CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Learning as a continuous process, could be regarded as one of the most important

components to sustainable development and nation building. As such, it comes in different

styles and methods based on the context of the learning. Perhaps, learning may take in a

classroom, online, or even combination of both which has been referred to as “blended

learning” (Wong & Fong, 2014). Learning has taken place in various forms over the years

with varying students’ preferences as regards the styles i.e. traditional or online, from one

level to another. The approach of teaching and learning have been reformed due to emerging

technological innovations (Shahzad, Kazim, Naseem, Khalid & Mehdi, 2022).

Prior to technological advancement in the global world, especially the evolution of

Information and Communication Technology (ICT), learners have been taught manually with

traditional tools like chalk, blackboard, pen, pencil, textbooks etc. Learners were used to

reading books, novels, newspapers and other study materials in the classroom or library and

methods of classroom instruction were solely based on their teachers’ proficiency which was

the only source of knowledge to learners without any technological interference. This type of

learning is what scholars have termed ‘traditional learning’ (Shahzah, et. al., 2022, Hood,

Chen, Jacques & Hebert, 2022). It is traditional because knowledge and skills are transferred

to students in terms of teaching content, method of instruction, interactions in the classroom.

In this type of learning (traditional), student-student and student-teacher interactions are made

the subject of discussion. According to Ni (2013), these classroom interactions between

teachers and students create instant avenue for students “to ask a question, to share an opinion,

or to disagree with an idea/ideas”, which is when “a new thought is created, an old

1
supposition is challenged, a skill is to put into practice, an original idea is made and

stimulated, and finally, a learning objective is attained”. In the traditional classroom, both

teachers and students are able to observe each other’s body and facial expressions, and

physical reactions during the process of teaching and learning. More importantly, these

physical cues help students absorb content knowledge more than verbal instructions alone

and also allow teachers to make adjustments to lessons objectives if necessary (Hood, et. al.,

2022). Embedded in the traditional classroom instruction are value, knowledge, and

relationships generated in the physical classroom which help to improve learning activities.

No wonder, Washington, Penny ad Jones (2020) were of the opinion that the traditional

approach has its value and should not be lost as the world starts to adopt technology-based

instruction. Thus, the importance of traditional classroom which is centered on ‘teacher-

student’ interaction cannot be overemphasized due to its numerous academic and social

benefits that cannot be substituted by other instructional methods.

On the other hand, online classroom instruction is delivered with the aid of

technological tools without necessarily using the physical classroom. The availability of

learners and instructors physically are not required. According to Hood, et. al. (2022), online

learning takes place in a virtual space which allow learners to interact with the course

materials, the course instructors, and other learners with the aid of video conferencing

technology (e.g. Zoom, Google meet) and/or through a learning management system (e.g.

Moodle or Interactive White Board). Also, in relation to the traditional face-to-face classroom,

learners in a synchronous online course attend classes during a specific time and day fixed by

the registrar’s office and receive lecture through video conferencing technology (Hood et. al.,

2022). Whereas those students in an asynchronous class are given course materials and

evaluation items through a learning management system, which they could have access to at
2
any point in time and are given the opportunity to spend enough time as they deem fit in

processing the information and finalizing the required work in a specific time as stipulated by

the instructor.

Irrespective of the mode through which online classroom instruction is delivered, be it,

synchronous or asynchronous, the learning approach is limitless in terms of geographical

boundary and as such increases learners’ access to learning, that is, a student with internet

connection and the required software application could participate in a class from any part of

the world (Hood, et. al., 2022). Therefore, it is instructive to note that the online classroom

delivery method is captivating to persons who have been involved in other business be it,

part-time or full-time jobs, unable to further education or perhaps, have financial

commitments and dependents at home and/or other factors that have made traditional

classroom difficult to attend

In response to sustain the most influential classroom approach between online and

traditional classroom instructions, scholars have compared and contrasted between both to

bring out their advantages and disadvantages. Advantages to taking online classroom

instructions as opposed to traditional classroom vary. For instance, web-based learning gives

student autonomy to learn anytime and any day from any place (Angiello, 2010; Coyner &

McCann, 2004), whereas traditional classroom involves learning situations where both

teacher and student are in the same physical structure (Jain, Jain, & Jain, 2011). This implies

that online classroom bridges the communication gap between the instructor and the student.

Unlike a traditional classroom, learners receiving instructions online could participate in a

class, complete assignments, listen to lectures, and submit their project work at their

convenience without being restricted to very narrow time and space constraints (Reynold,

2012). Thus, online education seems to be prevalent among students with jobs and families.
3
Many online programs permit learners to complete coursework entirely at their own pace or

give them additional time above and sometimes beyond the normal school term (Pros and

Cons of Online Education, 2011). Also, many disadvantages to receiving online classroom

instruction have been discussed in the literature.

In this regard, Jenkins (2011) indicated that success rates in online courses are only

50% as compared to 70- 75% for comparable traditional classes. Therefore, faculty members

and administrators should evaluate whether every course be taught online and every student

be allowed to take online courses. Bejerano (2008) suggested that online courses might be

appropriate for courses that tap into low-level cognitive functions, but less appropriate for

courses that require analysis and synthesis of data or the application and demonstration of

acquired skills. Similarly, Jain et al. (2011) proposed that student interactivity in online

courses differed as a function of course discipline. Since learners have varying preferences

towards online and traditional classroom instruction, as such, this study is saddled with the

responsibility to find out the contributing factors and how all these have played out in their

academic achievements.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

There has been a growing concern over the most befitting classroom approach and in

spite of the popularity of online classroom instruction, it is often seen as a less favourable

choice when compared to the traditional classroom instruction. Understanding of learners’

perception of the difference between traditional and online classroom instruction can help

identify learners’ needs and develop ways of improving teaching methods. Different persons

have criticized online classroom and they tend to believe that it lacks quality as well as rigor.

As online classroom instruction continues to gain wider acceptability in education, many

4
academic problems like low-academic achievement, poor attendance, low-participation in

classroom activities etc. remain unsolved which have been causing issues for practitioners in

the educational sector. Also, the disadvantages of online and traditional classroom instruction

have been widely conversed and contested. However, online classroom instruction remains

the most talked about among critics, yet, there is no tendency of going back to the former

delivery method (traditional). This inspired the present study to assess learners’ preferences

towards online and traditional classroom instructions in Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The broad objective of this study is to assess learners’ preferences toward online and

traditional classroom instruction in Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State. The specific objectives were

therefore to;

(i) examine learner’s preference between online and traditional method in Chemistry.

(ii) investigate if there is any relationship between learners’ preference towards

online classroom instructions and their performance in Chemistry classes.

(iii) determine if there is any relationship between learners’ preference towards

traditional classroom instructions and their performance in Chemistry classes.

1.4 Research Questions

The study provided answers to the following research questions;

(i) Which method did learners prefer between online and traditional classroom

instruction in Chemistry classes?

(ii) Is there any relationship between learners’ preference towards online classroom

instructions and their performance in Chemistry classes?

5
 (iii) Is there any relationship between learners’ preference towards traditional

classroom instructions and their performance in Chemistry classes?

1.5 Research Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were subjected to testing in this study;

Ho1: There is no significant relationship between learners’ preference towards online

classroom instructions and their performance in Chemistry classes.

Ho2: There is no significant relationship between learners’ preference towards traditional

classroom instructions and their performance in Chemistry classes.

1.6 Significance of the Study

This study is of immense benefits to policy makers, educationists, curriculum experts,

learners, school administrators among others. First, it would provide some scientific insights

concerning the previewed value of both traditional and modern classroom instructions which

might help decision makers in educational institutions to make up their minds concerning the

best valued methods that should be used to improve the quality of educations.

In addition, the findings of the study would help decision makers to make appropriate

investment decisions regarding the facilities that should be invested in.

In the same vein, this study is justifiable since it evaluates learners’ preferences and

attitudes towards both traditional and online classroom instruction in an attempt to gear

learning process towards the most preferred learning method which would bring about

improved academic achievement among learners.

The study is of great significance to school administrators of secondary schools in the

sense that, it provides insights of what is expected of them in planning for the learners and

6
teachers in the future who will be able to adapt to the most suitable method of classroom

instruction in order to achieve academic success.

Educators would find the study very relevant in the sense that the findings would

reveal the place of online and traditional classroom instructions in learning process. As such,

it will help them learn to navigate through large amounts of information, to analyze and make

decisions; and to master new knowledge domains in an increasingly technological society.

Lastly, it would be an added academic material in this area of research.

1.7 Scope of the Study

The focus of this study was on learners’ preferences toward online and traditional

classroom instructions. As such, it was delimited to Senior Secondary School Students (SSS

II) in Ijebu-Ode Local Government Area of Ogun State.

1.8 Definition of Terms

Preference: In this study, it means the choice of learners as regards the method of classroom

instruction. i.e.

Learner: A person who is trying to gain knowledge or skill in something by studying,

practicing, or being taught i.e. a secondary school student can be referred to as a learner.

Online Learning: It is a situation whereby teaching and learning take place beyond the four

walls of the classroom and instructions are given to learners online (email, webinars, google

classroom etc).

