Abstract
During ‘COVID 19’ pandemic situation, the regular classes were suspended and online classes were conducted for the Semester II and Semester IV for 78 and 98 students, respectively for five weeks. The feedbacks from students were taken at the end of week on Saturday for five weeks. The objective of the study was to understand the utility of online classes in comparison to regular class room classes and to understand the problem of the students during online classes. The results indicated that online classes were not able to compensate for participation of students and interaction with the teacher to clear their doubts. The face-to-face interaction of students and teacher is essential. However, it was possible to improve the objectives of the clear understanding of online session, to cover the topics as per course curriculum and organizing the contents which were easy to follow. The online teaching was not able to compensate the practical hands-on teacher training wherein the teacher is in one-to-one interaction with its pupil. It was recommended to plan online teaching training programmes for teachers online teaching may also be included a part of the course curriculum and this will become a reality in the future teaching programmes in school and colleges.
Keywords: COVID-19, education system, interaction, online teaching, participation week
Collaborative Peer Reviewer
This article is collaboratively reviewed by Dr. Ruel F. Ancheta, Dr. Amada G. Banaag and Dr. Rosalinda Aguirre
References
Arbaugh, J.B. (2000). Virtual Classroom versus Physical Classroom: an exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous Internet-based MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 24 (2), 213-233.
Bartley, S. J., and Golek, J. H. (2004). Evaluating the Cost Effectiveness of Online and Face-to-Face Instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 167–175.
Bettinger E. and Loeb S. (2017) Promises and pitfalls of online education. Evidence Speaks Reports, Vol 2, #15, pp1-4. B Economic Studies at Brookings
De la Varre, C., Keane, J., and Irvin, M. J. (2011).Enhancing Online Distance Education in Small Rural US Schools: A Hybrid, Learner-Centred Model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(4), 35–46.
Fallah, M. H., and Ubell, R. (2000). Blind scores in a graduate test. Conventional compared with web-based outcomes. ALN Magazine, 4 (2).
Farinella, J. A., Hobbs, B. K., and Weeks, H. S. (2000). Distance delivery: The faculty perspective. Financial Practice and Education, 10, 184–194.
Freeman, M.A. and Capper. J. M. (1999). Exploiting the web for education: An anonymous asynchronous role simulation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15 (1), 95-116.
Gratton-Lavoie, C., and Stanley, D. (2009). Teaching and learning principles of Microeconomics online: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Economic Education, 40(1), 3–25.
Kim, K., and Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education: The survey says. Educause Quarterly, 29(4), 22.
Lee, B-C., Yoon, J-O.and Lee, I. (2009). Learners’ acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results, Computers & Education, 53(4), 1320-1329.
Lorenzetti, J. (2013.). Academic Administration – Running a MOOC: Secrets of the World’s Largest Distance Education Classes – Magna Publications.
Nesler, M.S., and Lettus, M. K. (1995). A follow-up study of external degree graduates fromFlorida. Paper presented at the 103rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York, August.
Nguyen T. 2015. The Effectiveness of Online Learning: Beyond No Significant Difference and Future Horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 11, No. 2, 309-319.
Pape, L. (2010). Blended Teaching & Learning. School Administrator, 67(4), 16–21.
