Volume 8, Issue 4, April – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Perceptions of Higher Education Students towards

E-Learning and Face-to-Face Learning in
Pakistani Context
Virdah Farooq
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences (SEECS),
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan

Abstract:- In general, education at all levels is oriented With an innovative advancement, students now require
towards the future; students must adapt to a dynamic and quality projects that they may access at any time and from any
swiftly changing environment. These days, student-focused location. As a result of these requests, e-learning has become a
approaches to education are gaining popularity, and realistic and appealing option for professionals, and other such
Pakistan is no exception. The purpose of this study was to populations. Besides from flexibility and availability,
determine how students in higher education perceive e- numerous other claimed value advantages, including as
learning and face-to-face learning. Using empirical program selection and time efficiency, have raised the appeal
statistical techniques, the data was collected, normalized, of e-learning (Wladis, Conway, & Hachey, 2015). On the
and analyzed. As a representative sample, 202 students other hand, traditional approach is a well-known teaching
were included in this study. The researcher created the medium wherein an instructional methods and Organization
instrument to assess students' perceptions of e-learning has been refined over time. Face-to-face training has some
and face-to-face learning in higher education. SPSS advantages that online instruction does not. (Xu & Jaggars,
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was utilized to 2013).
analyse the data. In comparison to e-learning, students
have a favorable opinion of face-to-face learning, In the last ten years, there has been emotional growth and
according to the findings. It was determined that there is diverse advantages when it comes to using e-learning in
no significant difference between male and female pupils' teaching (Allen, 2017). A massive number of pupils are
perceptions overall. Additionally, there is no significant attending their classes online, prompting educators to create
difference based on location. To gain a deeper online courses to improve teaching and learning effectiveness
comprehension of the phenomenon, it is suggested that a (Evans, 2014). Several studies have shown that e-learning can
qualitative approach be adopted. Future research may improve student collaboration, improve communication
either confirm or refute the results of this study. quality, and enhance online intelligence.

Keywords:- Higher Education Students, Perception, E- Due to various technological developments, "Digital
Learning, f2f Learning tools like as WebCT, eCollege, and Blackboard" (Halawi,
McCarthy, & Pires, 2009) are used in online learning
I. INTRODUCTION programs. In light to technical, sociological, and economic
developments, schools and the number of online course
As COVID-19 spread around the world, numerous offerings at colleges has grown at an exponential rate. over the
nations asked for the closure of all educational institutions. All last decade (Ozerbas, Erdogan, & Society, 2016)
educational institutions were forced to close in order to protect
their pupils from the virus. The coronavirus impeded the Most of the overall assistance opt for synchronous and
development of e-learning, but few institutions in developing asynchronous internet teaching techniques: coordination of
nations are adequately prepared to teach online effectively, as activities is where offers courses at a pre-planned time as part
the transition from face-to-face to online learning was a of splendidly having to learn courses, whereas the
significant one. Traditionally, face-to-face learning was nontraditional approach refers to the workforce attempting to
considered superior to e-learning. It is primarily due to the provide the course without the students' participation. There is
need for social presence, social cooperation, and student no interaction between the professor and the students.
fulfilment.
This study is aimed at investigating the higher education
students’ perception regarding e-learning and face-to-face
learning in Pakistani context. This study findings may help to
validate the existing literature.

