Study on Moving Face-to-Face CS Courses to Online in Pandemic
QI ZHU, SCEHILA W. MARTINS
College of Nature and Applied Sciences
University of Houston – Victoria
3007 N. Ben Wilson St.
Victoria, TX, USA 77901
Abstract: - UH-Victoria has offered both face-to-face sessions and online sessions to the students for most of
computer science courses. However, COVID-19 has forced nearly all students including those who initially selected
face-to-face sessions to online instruction during pandemic time. In this paper, we conducted a survey in five
different courses to find out what students thought of moving from face-to-face to online learning, what kinds of
challenges and problems they met, and what kinds of resources or tools they need.
Key-Words: - Face-to-Face, online instruction, pandemic, teaching resources and tools
Received: August 27, 2021. Revised: April 20, 2022. Accepted: May 21, 2022. Published: June 16, 2022.
1. Introduction
In recent years, fully online or hybrid/blended online
instruction courses are increasing exponentially at
many higher education institutions in the United States
and worldwide [18]. And [13] showed that 89 percent
of four-year higher education institutions offered
courses taught fully online, or hybrid/blend online. Of
all students enrolled in higher education in 2017,
33.5% enrolled in some form of distance
education/online learning courses [4].
In their paper, [11] defined the online instruction
as “distance education is teaching and planned
learning in which teaching normally occurs in a
different place from learning, requiring
communication through technologies as well as special
institutional organization” (p2). Even it is hard to use a
uniform definition in rapidly changing online
instructional education, but all agree that online
instruction has the following advantages over
traditional face-to-face instruction [6]:
• To reduce the time and costs for travel.
• To increase opportunities to access and collaborate
with expert professionals.
• To provide students with flexibility at their
convenience.
• To allow the adjustments to subjects and content.
As computing becomes mainstream in the
increasing range of academic disciplines in higher
education, it is unavoidable that more online learning
courses are required in computer related degrees.
However, programming courses are generally regarded
as difficult, especially in the online environment [5].
In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic has pushed thousands
of colleges and universities into remote learning, 98%
of institutions had moved most in-person classes
online and 43% of institutions had invested in new
online learning resource [4].
2. Literature Review
Traditional instruction is a structured education
program that focuses on face-to-face (f2f) contact
with students in a classroom [2]. The instructor plays
the central role in helping students learn through
organized lectures. Students who enroll in lecture
classes consistently expressed several reasons for
preferring lecture in a classroom, according to
national data collected by [8]. They preferred to
learn by watching an instructor present the material
and being able to ask questions during the
presentation of the material; they valued the human
interaction. Students also pointed out that they
frequently benefited when another student asked the
instructor a question and they were able to listen
to the instructor’s response. Students in lecture
courses preferred these types of interactions to the
opportunity for more individual attention than in an
online course [1].
2.1 Online Instructional Education
Online instructional education has grown rapidly in
higher education [12]. Online learning has become a
major alternative approach to traditional instruction by
offering great opportunities for anyone who wants to
learn something from the internet, with the advantages
to learn anytime and anywhere [17]. Some other
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on COMPUTERS
DOI: 10.37394/23205.2022.21.28
Qi Zhu, Scehila W. Martins
E-ISSN: 2224-2872
229
Volume 21, 2022
benefits of online learning are its ability to utilize
various forms of multimedia such as texts, audios, and
videos, more flexible self-responsible learning pace,
and lower costs [3].
However, studies [10, 19] show that traditional
face-to-face learning provides real and meaning
interactions among students and teachers. Most
students and parents do not feel that the cost for online
tuition should be the same as the traditional face-to-
face classes [4]. There are concerns and complaints on
online instruction including: poor course content, little
collaborative learning, inconsistent instruction, no
access to professors, poor instructor preparation, and
technical or network problems.
2.2 Online Learning in Programming Courses
The growing interest in student-directed learning and
the rise in popularity of online learning have also
resulted in relatively steady growth in computer
science majors, including the programming courses
[9]. Studies show that programmers spend between
20%-30% of their time online for acquiring
information and code, even more time than the time
spend on coding [21]. A widely adopted online
resources such as concrete code examples, some
program paradigms, and video tutorials to show a step-
by-step guide of how programming solution can be
implemented to help students to learn more effectively
and efficiently [14].
However, programming courses are generally
regarded as difficult, and often have the highest
dropout rates [15]. Appropriate pedagogies and
teaching approaches are essential for effective
teaching and learning [5].
