DINAMIKA PENGARUSUTAMAAN GENDER REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022), pp. 42-63 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v15i1.42-63 p-ISSN: 1979-8903; e-ISSN: 2503-040X 42 The Comparative Analysis of Face-To-Face, Distant, and Blended Learning in English Language Teaching Mykhailo Podoliak* PhD, Associate professor, Department of the Ukrainian and Foreign Languages, Stepan Gzhytskyi National University of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnologies Lviv, Pekarska str. 50, Lviv, Ukraine, 79010 *) Corresponding Author Email: misha.podol@gmail.com DOI: 10.18326/rgt.v15i1.42-63 Submission Track: Received: 29-11-2021 Final Revision: 06-04-2022 Available Online: 30-04-2022 Copyright © 2022 Authors This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Abstract Distant and blended learning are modern educational methodologies, gaining popularity among many teachers and students worldwide. These teaching methods have become more popular owing to COVID 19 and quarantine measures in education. In this article, we set the aim to compare three methods of teaching a foreign language in the University: traditional (face-to-face), distant and blended, and determine which method yields the best results. The research lasted for one semester and consisted of the following stages: initial – the preparation for experiment; educational – the usage of the selected teaching method; final – collecting results and their analysis. The research results have demonstrated that the blended approach of language teaching prove to be more effective in both the results of the tests. Therefore, blended learning proved to be an effective way of teaching a foreign language in the University. Keywords: traditional learning, distant learning, blended learning, English language teaching. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ M. Podoliak 43 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) INTRODUCTION The current world is living in an age of rapid changes. This situation is mainly caused by modern technologies developing so quickly that humans cannot keep up with these changes. However, it is essential to be up to date with new technologies because they can facilitate many processes. As a critical element of forming a wise society, teachers should be aware of the modern technologies to teach and educate good and functional future members. When looking back to the history of education, one can notice that good education was of great value once, and only a few people with specific backgrounds could afford it. Today, the situation has changed and good quality education, in universities or colleges, is now available to almost everyone. The case has developed to such an extent that nowadays people do not need to go to universities; a laptop and Internet access are sufficient for students to receive the necessary knowledge and degrees while sitting at home or even being in another country. This phenomenon is called distant education. Distant education has developed between 18th-20th centuries in Europe and North America. Some scholars (Hall & Knox, 2009) mentioned that distant learning could be traced back to ancient Greek and Jewish traditions. However, there is no precise date or place as to where it started. Nevertheless, it has gained popularity in universities worldwide, especially nowadays, mainly due to the COVID 19 situation. With the development of technologies spreading the Internet around the globe, distant education is becoming more exciting and informative. However, Shachar and Neumann (2010) state that scholars did not readily accept distant education primarily. Nevertheless, if we compare distant programs developed 20 years ago with the current ones, we can observe a great learning and teaching methodology breakthrough. Distant learning technologies started developing rapidly due to the COVID 19 pandemic in the world in 2020. Many students were forced to stay home and study remotely. A significant number of new methodologies and programs of distant education were developed due to the coronavirus pandemic in the world. Numerous scholars have researched and are currently investigating the efficiency of distant education. They are developing new The Comparative Analysis of Face-To-Face .... REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) 44 methodologies that are raising the effectiveness of distant education. Kurniawati and Noviani (2021) focused on E-learning's effectiveness within the Covid-19 Pandemic situation frames. Teaching activities and challenges of online education were investigated by Atmojo and Nugroho (2020). Furthermore, the adaptation of students and teachers to new teaching and learning technologies was researched by Pitula and Grzhyb (2021); Octaberlina and Muslimin (2020). Sampson (2003) refers to the notion of distant education as a mode of delivery, i.e., independent learning at a distance through self-study of texts and non-contiguous communication. However, the author mentions that a student is not alone in this form of education. Glenn (2001) mentions that distance learning occurs when teachers and students are separated by distance, and technology replaces traditional instructional methods. Some scholars (Glenn, 2001) state that distant learning can solve a significant part of the problems of Life Long Learning. However, there are some drawbacks to distant learning. Numerous scholars (Hall & Knox, 2009; Sampson, 2003; Glenn, 2001; Hannay & Newvine, 2006; Trajanovic et al., 2007; Sakar, 2009; White, 2006), who have conducted research activities and the questionnaire about the pros and cons of distant learning, found that one of the