IN-CLASS OR ONLINE? INVESTIGATING STUDENTPERCEPTIONS OF ASYNCHRONOUS ONLINE LESSONS
Katherine de Veas, Erin Frazier, Kathryn Jurns, Steven Asquith, Ryan Lege & Phoebe
Lyon
Kanda University of International Studies
ABSTRACT
Online options in higher education have expanded at an increasing rate overthe last 10 years, from entirely online courses, to hybrid courses, to the greater
prevalence of online components in traditional in-person courses. This growing
trend will increase opportunities for non-traditional students to meet theireducational needs (Nakamura, 2017), but at what cost to the quality of that
education? How can institutions transition or modify materials to online
settings, possibly toward a hybridized environment? In an effort to determine
the efficacy of entirely online lessons vs. in-person lessons in thelanguage-teaching field, this study gathered information from approximately
180 learners in a language-focused university in Japan about their perceptionsof language learning in both online & traditional settings. ​The study aimed toestablish whether online, asynchronous versions of core curricula, integrated
with in-person lessons, could offer comparable educational value. The findings
suggest that although online lessons were viewed mostly positively overall,they were not deemed as valuable as the traditional in-class format. Increasing
opportunities to interact in an online language learning environment seems to
be an important consideration.
INTRODUCTION
Whilst online education and course offerings have become a ubiquitous feature of themodern educational landscape, the efficacy of online learning is still heavily debated. In thecontext of this language-focused international university in Japan, which focuses oncommunication and global issues, limited research into online learning has been conductedpreviously (Mynard & Murphy, 2012). However, currently, online educational components
and online courses are yet to be implemented into the core curriculum. Although theflexibility afforded by online learning offers many benefits, an important one being
improved access to educational opportunities for non-traditional students, one of the major
drawbacks is the lack of face-to face interaction. Recognizing the latter, and given theinstitutional context, this study was a pilot intended to investigate suitable instruments andmethods for conducting online lessons. In this paper, quantitative data is utilized todetermine whether online lessons are able to offer comparable value to theclassroom-based instruction that is typically offered.
LITERATURE REVIEW13

In this study, students’ perceptions of the value of online lessons is evaluated. Typically, thebulk of literature on EFL or ESL distance learning focuses on the topics of lesson and task
design, curriculum design, evaluative frameworks, and levels/styles of technologicalincorporation (Swan, 2015; Li, 2015; Lin & Warschauer, 2015). Similar research, albeit withdifferent variables of yearlong to single-lesson studies, variables of in-person, hybridized, or
entirely distance courses, and variables of lesson type and student population, has foundcomparable results regarding student perceptions of online learning (Murday, Ushida &Chenoweth, 2008; de Freitas, Morgan & Gibson, 2015).
While the higher education landscape in Japan is changing, current guidelines from Japan’s
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology do not specify any national
goals for distance learning development (MEXT, 2008). As noted in other research, Japan’s
educational system places a high value on in-classroom learning, and this education ishighly standardized and measured by the ministry (MEXT, 2008; Nakamura, 2017).
However, this means that online distance learning programs in Japan’s higher education
are “niche,” and employ faculty and structures that take into account the “unique cultural
constraints” of the environment (Nakamura, 2017). Entirely online distance learning
programs in Japan have experienced slow uptake and high dropout rates, compared toother countries (Mynard & Murphy, 2012). There is a sentiment, especially in light of recent
global events, that institutions could benefit from a pedagogical shift to incorporate moreof the technology for which Japan is so famous, in a way that fulfils student expectations.
One of these Japanese universities, Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS) is
typical of Japan in the regard that the traditions, ministry requirements, research efforts,and student expectations have combined to make all curricula based on in-person lessons,though technology has been incorporated into lessons in a teacher-led, non-institutionalway (Mynard & Murphy, 2012). Incorporating technology into lessons can be called“blended learning,” in which online components such as forums are used during in-person
lesson time, and independently (asynchronously, within a timeframe) by students. At thisuniversity, research into student perceptions of an “experimental day” of 100% online tasks
indicated that students found the online components both convenient and useful, but weremost concerned with technology issues inhibiting their experience (Mynard & Murphy,2012). The current study aims to provide details of student perceptions in a similarly online“experimental day”, within the framework of in-person lessons at the same university. The
convenience and time-saving qualities of a blended approach were also positively reviewed
by students in more longitudinal studies, and also when evaluating hybridized courses(where a structured amount of course time is online/at distance) (Murday, Ushida &Chenoweth, 2008).
The design of the online lessons, or “modules” used in this study was reflective of manyeducational and distance-learning design principles that credit interaction with greatsociolinguistic power to help students learn (Atkinson et al., 2007; Li, 2015). Considering thebenefits to incorporating interactive elements to the lessons, researchers designed theonline “experimental days” to be largely imitative of what would have been taught face toface. While 1-1 replacement of in-person class elements was not the goal of this research,
nor perhaps should it be (Li, 2015), designing the online lesson to resemble an in-person
lesson was intentional for this study.
14