Traditional Learning: It is a type of learning that takes place in a classroom setting.

Technology: It is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in

industry.

7
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter provides an overview of the literature related to the study explored by the

researcher. The review is done theoretically and conceptually under the following

subheadings;

 Theoretical Framework: The constructivist theory of learning

 Concept of online learning

 Concept of traditional learning

 Relationship between Traditional Course Delivery and Students’ Performance

 Relationship between Online Classroom Instruction and Students’ Performance

 Student Preferences, and the Learning Environment

 Empirical Framework

2.1 Theoretical Framework: The Constructivist Theory of Learning

This study is anchored on constructivist theory of learning. The constructivist theory

of learning holds that people learn by constructing their own understanding through

experience and reflection upon that experience. According to Ciechanowski, science

education builds on participant community resources and the community’s knowledge and

life examples of science, along with explicit real-world examples. Such examples are

necessary for students to gain specific knowledge about scientific concepts and processes.

Science pedagogy has traditionally taken the approach of constructivism (Ciechanowski,

2009). Constructivism, as referenced by Taber (2010), has been recognized widely as the

dominant theory of informing science curricula since the 1970s. Constructivism supports

8
learning that develops students’ abilities to learn collaboratively, construct knowledge

independently, and discover new understandings (Ciechanowski, 2009; Taber, 2010).

According to Taber, constructivist teachers provide tools such as problem-solving and

inquiry-based learning activities that allow students to formulate and test their ideas, draw

conclusions and inferences, and pool and convey their knowledge in a collaborative learning

environment. The learning outcomes of science content taught in the online and face-to-face

learning environments investigated by this study were aligned with and held to the same

traditional science standards (GaDOE, 2014).

This investigation of learning outcomes also was related to the historical debate on the

influence of instructional media on learning outcomes. According to Mather and Sarkans

(2018), increases in learning have been credited to technological media, but they really have

been the result of the reformation and new implementation of curriculum associated with a

change in teaching media. In direct contrast to how Mather and Sarkans (2018) viewed media,

Washington, Penny and Jones (2020) claimed that variations in instructional media have

distinct capabilities that can complement learners’ learning styles and produce unique

learning experiences. Ni (2013) explained that learners are unique and process information in

different ways. Variations in learning are dependent on the media, the learning tasks, and

learners’ preferences. Milz (2020) viewed the e-learning environment as contributing to the

teaching and learning processes, provided that the instructional technology is guided by an

appropriate pedagogy framework. The current study assesses learner’s preference towards

online and traditional classroom instruction. Obtaining knowledge has been widely

considered a multistep learning process. Milz (2020) developed the conditions of learning

theory by positing that the learning process has two components, internal conditions and

external conditions. The internal conditions include learners’ attention, motivation, and
9
memory recall. The external conditions include facilitator input, content materials, and

interactions with other learners (Milz, 2020). According to Gagne, the learning process

involves nine steps: gain attention, describe objective, present the material, provide learner

guidance, guide performance practice, offer feedback, assess performance, and enhance

retention. His theory stipulates that these elements of learning require different types of

instruction.

Whether different learning environments mimic the same learning process and

produce

equity in learning outcomes was questioned in this study. According to Gagne, learning has

four sequenced phases: Phase 1: receipt of the stimulus situation, Phase 2: Acquisition, Phase

3: Storage, and Phase 4: Retrieval. This sequence of events promotes successful learning, and

the internal conditions of learning, coupled with the external conditions of learning, result in

best learned outcomes (Milz, 2020). Internal conditions, such as previous things learned, must

be recalled before new intellectual skills can be learned. External conditions allow

individuals to learn concepts because they have the opportunity to experience or practice

what is to be learned.

Gagne described learning as a change in behavior, and he explained that learning

outcomes could be measured using grades and posttests. Collected postdata, such as grades

and assessments, are quantitative measurements of students’ participation and students’

learning of specific content (Milz, 2020). Differences in the post assessment data from the

two learning environments were key to this investigation regarding the question of equality in

learning outcomes. The learning theories of Ciechanowski (2009) and Ni (2013) framed this

comparison investigation of science learning outcomes in online and traditional learning

environments. In the following sections is a review of research that has used these learning
10
theories. This study assesses learner’s preference towards online and traditional classroom

instruction in Chemistry classes. The study is unique because it compares learning outcomes

of a single course subject, Chemistry.

11
2.2 Conceptual Review
2.2.1 Concept of Online Learning

Online program/course offerings in higher education are becoming an integral part of

educational delivery for post-secondary institutions. The OPSEU (Ontario Public Service

Employees Union) 2018 Report states, “Over the past 10 years, use of online learning has

expanded throughout the post-secondary system in Ontario. The CAATs (Ontario Colleges of

Applied Arts and Technology) have increasingly started to develop online courses with

incentives and direction from the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities” (MacKay,

2014, p. 19). The CAAT along with other educational organizations has touted the advantages

of online learning, particularly the flexibility and convenience it offers. Students can take

online classes anywhere and anytime as long as they have access to the Internet and an

appropriate electronic device.

Online learning has reached specific populations and given opportunities for students

to access higher education. These students include, but are not limited to, (1) parents with

childcare responsibilities; (2) students who live further from the institution; (3) students

working full-time; (4) students with disabilities; (5) and “urban students who find it easier to

time-shift rather than space-shift” (Renes, 2015, p. 348). Convenience and flexibility of online

learning fosters continuous learning opportunities, which is particularly important for those

who have competing family priorities. Dutton, Dutton & Perry (2002); Driscoll, Jicha, Hunt,

Tichavsky, & Thompson (2012); Cole, Shelley, & Swartz (2014); Renes (2015) state that

students with childcare responsibilities and those who had greater commuting distances value

the flexibility of online delivery. Students who are balancing family life, employment, and

student life find online learning to be more conducive to their learning as it fits with their

schedule.

12
 “Specifically, women who have families and jobs, students parenting young children,

and students who are pregnant were found to benefit from E-Learning” (Renes, 2015, p. 351).

Moreover, this learning modality provides students with the study option to complete a wide

range of diploma and degree programs, which has resulted in community colleges serving

more mature students in the past decade. There has been an increase in adult learners

accessing community college education with the average age being 28 years (Castillo, 2013;

Ferguson & DeFelice, 2010; Jackson, Jones, & Rodriguez, 2010; Ozerbas & Erdogen, 2016).

In addition, Diaz (2000) and Paul & Cochran (2013) note that students with more life and

academic experiences are well suited for the independent, self-directed study associated with

online learning. They access it primarily for the purpose of career advancement and

preparation for economic changes. Furthermore, these students can balance their personal and

professional activities while being engaged in their study. For younger learners, who

comprise 40% of the population in community colleges, the online format provides a balance

to their F2F studies by giving them the ability to study from home. These millennial learners,

having used technology from an early age, have greater ease navigating and applying

technological tools. (Coleman, 2009; Castillo, 2013; Cole, Shelley & Swartz, 2014; Ozerbas &

Erdogen, 2016).

Even though the growth of distance learning offerings at community colleges have

increased and the number of students taking these courses have multiplied exponentially,

questions still persist whether online learning addresses the needs of all students. Students at

risk of failing are one such group where there are mixed results about the effectiveness of

online learning. Researchers like Xu and Jaggers (2013) suggest there is administrative

reluctance to offer online courses to these learners.

13
 These authors found that this reluctance is attributed to a lack of sufficient study skills

required to be successful in online learning. Meanwhile, Flynn (2016) argues that with “the

essential learning supports, online tools and psychosocial understanding of the unique

characteristics and academic requirements of at risk students, they can succeed in online

courses” (p. 130). Students with disabilities is another group with questions about whether or

not online learning addresses their needs. Dramatic increase in the number of students with

disabilities accessing postsecondary education (i.e. Lazar and Jaeger (2011) state that 40% of

student population in the United States colleges are students with disabilities) has created a

concerted effort to identify and address the barriers these students encounter. Research has

found that people with differing abilities use the Internet and technologies well below the rest

of the population because they encounter many types of barriers.

According to Lazar and Jaeger (2011), “The main reason for this is not a lack of

interest or education, but that the Internet is inherently unfriendly to many different kinds of

disabilities” (p. 70). Regardless of these challenges and barriers, people with specific kind of

disabilities have benefitted from the use of technology. The Internet now provides

opportunities to learn, communicate, and interact online to students with particular types of

physical challenges. Specifically, for those who are unable to travel due to their disability, the

use of Internet provides an enormous benefit while promoting social inclusion and access

(Lazar and Jaeger, 2011). Moreover, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act provides standards in

which colleges and universities must allow students with disabilities to choose the learning

modality that is beneficial to them so that they can have equal access to education (Ontario

Human Rights Commission, 2018).

