Impact of e Learning Vs Traditional Learning On Students Performance and Attitude 5e020d7d4cae7
Impact of e Learning Vs Traditional Learning On Students Performance and Attitude 5e020d7d4cae7
Impact of e Learning Vs Traditional Learning On Students Performance and Attitude 5e020d7d4cae7
net/publication/338528127
CITATIONS READS
2 11,063
3 authors:
Rashida Abdelrahim
Najran University
3 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The Impact of COVID-19 on teaching anatomy; Faculty and student perspective View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Nahid Elfaki on 11 January 2020.
Abstract – With the proliferation of internet technology, the E-learning has become an essential method and
new epitome that is widely used and implemented by educational institutions across the globe. The main
objective of the current survey was to study the impact of E-learning on the students' academic performance.
It was a facility-based and quasi-experimental research design that carried out in Najran University- college
of nursing during the period from January to August, 2019. By adopting a purposive sampling technique, 80
under-graduate nursing students (40 experimental group + 40 as controls) that aged 21-24 years old had been
recruited to participate in the current survey. Final exam results and a self-administered questionnaire were
used for collecting data. The findings revealed that the mean scores obtained by students in the final exam by
the E-learning group (Experimental) is statistically significantly higher than those for the traditional group
(controls) (t=3.45, df=37, P value= 0.002). Additionally, the results showed that the mean of the students'
overall satisfaction with the traditional face-to-face lectures in the control group was 6.26, while the mean of
the students' overall satisfaction with E-learning in the experimental group was 8.74. The difference between
students' attitudes was significant (P = 0.015) in favor of the experimental group. The key findings of the
present study show a significant difference in learning outcomes beside positive attitudes between online and
traditional learners which can be a viable alternative learning method for higher education. It also contributes
to the current literature in the area of online instruction and E-learning.
Keywords: E-learning, Academic Performance, Attitudes, Nursing Students.
1. Introduction
Learning is a process of achieving knowledge, skill and performance. Thus, learning is ultimately considered
one of the fundamental pillars of society changes. [1],[2],[3]
Nowadays, technology has obviously made our lives easier. That means internet technology has been
considered as important medium for many aspects in our lives including academic learning. E-learning or
online learning has received much attention in the recent years globally, with an estimated 5-7 million students
now are enrolling in at least one online course each year.[4]
The introduction of multimedia technologies and the internet in learning in many universities has been
observed as means of improving accessibility and quality of delivery and learning among the students and
teachers. Zameni and Kardan believe that with the widespread use of the internet, knowledge has become
more effectively reachable by the mass students, educators and researchers.[5]
Many terms had been used to describe learning that delivered online or via the internet, that ranging from
distance education, computerized electronic learning, online learning, internet learning and many others.
Numerous studies concluded that there were significant differences in learning outcomes between E-learning
and traditional learning. [6],[7],[8] However, and regardless which one is beneficial still some people support
the idea of traditional learning, while others believe on E-learning system.
