allow
students to express their opinions freely and honestly. In
this way, their experiences could influence and assist
policy makers if more programmes are realized through
ONL. Hence, this study could help to point a possible way
forward especially if more ONL options are offered. Thus,
this research carefully investigated the transition of fifteen
undergraduates during the semester January to May
2020, at Institution A in Trinidad and Tobago. During this
semester lecturers and students actively participated in
ONL which was only offered via Google Classroom.
Keeping this focus carefully in mind, which is the
transition from F2F to ONL, this paper seeks to answer
the research question: What are your experiences in the
transition from F2F to ONL?
LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review chiefly examines the
criteria,
associated with F2F and ONL. It begins with an overview
of F2F then leads into ONL. It concludes with the purpose
of the study.
Face to face learning (F2F)
Qureshi (2019) and Miles et al. (2018) contended that
F2F is a teaching/learning method that enhances the
teaching/learning process through interpersonal contact.
These interactions can create a support network among
students and teachers. Students may feel more
comfortable and thus, learn easier in a familiar, traditional
classroom setting. They may also access more
information and acquire a better understanding of course
content materials through these interactions. Kirkup and
Jones (1996) offered a similar perspective and claimed
that it was quite possible to have this bond of
camaraderie between students and instructors in a F2F
learning environment. Chen (1997) also supported this
perspective and further stated that interactions not only
allowed students to assess their own learning but also
further assisted them to develop a genuine sense of
community among themselves. Moreover, this community
and fraternity can sometimes increase their level of
confidence, intelligence as well as alleviate problems
often associated with learning in isolation. Thus, F2F
allows students to have greater scope of learning.
F2F is the more traditional type of learning instruction
and it involves the transmission of information from the
lecturer to the students (Bandara and Wijekularathna,
2017). It generally occurs in an enclosed physical
classroom setting. Classes are conducted daily and may
vary from early morning to afternoon and night. A
whiteboard is normally placed to the front of the
classroom, with furniture to accommodate both teachers
and students.
Online learning (ONL)
One criterion associated with ONL is the delivery of study
materials to students over a learning management
system (Pozzi et al., 2019), which in most instances, is
designed by an external source, for example, Google
Classroom. Students are physically separated from
instructors and the institution; they are also chiefly
responsible for their own learning (Bagriacik, 2019).
Depending on the nature of the study or subject area, the
session maybe student centered. This depends largely
on the content to be taught as well as students’ familiarity
with the complexity of the subject matter. However, one
of the main objectives of ONL is to make the studentteacher interaction more convenient and flexible
(Bandara and Wijekularathna, 2017). After careful
consultations with lecturers and students, classes are
meticulously organized and conducted synchronously at
Julien and Dookwah
a time that is convenient to both. They are also recorded
and made available so that students could review it at a
subsequent time if necessary (Fish and Snodgrass, 2019;
Qureshi, 2019). As the foregoing reveals, F2F and ONL
have similarities and differences. However, the goal of
this study is to ascertain students’ experiences as they
relate to the transition from F2F to ONL.
METHODOLOGY
A qualitative approach which involved a case study, informal
structured interviews and semi-structured questionnaires was
utilized. This action research involves a cyclical process of data
collection, reflection, and analysis. Meyer (2000) maintained that
the strength of action research lies in its focus on generating
solutions to practical problems. It also empowers practitioners, by
getting them to actively engage with research. Reason and
Bradbury (2008) described action research as an approach that is
used in designing studies and it also seeks both to inform and
influence practice.
The use of informal structured interviews and semi-structured
questionnaires provided a clearer understanding of the experiences
of these students. Interviews and questionnaires were carefully
chosen because it was felt that they would allow students to speak
without inhibition and thus, address the research question: What
are your experiences in the transition from F2F to ONL? Four
demographic items were used to collect data that answered the
research question. These were recorded into categorical variables
for further analysis. The selected criteria examined: age range,
gender, enrolment status and duration of ONL experiences. Data
collection was done through regular and consistent fieldwork. The
days and the hours of contact were deliberately chosen to
accommodate the students.