2.3 Purpose of the Study
Established in 1973, the University of Houston –
Victoria has a main campus located in the city of
Victoria, Texas, as well as an instructional site in
Katy, a Houston suburb. UHV has a proud history of
offering affordable and engaging online courses. In
2017, UHV was awarded on top-10 list for best Texas
online college education. “UHV leaders realized early
on that significant number of our students were unable
to take a traditional face-to-face class schedule. The
university has spent a lot of time and energy coming
up with effective ways to teach online.” Said by David
Cockrum, UHV provost [20].
For Computer Science (CS) and Computing
Information System (CIS) programs, UHV has
offered both traditional face-to-face session as well
as online session for most of the courses at the
same time, students could select the instructional
format that they believe will best support their
learning style. However, is online instruction better,
worse, or as good as traditional instruction? What
are the reasons some students insisting on the
traditional face-to-face format? In the future, will
traditional instruction be totally substituted? How
could an institution assist students in selecting the
instructional format that will be best suited for
them?
In March 2019, as thousands of colleges and
universities in the United States, UHV transitioned
all face-to-face classes to online learning because of
the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic. Students who prefer the traditional face-
to-face format were forced to change to online
learning environment, the COVID-19 pandemic has
affected their learning at many levels. In this paper,
we conducted a survey in four fundamental
programming CS courses and one CIS course trying
to find out:
1. Do f2f student accept the online learning
format?
2. What challenges the f2f students face in
transition from face-to-face format to online
learning format?
3. Compared to online students, what are the
reasons they want to select f2f learning format?
4. In the future, will the online learning
instruction completely replace f2f instruction?
3. Research Design and Survey
Results
The goal of this study is to find out the learning
habits of F2F preferences computer science
students and programming practitioners, with the
purpose of understanding why they prefer to F2F
learning format and what are the challenges when
they are forced to switch to online learning format.
The study context consists of a survey delivered to
five CS courses in Spring 2020 to Fall 2020.
• COSC 1336: Programming Fundamentals I
(F2F class)
• COSC 1337: Programming Fundamentals II
(F2F class)
• COSC 3317: Object Oriented Programming
(both F2F session and online session)
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on COMPUTERS
DOI: 10.37394/23205.2022.21.28
Qi Zhu, Scehila W. Martins
E-ISSN: 2224-2872
230
Volume 21, 2022
• COSC 3325: Information Systems in
Organizations (both F2F session and online
session)
• COSC 3333: Data Structures and Algorithms
II (F2F class)
Among them, both COSC 3317 and 3325 have
both F2F and online sessions at the same time, and
COSC 1336, COSC 1337, and COSC 3333 had
only F2F sessions. All F2F sessions in Spring
2020 to Fall 2020 are moved to hybrid format
(Synchronized Team online class and Blackboard
course platform). COSC 1336, COSC 1337,
COSC 3317, and COSC 3333 are heavily
programming involved class, but COSC 3325 is
not a programming related class.
3.1 Enrollment Preference
Students have very different preferences such as
how, when, where and how often to learn,
according to [16]. Numbers and percent of
students enrolled in online sessions vs. F2F
sessions for some heavily programming involved
classes such as COSC 3317, 3331, and 3333 over
the years 2015-2020 are listed in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Percent of Students Enrolled in F2F vs. Online for Some Courses from 2015 to 2020
For classes 3317, 3331, and 3333, we
offered at least one or two times with multiple
sessions in each year from 2015-2020 (except in
2015, we did not offer F2F COSC 3333). From
Figure 1, data reflects those students from UHV
select almost equally between F2F and online
sessions between 2015-2019. The F2F
percentage dropped in year of 2020 probably
because of the COVID-19. According to [4] of a
survey of current students, “97% of college
students have switched to online instruction”.
3.2 Acceptance Rate
In March 2019, UHV transitioned all face-to-
face classes to synchronized online learning
because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Students
who prefer the traditional face-to-face format
were forced to move to online learning
environment. At UHV, traditionally nearly 50%
students select F2F session, especially for
heavily programming related class such as
COSC 3317, COSC 3331, COSC 3333. COVID-
19 pandemic has forced them to change the
learning habits from F2F into online, so what do
they think?
In 2020, we have conducted a survey in five
courses listed above, 1336, 1337, and 3333 have
only F2F sessions, 3317 and 3325 have both
F2F and online sessions, both are using the same
teaching materials/platform/methods, just F2F
has a synchronized Microsoft Team session.
And 1336, 1337, 3317, 3333 are heavily
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on COMPUTERS
DOI: 10.37394/23205.2022.21.28
Qi Zhu, Scehila W. Martins
E-ISSN: 2224-2872
231
Volume 21, 2022
programming related, but 3325 is not. In survey,
we asked “In your opinion, this transition to
fully online classes has made the learning
process: a, easier; b, easy; c, no difference; d,
hard; e, harder”.