Another area of interest of extensive discussion in the literature is related to the

benefits and challenges of student interactivity or engagement in online courses. The methods
14
of participation experienced by students in online learning are significantly different from

those experienced in F2F classroom settings. Interactions with faculty and peers are largely, if

not exclusively, text based, and they usually occur through discussion boards, emails, and

chat rooms (Butchey, Dandapani & Lawrence, 2018; Arslanyilmaz & Sullins, 2013; Sturges,

2013; Kirmizi, 2015). These kinds of interaction may be beneficial to learners because they

offer more time to process ideas and provide an informed response to the questions or

problems posed. While this structure of learning could assist students to have a stronger

academic focus, they could also have an impersonal experience, as this mode of delivery does

not provide many opportunities for personal interaction. For this reason, the success of online

learning experience is largely attributed to embedding of this “interactive dimension”

(Galway & Cameron, 2020).

According to Akcayir and Akcayir (2018); Arslanyilmaz, and Sullins (2013); Kirmizi

(2015), online interaction in learning occurs when students interact with course content and

with instructors and peers. Well-designed interactive learning tasks tend to promote student

interaction with instructors and peers and increase student involvement with course content.

Students benefit from providing explanations rather than receiving them. In this form of

interaction, students are encouraged to pose questions about an issue in order to find an

explanation to their inquiry. “Such proactive learning engages students in a higher level of

thinking than the reactive type of learning” (Akcayir & Akcayir, 2018). In addition, Wang

states that assessment, including assigning a grade to collaborative learning tasks, positively

relates to students’ learning.

Furthermore, Jackson, Jones, and Rodrigues (2010) find that significant factors that

enhance student learning and satisfaction are instructors’ prompt responses, clarity of

expectations, and accessibility of content. Overall, Agarwal and Ahuja (2013); Frederickson,
15
Akturk, Izci, Caliskan & Sahin (2015); Alzaza & Yaakub (2011) agree that student interaction

with instructors and peers play a pivotal role in student learning success. The authors

emphasize the importance of student participation and level and quality of collaboration with

peers and instructors. An interactive online lecture has been discussed as an effective way to

engage students in course content. However, lecture slides that are simply posted on a web

page, otherwise useful in a traditional classroom, do not encourage engagement and

interactive communication (Grosso, Teresa & Grosso, 2012). To help students become

engaged in an online lecture, the instructor must be both a content expert to guide students in

their knowledge acquisition and a facilitator of the learning process. Andrew, Taylorson,

Langille, Grange and Williams (2018) state that online participants value “the expert voice”

(p. 65). Some online learners thought that having a knowledgeable instructor was especially

powerful “because it led to clearly focused content that could be lacking in a traditional

setting” (p.65). Successful facilitation involves incorporating questions into online lectures,

which is proven to be an effective way to make lectures interactive and to increase student

engagement with course content. “Since the importance of questioning in the classroom is

well documented, it must also be extended to online classes as well” (Grosso, Teresa, &

Grosso, 2012, p. 57).

Alongside interactive lectures, online discussions, and various assessment methods

used to ensure the quality of a learning process, group work has been recognized as one of the

key educational tools in the online environment (O’Neill, Scott & Conboy, 2011; Amro, 2015).

Cassidy, Colmenares, Jones, Manolovitz, Shen and Vieira (2014) discuss the benefits and

challenges of group projects in online classes, emphasizing the importance for instructors to

support students by “developing ground rules, providing information on group work skills

and roles, supporting effective communication, and facilitating social task development” (p.
16
293). If carefully considered and implemented, the authors’ recommendations could be a

valuable solution to the group work challenges in the online learning environment. For online

group work to be productive, it is also important to recognize the importance of professional

development for faculty who implement this type of instructional strategy in their teaching.

Faculty may benefit from training opportunities that focus not only on the technical

components of online teaching (Jan, 2018), but also on effective content development and

building skills that help to manage “the unique social context of the online classroom

environment” (Edmunds, Thorpe & Conole, 2012, p. 40).

2.2.2 Concept of Traditional Learning

Grandzol and Grandzol (2010) found that although the traditional lecture method is

often preferred as the most efficient approach, easily controlled by the instructor and

conducive to forecast and manageable student learning, it is often criticized for stifling

creative thinking, occasioning the involvement of some students in decision making, and

lacking intrinsic sources for student motivation. Traditional pedagogical models are primarily

teacher-centred, and knowledge will probably complicated and inconsistent. Particularly in

large enrolment classes, students unable to get an opportunity to gain from cooperative

learning (constructing knowledge together). Those outstanding students will likely to govern,

and indirectly will disappoint students with those loner personalities in classroom learning.

According to Kokemuller (2014), the discussions might be shallow, unplanned, and restricted,

and traditional lecture-based courses may fail to promote deep learning (Kokemuller, 2014).

Traditional courses take place in a class consists of an instructor and students. F2F

education is a synonym for this kind of medium. “Face to face” is defined as “of two people

close together and facing each other" (Oxford Dictionary). This quote indicates when an

17
instructor and students are together in one place provided for lessons, and where the teaching

and learning takes place at the same time. In this arrangement all performances and displays

of a work that is permitted, provided that all the materials obtained legally. Basically,

instructor gives lecture or student listening and take notes are the main approach of traditional

classroom setting. Communication among instructors and students is seen as one of the key

elements in this learning setting which Smith and Stephens (2010), regularly associate to

“sage on the stage.” This phrase or quote means oftentimes instructors will lecture about

subjects from notes they've prepared in the past. Sometimes these notes don't change much

over the years. Students sitting quietly in class and everyone pretty much copy the same

lecture that has been done year after year.

Some students prefer to choose F2F environments which they can communicate

directly with instructors and considering the course of the content in choosing course on

campus. They felt that this kind of environment will assist them to learn deeply, develop

more understanding, and give them satisfaction towards the course. In addition, they

extensively choose F2F environment as they consider it will increase their capability to learn

and it is more appropriate way to understand the course materials.

F2F students found that the technology meddles with their capability to complete

coursework and significantly felt that working in groups encouraged them to learn the course

materials, but this does not rise to the level that matters. In addition, F2F students also

declared that they take courses “on campus” because they thought it would be manageable

compared to online, but they also feel that they will benefit more from the course if they were

taken it in the online environment. 41.7% of the online students did not feel convenient

learning from the internet. They desired instructor to give more response or comment and

auditory stimulation; they wanted to listen to, not just reading the course materials (Tanyel
18
and Griffin, 2012). Although the participants were limited (with only 33 students), the

findings expressed anxiety about (a) course design subject to instructor comfort rather than

student desired, and (b) students’ readiness to take accountability for their own learning.

Students feel a great relationship with instructors and those who register on traditional

class, possibly here again because they can see and hear the class lecture and see the

interaction between the instructor and students, hence making them feel that they definitely

are part of the group. On the other hand, Nguyen (2015) found that students have hard

feelings towards distance learning and envy against traditional class students, probably

because of their relationship and interaction with the instructor. Students choose the method

because they perceive it will have assisted them much to master the material. Additionally,

they are more tending to say that they learn better from an instructor in a traditional

classroom, practically doing things in practical workshop, figure out to solve on a problem

with other members in a group, and studying at pictures or description which help clarify

more on concepts and processes. Besides, they able to complete the tasks to deadlines,

finding adequate time to study, and follow the instructions for practical sessions.

In class, students have peers, Learning Center in the campus, the time to meet with the

instructor, and assistant instructors to help them with a variety of learning needs. These

resources give them guidance, explain and strengthen the material, and enable them to

succeed in their studies. Teachers understand the value of these resources and forms of

support. Arleen (2008); as increasing demand of online courses, instructors are attempting to

figure out new methods to combine these resources and forms of support into their class.

Some instructors are now applying the web-based in producing tasks into their existing

traditionally classes (Mozer and Chan, 2012). The problem is that student drop out is higher in

19
online courses and these resources and forms of support need to be more practical in

preventing failure student.

Instructors enjoyed communicating with students whenever there are. It has been

purported that regular in touch with instructor, inside and outside of the class, is essential in

order to motivate and to get students involve (Terry & Diane, 2010; Dell, Low & Wilker,

2010). Those traditional students are convenient to see their instructors and to get to know

them well because they can see their instructors anytime during the office hours. In addition,

students were on campus and able to chat and to see the instructors when they are around.

Online courses do not provide the physical distance that allowed these types of

communications. Even though online instructors are available during consultation hours,

students still need to go out of their way to meet the instructors in the office. This situation

reduces the opportunity for students to meet with their instructor. Online students are able to

contact with their instructors in actual time or through email, but yet the way is restricted in

its ability to recreate the many nuances (expression, feeling, tone) related with F2F

interactions. (Cavanaugh & Jacquemin, 2015).

A lot of information is achievable as formulated through body language, tone, volume

and voice modulation through F2F communication. F2F communications provide a greater

richness of information as a whole. Through distance learning, nonverbal body language and

additional information that they contribute are absolutely lost. In such a way it is mostly not

possible that an instructor will rise on unplanned questions or an expression of confusion. For

students, the way that course content is delivered can likely indifferent and ineffective.

Besides, the students are unable to get their personalized learning through distance learning.

F2F delivery enables students to share personal experiences, thoughts and their challenges

20
relating to the content (Martin-Beltrán, Tigert, Peercy, & Silverman, 2017). This can be a rich

source of learning and one that a lot of student’s failure to achieve in distance learning.

Classroom learning usually provide multi-sensory appeal (Neil Kokemuller, 2013).