main drawbacks of distant learning, especially in foreign language teaching, is the lack of communication with the teacher. However, Glenn (2001) states that distant technology facilitates interaction between teachers and students. This problem of distant learning can be solved using blended learning. Blended learning is a teaching and learning methodology when distant education is combined with face-to-face education. Pardede (2012) mentions that blended learning includes most often face-to-face instructions with synchronous and, or asynchronous computer technologies. According to Kim (2014), this methodology, developed in the second half of the 20th century, is popular among many teachers worldwide. For example, blended learning is widely introduced into the educational system of the US. Furthermore, the study performed by the US Department of Education (Means et al., 2010) proved the efficiency of blended learning in comparison with the traditional face-to-face and sole online learning. Among the benefits of blended learning in a foreign language learning, Pardede (2012) mentions that more student- M. Podoliak 45 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) centered learning, supports independent and collaborative learning, accommodates a variety of learning styles, ability to practice language beyond the class in a comfortable place, and time. The notion, benefits, drawbacks, and differences of distant and blended learning from other methods of education were researched by many scholars (Hall & Knox, 2009; Yilmaz & Malone, 2020; Kim, 2014; Thompson & Whittacker, 2019; Trajanovic et al., 2007; Sakar, 2009; Castro, 2019; White, 2006; Pardede, 2012; Kemaloglu & Bayyurt, 2022). However, we would like to pay attention to using these two education methods in conducting foreign language classes in the University. Considering the abovementioned, we decided to study the effectiveness of distance and blended learning with students while learning a foreign language, i.e., English. It should be mentioned that the research will be of great use for English language teachers in higher education institutions, especially in the COVID- 19 pandemic situation in the world. Having analyzed numerous articles on different methods of foreign language learning, it should be mentioned that there is no research that would compare the abovementioned methods in the sphere of language learning at a university. The research aims to study and compare the effectiveness of the usage of distant, blended, and traditional (face-to-face) methods of education in the English language classes at the University. Therefore, the Research Questions can be formulated in the following way: What is the most effective way of learning a foreign language among the following methods: face to face, distant or blended? Why blended method of learning a foreign language can be beneficial for students? RESEARCH METHOD Sixty-eight students (3 academic groups) of the 2nd course were selected to participate in the experiment. The choice of the students was made randomly among 14 academic groups. Three groups of students were willing to participate in the study. The experiment was conducted within the subject "English for professional purposes" in the educational plan. The control Group consisted of 23 students studying the language using traditional learning, i.e., usual lessons with teachers with little usage of media The Comparative Analysis of Face-To-Face .... REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) 46 and internet resources; experimental group 2 engaged 25 students studying the language using only distant learning; experimental Group 3 had 20 students studying the language using blended learning. Time. Each group studied the English language for one semester, i.e., 16 weeks. They had three lessons per fortnight for each group, with each lesson lasting 90 minutes. Therefore, students had 24 lessons or 36 academic hours. Materials. Students of all groups studied the same materials. Grammar was taught using books by Virginia Evans Round up five by Longman; Grammarway by Jenny Dooley and Virginia Evans by Express Publishing; Hills Atlas of Veterinary Clinical Anatomy; English vocabulary in use by Stuart Redman by Cambridge. These books were the basis of course development. However, we used other materials, handouts, websites, and presentations. In addition, we presented links to different YouTube channels, where grammar was explained. It is essential to notice that students of all groups have studied using the same materials. The only difference was in the methods of presentation—the 2nd and 3rd Groups—where students were using different YouTube videos, Prezi presentations, etc. The statistical analysis of the data was performed using the PC program RStudio version 0.99.486. The procedure of research and results. The experiment consisted of the following stages: Initial – during this stage, students for the experiment were selected; the teaching materials were elaborated; a pre-test was conducted. Educational – students were learning using the appropriate method. Final – students were given a diagnostic test (the same as pre-test); collected data was analyzed. Students were given a pre-test before the experiment to determine their English language level. The same teacher, conducting classes for all three groups, compiled the test. The test was compiled in the mode of multiple- choice and sentence translation, using professional vocabulary. Groups wrote the pre-test separately. The maximum score was 12 points. The results were the following: Control Group – av. 6.75 points; Experimental Group 2 – av. 6.8 points; M. Podoliak 47 