In contrast, MOOCs, or entirely-online courses with large numbers of attendees, have evenless possibility for peer interaction than their smaller cousins, online distance learning
courses. However, it has been shown that even low-interactivity MOOC students with highmotivation to learn the material, and high engagement with the content, can perceive theonline environment extremely positively and feel the instruction is valuable (de Freitas,
Morgan & Gibson, 2015).
Further areas for study include measuring the academic achievements of students invarious online environments (blended, hybridized, entirely distance) with various ESL/EFL
learning targets (speaking, writing, etc.), and with various degrees of online lesson
components (T-S lecture time, S-S written forums, S-S video discussions, etc.) to determine
guidelines for a pedagogical approach for a multitude of online-education situations. In
addition, the emotional experiences of students, as measured by Bollinger (2017), may havean as yet greater impact on both student perceptions of the course and academic
achievement, and deserves to be studied.
In the face of technological transience exemplified by Moore’s Law, which states thatcomputer processing power roughly doubles for a set price every year (Moore, 1965),
educational measures employing computer technology today may, and should, be
re-evaluated within 5 years (Swan, 2015). Administrations need to keep teaching practices
innovative, respond quickly to changes, and avoid redundancy, while constantly responding
to evolving student needs (Bates, 1999). This is even more relevant as the effects of the
global coronavirus pandemic unfold in the educational sphere, and all levels of academia
consider the best practices and modifications of their approaches.
METHODOLOGYThis study aimed to ascertain whether online courses could offer comparable value to
traditional classroom-based instruction in the context of an international university. The
seven researchers involved in the study created online versions of lessons from the core
course curricula at a four-year language university in Japan. They piloted them with two
sections of the core courses, introducing the online lessons to 14 classes overall andapproximately 180 students. The Learning Management System (LMS), Canvas, was used,
but as this LMS was new to the researchers and students, some researchers chose toinclude an orientation lesson or activity as well. These lessons were then integrated into
the course curriculum, preceded and followed by traditional, in-class lessons. This resulted
in, as mentioned earlier, each group of students having an “experimental day” during which
100% of the class activities were offered online, through Canvas.
Online modules created by researchers in this study were designed to:
1. Achieve desired student learning outcomes within the pacing of the in-person
course2. Incorporate various types of tasks such as listening, analysis, writing, andcollaborative discussion
3. Take approximately 90 minutes of students’ time15

Hoping to preserve some of the interactivity possible in a face-to-face lesson, teachers
incorporated collaborative and peer-peer response tasks into their modules, although thestudies on fostering interaction in an online environment have “only touched the surface ofinteraction” (Li, 2015). Analysis and comparison of interactive tasks in online learning
environments is complex and multifaceted, but many studies reveal a high value placed oninteractivity by both teachers and students.
The researchers employed a quasi-experimental, within-subjects design with two
conditions. The instrument, a survey, did not include items focusing on lesson content;
rather it focused on the structure, delivery, and usefulness of the lesson. Accordingly,
in-class lessons used the same processes as the online lessons, but with different content. A
mixed-methods research design was implemented to collect information about the lessons.
Participants were asked to evaluate the online lesson and an in-class lesson by completingsurveys. Surveys were administered at two different points: following the online lesson, andfollowing a traditional, in-class lesson. The order in which the lessons were delivered was
randomized for participant groups. As a counterbalancing measure, half of the participants
first evaluated an online lesson. Following a rest period of at least a week, they thenevaluated an in-class lesson. The other half did the opposite, first evaluating an in-classlesson, then evaluating the online lesson. The data were used to answer the following
research questions:···

Does online learning receive similar value judgments from participants
concerning class instruction?
Does online learning promote self-regulated learning, engagement, andmotivation?
Does an online format provide adequate opportunities for language input andproduction?

ANALYSIS
Incomplete and duplicate responses were removed from the data before analysis.
Additionally, due to participant attrition, some participants only contributed one survey
response; these responses were also removed from the data. Once this process wascompleted, a total data set of 124 participants remained for analysis. Due to thecounterbalanced, within-subjects design of the study, a repeated measures analysis ofvariance (rANOVA) was used to analyze the data.
Perceptions of skill usage
Participants were required to answer the question “During the lesson, how much, in termsof percentage, did you use each of the following language skills?” and indicated theirperception of the degree to which speaking, listening, reading, and writing were used foreach lesson by inputting a percentage value.
The results rating student perceptions of a difference in the use of skills between online
class conditions and in class conditions were statistically significant for speaking, ​F​(1, 123) =123.29, ​p < 0.001, reading, ​F​(1, 123) = 9.30, ​p = 0.003, and writing, ​F​(1, 123) = 77.04, ​p < 0.001.
16

The differences between groups with regards to listening were not statistically significant,with mean values differing only slightly. Refer to Table 1 for a summary of mean andstandard deviation.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of participant perceptions of language skills use.
Skill

Condition

N

Mean

SD

Speaking

In-class

124

32.94

20.86

Online

124

9.15

12.08

In-class

124

28.98

19.51

Online

124

25.16

27.30

In-class

124

19.36

16.44

Online

124

27.35

24.33

In-class

124

18.52

18.09

Online

124

38.49

25.18

Listening

Reading

Writing*​p <​.05
These results indicate that in the traditional in-class lesson participants felt they used theirspeaking skill more than in the online class. Conversely, participants in the online class feltthat they used their reading and writing skills to a greater degree.
Interaction
Additionally, analysis was carried out to compare the levels of interaction between
participants and with the classroom instructor. Predictably, for the in-class lesson
participants reported significantly more interaction with peers (​M = 3.57, ​SD = 0.86) than in
the online class (​M = 2.21, ​SD = 1.68); ​F​(1, 123) = 71.35, ​p < 0.001. Likewise, participants
reported significantly more interaction with a teacher in the in-class lesson (​M = 1.86, ​SD =1.35) than in the online version (​M​ = 0.60, ​SD​ = 1.13); ​F​(1, 123) = 83.10, ​p ​< 0.001.
Within the constraints of the online lesson format adapted for this study the modes ofinteraction were different. While this is a somewhat unsurprising result, it is important as it
may be the underlying cause for the significant differences observed in participants'
evaluative responses to the lessons.
Evaluative items
Evaluative data were collected using five different rating questions. Using IBM’s SPSS
software, a rANOVA was run to compare the mean values for the online and in classstudent conditions. The rANOVA was also conducted on the aggregate values for the entire
condition and on each individual question. There was no significant difference in the overall
student perceptions of the level appropriateness of the in-class lesson (​M​=3.06, ​SD​=1.23)
and the online lesson (​M = 3.08, ​SD = 1.42) conditions; ​F​(1, 123) = 0.012, ​p = 0.026. There17