You can receive handouts, visual signal through PowerPoint picture, listen to the instructor,

and take part aggressively in class activities, group presentations and case studies. You also

have direct access to the instructor in the classroom. The interaction is immediately and

usually you have the opportunity to ask questions and take part in the discussions directly.

This also allows you to benefit from the firsthand accounts of the experience of other students.

If you want to build and maintain personal relationships and professional in your education,

classrooms also offer larger personal relationships with other students.

On the contrary to online learning, classroom learning is often quite ordered. You

meet at the scheduled time on a regular basis on the same day each week. Your work and

other activities will be limited. You usually need to be in class to gain the experience of

learning itself in order to compete with the requirements. Lessons that have been thought in

the class are not accessible after the end of the class session unless your instructors record the

lectures. Students who are having trouble to pay attention could find classrooms and other

colleagues to discuss similar issues, and will be eager to brainstorm and share ideas of their

learning experience.

2.2.3 Relationship between Traditional Course Delivery and Students’ Performance

Callister and Love (2016) found no significant difference in the traditional class’s

performance as a whole than learning outcomes of 406 traditional and 92 online students in

principles of macroeconomics and microeconomics at Jacksonville State University in 2005.

On average, the final results of traditional students were 69.5 compared to 69.3 for online

21
students. But, the researchers did find a significant difference at the 10 percent level in

microeconomics where the traditional students had a final average of 67.1 compared to 60.2

for online students.

Several researches showed multiple results. Data analysis in the study conducted by

Ury (2015) describes a significant difference between online and traditional student grades in

Management Information Systems course. The mean grades of traditional students were

significantly higher than the mean grade of online students. The same goes to beginning

programming course: the average grades of online student were 78 percent while the

traditional students were 84 percent. These results support the dispute that online students are

missing something that the traditional students have.

Another, more comprehensive study, involved seven courses in Computer Science

and Information Systems showed mixed results: In several courses, online students have not

done well as traditional students (Ury, McDonald, McDonald and Dorn (2016). The authors

found that no significant differences in performance were found in four upper level courses

(Computer Organization II, Programming Languages, Theory and Implementation of

Programming Languages, and Survey of Algorithms) taken by computer science majors.

Nevertheless, three courses (Management Information Systems, Database Systems, and

Introduction to Programming Visual Basic) taken by students from many majors and minors

showed significant differences in students’ performance. The results of a study that

involved business students indicated that students perceived online courses as having a

significant relative advantage over traditional methodologies. These advantages include a

better fit with course schedules, time saving and enabling students to take additional courses.

The students indicated that they seem can’t believe they learned more in online course and

they had problems associated to being able to participate in class discussions. Nevertheless,
22
the students’ attitudes tended to be contradictory when make a comparison between online to

traditional methods. Ironically, they reported that they preferred traditional courses compared

to online courses, even though they preferred more online courses (O'Malley, John and

Harrison McCraw, 2009).

In the study of Drennan, Kennedy and Pisarski, (2015), they found that research

subjects believed it is vital in achieving a balance between the use of traditional F2F lectures

and emerging technologies. In another study involving Bachelor Accounting students,

researchers found that the hybrid or blended approach to online learning was better to course

content delivered fully online. In particular, the researchers determined that using technology

as an exclusive course delivery method was deliberately inadequate. According to the authors,

“group learning and F2F tutorials were vital to both student self-confidence and the learning

practice” (Flynn, Concannon & Bheachain, 2015). Garson (2008) carry out a research study on

online and traditional section of a history survey course during summer of 1997 and found

that 50% of the online students would have chosen a traditional format. Majority of the

academic leaders said that the online learning outcomes are equal with those of F2F

instruction (The 2003 Sloan Survey of Online Learning). Most of them responded that online

learning is significant to their long term strategy (Roach, 2013 p1).

2.2.4 Relationship between Online Classroom Instruction and Students’ Performance

Most of the literature shows varied results on comparisons of performance between

traditional and online students. Several researchers found that online students do better than

traditional students. For example, Gubernick and Ebeling (2007) observed that students who

completed their online studies achieved 5-10 percent higher scores on standardised

achievement tests compared to traditional students. Burns (2013) states that because they have

23
to work alone without assistance from others, online students are capable to recognize the

main issues on their own and apply innovative solutions to the problems they come across.

She argued that the absence of classroom distractions enables online students to keep more

the course material and gain more knowledge from the course than traditional students.

According to Pool (2016) online students are stimulated enough to overcome problems related

with online learning and to perform well regardless of the lack of classroom interactions

where the course material is reviewed and rehearsed and additional insights provided.

Generally, most of the researchers found that there are no significant differences

between online and F2F students’ performance or some online methods might produce to

stronger student learning outcomes. (Koory, 2013; Bernard et al., 2014; Warren and Holloman

2015; Mozer & Chan, 2012; Weber and Lennon, 2007; Means et al., 2009). Online methods

(either taught fully online or blended) on average, contribute stronger learning outcomes than

solely F2F instruction.

While some studies pertaining to courses in CIS (Computer and Information Systems)

show that performance is identical, no matter whether the courses have taken in traditional or

online. Kleinman and Entin (2012) compared in class and online teaching from both students

and instructors view based on two sections of an introductory Visual Basic programming

course at a community college. Although the online students were more positive on the value

of the course, there is no difference in performance can be traced between the online and

traditional groups. Some courses could expand accomplishment gaps among students in

different area even such courses with low cost might agree to an additional various group of

students to seek for college. The study by Di Xu and Shanna, (2013) have reviewed 500,000

courses taken by over than 40,000 communities and technical college students in Washington

State found that usual student have some problem to familiarize themselves to online courses,
24
but some students get use quite well whereas others adapt very badly. The study found that

every student who takes additional online courses, regardless of demographic, is probably

hard to obtain a degree. Online format had a significantly negative relationship with both

course perseverance and course grade, shows that usual student had problems adapting to

online courses.

In general, there was no significant difference in performance of the online classes

enrolled in Principles of Microeconomics at California State University Fullerton (Gratton-

Lavoie and Stanley, 2009). This is supported by Angiello (2010) at Jacksonville State

University which controlling for GPA and age. Both researchers argue that there was no

significant difference in scores on the final exam. However, Bennett et all did find a

significant difference at the 1 percent level in macroeconomics classes where the online

students had a better final average (81.2 compared to 71.6 for traditional students).

Daymont and Blau (2008) carry out a study of 64 online students and 181 traditional

students enrolled in an undergraduate Organization and Management course during either the

fall of 2006 or the spring of 2007 at a large public university in a large eastern city. They

found no significant difference in the final grades of students in both delivery format

(generally, online students had slightly higher final grades); though, the online students

scored much better on quiz scores. This study also has been supported by previous

researchers (Edwards & Rule, 2013) at a commuter university in the south eastern United

States which controlling for instructor experience and time period.

Data were obtained from 23 students enrolled in F2F class and 24 students in distance

education class of business communications course. The instructor, course materials,

assignments, course content, homework, research project, and final exam were constant

between both delivery formats. Results indicated that the final exam and post-test scores of
25
the distance education students were higher and significantly different at the .05 alpha level;

but, final courses grades, research paper grades, homework grades and pre-test scores were

not significantly different. (Tucker, 2009)

Driscoll, Jicha, Hunt, Tichavsky, and Thompson, (2012) completed a study of 368

students taken introductory level sociology course which enrolled in three online and three

F2F sections. Variables such as instructor, course materials, and assessments were the same

for both classes. Driscoll et al (2012) found that when online courses are designed using

pedagogically sound practices, they may provide equally effective learning environments.

This study makes a comparison of students’ performance on midterm exams and an integrate

data analysis assignment.

However, according to Atchley, Wingenbach, and Akers (2013) indicated that a

statistically significant difference did exist in the students’ performance in online courses at

Texas public universities in attaining a degree. This study also has been supported by

previous researchers (Edwards & Rule, 2013; Edwards, Rule & Boody (2013); McConnel, and

Graham). Yaron, Karabinos, Lange, Greeno and Leinhardt (2010) found that there was

significantly different and better in academic achievement as measured by a post-test in

online science course compared to students’ performance in the traditional course. Alsete and

Beutell (2014) found a significant positive relationship between undergraduate GPA and

grades received in online courses. A relationship does exist between taking an online class in

the past and preference for delivery method. Taking an online class does not directly

influence a student to take another online class; however, students who did not take an online

class are discouraged from trying the online format. One conclusion may be that students are

unfamiliar with the online format and feel uncomfortable trying that delivery method.

26
2.2.5 Student Preferences, and the Learning Environment

Interaction is at the heart of most effective learning environments regardless of

delivery format, and interaction tends to aid student motivation (Baker, 2010; Paechter &

Maier, 2010). This is why researchers have stressed that the physical separation of the

instructor and student in online classes should not compromise consistent and purposeful

communication. However, online classes present unique challenges for effective

communication since we cannot replicate the interaction that occurs in many traditional

classrooms. Computers represent a very different approach to the teacher-student educational

transaction (Garrison, 2009), and can increase misunderstandings. Because students are

physically separated from the instructor in an online class, communication and timely

responses become increasingly important for students and therefore this physical separation

also affects student perceptions of the online learning environment (Delaney et al., 2010).