Figure 2 Percent of Students Acceptance Rate
From Figure 2, we observe that from
1336/1337/3333, 90%/68.75%/87.5% students
think moving to online is either hard or harder,
respectively. However, this number is only
33.33% for COSC 3317 F2F. In addition,
55.56%/60%/70.27% students from 3317
F2F/3317 online/3325 online think moving to
online has no difference, we expect that online
students will select majority to no difference since
they select online option at first, but half of 3317
F2F students think there is no difference as well.
3.3 Learning Content
In survey, we asked when moving the courses
from F2F to online, which course content has
• theoretical concepts: the building concepts
studied in the class.
• programming skills: the programming skills the
students needed in the class.
• software usage: the usage of the needed
software in the class.
• non-programming assignments: all submitted
assignments that are not programming related,
such as quizzes, discussions activities, etc.
• programming assignments: all submitted
programming assignments such as homework
and projects.
• course materials: all distributed course materials
including handouts, class discussion,
video/audio presentations, reading materials.
• course schedule: the schedule including
sychnoized classes, due dates for all
assignments, discussions, etc.
• feedback: the responses from the instructor and
the classmates.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on COMPUTERS
DOI: 10.37394/23205.2022.21.28
Qi Zhu, Scehila W. Martins
E-ISSN: 2224-2872
232
Volume 21, 2022
Figure 3 Percent of Students’ Survey
The Figure 3 showed the survey results in all
areas listed above in percentage.
• theoretical concepts: 1336, 1337, and 3333
all have large percentage students think that
the theoretical concepts were more difficult
in 70%, 45%, and 75%, respectively. And
the percentage plus Same difficulty of all
three courses are all over 80%. Even the
percentage of More difficulty plus Same
difficult for 3317 F2F, 3317 online, and
3325 F2F are all over 80%, but the
percentage of all three courses of more
difficulty is just around 20%. 3325 online
has only 50% thought the theoretical
concept is either More difficulty or Same
difficulty.
• programming skills: the percentage of
programming skills is almost the same as the
theoretical concepts. 3325 is exceptional
since it has no programming involved in this
class.
• software usage: only 40% of 1336, 20% of
1337 and 3317, and 0% of 3333 of students
thought the software usage is More
difficulty. Almost 50% of students thought it
is the Same difficulty.
• non-programming assignments: In all
courses, nearly 50% students thought it is at
the Same difficulty, only a few students
thought it is More difficulty. Except 3317
has no non-programming assignments, that
is the reason for large percentage of Not
applicable.
• programming assignments: 1336, 1337, and
3333 have more than 60% selected More
difficulty, and all students thought either
More difficulty or Same difficulty. Also 3325
F2F has more than 50% selected More
difficulty. However, it is interesting that
3317 online and 3317 F2F more than 50%
thought Same difficulty.
• course materials: 1336, 1337, and 3333 have
selected More difficulty in 60%, 40%, and
60%, respectively, and almost all students
thought either More difficulty or Same
difficulty. Other classes the majority of the
students thought Same difficulty.
• course schedule: the survey feedback for this
one is distributed, some thought it is More
difficulty and some thought it is Same
difficulty or even Less difficulty.
• feedback: the result is almost the same as
course schedule.
In summary, what we observed are:
• over 50% of students in COSC 1336, COSC
1337, and COSC 3333 thought it is harder to
move from F2F format into online format,
especially for theoretical concepts, course
materials, programming related assignments,
or programming skills. For all other
categories, such as non-programming
assignments, schedule and feedback, even
10-20% thought it is More difficulty,
however, the majority students thought it is
the same difficulty or not applicable.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on COMPUTERS
DOI: 10.37394/23205.2022.21.28
Qi Zhu, Scehila W. Martins
E-ISSN: 2224-2872
233
Volume 21, 2022
• For COSC 3325 online course, the majority
students thought it is the same difficulty or
not applicable for all categories since it is
non-programming related.
• For COSC 3317 F2F and COSC 3317
online, even though 10-20% students
thought More difficulty in all categories, but
the majority students thought it is the same
difficulty or not applicable. An interesting
point is there are also 10-20% students from
COSC 3317 online thought there is No
difficulty at all.
• For COSC 3325 F2F course, the survey
result is not reasonable due to the small
number of students.
