The impact of extent and variety in active learning methods across online and face-to-face education on students’ course evaluations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22166115 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Dizza Beimel (0000-0002-6028-0417, Ruppin Academic Center, corresponding author), Arava Tsoury (0009-0001-7163-8429, Ruppin Academic Center), Zohar Barnett-Itzhaki (0000-0001-9891-9397, Ruppin Academic Center) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 9 |
| Publication date | 2024-09-19 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Frontiers in Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2504-284X • E-ISSN: 2504-284X |
| Publisher | Frontiers Media SA (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/feduc.2024.1432054 |
| OpenAlex | W4402645373 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 24 |
Introduction In recent years, numerous studies have compared traditional face-to-face (F2F) learning on campus with online learning, seeking to establish how the learning environment (online vs. F2F) affects outcomes such as student satisfaction and achievement. In a separate line of research, scholars have examined various facets of active learning—an approach that makes use of interactive learning methods—separately in online and F2F environments. However, few studies have compared the effects of active learning in classes taught online vs. F2F. The present study addresses this gap. It follows an earlier study in which we examined the effects of active learning in an online environment, particularly how the extent and variety of interactive teaching methods used affect students’ course evaluations (overall evaluations and perceived clarity of the teaching). Methods The present study repeats the setup of that previous study in a F2F environment, allowing us both to gain new insights into the effects of active learning in this context and to directly compare the examined outcomes in F2F vs. online learning. Results The results reveal consistent trends in both studies: more extensive and more varied use of interactive learning methods improves overall student evaluations and perceptions of the clarity of teaching in the course. Crucially, minimal use of interactive teaching methods results in notably lower student evaluations and perceptions of teaching clarity in F2F settings compared to online classes. Discussion The findings highlight the essential need for instructors to adopt diverse interactive methods in F2F environments to improve educational outcomes and reinforce the effectiveness of active learning
Face-to-face · Mathematics education · Multimedia · Sociology · Computer Science · Engineering · Experimental Learning in Engineering · Innovative Teaching Methods · Online and Blended Learning · Psychology · Artificial Intelligence
Implementation of Shiny-R in active learning strategies for teaching statistics in engineering education
Emerging trends in didactic perspectives in virtual higher education
Evaluation of a solidary academic-pedagogical project in virtual graduate programs
Blending Generative AI and Instructor-Led Learning
Combining Active Learning Methodologies in a STEM-Related Course
Closing the gap through active learning variety and extent
The Icap Framework
A systematic review of the factors – enablers and barriers – affecting e-learning in health sciences education
Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom
Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics
The role of gamified e-quizzes on student learning and engagement
Face‐to‐face, blended, flipped, or online learning environment? Impact on learning performance and student cognitions
The Pros and Cons of Problem-Based Learning from the Teacher’s Standpoint
Can Online Courses Deliver In-class Results
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 6 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |