Published date: Feb 17 2023

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: 2nd International Conference on Science and Its Applications “Sustainable Innovation in Natural Science, Economic and Business Science, and Social Science” (ICOSIAS)

Pages: 1-13

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v8i2.12746

Alberth .alberth@uho.ac.idDepartment of English Language Education, Halu Oleo University, Kendari, Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

La InoDepartment of English Language Education, Halu Oleo University, Kendari, Sulawesi Tenggara, Indonesia

The advent of online and hybrid learning in the English as a Foreign Language classroom has sparked an extended debate. This paper aims to contribute to this ongoing debate by scrutinizing the effectiveness of the three different instructional methods: online, hybrid, and conventional face-to-face classrooms for the teaching of English grammar in the EFL setting. Students in online sections reported more challenges than those in the hybrid and face-to-face sections. The implications of this study are discussed in this paper.

Keywords: Face-to-face, Hybrid, Instruction, Learning, Online

[1] Livingstone KA, Campus T, Turkeyen ECD. Implications of implementing a hybrid learning approach at the University of Guyana. Baraton Interdisciplinary Research Journal. 2013;3(2):53-62.


[2] Bernard RM, Abrami PC, Lou Y, Borokhovski E, Wade A, Wozney L, et al. How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of educational research. 2004;74(3):379-439.


[3] Detwiler JE. Comparing student performance in online and blended sections of a GIS programming class. Transactions in GIS. 2008;12(1):131-44.


[4] Alberth, Wiramihardja E, Uden L. WhatsApp with English language teaching? Some practical ideas and strategies. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning. 2020;12(3):262-74.


[5] Todd EM, Watts LL, Mulhearn TJ, Torrence BS, Turner MR, Connelly S, et al. A meta- analytic comparison of face-to-face and online delivery in ethics instruction: The case for a hybrid approach. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2017;23(6):1719-54.


[6] Kentnor HE. Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United States. Curriculum and teaching dialogue. 2015;17(1):21-34.


[7] Spencer D, Temple T. Examining Students’ Online Course Perceptions and Comparing Student Performance Outcomes in Online and Face-to-Face Classrooms. Online Learning. 2021;25(2):233-61.


[8] Shelley DJ, Swartz LB, Cole MT. Learning business law online vs. onland: A mixed method analysis. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE). 2008;4(2):54-66.


[9] Topper A. Are they the same? Comparing the instructional quality of online and face￿to￿face graduate education courses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2007;32(6):681-91.


[10] Pucel DJ, Stertz TF. Effectiveness of and student satisfaction with web-based compared to traditional in service teacher education courses. Journal of STEM Teacher Education. 2005;42(1):2.


[11] Ury G. A comparison of undergraduate student performance in online and traditional courses. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges. 2004;19(4):99-107.


[12] Burkhardt JM, Kinnie J, Cournoyer CM. Information literacy successes compared: Online vs. face to face. Journal of Library Administration. 2008;48(3-4):379-89.


[13] Atchley W, Wingenbach G, Akers C. Comparison of course completion and student performance through online and traditional courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2013;14(4):104-16.


[14] Ward B. The best of both worlds: A hybrid statistics course. Journal of Statistics Education. 2004;12(3).


[15] Young G. ’Hybrid’Teaching Seeks to End the Drive Between Traditional and Online Instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2002.


[16] Abdullat A, Terry N. Assessing the effectiveness of virtual learning in a graduate course in computer information systems. Information Systems Education Journal. 2005;3( 34):3-8.


[17] Alberth A. Critical success factors in online language learning. TEFLIN journal. 2011;22(1):16-33.


[18] Terry N, Lewer J. Campus, online, or hybrid: An assessment of instruction modes. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Review. 2003;4(1):23-34.


[19] Gutierrez D, Russo S. Comparing Student Performance, Attitudes And Preferences In An Introduction To Business Course: Online, Hybrid And Traditional Delivery Methods Who Makes The A Grade? College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal (CTMS). 2005;1(3):83-90.


[20] Rivera JC, Rice ML. A comparison of student outcomes and satisfaction between traditional and web based course offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 2002;5(3):151-79.


[21] Banas EJ, Emory WF. History and issues of distance learning. Public Administration Quarterly. 1998:365-83.



[22] O’Neal K, Jones WP, Miller SP, Campbell P, Pierce T. Comparing web-based to traditional instruction for teaching special education content. Teacher Education and Special Education. 2007;30(1):34-41.


[23] Reasons SG, Valadares K, Slavkin M. Questioning the hybrid model: Student outcomes in different course formats. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2005;9(1):83-94.


[24] Rovai AP, Barnum KT. On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education/Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance. 2003;18(1):57-73.


[25] Olson TM, Wisher RA. The effectiveness of web-based instruction: An initial inquiry. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2002;3(2):1-17.


[26] Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics (Second EditionK New York. NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc. 1989.


[27] Fields A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications. London, UK. 2005.


[28] Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences: Routledge; 2013.


[29] Alberth, Wiramihardja E, Kuasa W, Lio A, Badara A, editors. Towards „the best of both worlds“: what learning activities are conducted where? 11th International Conference on Engineering Education (EDUCATION15); 2018; Salerno, Italy.


[30] Mayes T. Learning technology and learning relationships. Teaching & learning online: Routledge; 2018. p. 16-26.


[31] Hidayah N, Indriani L. Real Time Feedback in English Microteaching Practice: A Case Study on Online Learning. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching. 2021;5(2):155-67.


[32] Bowo TA, Sari EDP, Dewi MK. Students’ Perception in Using Social Media as. Language Learning. Journal of Language and Health. 2021;2(1):7-16.


[33]Achacoso M. Evaluating technology and instruction: Literature review and recommendations. Texas: The University of Texas. 2003;3


[34] Köroğlu ZÇ, Bilici ÖU. Flipgrid for Developing and Assessing English Language Learners’ Speaking Skills. Policies, Practices, and Protocols for the Implementation of Technology Into Language Learning: IGI Global; 2022. p. 96-113.


[35] Beno M, Hvorecky J, editors. Pandemic enforcement: E-working and e-learning joined their efforts globally. SHS Web of Conferences; 2021: EDP Sciences.


[36] Clark RE. Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of educational research. 1983;53(4):445-59.