3.4 Online Resources
In [7], they mentioned that useful online
resources would help to engage students in
active learning such as online study groups and
help them to explore the deep learning in some
specific topics such as YouTube videos. We had
conducted in survey which online resources they
find helpful during the online transition as
following (they could select more than one
choice):
• APV: Asynchronous pre-recorded videos
(such as YouTube, etc)
• APL: Asynchronous pre-recorded lectures
by the instructor
• SM: Synchronous meeting using Zoom/MS
Teams
• OOH: Online office hours (individual or
group)
• OSG: Online study groups
• OSI: Online SI (Supplemental Instruction)
sessions
• OT: Online tutoring
Table 1: Percentage of Students’ Selecting Resources
APV
APL
OOH
OSG
OSI
OT
1336
40%
30%
0%
30%
20%
70%
1337
81.25%
50%
0%
18.75%
31.25%
12.5%
3317 online
45%
60%
10%
15%
NIL
20%
3317 F2F
0%
25%
25%
25%
NIL
25%
3325 F2F
50%
25%
25%
25%
0%
0%
3325 online
51.4%
42.9%
28.6%
8.6%
8.6%
11.4%
3333
62.5%
50%
12.5%
25%
12.5%
12.5%
Generally, there are high percentage on
demand on asynchronous pre-recorded videos,
asynchronous pre-recorded lectures by the
instructor, and synchronous meeting. In contrast,
very low demands on online office hours and
online tutors.
3.5 Study Habits
We also asked if the students’ learning habits
have been changed or not, if yes, what kind of
changes they have made. Figure 4 shows the
percent of students who has changed the
learning habits or not. We can see for the
original F2F class such as 1336, 1337, 3317F2F,
3333, the rates are all high (>=60%). 3325F2F is
50% since it is not a programming related class.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on COMPUTERS
DOI: 10.37394/23205.2022.21.28
Qi Zhu, Scehila W. Martins
E-ISSN: 2224-2872
234
Volume 21, 2022
Figure 4 Percent of Students’ Learning Habits Change
For the question “What types of changes
you have made to your study routines?”, there
are many different answers, we pick a few
answers that are commonly mentioned:
• More difficult in learning at home, lack of
energy, home is not a good study
environment.
• Learning from online is more difficulty,
self-learning is hard, need face interaction.
• Hard to keep all due dates for the
assignments of all classes, time
prioritization, need to have a digital routine
to learn daily.
• I had to study longer, spend more time in
learning. Need to check blackboard more
than usual and spend more time.
3.5 Self-Assessment and Challenges
In addition, in the survey we asked the students to
self-assess their performance in the new learning
environment, below, meet, or exceed their
expectation. The survey results are shown in
Figure 5.
Figure 5 Percent of Students’ Self-Assessment
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on COMPUTERS
DOI: 10.37394/23205.2022.21.28
Qi Zhu, Scehila W. Martins
E-ISSN: 2224-2872
235
Volume 21, 2022
From above figure, we could find for 1336,
1337, 3325 F2F, and 3333, at least 50% of
students thought that they are below the
expectations. But for 3317 F2F, 3317 online,
and 3325 online, most students (more than 70%)
thought that they meet the expectations.
At the end of survey, we also asked the
question “What is the most challenging aspect of
the online transition?” Next, we list those are
mentioned more frequently in the answer,
• Lack of the instructor’s directly interaction,
harder to get help.
• Course materials delivered online is not as
easy to understand if compared to F2F.
• Home is NOT a good study environment.
• Self-discipline learning, time management,
maintaining schedule, and deal with
conflicting deadlines.
• Mental exhaustion and anxiety of COVID-
19 crisis.
4. Conclusions
Online instruction is increasing very fast recently at
many higher education institutions, for most of the
universities including UHV, offering both face-to-
face sessions and online sessions to the students.
However, COVID-19 has forced nearly all students,
including those who initially selected face-to-face
sessions to online instruction during pandemic time.
In our study, majority students who initially
selected f2f sessions thought moving to online is
harder and their grades are below their
expectation, especially for the first-year
programming courses (COSC 1336, COSC 1337)
and some hard programming courses (COSC
3333). Their studying habits have changed
because of the home environment, learning style,
and time management. However, for the students
who initially selected intermediate programming
class (COSC 3317) and non-programming class
(COSC 3325), most students could accept the
online transition and believe that they could meet
their expectation. The challenges for the online
transitions are instructor’s f2f interaction, the way
to help, time management, schedule maintain, and
study environment.
For the question, will the online learning
instruction completely replace f2f instruction? We
do not think that will happen, at least not very
soon. In Computer Science, especially for the first
year’s programming classes and some advanced
hard abstract courses, we should offer both f2f and
online to the students. For the online courses, there
are high demands on the resources of
asynchronized pre-recorded videos and
synchronized meeting tools. In addition, some
supplement tools are considered necessary such as
course scheduler to help students to deal with
assignments confliction and time management
from multiple courses.