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) Experimental Group 3 – av. 7.1 points. Therefore, it is evident that all students from experimental groups had almost the same English language level, which is crucial for future experimental procedures. Having completed all pre-tests, students studied their English language course for one semester or 16 weeks. The classes were conducted simultaneously for all three groups by the same teacher. This was done to avoid the dependence of the results on a teacher's personality. When the same person conducts all lessons in each group, we have precise results of the method used in teaching. Therefore, the teacher had 24 classes in each group during the semester (72 classes total). The materials taught during 24 lessons were mainly concerned with improving English language usage, especially in the professional sphere. Students learned professional vocabulary and terms and their correct usage in the speech. In addition, students were taught English grammatical constructions and their correct usage in the professional sphere. All materials, which were taught during 16 weeks, were included in the tests. The following skills are included in the abovementioned language- learning course: Writing: summary on a scientific article, professional correspondence, letter to a friend, complaint about something. Speaking: give an opinion on reading the information, communicate with colleagues, speak on professional topics Listening: watching and understanding different professional videos and speeches; Reading: reading, translating, and analyzing articles with professional vocabulary; Presentational: make presentations using MS PowerPoint, Prezi, Canva, Google Slides; Grammar: using appropriate grammar construction in different speech situations; Professional: using appropriate terms and professional vocabulary in different speech situations. The Comparative Analysis of Face-To-Face .... REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) 48 The research was conducted using an online platform for distant education as Canvas. The course for Experimental Group 2 and Experimental Group 3 was developed and placed on the platform separately. The same teacher developed the online activities. The attendance rate of all groups was relatively high: Control Group – 81% of all lessons; Experimental Group 2 – 89% of all online lessons; Experimental Group 3 – 87% of all online and face-to-face lessons. The attendance of the Experimental Group 2 was measured by the participation in forum discussions, homework, and tests done. At the end of the semester, students were given diagnostic tests to determine the progress they made while using the appropriate method of education. The results were the following: Control Group – av. 7.34 points; Experimental Group 2 – av. 7.08 points; Experimental Group 3 – av. 9.2 points. The results of each student of three groups are presented in Table 1. Table 1. The results of the students' test Control Group Traditional Learning Experimental Group 2 Distant Learning Experimental Group 3 Blended Learning Students * Pre- test 6.75 points averag e Diagnosti c test 7.34 points average Students * Pre- test 6.8 points averag e Diagnosti c test 7.08 points average Students * Pre- test 7.1 points averag e. Diagnosti c test 9.95 points average 1 3 6 1 6 6 1 5 9 2 10 9 2 5 6 2 6 9 3 10 10 3 1 2 3 8 10 4 7 8 4 4 6 4 6 11 5 6,25 7 5 5 5 5 10 11 6 5 6 6 7 5 6 7 9 7 3 5 7 12 11 7 4 8 8 1,5 3 8 5 6 8 9 11 9 11 11 9 8 8 9 7 9 10 7 5 10 11 11 10 5 10 11 8 8 11 4 5 11 9 10 12 9 10 12 3 3 12 6 9 13 6 6 13 8 5 13 9 11 14 1,25 2 14 7 8 14 8 11 15 10 8 15 5 7 15 10 12 16 5 7 16 7 6 16 4 9 M. Podoliak 49 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) Control Group Traditional Learning Experimental Group 2 Distant Learning Experimental Group 3 Blended Learning Students * Pre- test 6.75 points averag e Diagnosti c test 7.34 points average Students * Pre- test 6.8 points averag e Diagnosti c test 7.08 points average Students * Pre- test 7.1 points averag e. Diagnosti c test 9.95 points average 17 11 11 17 4 5 17 11 12 18 5 7 18 11 11 18 7 10 19 8 8 19 6 6 19 6 9 20 10 11 20 8 9 20 5 9 21 4 6 21 10 11 22 6 7 22 4 5 23 8,25 8 23 11 11 24 9 9 25 9 10 *Note: students have not signed the permission to mention their names in publications; therefore, we have affiliated numbers for each of them. Figure 1. Diagram of the pre-test results Figure 2. Diagram of the Diagnostic test results The Comparative Analysis of Face-To-Face .... REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) 50 Figure 3. The results of the Pre-test of the groups The abovementioned figures do not demonstrate significant deviations in the results of the pre-test and diagnostic test (the diagonal line). All three groups are included in these figures. Therefore, the diagrams show that the data is eligible for the ANOVA test. The following pictures present the results of the statistical processing using the ANOVA method. The results of the pre-test analysis are shown in Figure 3; the results of the diagnostic test are shown in Figure 4; the comparison of both the pre-test and the diagnostic test results is shown in Figure 5. Figure 3 demonstrates that the F value is 0.1039 and the difference in Estimate std. Value is within the frame of 0.35 points out of a maximum of 12. Therefore, the results demonstrate that the students of all three groups had almost the same level of knowledge of the English language at the beginning of the experiment. Figure 4. The results of the Diagnostic test of the groups M. Podoliak 51 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) Figure 4 demonstrates that the F value is 10.86 and