IJISRT23APR109 www.ijisrt.com 185

Volume 8, Issue 4, April – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
II. LITERATURE REVIEW Students’ opinions regarding conducting the active
classes both online and face-to-face are comparable. Students
A. Student Perception performed as well in both online and face-to-face collaborative
Man's fundamental form of cognitive engagement with courses; it was determined. Face-to-face instruction relies on
the world around him is perception. Even though all constant class attendance, however interactive classes focus on
conceptual understanding is founded on or derived from this compelling worksheets. As a result, educational content, mode
fundamental kind of consciousness and to the research of distribution, and completion % impact the success of online
on perception has always had special significance in science and face-to-face learning. (Nemetz, Eager, & Limpaphayom,
and philosophy. 2017). Web based learning has been regarded as a vital tool
for training due to less cost, accessibility, and capacity to
Perception is the method of gaining consciousness or provide world-class education (de la Varre, Keane, & Irvin,
comprehension of one's surroundings through the organizing 2010). In both schools and higher institutions, face-to-face
and processing of sensory information (Lenka & Ravi, 2012). instruction has given way to online instruction due to COVID-
For the present research perception means awareness among 19 (Strielkowski, 2020).
students about e-learning and face-to-face learning.
In Malaysia, a survey was carried out to assess male and
B. Blended Learning female students' satisfaction with E-learning portals. He
(Delialioglu, Yildirim, & Society, 2007) claimed that the observed a strong link between user satisfaction and E-
systematic and deliberate integration of ICT technology into learning. The quality of the E-service determines the level of
academic courses results in an innovative methodology to satisfaction of both participants, as illustrated in the report
instructional goals. This educational technique is also known (Shahzad et al., 2021). The benefits of online learning include
as collaborative learning, hybrid education, browser flexibility, ease of access, and connection between students
instruction, and web-enhanced instruction .According to and lecturers (Almahasees, Mohsen, & Amin, 2021). The role
(Gulbahar, Madran, & learning, 2009), Blended learning is and benefits of digital learning have highlighted that it has
similar with hybrid instruction, which blends the advantages issues such as data security. Students' private details is at
of web-based learning alongside those of traditional classroom threat since students use internet portals via mobile phones
approaches. and computers. Schools should teach their faculty and students
about privacy and data security (Almahasees et al., 2021).
In the recent decade, technology has played a significant
part in the learning program (Almahasees & Jaccomard, C. Use of EdTech Tools
2020). To deal with rapid advances in technology, educational The invasion of COVID-19 confronted the field of
methods, approaches, and strategies have been improved. education in such a way that the quality of education
Many online platforms have been created by technical firms everywhere became simply uncertain, and the learnings were
because of the technology being integrated into all aspects of at risk, as educational institutions were unintentionally shut
daily life (Al-Azawei, Parslow, & Lundqvist, 2017). down, and no one's approval was even required for this
Technology has dominated our social, commercial, and accident. Naturally, the ability of a nation's economy is
educational lives.' The Internet plays an important role in proportionate to significant expansion in educational
information sharing through online classrooms (Silva & institutions, provision of excellent education, and subsequent
Cartwright, 1993). Education has been turned towards an employment. As the country's economy suffered because of
innovative environment during COVID-19. The change should the pandemic, it was inevitable that education would suffer as
relate to strategies to reduce the effect of the shift on the usual well. At this point, it is worth contemplating the introduction
learning experience (Gurukkal, 2020). of various Edtech tools into higher education, such as Padlet,
Edpuzzle, and Flipgrid.
(Akkoyunlu & Soylu, 2006) investigated students'
perspectives on mixed learning environments and discovered Padlet is a digital online whiteboard that students use to
that students appreciated engaging in a blended learning submit notes on a shared page and teachers use to stimulate
environment that combined face-to-face and online classes. real-time engagement and assessment (Fuchs, 2014). Padlet
Furthermore, they underlined the importance of improves academic writing and provides pupils with writing
communication and engagement in online education for abilities that will help them cope with academic
optimal learning. Another BL theorist, (Rovai, Jordan, & responsibilities. Padlet's most astonishing feature is that users
Learning, 2004) underlined the importance of developing do not need to register beforehand. Padlet is regarded as an
courses in blended learning as a flexible method. The excellent online solution for real-time collaboration in a virtual
advantages of face-to-face connection are evident, and their setting.
presence can improve the quality of both online and traditional
classes.