Case study
As noted in the introduction, the principal objective of this paper
was to arrive at an accurate and thoughtful insight of the
experiences of these fifteen students about their transition from F2F
to ONL. Hence a case study was specially selected because it was
felt that it could provide a more comprehensive picture, deep
insights and would be better to investigate complex issues that
were anchored in real-life situations. Case studies are holistic
inquiries that seek to investigate a specific phenomenon within its
natural setting. They are suitable for description, explanation and
exploratory into arbitrary issues. According to Yin (2009), case
studies explain, describe, illustrate, and enlighten. Yin (2009) also
stated that they are empirical investigations and are chiefly based
on knowledge and experience.
Creswell (2018) alluded to the fact that qualitative research is
useful because researchers can explore and comprehend in greater
detail what respondents convey. In a similar way, Smith (1978, cited
in Merriam and Tisdell, 2016) supported that case studies are
versatile and dynamic and provides a thorough and detailed
examination of a phenomenon. It is also an intensive, holistic
description and analysis of a single unit. Thus, Cohen et al. (2018)
described it as an inquiry into precise scenarios within a real-life
situation.
Interviews
Interviews are apt instruments for collecting data since they are
flexible, and researchers can capture nuances and non-verbal
cues. They can probe for better understanding, according to Cohen
489
et al. (2018). Although interviews are powerful data collection tools,
they are time consuming, open to interviewer bias, inconvenient for
the interviewee and difficult to maintain anonymity. Bearing this in
mind, the interview schedule covered two salient areas:
Demographic and Students’ Experiences which focused on the
financial, educational, social, and psychological aspects of their
lives.
Using WhatsApp and Google Classroom the interviewers
requested permission from the interviewees to make copious notes
of all their statements for the entire duration of the interview. Thus,
immediately after interviews, data were transcribed verbatim and
analyzed. Creswell´s (2018) qualitative thematic data analysis
process was used, and the transcribed data was further coded and
finalized into themes. This was done with the research question in
mind: What are your experiences in the transition from F2F to ONL?
Firstly, they were transformed in pen written form to type print
transcripts into the Excel (Version 2014). Secondly, they were
properly scrutinized, reviewed and thoroughly read to gain
familiarity and a noticeably clear understanding of students’
responses. Thirdly, they were coded and translated into three
themes:
(i) Online Learning (ONL) is a possible instructional option
(ii) Face to Face learning (F2F) is essential for Mathematics
(iii) Face to Face learning (F2F) is necessary for human interaction
Questionnaires
Miles and Huberman (1994) stated that open-ended questionnaires
give students an opportunity to freely express their voices in a
dataset. Similarly, Creswell (2018) confirmed that this instrument
also allows participants to state their views and opinions objectively
and unconstrained by any biases of the researcher or past research
findings. They are also cost effective and allow for structured
responses. Therefore, open-ended questionnaires were chosen as
an apt method of data collection and respondents were assured of
anonymity. They comprised dichotomous, Yes/No and questions
and some related to their experiences of F2F and ONL. Following
the guidelines of Wilkinson and Birmingham (2003) eight questions
with specific instructions which could be answered in approximately
ten minutes were administered. This was done to minimize the time
participants would spend to complete them and hence maximize
the return rate.
Cohen et al. (2018) together with Leedy and Ormrod (2018)
noted that researchers ought to be acutely mindful of the
advantages and limitations of the use of questionnaires. In addition,
Cohen et al. (2018) cautioned that this instrument does not afford
participants the opportunity to explain their responses and the
categories may not include all that they might want to say Thus,
informal interviews addressed that deficiency and simultaneously
served to triangulate data.
Validity
Creswell (2018) noted that credibility is evident when researchers
validate their findings. According to Denzin (1978, cited in Danny
(2014)) triangulation is the use of more than one method to gather
data, such as informal interviews, and semi-structured
questionnaires. Creswell (2012) offered that triangulation is also the
process of corroborating evidence from different individuals in
descriptions and themes in qualitative research. Similarly,
Spaulding (2014) and Walsh (2013) observed that triangulation
presents different aspects and a detailed analysis of the research
outcome. Triangulation also allowed the researchers to collect and
compare various perspectives of the phenomenon so that data
presented were valid and free from bias. Triangulation also allowed
490
Educ. Res. Rev.
Table 1. Age Groups, gender, and status of participants.
Age groups (years)
Under 19
20-24
25-29
30-34
40-44
45-49
Over 50
% of population
6.7
13.3
33.3
20
13.3
6.7
6.7
Females (%)
0
13.3
13.3
20
6.7
6.7
6.7
Males (%)
6.7
0
20
0
6.7
0
0
Full-time (%)
6.7
13.3
0
0
0
0
0
Part-time (%)
0
33..3
20
13.3
6.7
6.7
6.70%
6.70%
86.70%
8 weeks
I year
3 years
Figure 1. Duration of students´ online experiences.
researchers to optimize credibility. Data for this research were
gathered through informal interviews and semi-structured
questionnaires.