was a significant difference for perceptions of the usefulness of the in-class lesson (​M =4.61, ​SD = 1.06) and the online lesson (​M = 4.22, ​SD = 1.20) conditions; ​F​(1, 123) = 13.64, ​p <0.001. For the item asking for student perceptions of whether the lesson was easy to follow,
the in-class (​M = 4.50, ​SD = 1.22) and online (​M = 3.77, ​SD = 1.40) were also significant; ​F​(1,119) = 32.65, ​p < 0.001. Also, statistical significance was found for student perceptions of
the teacher’s use of technology as part of the in-class (​M = 4.61, ​SD = 1.06) and online (​M =3.89, ​SD ​= 1.45) conditions; ​F​(1, 123) = 25.26, ​p < 0.001. Finally, participant indications oflevel of interest in the topic in the in-class (​M = 4.34, ​SD = 1.08) and online (​M ​= 3.80, ​SD =1.21) conditions were also significant; ​F​(1, 123) = 21.18, ​p​ < 0.001.
These results suggest that for all items, participants were significantly more positive in theirevaluations of the in-class condition. This also includes the item evaluating the use oftechnology, which was used more heavily in the online version of the lesson. Whilst
significant for each item except the level of the lesson, examination of the mean values foreach evaluative item shows that the averages for all items is within one point (see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Comparison of mean values of evaluative items

This general trend suggests that while participants were more critical of the online versionof the lessons, they still remained generally positive about even these lessons.
DISCUSSION
The results bring to light some interesting patterns of the learners' perceptions of online
classes. This section will explore the results further by addressing the research questions
posed. The limitations of the study will also be evaluated.
18

Research Questions
Does online learning receive similar value judgement from participants concerning class
instruction?
The results from this study show there is a clear preference for in-class lessons over online
classes. This predilection could stem from the models of education learners have previously
been exposed to; as mentioned earlier, there is an inordinate value placed on in-classlessons (MEXT, 2008; Nakamura, 2017). As learners have only previously had exposure tophysical classes, taking part in a one-off online lesson was regarded as a negative that did
not follow the communicative blended-learning model KUIS adheres to. In all of theevaluative items the online lesson scored less, showing the learners’ perception of thislesson being less valuable. It should be noted that the learners found the online and in-classmaterials were equivalent in their difficulties, meaning that level was not a confounding
variable in the results.
Does online learning promote engagement and motivation?
As noted by prior studies, students that already possess a high level of motivation andengagement in the topic tend to have a more positive experience during online lessons (deFreitas, Morgan & Gibson, 2015). The data collected for this study found that learners
viewed the online lesson to be less useful and had less interest in the topic than that of the
in-class lessons. This could suggest that the learners’ motivation decreased during theonline lesson. There may be a correlation between the more negative perspective of theonline lesson and the lack of engagement indicated by the learners. The data shows thatwithin the in-class lessons, peer-to-peer and teacher-to-learner interaction is higher thanthat of the online lesson. This is not an unexpected result as it is difficult for an online lesson
to incorporate peer interaction, as lesson designs for online classes tend to be
asynchronous. Within the in-class lesson, learners have the ability to collaborate andcontribute to each other's learning growth, which they may otherwise not be able to reachalone (Wells, 1999).
Does an online format provide adequate opportunities for language input andproduction?
The data showed that learners perceived an imbalance for the language input andproduction related to the online lessons. Inherently, asynchronous online lessons usuallylack the ability to support speaking skills and tend to focus on reading, writing, andlistening. The results from this study echo this pattern. During the in-class lessons, thelearners indicated that each of the language skills were utilized nearly equally. This could be
because of the communicative nature of the classes at KUIS and the courses that wereselected for this study. In contrast, speaking production during the online lesson fell below
ten percent. This could demonstrate the lack of a coherent framework for online classes toincorporate interactive distance learning (Li, 2015). This was also a consequence of theeducational platform selected to conduct these lessons (the free version of Canvas), which
did not have a built-in video message feature that could have led to more spoken language
output.
Limitations
It is necessary to identify the limitations of this study in order to evaluate its conclusions.
Firstly, one of the key limitations is the institutional environment itself. KUIS has a high19