IJISRT23APR109 www.ijisrt.com 186

Volume 8, Issue 4, April – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Edpuzzle includes a simple user interface and a video and rural were 53 (26.2%). According to this data, urban
sharing site, with the goal of assisting teachers in increasing students were more than rural students who included in this
student engagement and fostering learning through video study. The number of public sector students were 173 (85.6%)
courses (Tabassum & ISSN, 2020). EdPuzzle assists teachers and the number of private sector students were 29 (14.4%).
in creating video lessons for use in the classroom. Its best According to this data, public sector students were more than
feature is the ability to import any video from any available private sector students who included in this study as shown in
source. Users can quickly submit their videos to YouTube Table 1.
before importing them into EdPuzzle (Половін, 2019).
Table 1 Distribution of participants based on gender, locale,
There is a gap in the understanding of higher education and sector:
students’ perception about e-learning and face-to-face learning Gender Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
especially based on gender and locale. The present study is an Male 81 40.1 40.1
attempt to fill in those gaps.
Female 121 59.9 100.0
 Objectives of the Study Urban 149 73.8 73.8
The objectives of the study were: Rural 53 26.2 100.0
Private 173 85.6 85.6
 To investigate relationship on students’ perception about e-
Public 29 14.4 100.0
learning and face-to-face learning at university level
 To investigate the students’ perception based on gender
 To investigate the students’ perception based on locale Note: N = 202

 Research Questions  Instrument

To achieve the research objectives of study the following The data was collected online through closed-ended
questions were explored questionnaire based on five-point Likert-type scale. The types
Q1. Is there any significant difference between the perceptions of Likert scale used to express the degree of agreement or
of students about e-learning and face-to-face learning? disagreement to the items are5=Strongly Agree,4= Agree,
Q2. Is there any significant difference between the perceptions 3=Neutral, 2=Disagree, and 1=Strongly Disagree. This tool
of male and female students about e-learning and face-to-face was developed by researcher (Farooq, 2019) for this study.
learning? The tool consists of thirty statements which are divided into 2
Q3. Is there any significant difference between the perceptions sections. 15 items for e-learning subscale and 15 items for
of urban and rural students about e-learning and face-to-face face-to-face learning subscale.
learning?
In addition to the statements, there were five statements
III. METHODOLOGY to gather demographic information based on programs, age,
semester, gender, and locale. Pilot testing shows the
 Research Design instrument was highly reliable for e-learning (α = .933) and for
The quantitative approach was used in this research. In f2f learning (α = .930). Moreover, the validity of the
order to get an in-depth knowledge of the students’ perception instrument was established by experts.
about e-learning and face-to-face learning in Pakistan online
surveys were conducted. Cross- sectional survey designs are Table 2.1 shows the mean and standard deviations of
considered as cross-sectional survey design has the advantage each statement from the sub-scales; e-learning and face-to-
of that it can measure students’ perception toward e-learning face learning. The total statements are 15 about e-learning to
and face-to-face learning in a short amount of time. This study know the students’ perceptions and 15 about face-to-face
was designed to find out the perceptions of students about e- learning. The total numbers of students were 202. The
learning and face-to-face learning at university level. minimum response which recorded is 1 and the maximum
Therefore, the study was descriptive in nature. response which recorded is 5 in both subscales. In the
preference of e-learning and face-to face, the total minimum
 Population and Sampling responses are 15 and maximum responses are 75. The total
The population comprised of students studying in the mean of each response which about preference of e-learning
private and government sector universities. Statistical are 49.09 and the total SD about preference of e-learning are
sampling technique was selected to choose the sample from all 17.363. The statement “I would prefer e-learning instructions”
over the population. The researcher selected universities has the lowest mean score which is 2.95 while, “E-learning
students who have experienced both e-learning and face-to- saves my time” has the highest mean score which is 3.67. The
face learning. This study was delimited to the university level total mean of each response which about preference of f2f
students and total of 202 students were included in the study. learning are 58.75 and the total SD about preference of f2f
The 81 (40.1%) males and 121 (59.9%) females were included learning are 15.561. The statement “The face-to-face learning
in this study. The number of urban students were 149 (73.8%) saves my time” has the lowest mean score which is 3.31 while,

IJISRT23APR109 www.ijisrt.com 187

Volume 8, Issue 4, April – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
“I would prefer face-to-face learning instructions” has the
highest mean score which is 4.20.

