Online Teaching versus Traditional Teaching – A Survey among Medical Students in Covid 19 Pandemic


Anuradha Dehiya
RaviKant Sharma
Meenakshi Khullar
Vanita Gupta
Rimpi Gupta


For decades, scholars have debated which mode of education is superior amongst online versus traditional teaching. Some argue in favour of traditional or face to face teaching and others consider online teaching better. Still others suggested hybrid or blended mode of teaching as the most effective and productive method. This shift in strategy for medical education delivery has been driven by external forces beyond the influence of the institutions as well as by their internal dynamic. However, students’ perception towards online teaching as compared to traditional teaching has largely been overlooked. Aims and Objectives: This study or survey in covid pandemic intends to fill this void in the literature, and explore medical students’ perception and obtain their feedback towards online learning or teaching versus traditional teaching (face to face) mode of education in the medical field. Material and Method: Present survey included 1100 medical students from different medical colleges situated under different universities in North India. Survey was developed, which included a total of 14 questions (5 were demographical). After obtaining their responses, statistical analysis of responses was done. Conclusion: The results of present study concluded that medical students preferred traditional teaching over online mode of teaching.


How to Cite
Dehiya, A., Sharma, R., Khullar, M., Gupta, V., & Gupta, R. (2021). Online Teaching versus Traditional Teaching – A Survey among Medical Students in Covid 19 Pandemic. International Journal of Medical and Dental Sciences, 1995–2003.


  1. Bentz TD. Online and Face to face Classes: A Comparative Analysis of Teaching Presence and Instructor Satisfaction. Public Access theses and Dissertation from the CEHS. University of Nebraska; 2009. 53, p. 1-196.
  2. Atiyah MJ, EL Sherbiny MM, Guirguis KS. Evaluation of E learning program versus traditional education instruction for undergraduate. Int J of Advac Res and Sci, Eng and Tech. 2015; 2(7):776-786.
  3. Khorsandi Ma, Kobrab et al. Online vs traditional teaching evaluation: A cross sectional study. Procedia - Soc and Behav. Sci. 2012; 46:481-483. sbspro.2012.05.145. PMid:28268733.
  4. Goad T and Jones E. Training online physical educator: A phenomenological. Case study. Hindawi Edu Research Int. 2017; 1-12.
  5. Alsaaty FM et al. Traditional versus online learning in institutions of higher education: Minority Business student’s perceptions. Business and Management Reser. 2016; 5(2):31-41. https://doi. org/10.5430/bmr.v5n2p31
  6. Alghazo A. Comparing Effectiveness of Online and Traditional Teaching using Student’s Final Grades. Department of Workforce Education and Development Southern Illinois, Univ. of Carbondale; 2003. p. 1-10.
  7. Suzanna P. Comparative Assessment of the Effectiveness of Online vs Paper Based Postgraduate Courses in Occupational and Environmental Safety and Health. Theses: Doctorates and Masters. Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia; 2006. p. 1-161.
  8. Fortune FM, Spielman M, Pangelinan TD. Students’ perceptions of online or face to face learning and social media in hospitality, recreation and tourism. MERLOT J of Online Learning and Teaching. 2011; 7(1):1-16.
  9. Donovan J, Mader C. Constructive student feedback: Online vs traditional course evaluation. J of Interactive Online Learning. 2006; 5(3):34-43.
  10. Wick M. A National Primer on K-12 Online Learning Version. International Association for K-12, Vienna, va, USA.
  11. Glover LC and Lewis EV. Student preference Online versus Traditional courses. The Global eLearning Journal. 2012; 1(3):1-28.
  12. Williams L. A Case Study of Virtual Physical Education Teachers’ Experiences in and Perspectives of Online Teaching, University of South Florida, Tampa, Fla, USA; 2014.
  13. Newman F. Online technology pushes pedagogy to the forefront. Chronicle of Higher Education. 2001; 47(44),B7.
  14. Raineri D, Mehrtens B et al. Cyber prof TM - An Intelligent Human Computer interface for interactive instruction on world wide web. J A LN. 1997; 1(2):1-13. https://doi. org/10.24059/olj.v1i2.1936.
  15. Welsh T. An evaluation of online syllabi in the University of Tennessee College of Communications. ALN Magazine. 2000; 4(2):83-100.
  16. Juniu S. Pedagogical uses of technology in physical education. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. 2011; 82(409):41-49. 084.2011.10598692.
  17. Mitchell C, Dipetta T et al. The frontier of web based instruction. Education and Information Technologies. 2001; 6(2):105-121.
  18. Cuthrell K and Lyon A. Instructional strategies: What to do online students prefer? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 2007; 3(4):805-810. https://jolt.
  19. Harrington R, Loffredo D. MBTI Personality type and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face to face instruction. Internet and Higher Education. 2010; 13:89-95.
  20. Elfaki KN, Abdulraheem I, Abdulrahim R. Impact of elearning vs traditional learning on students’ performance and attitude. Int J Med Res Health Sci. 2019; 8(10):76-82.
  21. Roddy C, Amiet LD et al. Applying best practice online learning, teaching and support to intensive online environment: An integrative review. Review Front Educ. (Frontier in education) 21 Nov 2017. feduc.2017.00059.
  22. Carter S. Covid shows online teaching can be the future, but physical classrooms are still the real deal. THE PRINT. Friday 9 Oct 2020.