Further, Baker (2010) found a statically significant positive relationship with

immediacy and teaching presence such that when an instructor establishes clear patterns of

communication, students perceive them as having a teaching presence. This in turn affects

student motivation. While it is easy to see the instructor in traditional classes, instructors in

online classes must establish a presence. Brown (2011) proposed a framework in which

students and the instructor work together to create a community of inquiry that is reflected in

the online environment via cognitive, social, and teaching presence. Of importance to our

discussion are the social presence, defined as “the ability of participants …to project their

personal characteristics into the community, thereby presenting themselves to the other

participants as ‘real people’” (p. 89), and teaching presence which is essentially the design

and implementation of the course and course facilitation. In the Community of Inquiry

27
framework, social presence is theoretically a responsibility of teaching presence (e.g. the

instructor) and mediates cognitive presence (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, 2010).

While the physical separation of instructor and student in online classes may make it

more challenging to create social presence, it should not compromise consistent and

purposeful communication. Advances in technology can possibly increase communication

and the level of peer and instructor interaction (Jones, 2011). In sum, it is clear that online

education continues to grow and is part of the strategic plan at many colleges and universities.

While requiring higher levels of self-motivation, online learning offers the advantages of

flexibility and convenience for many students. Yet despite these advantages, most students

still seem to prefer face-to face courses.

2.3 Empirical Review

Ozcan Gulacar, Fehmi and Bowman (2013) conducted their study to compare the

success of students instructed in an online or F2F general chemistry course for non-majors.

One hundred forty-six exam questions were categorized according to Bloom’s revised

taxonomy and student success on each problem was analyzed. Comparison of online and F2F

courses showed significant differences at the lowest order of thinking, “remember,” with

online students performing better than F2F students. A similar result was seen with the next

order of thinking, “understand,” but there were no significant differences observed between

online and F2F students for exam questions at the “analyze” level. The observed advantage

for online students may be because online instruction promotes better memorization of facts

or because students good at memorization gravitate towards online courses. No significant

differences were seen between online and F2F courses when comparing the various chemistry

28
topics covered in the exams. Online instruction appears to be as effective as F2F instruction

when teaching introductory chemistry topics.

Makarova (2021) analysed university students’ perception of advantages and

disadvantages of digital education. The article presents comparative analysis of traditional

classroom and online academic environments as viewed by first- and second-year Russian

students majoring in management and economics. The study is a questionnaire-based

research. Quantitative and qualitative research methods were applied to achieve study’s

objectives. Special attention was paid to the analysis of students’ perception of a modern

university teacher role in the classroom and online settings. The findings prove positive

attitude of the respondents to digital learning and showed students’ awareness of the barriers

to effective distance learning, including their laziness and inability to concentrate.

Hood, Chen, Jacques and Hebert (2022) investigated the perceived course delivery

methods of graduate students and faculty at a southeastern university in the United States.

Data were collected using a survey modified from Shantakumari and Sajith’s (2015) work.

Principal component analysis was used to analyze the survey, yielding three factors (i.e.,

learning experience, self-efficacy, and ease of use) explaining 73.8% of the variance. Internal

reliability was then calculated using Cronbach’s alpha for the entire instrument and for each

factor. An overall reliability was above .94 and most of the factors were above .8. Repeated

measures ANOVAs were used to determine if there was any significant difference in how the

participants rated each delivery method. The overall sample showed interaction effects

between the students and faculty on learning experience and self-efficacy, but not on ease of

use. Students preferred learning experience in face-to-face and hybrid over online courses.

Student sample indicated no significant difference in preferred delivery method regarding

self-efficacy or ease of use. Faculty preferred face-to-face, followed by hybrid, followed by

29
online delivery in the learning experience factor, and face-to-face over hybrid and online

delivery in the self-efficacy and ease of use factors.

Shahzad, Kazim, Naseem, Khalid and Mehdi (2022) explored the attitude and

preferences of students regarding using digital technologies at the university level. A mixed-

method approach was used and first-semester students of the Social Sciences department

were conveniently selected as a sample of the study n=547. The results of the study indicated

that most of the teachers were using traditional tools for teaching purposes. Moreover, 95% of

students were owning personal laptops and 96% of students were having smartphones but still,

most of the students (78%) were learning by using traditional tools. In addition to this, (76.2%)

of students indicated that they will like to learn by using smartphones as compared to laptops.

Whereas, (67.6%) students indicated that they will prefer to learn with technological tools

(Smartphones and Laptops) instead of traditional tools (Book/Paper/Pen). Furthermore, most

of the students (58%) often use digital technologies like laptops or smartphones within the

class but very few use them for study purposes.

30
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the procedures that is employed in carrying out the study. The

procedures include research design, population of the study, sample size and sampling

technique, research instruments, pre-testing of the research instruments for reliability and

validity; and the data collection procedures.

3.2 Research Design

The research design employed for this design was a descriptive survey design. This

design was chosen due to the fact that none of the study’s variables was controlled or

manipulated.

3.3 Population of the Study

The population of the study comprised all Public Senior Secondary School Two (SSS

2) Chemistry Students in Ijebu Ode Local Government Area of Ogun State.

3.4 Sample and Sampling Technique

A total of four hundred (400) Chemistry students from two (2) Public Senior

Secondary Schools were selected. The sample consisted of 200 students chosen from each of

the two (2) schools that were used to take part in the study. The study sample therefore

included 400 Chemistry Students which forms the respondents from who the data for the

study was collected. The study employed a purposive sampling technique to concentrate the

study on Chemistry students only; also, simple random sampling technique was used to select

the Chemistry students that took part in the study. The selection of students was only adopted
31
where the number of students in the intact class was higher than the expected number from

each school used for the study.

3.5 Research Instrument

The study made use questionnaire on Learners’ Preference on Online and Traditional

Classroom Instruction (QLPOTCI). The questionnaire consisted of two sections: A and B.

The section A was designed to elicit demographic information from the respondents (senior

secondary school students), these are; gender, age, class while section B consisted of items

focused on the attitudinal scale of the respondents in four likert scale of Strongly Agreed

(S.A) – 4, (b) Agreed (A) – 3, (c) Disagreed (D) – 2, and (d) Strongly Disagreed (S.D) – 1.

3.6 Validity of the Instrument

For validity of the instrument, the instrument was shown to the project supervisor and

other test and measurement experts who directed that some words be changed so that the

respondent students in SS II class would not have difficulty understanding them. The

modifications were made and the instrument was adjudged valid for administration.

3.7 Reliability of the Instrument

For the reliability, the instrument was administered to another sample of SS II

Chemistry students who were not participating in the main study. The result of this

administration was used to calculate the reliability of the instrument with the help of split-half

method which produced a value of 0.79.

32
3.8 Method of Data Collection

The researcher sought a research permit from the schools’ authority and thereafter

write letters to the principals for permission to carry out the study. The researcher then visited

the selected public secondary schools, created rapport with the respondents, explained the

purpose of the study and then administered the copies of the questionnaire. The respondents

assured and reassured them about the confidentiality of their identities and responses. The

questionnaire was administered and collected immediately after they have been filled.

3.9 Method of Data Analysis

Data collected was analysed using Statistical package for Social Scientists (SPSSv20).

Using this computer aid package, descriptive and inferential statistics were carried out. At the

descriptive level, simple percentage and frequency count were both used. On the other hand

Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) was adopted to test the association between

variables at the level of inferential analysis.

33
 CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

This chapter presents the findings of the study based on the data collected from the

students in relation to the objectives of the study. The data were checked and arranged with

the use the statistical packages for social sciences (SPSS). The data were analysed using

frequency tables and percentages in line with the themes and the objectives of the study. The

objectives of the study were to; examine learner’s preference between online and traditional

method in Chemistry; investigate whether there is a correlation between online method and

traditional in Chemistry classes and determine whether there are statistically significant

differences between online and traditional method of teaching in Chemistry classes. Also,

two research hypotheses were tested at a significance alpha level of 0.05. Out of the 400

copies of questionnaire that were administered, only 398 copies were retrieved and found

useful for the study.

4.1 Demographic Variables of the Respondents

This section presents the demographic variables of the students (SSS II) in Chemistry

classes involved in the study. The study found it necessary to gather this information as it

offered data on the sample characteristics.

Table 4.1: Gender Distribution of Respondents

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 179 44.97

Female 219 55.03

Total 398 100

34
Source: Field Survey, 2023.

The data presented in Table 4.1 shows that 44.97% of the respondents were male

students while 55.03% constitute the female counterparts. This shows that the percentage of

male students is lower than their female counterparts. This is due to the fact that female

students are more than male students.

Table 4.2: Age Distribution of Respondents

Age Frequency Percentage

13-15 yrs 298 74.87%

16 years and above 100 25.13%

Total 398 100%

Source: Field Survey, 2023.

The data presented in Table 4.2 shows that 74.87% of the respondents fell under the

age category of 13-15 while few of them (25.13%) were 16 years and above. This shows that a

higher percentage of the students were between age 13-15.