Reliability
Pilot and Beck (2014, cited in Connelly, 2016) hold the firm view
that reliability in qualitative studies refers to the level of confidence
in the data, interpretation, and methods used to support the quality.
Additionally, Leung (2015) stated reliability in qualitative research
refers to exact replicability of the processes and the results. Thus,
to enhance consistency, intercoder reliability was established. A
high level of intercoder reliability indicated that both reliability and
replicability were present, and these strengthen evidence that the
results of a qualitative study were scientifically valid (Kurasaki,
2000, cited in Mac Phail et al., 2016, p. 199). Thus, to ensure a high
level of reliability, responses from informal interviews and semistructured questionnaires were immediately recorded and clearly
documented
during
telephone
and
Google
Classroom
conversations.
The students: Who are they?
According to Table 1, students’ ages ranged from under 19 to over
50 years old. The majority of students were 25-29 years old. Most
females were within the age group of 30-34 years, while the highest
percentage of males was within the age group of 25-29 years. A
seemingly unusual combination of both full-time and part-time
students, studying within an exclusively part-time class contributed
to the vast richness of the data. This enrollment included (80%)
part-time and (20%) full-time students. All students had a positive
response to ONL. However, they differed for the teaching of
Mathematics.
The pie chart illustrates the variety of ONL experiences among
students, before they began their programmes of study at this
institution. Figure 1 shows that prior to this study, ten females and
three male students, a total of 10 students used ONL for eight
weeks, while one male studied with the online modality for one
year, and another for three years. Males dominated females with
years of experiences in ONL. This enhanced the judicious mix of
rich experiences described by students in the data collected.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Data were collated, analyzed, triangulated, and
documented in a narrative form using three thematic
headings: Online learning (ONL) is as a possible
Julien and Dookwah
instructional option, Face to Face learning (F2F) is
essential for Mathematics and Face to Face learning
(F2F) is necessary for human interaction. Students also
revealed that while they appreciated both forms of
learning most of them noted that the teaching of
Mathematics
ought
to
be
conducted
F2F.
Recommendations for the use of more ONL education
were offered.
Students selected for this study were purposely chosen
from one undergraduate class at a tertiary education
institution in Trinidad and Tobago; they were readily
available and accessible to participate in this study. While
this complexity of student-demographic data presented
some challenges to analyze and interpret, integrity was
maintained. Sometimes the data collected and analyzed
were intertwined and this also provided an excellent base
for understanding the diverse experiences. The analysis
was presented in a narrative form, which reflected its
ever-developing nature, the various components of the
students ’experiences.
ONL is a possible option
While ONL in higher education continues to be an option
for students in Trinidad and Tobago there are limitations
and advantages. Some limitations associated with this
learning are the excessive length of time some students
may take to learn in a digital space (Deming et al., 2015)
and the inability to interact with peers. Some advantages
include the increased access to educational programmes
(Montelongo, 2019), the improved students´ outcomes
and increased accessibility to information (Suresh et al.,
2018). Students spontaneously describe some of their
benefits:
“Students can study and work at their convenience.
Some students even report better concentration in online
classes due to the lack of classroom activity.”
“Yes, I am - I am! My lecturers are very well informed,
and I look forward to learning in a relaxed environment. It
is a more relaxed learning experience for me.”
Thus, the above-mentioned quotes emphatically
illustrated that some students felt that ONL was
extremely convenient and comfortable and they
experienced minimum stress in completing exercises.
This idea is supported by Croxton (2014, p. 1) who stated
that: “Online learning holds great appeal to a large
number of students because it offers flexibility in
participation, ease of access, and convenience.”
Other students mentioned that ONL was also
economically viable because they did not have to spend
money on transportation, meals, and printing
assignments. In addition, they also claimed that since
most of the classes were recorded, they listened to them
at a subsequent time for further clarification. To
491
underscore the importance of ONL a student carefully
stated that it was: “Important that students can often
revisit the recording to accentuate clarification. I check
the recording and discuss with my peers after class or
before the next class.” Hence, ONL is valuable because
students are better able to use to different platforms for
communication, research, and networking. The following
views expressed by these three students confirmed the
foregoing:
“Yes, I would recommend ONL as it´s a valuable source
of learning.”