225
N. K. Elfaki, I. Abdulraheem, and R. Abdulrahim, 2019 IMJ
To study the impact of E-learning on academic performance, it will be better to be presented with a brief
discussion of E-learning concept. Different terminologies had been used to define E-learning. For instance, it
has been defined by Jama et al as a type or system of learning which is utilizing electronic technologies to
access educational curriculum outside traditional classrooms.9Sangra, Vlachopoulos and Cabrera defined E-
learning as " A method of teaching and learning that fully or partially signifies the educational model used,
based on the use of electronic media and devices as tools for enhancing availability of training, communication
and interaction that helps in accepting novel ways of comprehending and establishing learning".[10]
Simply, E-learning as courses that are specifically delivered via the internet to somewhere other than the
classroom for enhancing or supporting learning. That means E-learning is the use of network technologies to
create, foster, deliver and facilitate learning, anytime and anywhere for empowering the individual learner so
that the teacher/trainer/tutor is no longer the gatekeeper of knowledge, while the role of teachers is likely
viewed as facilitators of knowledge process.[11] Oye, Salleh and Iahad defined E-learning as a unifying term
used to describe the fields of online learning, web-based training and technology delivered instructions.[12]
Khan pointed that E-learning has been described in various ways as learning that is using a number of different
technologies and methods for delivery e.g. Computer-Based Training (CBT), Internet-Based Training (IBT),
Web-Based Instruction (WBI), Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL), Distributed Learning (DL)Distance
Learning or Mobile Learning…. Etc. [13]
According to Communication and Information Technology Commission (CTIC), Saudi Arabia is one of the
countries that growing fast in technology usages including E-learning. Accordingly, Ministry of education in
Saudi Arabia established a National Center of E-learning in most of Saudi universities.[14]
Based on the data collected regarding the impact of E-learning on academic achievement, there were
conflicting findings in the literature which range from positive, negative or even no significance difference in
students' performance between online and live classes respectively. Many researchers believe that technology
is a tool that used to remove geographical barriers and to facilitate learning anytime and anywhere without
presence of lectures which may fosters deeper learning. They argue that E-learning has many advantages that
include flexibility of access from different locations, ease of access to other materials from other sources that
including non-educational ones.[15],[16],[17]
Additionally, Oye et al and Keshavarz believe that E-learning has a positive impact on academic achievements
of students in terms of reduces costs, saving time and increases accessibility of education as well as enhances
academic performance.[18],[19]
On the other hand, and despite these benefits, numerous studies pointed that E-learning has a negative impact
on students' achievements, they argue that students may feel isolated, parents may have concerns about
children's social development, students with language difficulties may experience a disadvantage in text-
heavy online environment. For instance, it has been reported that motivation is a skill that cannot be developed
when students are allowed to complete tasks at their own leisure and not to complete tasks under pressure
time.[20],[21],[22]
Jaggars concluded that many students need the flexibility of online coursework in order to balance school
with work of family demands, while others struggle in online courses due to relative low levels of self-directed
learning skills.23 Bennett and Maniar believe that one of the disadvantages of E-learning for both sides
226
ISSN: 13412051
Volume 24, Issue 03, December, 2019
(learner and instructor) is that there is no immediate feedback.24 Additionally, Ross and Schulz argue that a
major disadvantage of E-learning is that the students need to have self-discipline.[25]
Numerous studies' authors think that in order to take a real course or a real exam, you need to be physically
present on a certain place like a classroom and have a teacher or trainer to guide you at all times. They reported
some disadvantages regarding E-learning such lack of interpersonal skill development, lack of memory and
learning development and lack of student motivation. They believe that face –to-face learning provides live
interaction with the instructor, beside that face-to-face learning helps students to get organized with their
studies.[26],[27],[28],[29]
Negash, Solomon and Marlene30 reported that there are six different types of E-learning as follow:
i. E-learning with physical presence and without E-communication (face-to-face)
ii. E-learning without presence and without E-communication (Self-learning)
iii. E-learning without presence and with E-communication (Asynchronous)
iv. E-learning with virtual presence and with E-communication (Synchronous)
v. E-learning with occasional presence and with E-communication (Blended/hybrid-asynchronous)
vi. E-learning with presence and with E-communication (Blended/hybrid-synchronous)
Among those mentioned types of E-learning methods, the present study focuses on the third type.
i.e.asynchronous learning type of E-learning. In this type the learners use the educational media and take
responsibility of learning under direction, supervision and E-communication with the course coordinator.
227
N. K. Elfaki, I. Abdulraheem, and R. Abdulrahim, 2019 IMJ
3. RESULTS
80 participants were included in the current study. Ages of these participants were ranging from 21 to 24 years
old (M= 20.48 & SD = 0.67).