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

The first objective of this study is to examine learner’s preference between online and

traditional method in Chemistry. To achieve this objective, the study seeks details on

learners’ preference on online traditional method of teaching.

35
Table 4.3: Learner’s Preference towards Online Method in Chemistry
S/N Items X SD
1. Online classes provide better guidance than traditional classes in 1.46 .91106
Chemistry.
2. Online classes developed better understanding between teachers and 1.42 .84570
students than traditional classes in Chemistry.
3. Online classes find difficulty in practical implementation of technical 3.50 .67327
study than traditional classes in Chemistry.
4. Online classroom instruction makes learning simpler in Chemistry 1.65 .98704
classes.
5. Online classes provide more convenience and more understanding than 3.26 .85814
traditional classes in Chemistry.
6. Online classes increase the utilization of online resources for 2.56 1.16927
Chemistry classes.
7. Online classes are more cost effective than traditional classes in 1.66 .92856
Chemistry.
8. Time flexibility in online classes is higher than traditional classes in 3.51 .84659
Chemistry classes.
9. Online class shows high pass percentage than traditional classes in 1.71 1.7134
Chemistry.
10. Online classes highly reduced the interaction with friends and teachers 3.50 .73401
in Chemistry classes.
11. Online classes is not more tiring than traditional classes in Chemistry. 1.71 1.7134
12. Online classes increase student’s achievement in Chemistry. 1.79 1.03373
Source: Field Survey, 2023.

The result on table 4.3 showed that the respondents to a high extent disagreed to some

questionnaire items on learner’s presence towards online method in Chemistry with mean

scores lesser than 2.50. Questionnaire items 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 and 11,12 had mean scores of 1.46;

1.42; 1.65; 1.66; 1.71; and 1.79 respectively while items 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 had mean scores of

36
3.50; 3.26, 2.56, 3.51, and 3.50. This signifies that a higher percentage of the respondents

preferred traditional method of teaching in Chemistry compared to those that chose online

method.

Table 4.4: Learner’s Preference towards Traditional Method in Chemistry

S/N Items X SD

13. I prefer traditional method of instruction in Chemistry due to lack of 3.43 .69914

personal contact with the teacher in online classes.

14. I prefer traditional classes to online classes because it lowers subject 3.52 .60891

quality and student involvement.

15. I prefer traditional classes to online due to lack of contact with peers. 3.44 .62382

16. I prefer traditional classroom instruction in Chemistry to online due to 3.40 .65063

lack of full class experience.

17. I prefer traditional classroom instruction to online in Chemistry 3.47 .64143

classes because some topics cannot be taught online.

18. I prefer traditional classroom instruction to learn Chemistry concepts. 3.46 .57474

19. It is difficult to understand some topics in Chemistry with the use of 3.43 .68458

online classroom instruction.

20. Traditional classroom instruction increases student’s achievement 3.50 .67327

than online classroom in Chemistry classes.

Source: Field Survey, 2023.

The result on table 4.4 showed the mean ratings of respondents on the learning

preference towards traditional method of teaching in Chemistry. Questionnaire items 13, 14,
37
15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 indicated mean scores of 3.43, 3.52, 3.44, 3.40, 3.47, 3.46, 3.0, 3.4 and

3.0. This indicates that majority of the respondents preferred traditional method of teaching to

online method in Chemistry classes.

4.3 Testing Hypotheses

Under this section, the two hypotheses formulated were subjected to test. The result of

this study is based on two null hypotheses tested at a 0.05 alpha level of significance.

Hypothesis one: There is no significant relationship between learners’ preference towards

online classroom instructions and their performance in Chemistry classes

Table 4.5: Relationship between Learners’ Preference towards Online Classroom

Instructions and their Performance in Chemistry Classes

Correlations Analysis
Traditional Online Performance_mean
_mean _mean
Traditional Pearson 1 -.885** .971**
classroom Correlation .000 .000
instructions Sig. (2-tailed) 398 398 398
N
Online classroom Pearson -.885** 1 -.876**
instructions Correlation .000 .000
Sig. (2-tailed) 398 398 398
N
Learners’ Pearson .971** -.876** 1
performance Correlation .000 .000
Sig. (2-tailed) 398 398 398
N
** Correlation is significant at the level 0.01 level (2-tailed)

38
 This first hypothesis was analysed using correlation. Table 4.5 shows that there was a

negative correlation between learners’ preference towards online classroom instructions and

their performance with r = -0.876 and p = 0.000; p<0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis for this

relationship is accepted. As conclusion, it was found that student performance is not

depending on the online courses delivery. Also, learners had negative perception about online

classroom instructions in Chemistry classes.

Ho2: There is no significant relationship between learners’ preference towards

traditional classroom instructions and their performance in Chemistry classes

This hypothesis was analysed using correlation analysis presented in Table 4.5. It

shows that there was a positive correlation between traditional classroom instructions and teir

performance in Chemistry classes with r = 0.971 and p = 0.000; p<0.05. Thus, the alternative

hypothesis for this relationship is accepted which states that there is a significant relationship

between learners’ preference towards traditional classroom instructions and their

performance in Chemistry classes. As conclusion, it was found that student preferred

traditional classroom instructions than online in Chemistry classes.

4.4 Discussion of Findings

The discussion of findings was done in relation to the hypotheses of the study.

Based on the first hypothesis tested, it was found out that there is no significant

relationship between learners’ preference towards online classroom instructions and their

performance in Chemistry classes. This implies that learners’ negative attitude towards online

method of instruction which may affect their academic performance. The findings agree with

the study of Baker (2010) that students’ learning preference in Chemistry is associated with

39
their achievement in chemistry. He further discovered that 55% of variable is achievement

could be attributed to students’ learning preference towards Chemistry. Hood, Chen, Jacques

and Hebert (2022) also found that students’ learning preference toward Chemistry have

significant direct influence in students’ academic performance in the subject. Study revealed

that there exists a direct links between students’ learning preference towards method of

teaching in chemistry and students’ outcome.

Based on the second hypothesis tested, there was a significant relationship between

learners’ preference towards traditional classroom instructions and their performance. The

finding of this study show that traditional classroom instructions delivery and student

performance have significantly associated each other. The positive correlations in Table 4.5

illustrate that as the level of achievement goes up, those student beliefs that traditional

courses are convenient, enjoyable, and provide them independence. Students find it easier to

follow the learning in the classroom where they can ask the instructors if they do not

understand the lessons taught. These results also supported with findings by the findings of

Ozcan Gulacar, Fehmi and Bowman (2013) which revealed that a high positive relationship

between students’ learning preference with Chemistry academic achievement respectively.

Furthermore, the findings of Makarova (2021) also align with the finding of this study which

revealed a significant relationship between students’ learning preference (traditional) and

academic performance of students.

40
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction

The chapter presents summary, conclusions and recommendations of the study.

5.1 Summary

The study assessed learners’ preferences towards online and traditional classroom

instructions in Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State. It specifically aimed to examine learner’s preference

between online and traditional method in Chemistry; investigate whether there is a correlation

between online method and traditional in Chemistry classes and determine whether there are

statistically significant differences between online and traditional method of teaching in

Chemistry classes. Two research hypotheses were tested. The study was supported by the

constructivist theory of learning.

Methodologically, the study employed the descriptive survey method. A total of four

hundred (400) SS II students were selected from Ijebu Muslim College and Adeola Odutola

College in Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State using purposive sampling technique. Data were collected

using questionnaire titled “Learners’ Preference on Online and Traditional Classroom

Instruction (QLPOTCI). The reliability of the research instrument was established and it

produced a value of 0.79 which indicated the research instrument was reliable. Data collected

were analysed using Mean (x), Standard Deviation (SD) and Pearson Product Moment

Correlation (PPMC). The null hypotheses were tested at 0.05 alpha level.

Findings of the study revealed that there was no significant relationship between

learners’ preference towards online classroom instructions and their performance in

41
Chemistry classes. However, a significant relationship was established between learners’

preference towards traditional classroom instructions and their performance in Chemistry.

5.2 Conclusion

From the findings of the study, it was established that learners did not prefer online

classroom instructions to traditional classroom instructions which implies that it has nothing

to do with learners’ performance in Chemistry. On the other hand, findings showed that

learners preferred traditional classroom instructions than online classroom instructions in

learning Chemistry and further showed a significant relationship between traditional

classroom instructions and performance in Chemistry. Thus, the study deduced that

traditional classroom instructions was preferred among learners in learning Chemistry.

5.3 Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were made:

1. Chemistry teachers should combine traditional and online classroom instructions in

teaching Chemistry so as to facilitate learning process among the students.

2. The Ministry of Education should organise seminar/workshops for Chemistry teachers

on how to incorporate online method of instructions into traditional methods in order

to improve academic performance of students in Chemistry.

3. Government should provide the necessary equipment for senior secondary schools in

order to expose learners to online classroom instructions which will bring about

blended learning.

4. Chemistry teachers should provide guidance to the students through the learning

process, giving special concentration to boost the interests of students and self-

42
 confidence such as spending lesser time lecturing the classes sometimes and

mentoring more students as individuals and tutoring them in areas in which they need

hands.

