Exploring the Differential Effects of Face-to-Face and E-Learning Approaches on Learning Outcomes, Retention, and Student Engagement in English Language Education

Authors

  • Qi Zhang Inner Mongolia Honder College of Arts and Sciences
  • Yanghong Hou

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61363/4nqn0785

Keywords:

Face-to-face learning, E-learning, English language education, Learning outcomes, Retention, Student interest

Abstract

This  paper  examines  the  comparative  effectiveness  of  face-to-face  (FTF)  and  E-learning  approaches in English language  education, focusing on learning outcomes,  retention, and student engagement.  A library research  methodology  was  employed,  systematically  reviewing  peer-reviewed  literature  published  between 2010 and 2023. The study utilized thematic analysis to identify common patterns across the reviewed research, including flexibility; engagement,  real-time  interaction, and retention. Findings  indicate  that  while  E-learning offers greater flexibility and enhanced resource accessibility, FTF methods facilitate superior engagement and communication,  which  are  crucial  for  language  learning.  Additionally,  the  study  explores  the  potential  of blended  learning  models,  which  combine  the  strengths  of  both  FTF  and  E-learning  approaches,  leading  to improved  educational  outcomes. Potential  biases  in  the  reviewed  literature,  such  as  publication  bias  and researcher perspective, are acknowledged. To enhance the  accessibility of the results,  a table  summarizes  the databases and number of papers retrieved, while a graph illustrates the percentage of papers included in the analysis compared to those rejected based on keyword criteria.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2024-11-21

How to Cite

Exploring the Differential Effects of Face-to-Face and E-Learning Approaches on Learning Outcomes, Retention, and Student Engagement in English Language Education. (2024). Journal of Social Sciences and Economics, 3(2), 118-126. https://doi.org/10.61363/4nqn0785

Share