Table 1. Summary of independent t-test on difference of pre-test means on the students' achievement (n=40+40)
Test Group M SD df t P-value
Pre-study quiz Controls (females) 7 2.30
36 0.189 0.613
Experimental 8 1.62
(Males)
As shown in table 1, there is no statistically significant difference between the means of the two groups (P-
value = 0.613) regarding their pre-test outcome.
228
ISSN: 13412051
Volume 24, Issue 03, December, 2019
As presented in table 2 generally, students in the experimental group feel positive attitudes towards E-learning.
Table3. Summary of independent t-test based on difference of post-test means on the students' achievement(n=40+40)
Test Group M SD df t P-value
Post-study Controls (females) 9 1.51
final exam 37 3.45 0.002
Experimental 14.25 1.63
(Males)
Table 3, depicts findings on the mean scores obtained in the final test by the E-learning group (males) is
statistically significantly higher than the traditional group (females) (t=3.45; df= 37 and P-value = 0.002).
This means the use of electronic education affects the learning outcome among the experimental group.
Students' final obtained scores for the 2 groups (n=40 & 40)
Experimental group Control group
45%
32.50%
30%
27.50% 25%
17.50%
12.50%
10%
0 0%
A B C D F
Figure 1. Distribution of students' scores (outcome) for the two groups (n=40+40)
As displayed in figure (1), the experimental group (males) got higher scores in grade B and C and lee failures.
Table4. Comparison of attitudes towards using E-learning among the two groups (n=40+40)
Independent group Mean SD SD error t df Sig. R2
variable: Mean (2-
Perceived of E- tailed)
learning usage Experimental 8.74 2.71 .361 -2.451 141 0.015 .725
Control 6.26 2.86 .324
Dependent variable: Attitudes towards using E-learning
As appears in table 4, the results of the questionnaire showed the mean of the students' overall satisfaction
with the traditional face- to – face lectures in the control group was 6.26, while the mean of the students'
229
N. K. Elfaki, I. Abdulraheem, and R. Abdulrahim, 2019 IMJ
overall satisfaction with E-learning among the experimental group was 8.74. The difference between students'
attitudes towards E-learning was significant (P -value = 0.015) in favor of the experimental group.
Additionally, since R2was (.725) which is the coefficient of the regression that indicates strong relationship
between the variables. This concluded result indicated that learners were highly satisfied with E-learning since
it enhanced their learning outcomes.
4. DISCUSSION
The current study was carried out in Najran university-college of nursing to show the impact of E-learning on
academic performance in terms of improved learning process, attitudes towards academic learning and its
effects on academic performance. Numerous studies reported that students in higher educational institutions
who engaged in E-learning, generally performed better than those in face- to –face courses. They believed
that E-learning is offering a precious opportunity for higher education institutions. [31],[32],[33],[34]
This concluded fact is inconsistent with our findings, which indicates that E-learning was significantly
improves academic performance and learning process. Moreover, Holley found that students who participate
in online/ E-learning achieve better grades than those who studied traditional approach. [35]
Additionally, these results match those of previous studies by Keshavarz et al, Ishmirekha, Klein and Ware
who concluded that E-learning has a positive impact on academic achievements of the
students.19,36,37Moreover, Zarei-Zavaraki andRezael in their study that done at Khaje Nasir University-E-
learning center, they reported that the use of E-portfolio has significantly improved students' attitudes,
motivation and academic achievements. [38]
In regard to attitude towards E-learning among experimental group in this study, it shows a significant positive
influence. Similarly, this finding is compatible with the study that performed by Ahmed who concluded that
Saudi students have a high positive attitude towards E-learning. [39]
On the other hand, Brotherton and Abowd found no statistically significant differences in the grades obtained
by the online versus face- to –face groups of students.[40] It is important to note that this is an interesting, but
perhaps not surprising observation, which suggests that the generation of students in their study may be still
are traditional learners and have not yet resorted to such learning.