“Am I think it is a step in the right direction.”
“I know people learn differently but for me ONL works
and are preferred by me. I am comfortable with online
education.”
Davis (2017) compared students’ satisfaction with ONL
and traditional education. She posits that students
preferred the online environment, and that it provided
them with more satisfaction. The view expressed by
Davis (2017) concurred with findings of this study since
students also gave reasons for their preference of ONL
over F2F. They stated that studying via ONL was
convenient and it helped to reduce expenditure. In
addition, the flexibility to subsequently source recordings
of classes and revise content also proved to be extremely
valuable. Moreover, studying via ONL gave them the
opportunity to learn more about technology. They
generally preferred ONL and the following statement
confirmed the perspective gleaned from a student:
“Convenience and flexibility: Online courses give
students the opportunity to plan study time around the
rest of their day, instead of the other way around.”
At least three students reported that they had no previous
orientations to ONL, and this may have caused
hindrances to their learning. Burge (2000) stated that
persons enter the online learning environment with
different skill levels; hence it is recommended that before
a student takes an online course, information must be
gathered and acted upon before the student is assigned
to the Learning Management System. Possessing the
necessary computer skills is essential for success in an
online learning environment. Therefore, students must
have orientation sessions to build their confidence in the
use of Learning Management Systems such as Google
Classroom before they are assigned ONL. These two
students provide this summary:
“I will focus more in class. We need small classes.
People have no opportunity to interact like in IR class.
Does not allow us to connect. It is boring. I am not
learning anything in this class.”
492
Educ. Res. Rev.
“there is no personal teaching interaction between pupil
and teacher…if the pupil needs that special attention.”
F2F is essential for Mathematics
Kee (2020) maintained the strong view that interaction is
part of the learning experience of adult learners. Further,
Mouw et al. (2019) also confirmed this theory in 2019,
when they investigated the quality of teacher - students’
interaction and Mathematical learning gains. They found
that there was a positive correlation between teachers’
interactions with students and performances in
Mathematics. This constant interaction and engagement
of both teachers and students were undoubtedly
expressed by these students:
“Limited. I mean I find online not too interactive. I need
the interaction. I need a classroom to ask questions for
Maths. The online can work for the courses not for
Maths.”
“I want to actually see you write the Maths, so it is not the
same.”
“Maths is not a subject to do online.”
The experiences of the students expressed above
notably indicated that there is great merit when
Mathematics is taught in a F2F environment. Moreover,
cognition is stimulated, the teaching/learning process is
enhanced and ultimately the students benefit. Students
specifically mentioned that because Mathematics classes
were dynamic, stimulating and actively involved them,
cognition was evident:
“Able to understand Maths F2F, it more hands on, and
can interact with peers.”
“Ah could talk in class more about it. With Online is very
restrictive and does not adequately facilitate the teaching
of Maths.”
Classroom interactions extend beyond mere discussion
of course content. They include affirmation and
motivation by both lecturers and peers. These criteria are
absolutely essential since they give students a deep
sense of worth and dignity. Moreover, students are
encouraged to do their best. The opposite is also true
since the absence of these attributes serves as a
disincentive. Merton (1948) affirmed this position. He first
postulated the theory of self-fulfilling prophecy: forecast
an action and it becomes a reality.
Students acutely aware of this theory vividly recalled a
particular experience that they encountered during a
Mathematics class. They stated that the teacher
presented some Mathematical problems to solve. They
were allowed to communicate freely in groups and then
write their possible responses on the white board. They
also remembered that during the same session the
teacher regularly affirmed them and was non-judgmental.
As a consequence of this remarkable gesture they were
able to maximize their potential. Hence, it was not
unusual that these students appreciated this approach to
the teaching of Mathematics above all other types of
experiences in other courses. Therefore, they
unanimously exclaimed that they preferred to study
Mathematics through F2F as mentioned by this particular
student:
“Decided to discontinue Maths because it is not as
engaging as F2F. Maths is too difficult and I really need
interaction from the teachers and other students.
Moreover, the teacher is better able to motivate and
encourage students.”