Students’ responses for the Sub-Scales

Table 2.1 Students’ Responses for Sub-Scale 1: E-learning

Statements Min Max M SD
I would prefer E-learning instruction. 1 5 2.95 1.293
E-learning instruction would be a more effective way for me to learn content. 1 5 3.13 1.177
E-learning instruction would be a better way for me to learn content material. 1 5 3.21 1.193
E-learning instruction would help me learn more. 1 5 3.36 1.121
The instructor understands the E-learning environment and makes it easy to learn. 1 5 3.21 1.149
The E-learning experience aids my understanding of the course materials. 1 5 3.33 1.072
The e-learning approach would enhance my overall course satisfaction. 1 5 3.15 1.141
An online environment makes it easier for me to communicate with my instructor. 1 5 3.14 1.152
I feel more interactive to myself in E-learning. 1 5 3.22 1.195
E-learning works well with my schedule. 1 5 3.50 1.130
E-learning saves my time. 1 5 3.67 1.099
E-learning enables to attend classes more frequently. 1 5 3.37 1.135
E-learning makes me able to submit my assignments on time. 1 5 3.64 1.121
I can more concentrate in E-learning. 1 5 3.16 1.204
E-learning makes me more comfortable to interact with my class fellows. 1 5 3.05 1.181
Preference of e-learning

15 75 49.09 17.363
Note: N = 202

Students’ responses for the Sub-Scales

Table 2.1(continue) Students’ Responses for Sub-Scale 2: Face-to-Face learning

Statements Min Max M SD
I would prefer face-to-face learning instruction. 1 5 4.20 .964
Face-to-face learning instruction would be a more effective way for me to learn content. 1 5 4.10 .952
Face-to-face learning instruction would be a better way for me to learn content material. 1 5 3.93 1.063
Face-to-face learning instruction would help me learn more. 1 5 4.05 .981
The instructor understands the face-to-face learning environment and makes it easy to learn. 1 5 4.07 .975
The face-to-face learning experience aids my understanding of the course materials. 1 5 3.89 1.026
The face-to-face learning approach would enhance my overall course satisfaction. 1 5 4.00 1.010
The face-to-face learning environment makes it easier for me to communicate with my
1 5 4.11 1.028
instructor.
I feel more interactive to myself in face-to-face learning. 1 5 4.00 1.025
The face-to-face learning works well with my schedule. 1 5 3.63 1.108
The face-to-face learning saves my time. 1 5 3.31 1.182
The face-to-face learning enables to attend classes more frequently. 1 5 3.79 1.118
The face-to-face learning makes me able to submit my assignments on time. 1 5 3.58 1.131
I can more concentrate in face-to-face learning. 1 5 4.05 1.026
1 5 4.05 .972
The face-to-face learning makes me more comfortable to interact with my class fellows.
Preference of f2f learning
15 75 58.75 15.561
Note: N = 202, M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation

IJISRT23APR109 www.ijisrt.com 188

Volume 8, Issue 4, April – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
 Data Analysis  Rural student’s perceptions about e-learning have a mean
The study is based on primary data which was gathered score of 45.59 and standard deviation of 10.42.
through a survey through a survey questionnaire. The  The total mean score for urban students’ perception about
questionnaire was sent to the students for the purpose of data f2f learning is 58.18 with a standard deviation of 10.61.
collection through online Google Form Link via Email.  Rural student’s perceptions about f2f learning have a mean
The survey questionnaire was distributed among score of 58.41 and standard deviation of 9.31.
different private and government sector universities in
Islamabad, and Lahore. They were instructed by the researcher  Difference in Students’ perceptions about e-learning and
to carefully fill all the required items. 202 responses were f2f learning based on Gender
received. The 85.6% were private sectors students and 14.4%  The total mean score for male students’ perception about e-
was from public sectors students. Each questionnaire was then learning is 46.85 with a standard deviation of 11.89.
checked to ensure that no relevant information was missing.  Female student’s perceptions about e-learning have a mean
score of 45.50 and standard deviation of 11.40.
Table 3 Distribution of sample according to responses:  There is no significant difference in SP about e-learning on
Gender Locale Sector the basis of gender t(148) =0.17, 0.86>0.05).
Valid 202 202 202  The total mean score for male students’ perception about
Missing 0 0 0 f2f learning is 57.44 with a standard deviation of 9.70.
 Female student’s perceptions about f2f learning have a
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23 mean score of 58.65 and standard deviation of 10.63.
was employed to analyze data. Frequency, percentage, mean,  There is no significant difference in SP about f2f learning
and standard deviations were calculated by using descriptive on the basis of gender t(148) =-0.68, 0.49>0.05).
statistical techniques, t-test was applied by using inferential
statistical techniques to find out the perceptions of higher  Difference in Students’ perceptions about e-learning and
education students about e-learning and face-to-face learning. f2f learning based on Locale
 The overall mean score of students’ perceptions about e-
 Ethical Approval learning based on locale is 46.92 in urban areas and 45.59
The researcher selected university students who had in rural areas and the standard deviation is 11.85 and 10.42
participated in both e-learning and face-to-face learning. It respectively.
was survey-based study so, no ethical approval was required.  There is a no significant difference in SP about e-learning
Author confirms that informed consent was obtained from all on the basis of locale t(148) =0.59, 0.55>0.05).
participants for only experiments. This information will not be  The total mean score of students’ perceptions about f2f
used for any other purpose. learning based on locale is 58.18 in urban areas and 58.41
in rural areas and the standard deviation is 10.41 and 9.31
IV. FINDINGS respectively.
 There is a no significant difference in SP about f2f learning
Following are the main findings of the study: on the basis of locale t(148) =-0.11, 0.91>0.05).
 Overall Students’ perceptions about e-learning and f2f V. DISCUSSION
learning Scores
 The overall mean score of students’ perceptions about e- The study was proposed to know about the perception of
learning is 46.62 and the standard deviation about e- higher education students about e-learning and face-to-face
learning is 11.524. learning. To determine the higher education students’
 The total mean score of students’ perceptions about f2f perception about e-learning and face-to-face learning
learning is 58.23 and the standard deviation about f2f questionnaire was used. It consisted of 5 demographic
learning is 10.303. variables which were program, age, semester, gender, and
 The total mean score for male students’ perception about e- locale. It measured on the base of gender and locale. The 30
learning is 46.85 with a standard deviation of 11.89. statements were about to students’ perceptions about e-
 Female student’s perceptions about e-learning have a mean learning and face-to-face learning. There are two sub-scales;
score of 45.50 and standard deviation of 11.40. “Perception of higher education students about e-learning” and
 The total mean score for male students’ perception about “Perception of higher education students about face-to-face
f2f learning is 57.44 with a standard deviation of 9.70. learning.”
 Female student’s perceptions about f2f learning have a
mean score of 58.65 and standard deviation of 10.63. For the analysis of the collected data, descriptive
 The total mean score for urban students’ perception about statistical techniques were applied; Mean and Standard
e-learning is 46.62 with a standard deviation of 11.85. Deviation were determined to compute the averages of the
respondents according to the demographic variable. In