5.4 Suggestion for Further Studies

Further research is needed to investigate the instructional strategies used to enhance

student learning in Chemistry, especially in students with weaker academic preparation or

from underrepresented backgrounds. Also, further studies could be carried out on sound

pedagogical quality with consideration for the mode of delivery as a means for promoting

positive learning outcomes in Chemistry. Lastly, a replica of this study should be done using

another study area in order to verify the findings of this study.

43
 REFERENCES
Agarwal, D., & Ahuja, S. (2013). Attitude of Student-Teachers towards the Use of ICT and its
Impact on their Academic Achievement. Indian Journal of Applied Research, 3 (7), 186,
187.

Akcayir, G., & Akcayir, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and
challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334-345.

Akturk, A. O., Izci, K., Caliskan, G., & Sahin, I. (2015). Analyzing Preservice Teachers'
Attitudes towards Technology. Online Submission, 9(12), 3960-3966.

Alzaza, N. S., & Yaakub, A. R. (2011). Students' awareness and requirements of mobile
learning services in the higher education environment. American Journal of Economics
and Business Administration, 3(1), 95-100.

Amro, M. (2015). Factors Influencing on Students’ Attitudes and Performance While They
Using Educational Technologies. Case Study: Eastern Mediterranean University
(Master's thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU)-Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi
(DAÜ)).

Andrew, M., Taylorson, J., Langille, D. J., Grange, A., & Williams, N. (2018). Student
attitudes towards technology and their preferences for learning tools/devices at two
universities in the UAE. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research.

Angiello, R. (2010). Study looks at online learning vs. traditional instruction. The Hispanic
Outlook in Higher Education, 20(14), 18-20.

Arslanyilmaz, A. & Sullins, J. (2013). The extent of instructor participation in an online

computer science course: How much is enough? The Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 14(2), 63-74.

Atchley, W., Wingenbach, G., & Akers, C. (2013). Comparison of Course Completion and
Student Performance through Online and Traditional Courses. 14(4).

Baker, C. (2010). The Impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student
affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30.

Bejerano, A. (2008). Raising the question #1: The genesis and evolution of online degree
programs: Who are they for and what have we lost along the way? Communication
Education, 57, 408-414.

Bejerano, Arleen R. (2008). Face-to-Face or Online Instruction? Face-to- Face is Better. A

Publication of the National Communication Association. 3(3). Retrieved from
https://www.natcom.org/CommCurrentsArticle.aspx?id=884.

44
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P.A.,
Fiest, M., and Huang, B. (2014). How does distance education compare with classroom
instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational
Research, 74 (3) 379–439.

Burns, B. A. (2013). Students’ perceptions of online courses in a graduate adolescence

education program. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 9(1), 13.

Butchey, D., Dandapani, K., & Lawrence, E. (2018). Lessons learned from the MBA program
for a successful online MSF program. Journal of Financial Education, 44(1), 127-145.

Callister, R., & Love, M. (2016). A comparison of learning outcomes in skills-based courses:
Online versus face-to-face formats. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education,
14(2), 243-256. doi:10.1111/dsji.12093

Cassidy, E. D., Colmenares, A., Jones, G., Manolovitz, T., Shen, L., & Vieira, S. (2014).
Higher education and emerging technologies: Shifting trends in student usage. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(2), 124-133.

Castillo, M. (2013). At issue: Online education and the new community college student. The
Community College Enterprise, 19(2), 35-46. Retrieved from
https://www.schoolcraft.edu/cce/community-college-enterprise.

Castillo, M. (2013). At issue: Online education and the new community college student. The
Community College Enterprise, 19(2), 35-46. Retrieved from
https://www.schoolcraft.edu/cce/community-college-enterprise

Cavanaugh, J.K. & Jacquemin, S.J. (2015). A large sample comparison of grade based student
learning outcomes in online vs. face-fo-face courses. Journal ofAsynchronous Learning
Network, 19(2).

Ciechanowski, K. (2009). A squirrel came and pushed earth: Popular cultural and scientific
ways of thinking with ELLs. Reading Teacher, 62(7), 558-568.

Cole, M.T., Shelley, D.J., & Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online instruction, e-learning, and student
satisfaction: A three-year study. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 15(6), 111-131.

Cole, M.T., Shelley, D.J., & Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online instruction, e-learning, and student
satisfaction: A three-year study. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 15(6), 111-131.

Coleman, S. (2009). Why do students learn online? Retrieved from

http://www.infoagepub.com/qrde-issue.html?i=p54c3c4cd77e0

45
Coyner, S., & McCann, P. (2004). Advantages and challenges of teaching in an electronic
environment: The accommodate model. International Journal of Instructional Media,
31, 223-228.

Delaney, J., Johnson, A. N., Johnson, T. D., & Treslan, D. L. (2010). Students’ perceptions of
effective teaching in higher education. St. John’s, NL: Distance Education and Learning
Technologies.

Diaz, D. P. (2000). Comparison of student characteristics, and evaluation of student success,

in an online health education course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova
Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Retrieved from
http://www.technologysource.org/article/online_drop_rates_revisited/?utm_campaign=e
learningindustry.com&utm_source=/5-ways-
humanizetheelearningexperience&utm_medium=link.

Drennan, W. J., Kennedy, M. B. & Pisarski, I. (2015). Students’ Use of Web-Based Tutorial
Materials and Their Understanding of Chemistry Concepts. Journal of Chemical
Education, 78(7), 975-980.

Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G., (2012). Can Online
Courses Deliver In-class Results? A Comparison of Student Performance and
Satisfaction in an Online versus a Face- to-face Introductory Sociology Course.
Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312-331. doi: 10.1177/0092055X12446624

Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A.N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online
courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction
in an online versus a face-to-face introductory to sociology course. Teaching Sociology,
40(4), 312-331.

Dutton, J., Dutton, M., & Perry, J. (2002). How do online students differ from lecture students?
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 1-20. Retrieved from
https://secure.onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/olj_main.

Edmunds, R., Thorpe, M., & Conole, G. (2012). Student attitudes towards and use of ICT in
course study, work and social activity: A technology acceptance model approach.
British journal of educational technology, 43(1), 71-84.

Edwards, C. M., & Rule, A. (2013). Attitudes of middle school students: Learning online
compared to face to face. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
32(1), 49-66.

Edwards, C. M., Rule, A. C., & Boody, R. M. (2013). Comparison of face-to-face and online
mathematics learning of sixth graders. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 32(1), 25-47.

46
Ferguson, J.M. & DeFelice, A.E. (2010). Length of online course and student satisfaction,
perceived learning, and academic performance. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 73-84.

Flynn, A., Concannon, F., & Bheachain, C. N. (2015). Undergraduate students' perceptions of
technology-supported learning: The case of an accounting class. ELearning, 4(4), 427-
444.

Flynn, E. (2016). Should at-risk students take online courses? College Student Journal, 50(1),
130-134(5). Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/prin/csj

Galway, L. P., & Cameron, E. (2020). Flipping online learning in public health graduate
education. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 6(3), 212-221.

Garrison, D. R. (2009). Implications of online and blended learning for the conceptual
development and practice of distance education. International Journal of E-Learning &
Distance Education, 23(2), 93-104.

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships
among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community
of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 31-36.

Georgia Department of Education. (2014). End of course tests. Retrieved from

https://www.gadoe.org/

Grandzol, C.J. and Grandzol, J.R. (2010). Interaction in Online Courses: More is NOT
Always Better. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, XIII(II).

Grosso, S. S., Teresa, S. L., & Grosso, J. E. (2012). Interactive questions concerning online
classes: Engaging students to promote active learning. International Journal of
Education Research, 7(1), 49-59. Retrieved from
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-educationalresearch.

Jackson, L.C., Jones, S.J., Rodriguez, R.C. (2010). Faculty actions that result in student
satisfaction in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 78-96.

Jain, P., Jain, S. J., & Jain, S. (2011). Interactions among online learners: A quantitative
interdisciplinary study. Education, 131,538-544.

Jan, S. (2018). Investigating the Relationship between Students' Digital Literacy and Their
Attitude towards Using ICT. International Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 26-
34.

Jenkins, R. (2011). Why are so many students still failing online? Retrieved May 10, 2012,
from http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Are-So-Many-Students-Still/127584.
Joanne Hood, Yuchun Chen, Lorraine Jacques, and Dustin Hebert (2022), “Perceptions of
Students and Faculty on the Various Delivery Methods of Instruction.” American
47
 Journal of Educational Research, vol. 10, no. 4 (2022): 245-252. doi: 10.12691/education-
10-4-13.

Jones, I. M. (2011). Can you see me now? Defining teaching presence in the online classroom
through building a learning community. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 28(1), 67-
116. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1722.2010.01085.x

Kirmizi, O. (2015). The influence of learner readiness on student satisfaction and academic
achievement in an online program at higher education. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 14(1), 133-142.

Kleinman, J. and E. Entin. (2012). Comparison of In-Class and Distance Learning Students'
Performance and Attitudes in an Introductory Computer Science Course. Journal of
Computing Sciences in Colleges, 17(6), 206-219.