the difference in Estimate std. Value is 2.6022 points out of a maximum of 12. Therefore, the results demonstrate that the students of all three groups had a different level of knowledge of the English language at the end of the experiment. Figure 5. Comparative results of the pre-test and diagnostic test Figure 5 demonstrates that the F value has changed from 0.104 (pre- test results) to 10.87 (diagnostic test results). Therefore, we can mention that the results are significant and have changed. The next step was determining whether the pre-test and diagnostic test results were different or equal. In order to do this, we formulated two hypotheses, separately for pre-test and diagnostic test. Hypothesis for pre-test: H0 – results are equal H1 – results are different The obtained results demonstrate that the F value is 0.1039 and the difference in Estimate std. Value is within the frame of 0.35 points out of a maximum of 12. Thus, these results demonstrate that Hypothesis 0 is correct—i.e., the difference in students' knowledge of all three groups at the beginning of the experiment was equal (Figure 6). Hypothesis for diagnostic test: H0 – results are equal H1 – results are different The obtained results demonstrate that the F value is 10.86 and the difference in Estimate std. Value is 2.6022 points out of a maximum of 12. Thus, these results demonstrate that Hypothesis 1 is correct—i.e., the The Comparative Analysis of Face-To-Face .... REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) 52 difference in students' knowledge of all three groups at the end of the experiment was not equal (Figure 7). In addition, the p-value in the diagnostic test results was less than 0.05, which demonstrates that the results are credible (p<0.05). Figure 6. The comparison of the pre- test result of 3 groups Figure 7. The comparison of the diagnostic test result of 3 groups Therefore, we can observe the changes in the students' knowledge of three groups between pre-and diagnostic tests. RESULTS & DISCUSSION The study was designed to answer the question: What is a more effective way of learning/teaching a foreign language? There are the following possible answers: traditional, distant, and blended. Thus, having analyzed the obtained results after processing with the ANOVA statistic method, we conclude that Experimental Group 3 (Blended learning) results are the best out of all groups. Therefore, blended English language learning proved more effective than traditional (face-to-face) and distant ones. According to the conducted research activities, we determined that the diagnostic test results in the Control Group (Traditional learning) were higher than the pre-test by 8.74%. The results of Experimental Group 2 M. Podoliak 53 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) (Distant learning) were higher compared to the pre-test by 4.11%. Experimental Group 3 (Blended learning) was higher in comparison with the pre-test by 40.14%. The percentage of the efficiency of the method was calculated according to the formula: (M2-M1)/M1*100 in which: M2 – are the results of the diagnostic test; M1 – are the results of the pre-test. The study results showed that the most effective way of learning/teaching the English language is blended with the efficiency of more than 40,14%. In addition, the data in Figure 6 shows that all students from the three groups were almost equal in knowledge. Meanwhile, Figure 7 shows that students of Experimental Group 3 (Blended learning) have demonstrated the best results out of all three groups. However, there are slight differences in results between distant and traditional (within the frame of 4.63%). Concerning the abovementioned, Glenn (2001) mentions that there is no statistically significant relationship between scores and perceptions in face- to-face groups or the distant groups. In addition, she cites some results of research activities where the results between traditional and distant education were almost the same. Furthermore, Shachar and Neumann (2010) mentioned that in a significant part of studies, students of distant education outperformed students of face-to-face learning. However, according to, Glenn (2001), sometimes traditional learning results were higher than distant. Hannay and Newvine (2006) showed the results of the questionnaire where students stated that learning occurs more in distant (57%) than in traditional (41%). However, as one Hannay and Newvine (2016) in their study can notice, the difference is insignificant. The study, performed by the US Department of Education has demonstrated that blended learning is more effective than the distant or traditional one (Means et al., 2010). Nevertheless, Glenn (2001) states that students who used distant learning spent less time learning than traditional learning methods. On the contrary, the study of Hannay and Newvine (2006) shows that students of distant learning spent more time learning than students of traditional one. The Comparative Analysis of Face-To-Face .... REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) 54 Therefore, we cannot say that blended is a better learning method than distant or traditional because each student has his learning abilities, and each teacher has his teaching techniques and methods. However, we assume that the high results of the blended method of learning were caused due to the more frequent repetition of materials than in distant or traditional. White (2006) mentions that the development of distant language courses should include human, logistic, and institutional infrastructure. Furthermore, she cites some scholars who emphasized the role of the teacher and his/her interaction