5. LIMITATIONS
Several limitations of the present study have to be addressed. Firstly, the short duration of the intervention
embedded within one single course. In addition, students at nursing college were using an E-learning
environment for the first time in their academic career. This could have biased the present findings by an
interaction with a lack of experience, varying student expectations …etc.
6. DECLARATION
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or
publication for this article.
7. References
[1] Banihashem K, Farokhi-Tirandaz S, Shahalizadeh M &Mashhadi M.: Study of the impact of E-learning on university
students' creativity. Media Electronic Learning Magazine. 2014; 5(4): 53-61.
230
ISSN: 13412051
Volume 24, Issue 03, December, 2019
[2] Liaw S. Investigating students' perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention and effectiveness of E-learning: A case
study of the blackboard system. Computers & Education. 2008; 51(2): 864-873.
[3] Wang Y. Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information &
Management. 2003; 41(1): 75-86.
[4] Allen E & Seaman J. Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States. Washington, DC: Pearson, Babson
Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group LLc. Online Learning Consortium and Tyton Partners. Cited
August 25th from the following site: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572778.pdf.
[5] Zameni F&Kardan S. Impact of using ICT on learning mathematics. Iranian Journal of Information and
Communication Technology in Education Sciences. 2011; 1(1): 23-38.
[6] Mason R, & Weller M. Factors affecting students-satisfaction on a web course. Australian Journal of educational
Technology. 2000; 16(2): 173-200.
[7] Gholamhosseini L. E-learning and its place in higher education system. Paramedical Medicine Magazines of IRI
army force. 2008; 2(2): 28-35.
[8] Robert E, Paul G & Leanne P. E-learning in higher education: some key aspects and their relationship to approaches
to study. Journal of higher education research & development. 2009; 28(3): 303- 318.
[9] Jama M, Mapesela M &Beylefeld A. Theoretical perspective on factors affecting the academic performance of
students. South African Journal of higher Education. 2008; 22(5): 992-1005.
[10] Sangra A, Vlachopoulos D & Cabrera N. Building an inclusive definition of E-learning: An approach to the
conceptual framework> The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2010; 13(2): 145-159.
[11] Oye ND, Salleh M &Iahad NA. Holistic E-learning in Nigerian Higher Education Institutions.Journal of Computing.
2010; 2(11): 20-26.
[12] OyeND, Salleh M &Iahad NA. Challenges of E-learning in Nigerian University Education- Based on the experience
of developed countries.International Journal of Managing Information Technology. 2011; 3(2): 39-48.
[13] Khan BH. Managing E-learning strategies: Design, Delivery, Implementation and evaluation. Hershey PA.
Information Science Publishing. 2005; cited from the following website: http://dx.doi.org./10.4018/978-1-59140-634-1.
[14] CITC. Coommunication and Information Technology Commission. 2010; retrieved from the following website:
http://www.citc.gov.sa/citcportal/Homepage/tabid/106/cmspid/%7B611C6EDD-85C5-4800-A0DA-
A997A624D0D0%7D/Default.aspx.
[15] Ho CL &Dzeng RJ. Construction safety training via E-learning: Learning effectiveness and user satisfaction.
Elsevier-Computers & Education. 2010; 55(2): 858-867.
[16] Sharpe R, Benfield G & Francis R. Implementing a university E-learning strategy: Levers for change within
academic schools. ALT J. 2006; 14(2): 135-151.
[17] Draper SW & Brown MI. Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning. 2004; 20(1): 81-94.
[18] Oye DA, Iahad N, Madar J & Ab. Rahim N. The impact of E-learning on students' performance in tertiary
instructions. International Journal of Computer networks and wireless Communication (IJCNWC). 2014; 2(2): 121– 130.
231
N. K. Elfaki, I. Abdulraheem, and R. Abdulrahim, 2019 IMJ
[19] Keshavarz M, Rahimi M &Esmaili Z. The effect of E-learning on educational progress of students' medical science
at Isfahan University.TorbatHeydarieh Uni. Of Medical Science Periodical. 2013; 1(2): 13-22.