Krishnan (2014) investigated students’ perceptions of the
F2F and the online component in a hybrid Mathematics
course. His analysis revealed that students preferred the
F2F mode and that they understood mathematics
concepts better with the F2F instructions” (p. 36). A
unique revelation of this study lies in the fact that more
than 75% of the participants categorically stated that
Mathematics ought to be taught using F2F:
“Maths is not a subject to do online. The only subject I do
not like in F2F is Maths. I think I will understand Maths
via F2F, it more hands on, I could talk in class more
about it with my peers and that makes it easy. The online
is less peer talk so I do not understand it as good as in
class.”
F2F is necessary for human interaction
“You'll be able to concentrate harder on your learning
because there'll be less distraction than if you were at
home. You may feel more comfortable and learn more
easily in a familiar, traditional classroom situation.”
“Face to face was more fun and interactive. It allowed me
to be more participative.”
You and Kang (2014) purported that students who are
self-disciplined may favour ONL. In addition, Chaney
(2001) stated that ONL is rapidly expanding environment
which permits users the flexibility of studying. Croxton
(2014, p. 2) further added that: “When students have
insufficient formal or informal interaction experiences in
online courses, both learning and satisfaction may be
compromised.” Bandura (2001) is of the strong view that
from a social cognitive perspective, knowledge is
constructed and further developed while individuals are
engaged in activities. This entails receiving feedback, as
Julien and Dookwah
well as participating in other forms of human interaction in
public, social contexts. Bandura (2001) further added that
since cognition is not considered an individual process,
learning and knowledge are shaped by the kinds of
interactions a student has with others and the context
within which these interactions occur.
On one hand, online education is flexible, engaging and
cost effective. On the other hand, there is a serious lack
of personal interaction and intimacy with peers and
lecturers. Moreover, there is the inability to converse
freely. It is also intimidating for those who are shy and
innocuous. Thus, F2F is better because it challenges and
motivates students to maximize their potential. One
student claimed that:
“Since I must literally face the teacher, I was motivated to
do the home-work and write the work on the white board.
With ONL it is difficult to supervise students but with F2F
there is the text, and all can follow the lessons.”
Students also hold the opinion that the physical presence
of the lecturers and peers can positively impact others
socially, mentally, and educationally. This becomes even
more apparent because: “Peers are sometimes reluctant
to admit that they do not understand the lecturer, and
they are afraid of appearing somewhat inferior.”
Moreover, lecturers can often supplement the lack of
personal teaching interaction between pupil and teacher
especially if the student needs that special attention. A
student remarked: “It is bad because I am not motivated
because I am home, and I do not have good time
management.” Yet another added: “Yes, I am missing
group work. Online I am limited and cannot network and
get other opinions.” This same student concluded that:
“Everyone logs on to class, then go their own way after
class. Does not allow for networking and working with
peers which I miss.”
Recommendations
From all that was stated the following recommendations
are suggested:
(i) Students ought to be given more opportunities to study
ONL.
(ii) Students should be provided with social opportunities
during ONL.
(iii) A blended form of instruction should be given for
Mathematics courses.
Conclusion
The researchers tried as far as possible to keep the focus
and thus answered the research question: What are your
493
experiences in the transition from F2F to ONL? By
adequately addressing the research question they
presented the experiences of students. Action research
afforded them the flexibility to interact informally with
these students in their natural environment and it also
allowed them to speak freely about their own
experiences. The use of a combination of informal
structured interviews and semi-structured questionnaires
permitted the researchers to maintain validity and
readability. Data were collected, collated, triangulated
and documented in a narrative form using three major
thematic headings: Online learning (ONL) is a possible
instructional option, Face to Face learning (F2F) is
essential for Mathematics and Face to Face learning
(F2F) is necessary for human interaction. Students also
revealed that while they appreciated both forms of
learning most of them persistently noted that the teaching
of Mathematics ought to be conducted F2F.
Recommendations for the use of more ONL education
were offered.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.
REFERENCES
Bandara D, Wijekularathna DK (2017). Comparison of student
performance under two teaching methods: Face to face and online.
The International Journal of Educational Research 12(1):69-79.
Bandura A (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology 52:1-26.
Bagriacik YA (2019). Distance and face-to-face students’ perceptions
towards distance education: A comparative metaphorical study.
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 20(1):191-207.
Burge E (2000). The strategic use of learning technologies. NY: John
Wiley.