within the distant language course, its design, content, equipment supply, etc. The other study by Ariza and Hancock (2003) states that distant learning language courses should be designed in such ways that follow constructivism philosophy, i.e., learners are seen as constructors of their knowledge through active participation in the learning process. Thus, we can assume that the success of a course, whether distant, blended, or traditional, lies upon many factors that should be taken into account before developing such a course. It is worth mentioning that in blended learning we developed, the division between face-to-face and distant lessons was about half. According to Pardede (2012), the course can be considered blended when the percentage of online works is within the frames of 30-79%. However, students tend to write tests during face-to-face lessons, but with the usage of Canvas. Therefore, they are more responsible for learning the material better and performing tests well. The other factor for blended learning was that they could communicate with the teacher in class, often raising topics they did not understand while working distant with Canvas. The teacher explained and clarified grammar, vocabulary, and reading in almost every class in Experimental Group 3. In addition, Trajanovic et al. (2007) stated the importance of training on four basic language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) in distant online courses. Hence, it is worth saying that we tend to include the abovementioned skills in our online course. We suppose that the lower results of the traditional method of teaching and distant are caused by one method of presentation, i.e., explanation of teacher in traditional and video presentation in distant. There was a slight M. Podoliak 55 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) repetition of material in these two types of learning when we compared them with blended. In addition, we tend to use video presentations alongside with pdf files when explaining grammar. It proved to be an effective way of learning, as it comes from the article by Trajanovic et al. (2007), in which the authors stress the usage of a combination of video and text. We can assume that the lowest results in distant are caused mainly by lack of communication with the teacher (as was shown in the questionnaire answers). However, the teacher tried to perform synchronous and asynchronous communication with students during distant learning. Furthermore, White (2006) mentions the importance of synchronous communication with the teacher in a distant language course. Ekmerci (2015) showed that the more the teacher interacts with students, the better the level of satisfaction from the learning process will be. Hall and Knox (2009) reference the problem of communication, stating that students who do distant learning in all fields can feel isolated, lack immediate peer support, have problems in communication, etc. In addition, the authors emphasize that distant learning students most likely study part-time and therefore suffer fatigue in learning. While doing blended learning, students have to show their results to teachers during face-to-face lessons. The other paper by White (2008) cites the scholar who investigated the role of communication of teachers with students. He mentions that distant learning students lacked immediate support from the teacher and language practice. Ariza and Hancock (2003) also mentioned that the teacher in distant learning courses should act as a facilitator for students, providing assistance and support while presenting the content in ways that encourage engagement. In addition, we have conducted a questionnaire to receive feedback from students on the methodology of learning. The questionnaire results have shown that students from Experimental Group 2 and Experimental Group 3 were mainly satisfied with the learning method. Furthermore, Allen et al. (2002) showed that the level of satisfaction from learning between distant learning students and the traditional one is almost the same. The dissatisfaction in our experiment was only concerning learning materials, feedback, and the evaluation process. Here we should argue as we have considered the study by Hall and Knox (2009) emphasizing the role of The Comparative Analysis of Face-To-Face .... REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) 56 evaluation and material preparation in distant learning. However, unlike the study, we did not assess discussions in distant learning but only students' knowledge through tests. In addition, we compiled tests strictly according to the materials students covered during the semester. Moreover, there were clear instructions on the work they should do and on the evaluation system. These two principles are one of the main in students' knowledge assessments, as from Koksal (2004). In addition, Ekmerci (2015) showed the importance of evaluation in distant language learning. In the study, the central part of students (75% and 85,5%) mentioned that the assignments and grading were not clear enough. Concerning the course materials, it should be stated that they are of great importance. Ariza and Hancock (2003) mentioned that it is crucially important that learners of distant language courses understand the course content for effective learning. Furthermore, Sampson (2003) as a critical component in distant education mentions the accessibility to materials. Considering the abovementioned, we tried to provide students of all groups with access to all necessary materials for learning. The possible cause why students can be dissatisfied with distant learning towards traditional classes is