Students’ Perceptions of Classroom Interaction in Online Synchronous Learning and Face-to-Face Learning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61453/INTIj.20260336Keywords:
Online synchronous learning, Face-to-face learning, Student interaction, Higher educationAbstract
Real-time interaction is a key component of learning; however, students may perceive differences between online synchronous learning and face-to-face classes. This study examines students’ perceptions of interaction in online synchronous learning compared with face-to-face learning, and whether these perceptions influence their willingness to participate. Students enrolled in the Introduction to University Study module at the University of Reading Malaysia in the July 2025 cohort were invited to complete a survey comprising closed and open-ended questions ( ). Although engagement strategies were implemented to promote interaction in the online sessions, the findings indicate that students generally perceive face-to-face classes as more interactive and report a stronger preference for in-person interaction.
References
Amiti, F. (2020). Synchronous and asynchronous e-learning. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.46827/ejoe.v5i2.3313
Gao, X., & Shi, L. (2023). Interactions in online versus face-to-face classes: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Chinese Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.46451/ijclt.20230305
Hanum, N. S. (2017). The importance of classroom interaction in the teaching of reading in junior high school. In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Mahasiswa Kerjasama Direktorat Jenderal Guru Dan Tenaga Kependidikan Kemendikbud 2016. https://files01.core.ac.uk/download/pdf/267023845.pdf
Jin, K. H. (2022). Student engagement during virtual v.s. face-to-face active learning activities in three IT courses. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Information Technology Education, 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1145/3537674.3554752
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Moser, S., & Smith, P. (2015). Benefits of synchronous online courses. ASCUE Proceedings (pp. 43–48). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571270.pdf
Shlomo, A., & Rosenberg-Kima, R. B. (2024). F2F, Zoom, or asynchronous learning? Higher education students’ preferences and perceived benefits and pitfalls. International Journal of Science Education, 47(8), 1002–1027. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2024.2355673
Tsui, A. B. (2001). Classroom interaction. In Cambridge University Press eBooks (pp. 120–125). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511667206.018
University of Reading Malaysia. (2025, July 29). Module roadmap: JJ0IUSN Introduction to University Study [Unpublished document]. Global Academy, University of Reading Malaysia.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 INTI Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