IJISRT23APR109 www.ijisrt.com 189

Volume 8, Issue 4, April – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
inferential Statistics, independent sample t-test was applied to  The results of this study showed no significant students;
determine the difference between higher education students perceptions about e-learning and face-to-face learning. To
about e-learning and face-to-face learning based on gender, some extent, these findings are unexpected. Further
and locale. research with a larger sample size is suggested by
researchers. In future studies, the results of this study can
The results of the study were astonishing. It was be supported or rejected.
determined after analysis there is no significant difference in
the opinion of male and female students, but there are ACKNOWLEDGMENT
significant differences occur on the base of locale. The results
of the study show the students have relatively more positive This work is supported by School of Electrical
perception regarding face-to-face learning as compared to e- Engineering and Computer Sciences (SEECS), National
learning. In the past, a very few numbers of studies have been University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad,
conducted on e-learning and face-to-face learning. The work Pakistan.
conducted in this study was more special in Pakistan in this
regard. Therefore, this empirical study's findings could be an Financial Source
important addition to this knowledge. There is no financial support by any institution or any
organization.
VI. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
Declaration of Interest
This investigation was intended to study the higher The authors declare that they have no known competing
education students' perception about e-learning and face-to- financial interests or personal relationships that could have
face learning. This study also looked at the gender and locale appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
bases differences. The approach to research was quantitative.
It is also seen that there is significant difference in the The authors declare the following financial
perception of higher education students based on locale and interests/personal relationships which may be considered as
there is no difference in the perceptions of male and female potential competing interests:
students.
REFERENCES
The population comprised of all the higher education
students. A total of 202 students were included in this study. [1]. Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. J. T. O. J. o. D. E.
Multistage sampling technique was used to pick a sample. The (2006). A study on students’ views on blended learning
data was collected online through Google form. environment. 7(3), 43-56.
[2]. Al-Azawei, A., Parslow, P., & Lundqvist, K. J. A. J. o. E.
Results concluded that students ‘perception about e- T. (2017). Investigating the effect of learning styles in a
learning and face-to-face learning is generally high. It was blended e-learning system: An extension of the
determined that a significant difference does not exist in technology acceptance model (TAM). 33(2).
overall male and female students about e-learning and face-to- [3]. Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning
face learning. Moreover, no significant difference exists based compass. Distance education enrollment report.
on gender and locale. [4]. Almahasees, Z., & Jaccomard, H. J. A. i. S., Technology,
Engineering Systems Journal. (2020). Facebook
Followings are some of suggestions based on Students’ translation service (FTS) usage among jordanians during
perceptions about e-learning and face-to-face learning at COVID-19 lockdown. 5(6), 514-519.
university level. [5]. Almahasees, Z., Mohsen, K., & Amin, M. O. (2021).
 This investigation was quantitative. To better understand Faculty’s and students’ perceptions of online learning
the phenomenon, researchers advise to use a qualitative during COVID-19. Paper presented at the Frontiers in
approach. Education.
 Future research work on this subject should consider the [6]. de la Varre, C., Keane, J., & Irvin, M. J. J. A. J. o. E. T.
mere memorization of the facts and the true understanding (2010). Enhancing online distance education in small
of the concepts. These can affect the results significantly. rural US schools: A hybrid, learner-centred model. 26(8).
 This research was limited to students at the higher [7]. Delialioglu, O., Yildirim, Z. J. J. o. E. T., & Society.
education level. More work in other academic institutes to (2007). Students' perceptions on effective dimensions of
assess if students’ perception about e-learning and face-to- interactive learning in a blended learning environment.
face learning is different from area is also recommended. 10(2), 133-146.
Further research can verify or reject this study's results. [8]. Evans, H. K. J. T. (2014). An experimental investigation
 There is lack of studies related to e-learning in Pakistan. of videotaped lectures in online courses. 58(3), 63-70.
The researchers recommend further research in this field to
improve our understanding of these phenomena.