referenced in Hannay and Newvine’s (2006) study. The main reason for the said dissatisfaction is that distant education students did not see much difference between distant and traditional learning. Sometimes, authors stated that students of distant education could be jealous of students of traditional one because of the possibility to interact and communicate with the teacher. Trajanovich et al., (2007) emphasize that the distant course should be developed in such a way so that students do not feel they are out of class. It should be noted that in our experiment, students did not state the difference from the traditional class as the cause of dissatisfaction. On the contrary, one of our students' main dissatisfaction was lack of communication with the teacher. It is worth mentioning that Hannay and Newvine (2006) states that teachers of the distant courses are often dissatisfied with the distant teaching process. On the contrary, the teacher did not face dissatisfaction with our research since he taught all three groups. However, he mentioned that traditional learning was less time-consuming than distant and blended ones. M. Podoliak 57 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) Furthermore, he emphasized that blended learning required the most time of all methods used in the experiment. In the feedback on the course, students mentioned that the blended learning method has more benefits and fewer disadvantages than the distant. Among the pros, students singled out for both learning methods as a comfortable and easy way of learning; the possibility of communication with peers; a new way of learning. Some students mentioned that electronic devices and the Internet in learning increased their interest and motivation to study. Hannay and Newvine (2006), states that distant learning can be more motivating for students than a traditional one. Trajanovic et al. (2007) emphasize the role of the teacher while preparing materials. They mention that teachers should introduce tasks and materials that would retain interaction within limited direct contact and promote motivation in the teaching environment. Moreover, some students noticed that distant learning taught them responsibility and time management since they have to decide how to do their online learning. A similar idea is stated by Sampson (2003), however for distant learning, who mentions that distant teaching support students' motivation promotes learning pleasure and effectiveness. However, Allen et al. (2002) showed that while assessing the quality of the educational process, students showed a higher level of satisfaction from traditional face-to-face education rather than from distant. Sakar (2009) raised the critical issue that students are less likely to take it seriously if the distant course is not obligatory. The study shows that students enrolled for online courses just before exams to facilitate their preparation. Therefore, while doing blended learning with Experimental Group 3, we decided on the tests in face-to-face classes. Blended learning has more minor disadvantages in comparison with distant. Students mentioned that they repeated the same material more times than traditional and distant ones while doing blended learning. In addition, after watching videos or reading textbooks, they could communicate with the teacher during face-to-face lessons. Allen et al. (2002) states that some students may positively favor distant education and some traditional. The The Comparative Analysis of Face-To-Face .... REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) 58 authors state that the link to student learning style may indicate the need to diagnose providing a course in multiple formats. Furthermore, Sakar (2009) has demonstrated that the online course was not enough for students to accomplish a complete learning process. The author provides the results, according to which 82,3% of students wanted to take face-to-face courses despite the published materials and online courses. Therefore, blended learning can be a possible potential to satisfy more students' needs for education. Compared to distant learning, one of the other cons of blended learning that students mentioned was that they could work in groups in class, communicating in the face with their peers. However, it should be mentioned that Experimental Group 2 did some group tasks and group learning. Furthermore, Hall and Knox (2009) mentioned that one of the problems of distant learning students is the lack of immediate peer support. Allen et al. (2002) mention the different possibilities and importance of participants' interaction in the distant course. In addition, Ariza and Hancock (2003) state that different types of learner-learner interaction should be thoroughly planned to address goals. One of the most significant drawbacks of distant learning towards blended was students' communication with the teacher. The majority of students from Experimental Group 2 mentioned that they were lack of live communication with the teacher. However, we should notice that they could write messages and have online chats. The other issue concerning communication was with speaking tasks. Experimental Group 3 presented almost all their speaking tasks during lessons and some in canvas, recording their answers. Students from Experimental Group 3 mentioned that they faced some difficulties with recording their answers. However, Koksal (2004) emphasizes that students' speaking skills should be tested by encouraging speaking. In addition, Trajanovic et al. (2007) mentioned that speaking skills could be tested when the teacher listens to how students talk. According to the authors, the answers can be