Chaney EG (2001). Web-based instruction in a rural high school: A
collaborative inquiry into its effectiveness and desirability. NASSP
Bulletin 85(628):20-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650108562803
Chen L (1997). Distance delivery systems in terms of pedagogical
considerations: A revolution. Educational Technology 37(4):34-37.
Cohen L, Manion M, Morrison K (2018). Research methods in education
(8th ed.). NY: Rout.
Connelly LM (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg
Nursing
25(6).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b467/089d0422a83fe1d5715d837dd
39d9fce4e7c.pdf
Creswell JW (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Creswell JW (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). CA: SAGE.
Croxton RA (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and
persistence in online learning in Merlot. Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching 10(2):314.
Danny G (2014). Triangulation in qualitative research podcast: Short
version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTEbA2LZaIg
Davis A (2017). Measuring student satisfaction in online Mathematics
course. Kentucky Journal of Excellence in College Teaching and
Learning 14(2):20-27.
Deming DJ. Goldin C, Katz LF. Yuchtman N (2015). Can online learning
bend the higher education cost curve? American Economic Review
494
Educ. Res. Rev.
105(5):496-501.
Fish LA, Snodgrass CR (2019). Instructor academic factors and their
influence on instructor perspectives of online versus face-to-face
education at a Jesuit institution. Business Education Innovation
Journal 11(1):107-117.
Kee CL (2020). Face to face tutorial, learning management system and
WhatsApp group: How digital immigrants interact and engage in elearning. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology
8(1)18-35.
Kirkup G, Jones A (1996). New technologies for open learning: The
superhighway to the learning society? In P. Raggatt R. Edwards, & N.
Small (Eds.), adult learners, education and training 2: The learning
society – Challenges and trends (pp.272-291). London: Routledge.
Krishnan S (2014). Students’ perceptions of learning mode in
Mathematics. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences
4(2):32-41.
Kurasaki KS (2000). Intercoder reliability for validating conclusions
drawn from open-ended interview data. Field Methods 12(3):179-194.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1525822x0001200301
Leedy PD, Ormrod JE (2018). Practical research: Planning and design
(12th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Leung L (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative
research. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 4(3):324.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4535087/
Mac Phail C, Khoza N, Abler L, Ranganathan M (2016). Process
guidelines for establishing intercoder reliability in qualitative studies.
Qualitative
Research
16(2):198-212.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468794115577012
Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design
and implementation (4th ed.). San Fran.: Jossey – Bass.
Merton RK (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review 8:193 210.
Meyer J (2000). Using qualitative methods in health-related action
research. British Medical Journal 320:178-181.
Miles D, Mesinga J, Zuchowski I (2018). Harnessing opportunities to
enhance the distance learning experience of MSW students: An
appreciative inquiry process. Social Work Education (37(6):705-717.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2018.1447557
Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An
expanded sourcebook pp. 705-717. (2nd ed.). Thou. Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mouw JM, Saab N, Janssen J, Vedder P (2019). Quality of group
interaction, ethnic group composition, and individual mathematical
learning gains. Social Psychology of Education 22(2):383-403.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09482-w
Montelongo R (2019). Less than/more than: Issues associated with
high-impact online teaching and learning. Connecting Education,
Practice and Research 9(1):68-79.
Pozzi F, Manganello F, Passarelli M, Persico D, Brasher A, Holmes W,
Whitelock D, Sangra A (2019). Ranking meets distance education:
Defining relevant criteria and indicators for online universities.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
20(5):42-63.
Qureshi JA (2019). Advancement in Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs) to revolutionize disruptive technology in education: A case
of Pakistan. Journal of Education and Educational Development
6(2):219-234.
Reason P, Bradbury H (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research:
Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
Spaulding DT (2014). Program evaluation in practice: Core concepts
and examples for discussion analysis (2nd ed.). San Fran., CA.:
Jossey-Bass.
Suresh M, Vishnu PV, Gayathri R (2018). Effect of e-learning on
academic performance of undergraduate students. Drug Invention
Today 10(9):1797-1800.
Walsh K (2013). When I say…triangulation. Med. Edu. 47(9):866.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/medu.12241
Wilkinson D, Birmingham P (2003). Using research instruments: A
guide for researchers. New York: Routledge. Falmer.
Yin R (2009). Case Study Research: Design and methods (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub.
You JW, Kang M (2014). The role of academic emotions in the
relationship between perceived academic control and self-regulated
learning in online learning. Computers and Education 77:125-133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.018