[20] Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ & Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in Medical Education.Academic Medicine. 2006;
81(3): 207 – 212.
[21] Bernard RM, Abrami PC, Lou Y, Borokhovski E. et al. How does distance education compare with classroom
instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature.Review of Educational Research. 2004; 74(3): 379- 439.
[22] Jahng N, Krug D & Zhang Z. Student achievement in online distance education compared to face- to- face education.
European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning. Retrieved 25th of March, 2019; from the following website:
http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib./2007.
[23] Jaggar S. Choosing between online and face- to- face courses: Community College student voices. American Journal
of Distance Education. 2014; 28(1): 27-38.
[24] Bennett E &Maniar N. Are videoed lectures an effective teaching tool?. 2007; Retrieved 19th of May, 2019; from
the following website: http://podcastingforpp.pbworks.com/f/Bennett%20plymouth.pdf.
[25] Ross J & Schulz J. Can computer-aided instruction accommodate all learners equally? British Journal of Educational
Technology. 1999; 30(1): 5-24.
[26] Virginio C, Massimo C & Marco P. Perspectives and Challenges in E-learning: towards natural interaction
paradigms. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing. 2003; 15(2004): 333-345.
[27] Muhammad K. Al-Alawneh. Examining E-learning barriers as perceived by faculty members of Engineering
Colleges in the Jordanian Universities.International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education. 2013; 5(4): 42 – 53.
[28] Berg ZL, Muilenburg LY &Haneghan JV. Barriers to distance education and training.Survey Results. Q. Rev.
Distance Educ. 2002; 3(4): 409 – 418.
[29] Fann N & Lewis S. Is Online Education the Solution? Business Education Forum. 2001; 55(4): 46 – 48.
[30] Negash, Solomon & Marlene. E-learning Classifications: Differences and Similarities" Handbook of Distance
Learning for Real-Time and Asynchronous Information Technology education.IGI Global. 2008; pages 1-23.
[31] Valentina A. & Nelly A. The role of E-learning, the advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher
education.International Journal of Education and Research. 2014; 2(12): 397 -410.
[32] Al-adwan A. &Smedly J. Implementing E-learning in the Jordanian Higher Education System: Factors Affecting
Impact. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and communication technology
(IJEDICT). 2012; 8(1): 121 – 135.
[33] Alias NA &ZainuddinAM. Innovation for Better Teaching and Learning: Adopting the Learning Management
System.Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology. 2005; 2(2): 27 – 40.
[34] Berstorff PC & Lowes SL. Student Perceptions and Opinions towards E-learning in the college environment.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal. 2007; 11(2): 13 – 30.
[35] Holley D. Which Room is the Virtual Seminar in Please? Educational and Training. 2002; 44(3): 112 – 121.
[36] Dr. IshmirekhaHandique. A Study on Attitude of College Students towards E-learning with Special Reference to
232
ISSN: 13412051
Volume 24, Issue 03, December, 2019
North Lakhimpur of Lakhimpur District, Assam, International Journal of Information Science and Education. 2017; 4(1):
1-9.
[37] Klein D & Ware M. E-learning: New opportunities in Continuing Professional development. Learned Publishing.
2003; 16(1): 34 – 46.
[38] Zarei-Zavaraki E &Rezael I. The impact of Using Electronic Portfolio on Attitude, Motivation and Educational
Progress of Students' Khaje Nasir Toosi University.Educational Measurement Periodical. 2011; 2(5): 67 – 96.
[39] Ahmad B. Instructors and Learner Attitudes towards Teaching and Learning Online. King Fahad University of
Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM) Saudi Arabia-Case Study.International Journal of Arts & Sciences. 2011; 4(8): 223
– 241.
[40] Nicholas M. A theory for E-learning.Educational Technology and Society. 2003; 6(2): 1-10
233