level of engagement with peer-to-peer and teacher-to-learner interactions duringclassroom lessons. Learners have become accustomed to this teaching approach. This
study explored a micro-level, social phenomena taking place within a single context (Punch,2014). As noted earlier, this was a one-off online experience for the students with norecurrence, essentially a novelty. This educational change was unfamiliar in both itsdelivery and platform. This could have accounted for some of the negative perceptions of
the online lessons. Furthermore, learners’ ability to utilize technology effectively withregards to topics such as familiar learning platforms, stable Wi-Fi connections and uniform
lesson models, was not included in this study. These factors could have drastically altered
the learners’ experiences and perceptions of the online lesson. Therefore, the findings
should not be generalized to a larger student population or a different contextual
environment.
CONCLUSION
Although the language education context in Japan has mostly shown limited interest in thepossibilities of online asynchronous instruction in the past, this may be likely to change inthe post-pandemic future. Determining how to craft online classes which satisfy learnerneeds is becoming more relevant to university administrations, course designers andeducators alike, and the perceptions of students to the online medium is central to thisappraisal. This study has measured students’ impressions of the skills used, the amount ofinteraction undertaken, and their perceived value judgements regarding online lessons.
Overall, the results showed that online classes were viewed less positively by students than
traditional in-class lessons, and that interaction and a spoken component were
understandably more limited. Many studies have demonstrated that interactivity is highly
valued in an entirely online context by both students and teachers (Bollinger, 2017; Li, 2015;
de Freitas, Morgan & Gibson, 2015; Wells, 1999). Although, students might still evaluate
their learning positively in a non-language online course in which little interactivity occurs(de Freitas, Morgan & Gibson, 2015), in the field of language learning for communication,interactivity appears to be an essential variable to a positive value judgment from students.
Creating as many opportunities as possible for students to interact both peer-to-peer andwith teachers in the online environment seems to be advisable. Fortunately, the recent
rapid development of online tools like cloud-based video conferencing and multimodalsocial learning platforms make the inclusion of such interactive class components easily
attainable in many learning contexts.

REFERENCES
Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and interaction in asociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. ​The Modern Language Journal,
91​(2), 169-188. ​https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00539.x
Bates, T. A. (1999). ​Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university
leaders. ​Jossey-Bass.

20

Bollinger, A. (2017). Foreign language anxiety in traditional and distance learning foreign
language classrooms [Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University]. Scholars Crossing.
Chang, Y., & Hannafin, M. J. (2015). The uses (and misuses) of collaborative distanceeducation technologies. ​Quarterly Review of Distance Education​, 16(​2)​, 77-92.
https://www.questia.com/read/1P3-3784890801/the-uses-and-misuses-of-collaborative-dis
tance-educationde Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning andteaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning
provision.
​British
Journalof
Educational
Technology,​​46​(3),455-471.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12268
Li, W. (2015). Developing a framework for guiding interaction design in distance learning[Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech]. VTechWorks.
Lin, C. & Warschauer, M. (2015). Online foreign language education: What are theproficiency
outcomes?
​The
ModernLanguage
Journal,9​ 9(2), 394-397.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12234_1
MEXT. (2008). Basic plan for the promotion of education (provisional translation).
https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/lawandplan/title01/detail01/sdetail01/1373812.
htm
Moore, G. E. (1965). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. ​Electronics, 38(8). ​https://doi.org/10.1109/N-SSC.2006.4785860
Murday, K., Ushida, E., & Chenoweth, N.A. (2008). Learners’ and teachers’ perspectives on
language online. ​Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21​(2), 115-145.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220801943718
Mynard, J., & Murphy, P. (2012). An investigation into offering flexible language courses
utilising blended learning. ​Studies in Linguistics and Language Teaching​, 23, 101-137.
http://id.nii.ac.jp/1092/00000919/
Nakamura, M. (2017). The state of distance education in Japan. ​The Quarterly Review ofDistance Education,​ ​18​(3), 75-87. ​https://www.learntechlib.org/p/191818/
Punch, K. (2014). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches.
SAGE Publications.
Swan, K. (2015). Technology transience and distance education in the second machine age.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education​, ​16​(2), 139-146.
Wells, G. (1999). The zone of proximal development and its implications for learning andteaching. ​Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education (pp.
313–334). ​https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605895

21