Kokemuller, N. (2014). Online Learning Vs. Classroom Learning. Globalpost. Retrieved from
http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/online-learning-vs-classroom- learning-4190.html

Koory, M. A. (2013). Differences in learning outcomes for the online and F2F versions of
"An Introduction to Shakespeare". Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(2),
18-39.

Lazar, J. & Jaeger, P. (2011). Reducing barriers to online access for people with disabilities.
Journal of Issues in Science and Technology, 27(2), 69-82. Retrieved from
http://issues.org/

MacKay, K. (2014). Report on education in Ontario Colleges. OPSEU Communications.

Retrieved from https://ocufa.on.ca/assets/2014-04_CAAT-A-
Report_Education_FULL.pdf

Makarova, E. (2021). Effectiveness of traditional and online learning: comparative analysis

from the student perspective. SHS Web of Conferences 99, 01019, 1-5.

Martin-Beltrán, M., Tigert, J. M., Peercy, M. M., & Silverman, R. D. (2017). Using digital
texts vs. paper texts to read together: Insights into engagement and mediation of literacy
practices among linguistically diverse students. International Journal of Educational
Research, 82, 135-146.

Mathera, M. & Sarkans, A. (2018). Student Perceptions of Online and Face-to-Face Learning.
International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 10(2), 61-76.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-
based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning
studies. U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development Policy and Program Studies Service Center for Technology in Learning.
Retrieved December 2, 2013 from
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html
48
Milz, S. (2020). Assessing student performance between face-to-face and online course
formats in a college-level communications course. The Canadian Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2).

Mozer, L., & Chan, T. (2012). A comparison: Face-to-face and online learning. Paper
presented at 36th annual meeting of the Georgia Educational Research Association,
Savannah, GA.

Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and
future horizons. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(2), 309-319.

Ni, A. Y. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching
research methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199-215.

O’Neill, S., Scott, M., & Conboy, K. (2011). A Delphi study on collaborative learning in
distance education: The faculty perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology,
42, 939-949.

O'Malley, John & Harrison McCraw, (1999) Students Perceptions of Distance Learning,
Online Learning and the Traditional Classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, II(IV).

Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2018). The opportunity to succeed: Achieving barrier-
free education for students with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/opportunity-succeed-achieving-barrier-freeeducation-
students-disabilities/post-secondary-education

Ozcan, G, Fehmi D, Charles R. B. (2013). A Comparative Study of an Online and a Face-to-

Face Chemistry Course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 12(1), 27-40.

Ozerbas, M.A. & Erdogan, B.H. (2016). The effect of the digital classroom on academic
success and online technologies self-efficacy. Educational Technology & Society, 19(4),
203-212.

Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and
preferences in e-learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292- 297. doi:
10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004.

Paul, J.A. & Cochran, J.D. (2013). Key interactions for online programs between faculty,
students, technologies, and educational institutions: A holistic framework. The

Pros and cons of online education. (2011). Retrieved May 10, 2012, from
http://educationportal. com/articles/Pros_and_Cons_of_Online_Education.html.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1), 49-62.

49
Renes, S. L. (2015). Increasing access to higher education through e-learning. In B.
Gradinarova (Ed.), E-learning – Instructional design, organizational strategy and
management (pp. 347-361). doi:10.57772/60906
Reynold, J. (2012). Why do students like online learning? Retrieved May 10, 2012, from
http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Do-Students-Like-Online-Learning?&id=7042650.

Shahzad, N., Kazim, M., Naseem, A., Khalid, B. & Mehdi, L. (2022). Exploring the Attitude
and Preferences of Students Regarding Using Digital Technologies at the University
Level. Journal of Contemporary Trends and Issues in Education, 2(1), 52-71.

Shantakumari, N., & Sajith, P. (2015). Blended learning: The student viewpoint. Annals of
Medical and Health Sciences Research, 5(5), 323-328.

Shoenfeld-Tacher, R., McConnel, S., & Graham, M. (2010). Do no harm-A comparison of the
effects of on-line vs. traditional delivery media on a science course. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 10(3), 257-265.

Smith, D. & Stephens, B. (2010). Marketing education: Online vs traditional. Proceedings of

the American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 17, 810-814.

Sturges, D. L. (2013). Techniques for increasing student engagement for contact hour
equivalence: Online courses that are flexplace, not flextime. Retrieved from
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Techniques+for+increasing+student+engagement+for+
contact+hour...-a0347525074

Taber, K. S. (2010). Paying lip-service to research? The adoption of a constructivist

perspective to inform science teaching in the English curriculum context. Curriculum
Journal, 21(1), 25-45.

Tanyel, F., & Griffin, J. (2012). A ten-year comparison of outcomes and persistence rates in
Online versus face-to-face and course. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/
~bquest/2014/onlinecourses2014.pdf

Terry, L. D., & Diane, E., (2010). Learner-Centered Inquiry in Undergraduate Biology:
Positive Relationships with Long-Term Student Achievement. CBE Life Sci Educ. 9(4):
462–472. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-02-0011

Tucker, S.Y. (2009). Assessing the Effectiveness of Distance Education versus Traditional
On-Campus Education. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Ury, G. (2005). "A Longitudinal Study Comparing Undergraduate Student Performance in

Traditional Courses to the Performance in Online Course Delivery." The Information
Systems Education Journal,3(20), retrieved from http://isedj.org/3/20/

Ury, McDonald, McDonald and Dorn (2016). “Student Performance Online vs On ground: A
Statistical Analysis of IS Courses,” Information Systems Education Journal, 4 (98).
50
Warren, L. L. & Holloman, H. L. (2015). On-line instruction: Are the outcomes the same?
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(2), 148-150.
Washington, L. D., Penny, G. R., & Jones, D. (2020). Perceptions of community college
students and instructors on traditional and technology-based learning in a hybrid
learning environment. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 23, 1-11.

Weber, J. M., & Lennon, R. (2007). Multi-course comparison of traditional versus web-based
course delivery systems. The Journal of Educators Online, 4(2), 1-19.

Wong, L., & Fong, M. (2014). Student attitudes to traditional and online methods of delivery.
Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 1-13. Retrieved from
http://www.jite.org/documents /Vol13/JITEv13ResearchP001-013Wong0515.pdf

Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). Examining the effectiveness of online learning within a
community college system: An Instrumental variable approach (No. 56). New York, NY:
Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/examiningeffectiveness- of-
online-learning.pdf

Yaron, D., Karabinos, M., Lange, D., Greeno, J. G., & Leinhardt, G. (2010). The
ChemCollective-Virtual Labs for introductory chemistry courses. Science, 328(5978),
584-585. doi: 10.1126/science.1182435

51
 APPENDIX

Tai Solarin University of Education, Ijagun, Ogun State

COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Questionnaire on:
ASSESSING LEARNER’S PREFERENCE TOWARDS ONLINE AND
TRADITIONAL CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION
Dear Respondents,
The following questions are meant to find out the learner’s preference towards online
and traditional classroom instruction in Chemistry. You are hereby requested to answer the
questions below sincerely ticking the box ( ), in the two sections, that has the answer you
consider the best in your opinion. The data been collected will be used for research only.
Information supplied will be treated with utmost confidence. Therefore, kindly allow your
response to reflect you candied opinion.

Section A [Personal Information]

Please tick [ ] or write your most appropriate response to the following items.
1. Name of your school: ______________________________________________
2. Gender: Male [ ] Female [ ]
3. Age: _______________
Section B
SA means Strongly Agreed A means Agreed
D means Disagreed SD means Strongly Disagreed

S/N Online versus Traditional Class Instruction SA A D SD

1 Online classes provide better guidance than traditional classes
in Chemistry.
2 Online classes developed better understanding between
teachers and students than traditional classes in Chemistry.
3 Online classes find difficulty in practical implementation of
technical study than traditional classes in Chemistry.
4 Online classroom instruction makes learning simpler in
Chemistry classes.

52
5 Online classes provide more convenience and more
understanding than traditional classes in Chemistry.
6 Online classes increase the utilization of online resources for
Chemistry classes.
7 Online classes are more cost effective than traditional classes
in Chemistry.
8 Time flexibility in online classes is higher than traditional
classes in Chemistry classes.
9 Online class shows high pass percentage than traditional
classes in Chemistry.
10 Online classes highly reduced the interaction with friends and
teachers in Chemistry classes.
11 Online classes is not more tiring than traditional classes in
Chemistry.
12 Online classes increase student’s achievement in Chemistry.
13 I prefer traditional method of instruction in Chemistry due to
lack of personal contact with the teacher in online classes.
14 I prefer traditional classes to online classes because it lowers
subject quality and student involvement.
15 I prefer traditional classes to online due to lack of contact with
peers.
16 I prefer traditional classroom instruction in Chemistry to
online due to lack of full class experience.
17 I prefer traditional classroom instruction to online in
Chemistry classes because some topics cannot be taught
online.
18 I prefer traditional classroom instruction to learn Chemistry
concepts.
19 It is difficult to understand some topics in Chemistry with the
use of online classroom instruction.
20 Traditional classroom instruction increases student’s
achievement than online classroom in Chemistry classes.

53