IJISRT23APR109 www.ijisrt.com 190

Volume 8, Issue 4, April – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[9]. Farooq, V. (2019). Students' perception about e-learning [18]. Shahzad, A., Hassan, R., Aremu, A. Y., Hussain, A.,
and face-to-face learning at university level. Lodhi, R. N. J. Q., & quantity. (2021). Effects of
Unpublished. COVID-19 in E-learning on higher education institution
[10]. Fuchs, B. J. L. Q. (2014). The writing is on the wall: students: the group comparison between male and
using Padlet for whole-class engagement. 40(4), 7. female. 55(3), 805-826.
[11]. Gulbahar, Y., Madran, R. O. J. I. r. o. r. i. o., & learning, [19]. Silva, M., & Cartwright, G. F. J. E. L. (1993). The
d. (2009). Communication and Collaboration, Internet as a medium for education and educational
Satisfaction, Equity, and Autonomy in Blended Learning research. 17(2), 7-12.
Environments: A Case from Turkey. 10(2), n2. [20]. Strielkowski, W. J. P. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and
[12]. Gurukkal, R. J. H. E. f. t. F. (2020). Will Covid 19 turn the digital revolution in academia and higher education.
higher education into another mode? In (Vol. 7, pp. 89- 1, 1-6.
96): SAGE Publications Sage India: New Delhi, India. [21]. Tabassum, A. J. I. J. o. E. L., Language, & ISSN, S. V. I.
[13]. Halawi, L. A., McCarthy, R. V., & Pires, S. J. J. o. E. f. (2020). Experimental Research on Using Flipped
B. (2009). An evaluation of e-learning on the basis of Classroom Approach in Writing Classroom Using
Bloom's taxonomy: An exploratory study. 84(6), 374- Edpuzzle. 742.
380. [22]. Wladis, C., Conway, K. M., & Hachey, A. C. J. C. C. R.
[14]. Lenka, S. K., & Ravi, K. J. T. O. J. o. D. E. (2012). A (2015). The online STEM classroom—Who succeeds?
study of attitude and perception of the learners towards An exploration of the impact of ethnicity, gender, and
distance education in relation to their biographical non-traditional student characteristics in the community
factors. 13(4), 236-244. college context. 43(2), 142-164.
[15]. Nemetz, P. L., Eager, W. M., & Limpaphayom, W. J. J. [23]. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. (2013). Adaptability to online
o. E. f. B. (2017). Comparative effectiveness and student learning: Differences across types of students and
choice for online and face-to-face classwork. 92(5), 210- academic subject areas.
219. [24]. Половін, С. М. (2019). EdPuzzle is a powerful tool for a
[16]. Ozerbas, M. A., Erdogan, B. H. J. J. o. E. T., & Society. flipped classroom.
(2016). The effect of the digital classroom on academic
success and online technologies self-efficacy. 19(4), 203-
212.
[17]. Rovai, A. P., Jordan, H. M. J. I. R. o. R. i. O., &
Learning, D. (2004). Blended learning and sense of
community: A comparative analysis with traditional and
fully online graduate courses. 5(2), 1-13.

APPENDIX-A QUESTIONNAIRE

Higher Education Students’ Perception about E-learning and Face-to-Face learning

Name of Respondent: -______________
Program: -______________
Semester: -_______________
Age: -________________
Gender: -Male/Female
Locale: - Rural/Urban

The researcher is intended to collect information related to perception of higher education students. Please feel free to respond all
statement. The information you provide, will make us able to know the perception of higher education students regarding e-learning
and face-to-face learning. The information provided will be kept confidential and anonymous. Your cooperation will be highly
appreciated. There are five options against each statement. Select your preference according to your choice.

SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree N = Neutral D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree

IJISRT23APR109 www.ijisrt.com 191

 Volume 8, Issue 4, April – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Sr. # Statements SA A N D SD
Factror:1 E-learning
1 I would prefer e-learning instruction.
2 E-learning instruction would help me to understand the course concept better.
3 E-learning instruction would be a more effective way for me to learn content.
4 E-learning instruction would help me learn more.
5 The instructor understands the e-learning environment and makes it easy to learn.
6 E-learning experience aids my understanding of the course materials.
7 E-learning approach would enhance my overall course satisfaction.
8 An online environment makes it easier for me to communicate with my instructor.
9 I feel more interactive to myself in e-learning.
10 E-learning works well with my schedule.
11 E-learning saves my time.
12 E-learning enables to attend classes more frequently.
13 E-learning makes me able to submit my assignments on time.
14 I can more concentrate in e-learning.
15 E-learning makes me more comfortable to interact with my class fellow.
Factor 2: Face-to-Face Learning
16 I would prefer face-to-face learning instruction.
17 Face-to-face learning instruction would be a more effective way for me to learn content.
18 Face-to-face learning instruction would be a better way for me to learn content material.
19 Face-to-face learning instruction would help me learn more
20 The instructor understands the face-to-face learning environment and makes it easy to learn.
21 The face-to-face learning experience aids my understanding of the course materials.
22 Face-to-face learning approach would enhance my overall course satisfaction.
23 Face-to-face learning environment makes it easier for me to communicate with my instructor.
24 I feel more interactive to myself in face-to-face learning.
25 Face-to-face learning works well with my schedule.
26 Face-to-face learning saves my time.
27 Face-to-face learning enables to attend classes more frequently
28 Face-to-face learning makes me able to submit my assignments on time.
29 I can more concentrate in face-to-face learning.
30 Face-to-face learning makes me more comfortable to interact with my class fellows.

IJISRT23APR109 www.ijisrt.com 192