References:
[1] Ahmed, D. T, Which Styles of Teaching and
Learning are Effective for Students? – Students
Perspective, International Conference on
Computational Science and Computational
Intelligence, pp. 880-883, 2019.
[2] Brewer, E.W., DeJonge, J.O, and Stout, V.J,
Moving to Online: Making the Transition from
Traditional Instruction and Communication
Strategies, Corwin Press Inc, California, 2001.
[3] Clark, T. and Barbour, M.K. Online, Blended,
and Distance Education in Schools: Building
Successful Program. Stylus Publishing, USA,
2015.
[4] Education Data, Education Data Organization,
retrieved at 12/2/2020 at
https://educationdata.org/online-education-
statistics, 2020.
[5] Escobar-Avila, J., Venuti, D. Penta, M.D. &
Haiduc, S. A Survey on Online Learning
Preferences for Computer Science and
Programming, IEEE/ACM 41st International
Conference on Software Engineering:
Software Engineering Education and
Training, pp. 170-181, 2019.
[6] Finch, D., & Jacobs, K. Online Education:
Best Practices to Promote Learning.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics 56th Annual Meeting, 2012.
[7] Huang, L., Zhao, H. Yang, K. Liu, Y. She, J.
Xiao, X. Xie, G. and Yuan, W. Active
Learning in Online Computer Systems Course,
the 15th International Conference on
Computer Science & Education (ICCSE
2020), pp. 711-715, 2020.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on COMPUTERS
DOI: 10.37394/23205.2022.21.28
Qi Zhu, Scehila W. Martins
E-ISSN: 2224-2872
236
Volume 21, 2022
[8] Kinney, D.P. A comparison of computer-
mediated and lecture classes in developmental
mathematics. Research & Teaching in
Developmental Education, 18 (1), 32-40,
2001.
[9] Luxton-Reilly A, Simon, Albluwi, I. et. al.
Introductory Programming: A Systematic
Literature Review, ACM ITiCSE Companion
2018, Cyprus, 2018.
[10] Major, W. Contagion in the Classroom Or,
What Empathy Can Teach Us about the
Importance of Face-to-Face Learning, Journal
of Liberal Education Fall, pp 67, 2014.
[11] Moore, M. & Kearsley,G. Distance
Education: A System view of online learning
(3rd edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2012.
[12] Norman, S. Traditional Education and
Advantages of Online Learning, Education,
Global Themes and Feature Topics,
Industries, 2016.
[13] Parker, K. Lenhart, A. & Moore, K. The
Digital Revolution and Higher Education:
College presidents, public differ on value of
Online Learning, Pew Research Center,
Washington D. C., 2011.
[14] Rigby, P.C. and Robillard, M.P. Discovering
Essential Code Elements in Information
Documentation, Proceedings of the 35th
International Conference on Software
Engineering, pp. 832-841, 2013.
[15] Robins, A., Rountree, J., Rountree, N.
Learning and Teaching Programming: A
Review and Discussion. Computer Science
Education, 13(2), pp. 137-172, 2003.
[16] Santiago, L., E-Learning: Teaching Computer
Programming online to first year Engineering
Students, 121st ASEE Annual Conference &
Exposition, 2014.
[17] Simonson, M. Smaldino, S. Albright, M. and
Zvacek, S. (2012) Teaching and Learning at a
Distance: Foundation of Distance Education.
Pearson, Boston, USA, 2012.
[18] Sun, A.Q., & Chen, X. Online Education and
Its Effective Practice: A Research Review,
Journal of Information Technology Education:
Research, vol. 15, pp. 157-190, 2016.
[19] Tang, C. T. & Chaw, L.Y. Readiness for
Blended Learning: Understanding Attitude of
University Students, International Journal of
Cyber Society and Education, Vol. 6, No. 2,
pp. 79-100, 2013.
[20] UHV NewsWire, UHV Lands on top-10 list
for Best Texas Online College Education,
retrieved at 12/21/2020 at
https://news.uhv.edu/release.aspx?id=2485,
2017.
[21] Xia, X., Bao, L., Lo, D., Kochhar, P.S.,
Hassan, A.E., and Xing, Z. What do
developers Search for on the Web?
Empirical Software Engineering, 22(6), pp.
3149-3185, 2017.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on COMPUTERS
DOI: 10.37394/23205.2022.21.28
Qi Zhu, Scehila W. Martins
E-ISSN: 2224-2872
237
Volume 21, 2022