recorded and sent to chats or forums to evaluate teachers. Nevertheless, when discussing their opinion of the learning process, they agreed that recording has pros and cons. The main advantage of M. Podoliak 59 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) recording was the possibility to rerecord your answer multiple times, but in a live answer, only one is possible. According to the results, the answers can be recorded and sent and after the experiment, students from all three groups were asked to answer two questions. The results showed that most students choose blended learning; distant goes the second, and traditional goes last. The reasons for choosing blended learning were: an exciting and new learning experience, a suitable way of learning, and the diversity of materials. In addition, the results of the research by Hannay (2006) showed that students are likely to choose distant learning (69%) towards traditional (31%). We suggest that students would opt more for blended learning despite this comparison between distant and traditional learning. Furthermore, Pardede (2012) mentions that blended learning allows the teacher to provide more individualized learning through the phenomenon of partial self-education. CONCLUSION The results of the research allow us to make several conclusions. The results of the final tests, compared to pre-tests, showed that blended learning proved to be more effective in comparison with traditional and distant. Blended learning offers a new and comfortable way of education, combining both distant and face-to-face. The benefits of blended learning lie in the fact that it combines the advantages of both learning methods, solves problems that occur while doing distant learning, and modernizes traditional teaching. REFERENCES Aksu Atac, B., & Er, S. (2018). Cooperative learning in ELT classes: The attitudes of students towards cooperative learning in ELT classes. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 1. 109-122. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329585632_Cooperative_le arning_in_ELT_classes_The_attitudes_of_students_towards_cooperative_ learning_in_ELT_classes Alammary, A., Carbone, A., & Sheard, J. (2016). Blended learning in higher education: Delivery methods selection. In M. Ozturan, M. Rossi, & D. Veit (Eds.), 24th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329585632_Cooperative_learning_in_ELT_classes_The_attitudes_of_students_towards_cooperative_learning_in_ELT_classes https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329585632_Cooperative_learning_in_ELT_classes_The_attitudes_of_students_towards_cooperative_learning_in_ELT_classes https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329585632_Cooperative_learning_in_ELT_classes_The_attitudes_of_students_towards_cooperative_learning_in_ELT_classes The Comparative Analysis of Face-To-Face .... REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) 60 2016 [150] Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/150 Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrel, N., Marby, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: a meta-analysis. The American journal of distance education, 16(2), 83-97. Ariza, E. N., & Hancock, S. (2003). Second Language Acquisition Theories as a Framework for Creating Distance Learning Courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.142 Atmojo, A. E. P., & Nugroho, A. (2020). EFL Classes Must Go Online! Teaching Activities and Challenges during COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia. Register Journal, 13(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v13i1.49- 76 Başal, A. (2015). The Implementation of A Flipped Classroom in Foreign Language Teaching. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 16. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.72185 Caner, M. (2010). A blended learning model for teaching practice course. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 79-97. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tojde/issue/16909/176358 Castro, R. (2019). Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2523–2546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3 Cleveland-Innes, M., & Wilton, D. (2018). Guide to blended learning. Burnaby: Commonwealth of Learning. Ekmekçi, E. (2015). Distance-education in Foreign Language Teaching: Evaluations from the Perspectives of Freshman Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 390–397. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.487 Glenn, A. (2001). A comparison of distance learning and traditional learning environment. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED457778.pdf https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/150 https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v13i1.49-76 https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v13i1.49-76 https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.72185 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tojde/issue/16909/176358 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3 https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.487 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED457778.pdf M. Podoliak 61 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003 Hall, D. R., & Knox, J. S. (2009). Language teacher education by distance. Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 218-229). Cambridge University Press. Hannay, M. (2006). Perceptions of Distance Learning : a Comparison of Online and Traditional Learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 1–11. Kemaloglu Er, E. & Bayyurt, Y. (2022). Implementation of blended learning in English as a Lingua Franca (EFL)-aware pre-service teacher education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 23 (1), 60-73 . Kim, A. (2014). Rotational model work for any classroom. https://www.edelements.com/rotational-models-work-for-any- classroom Koksal, D. (2004). Assesing Teachers’ Testing Skills in Elt and Enhancing Their Professional Development Through Distance Learning on The Net. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5. Kurniawati, Annisa Dwi, Noviani, J. (2021). Indonesian Students ’ Perception about the Effectiveness of E-Learning Implementation During COVID-19. The New Educational Review, 66(4), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2021.66.4.08 Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., Jones, K., & Planning, E. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta- Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based- practices/finalreport.pdf Octaberlina, L. R., & Muslimin, A. I. (2020). Efl students perspective towards online learning barriers and alternatives using moodle/google https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003 https://www.edelements.com/rotational-models-work-for-any-classroom https://www.edelements.com/rotational-models-work-for-any-classroom https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2021.66.4.08 https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf The Comparative Analysis of Face-To-Face .... REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) 62 classroom during covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n6p1 Pardede, P. (2012). Pardede, Blended Learning for ELT Blended Learning for ELT. Journal of English Teaching, 2(3), 165–178. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330834033_Blended_Lear ning_for_ELT Pituła, B. (2021). Adaptation of Students to Educational Changes Caused. The New Educational Review, 66(4), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2021.66.4.04 Sakar, N. (2009). Online course support in distance learning: Student evaluation of english language teaching bachelor of arts program. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.06004 Sampson, N. (2003). Meeting the needs of distance learners. Language Learning and Technology, 7(3), 103–118. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/25216/1/0 7_03_sampson.pdf Scarlett, M. H. (2017). Blended learning in teacher education: A case study from a small, private college. https://conference.iste.org/uploads/ISTE2017/HANDOUTS/KEY_1082 26560/BlendedLearningin TeacherEducation_ResearchPaper_ISTE2017.pdf Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2010). Twenty years of research on the academic performance differences between traditional and distance learning: Summative meta-analysis and trend. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 318–334. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/shachar_0610.pdf Spring, K. J., & Graham, C. R. (2017). Thematic patterns in international blended learning literature, research, practices, and terminology. Online Learning Journal, 21(4), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.998 https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n6p1 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330834033_Blended_Learning_for_ELT https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330834033_Blended_Learning_for_ELT https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2021.66.4.04 https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.06004 https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/25216/1/07_03_sampson.pdf https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/25216/1/07_03_sampson.pdf https://conference.iste.org/uploads/ISTE2017/HANDOUTS/KEY_108226560/BlendedLearningin%20TeacherEducation_ResearchPaper_ISTE2017.pdf https://conference.iste.org/uploads/ISTE2017/HANDOUTS/KEY_108226560/BlendedLearningin%20TeacherEducation_ResearchPaper_ISTE2017.pdf https://conference.iste.org/uploads/ISTE2017/HANDOUTS/KEY_108226560/BlendedLearningin%20TeacherEducation_ResearchPaper_ISTE2017.pdf http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/shachar_0610.pdf https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.998 M. Podoliak 63 REGISTER JOURNAL – Vol 15, No 1 (2022) Thompson, B., Whittacker, C. (2019). Blended learning in English language teaching: Course design and implementation. 258. British Council, https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/pub_D057_B lended%20learning_FINAL_WEB%20ONLY_v2.pdf Trajanovic, M., Domazet, D., Misic-ilic, B., Trajanovic, M., Domazet, D., & Distance, B. M. (2007). Distance learning and foreign language teaching. Balkan Conference in Informatics, 441–452. https://doi.org/hal- 00190064 Yılmaz, Ö., & Malone, K. L. (2020). Preservice teachers perceptions about the use of blended learning in a science education methods course. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020- 00126-7 White, C. (2006). Distance learning of foreign languages. Language Teaching, 39, 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003727 White, C. (2008). Language learning strategies in independent language learning: An overview. Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings, 3–24. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/pub_D057_Blended%20learning_FINAL_WEB%20ONLY_v2.pdf https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/pub_D057_Blended%20learning_FINAL_WEB%20ONLY_v2.pdf https://doi.org/hal-00190064 https://doi.org/hal-00190064 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00126-7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00126-7 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003727