impact of online learning on students essay

Impact of Online Classes on Students Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment
• Introduction
• Thesis Statement

Background study

• Impacts of online education

Introduction to Online Education

Online learning is one of the new innovative study methods that have been introduced in the pedagogy field. In the last few years, there has been a great shift in the training methods. Students can now learn remotely using the internet and computers.

Online learning comes in many forms and has been developing with the introduction of new technologies. Most universities, high schools, and other institutions in the world have all instituted this form of learning, and the student population in the online class is increasing fast. There has been a lot of research on the impacts of online education as compared to ordinary classroom education.

If the goal is to draw a conclusion of online education, considerable differences between the online learning environment and classroom environment should be acknowledged. In the former, teachers and students don’t meet physically as opposed to the latter, where they interact face to face. In this essay, the challenges and impact of online classes on students, teachers, and institutions involved were examined.

Thesis Statement about Online Classes

Thus, the thesis statement about online classes will be as follows:

Online learning has a positive impact on the learners, teachers, and the institution offering these courses.

Online learning or E learning is a term used to describe various learning environments that are conducted and supported by the use of computers and the internet. There are a number of definitions and terminologies that are used to describe online learning.

These include E learning, distance learning, and computer learning, among others (Anon, 2001). Distant learning is one of the terminologies used in E learning and encompasses all learning methods that are used to train students that are geographically away from the training school. Online learning, on the other hand, is used to describe all the learning methods that are supported by the Internet (Moore et al., 2011).

Another terminology that is used is E learning which most authors have described as a learning method that is supported by the use of computers, web-enabled communication, and the use of new technological tools that enhance communication (Spector, 2008). Other terminologies that are used to describe this form of online learning are virtual learning, collaborative learning, web-based learning, and computer-supported collaborative learning (Conrad, 2006).

Impacts of Online Classes on Students

Various studies and articles document the merits, demerits, and challenges of online studies. These studies show that online study is far beneficial to the students, teachers, and the institution in general and that the current challenges can be overcome through technological advancement and increasing efficiency of the learning process.

One of the key advantages of online learning is the ability of students to study in their own comfort. For a long time, students had to leave their comfort areas and attend lectures. This change in environment causes a lack of concentration in students. In contrast, E-learning enables the students to choose the best environment for study, and this promotes their ability to understand. As a result, students enjoy the learning process as compared to conventional classroom learning.

Another benefit is time and cost savings. Online students are able to study at home, and this saves them travel and accommodation costs. This is in contrast with the classroom environment, where learners have to pay for transport and accommodation costs as well as any other costs associated with the learning process.

Online study has been found to reduce the workload on the tutors. Most of the online notes and books are availed to the students, and this reduces the teacher’s workload. Due to the availability of teaching materials online, tutors are not required to search for materials. Teachers usually prepare lessons, and this reduces the task of training students over and over again.

Accessibility to learning materials is another benefit of online learning. Students participating in online study have unlimited access to learning materials, which gives them the ability to study effectively and efficiently. On the other hand, students in the classroom environment have to take notes as the lecture progress, and these notes may not be accurate as compared to the materials uploaded on the websites.

Unlimited resources are another advantage of online study. Traditionally, learning institutions were limited in the number of students that could study in the classroom environment. The limitations of facilities such as lecture theaters and teachers limited student enrollment in schools (Burgess & Russell, 2003).

However, with the advent of online studies, physical limitations imposed by classrooms, tutors, and other resources have been eliminated. A vast number of students can now study in the same institution and be able to access the learning materials online. The use of online media for training enables a vast number of students to access materials online, and this promotes the learning process.

Promoting online study has been found by most researchers to open the students to vast resources that are found on the internet. Most of the students in the classroom environment rely on the tutors’ notes and explanations for them to understand a given concept.

However, students using the web to study most of the time are likely to be exposed to the vast online educational resources that are available. This results in the students gaining a better understanding of the concept as opposed to those in the classroom environment (Berge & Giles, 2008).

An online study environment allows tutors to update their notes and other materials much faster as compared to the classroom environment. This ensures that the students receive up-to-date information on a given study area.

One of the main benefits of E-learning to institutions is the ability to provide training to a large number of students located in any corner of the world. These students are charged training fees, and this increases the money available to the institution. This extra income can be used to develop new educational facilities, and these will promote education further (Gilli et al., 2002).

Despite the many advantages that online study has in transforming the learning process, there are some challenges imposed by the method. One of the challenges is the technological limitations of the current computers, which affect the quality of the learning materials and the learning process in general.

Low download speed and slow internet connectivity affect the availability of learning materials. This problem is, however, been reduced through the application of new software and hardware elements that have high access speeds. This makes it easier to download learning materials and applications. As computing power increases, better and faster computers are being unveiled, and these will enable better access to online study facilities.

Another disadvantage of online learning as compared to the classroom environment is the lack of feedback from the students. In the classroom environment, students listen to the lecture and ask the tutors questions and clarifications any issues they didn’t understand. In the online environment, the response by the teacher may not be immediate, and students who don’t understand a given concept may find it hard to liaise with the teachers.

The problem is, however, been circumvented by the use of simple explanation methods, slideshows, and encouraging discussion forums between the teachers and students. In the discussion forums, students who don’t understand a concept can leave a comment or question, which will be answered by the tutor later.

Like any other form of learning, online studies have a number of benefits and challenges. It is, therefore, not logical to discredit online learning due to the negative impacts of this training method. Furthermore, the benefits of e-learning far outweigh the challenges.

Conclusion about Online Education

In culmination, a comparative study between classroom study and online study was carried out. The study was done by examining the findings recorded in books and journals on the applicability of online learning to students. The study revealed that online learning has many benefits as compared to conventional learning in the classroom environment.

Though online learning has several challenges, such as a lack of feedback from students and a lack of the proper technology to effectively conduct online learning, these limitations can be overcome by upgrading the E-Leaning systems and the use of online discussion forums and new web-based software.

In conclusion, online learning is beneficial to the students, tutors, and the institution offering these courses. I would therefore recommend that online learning be implemented in all learning institutions, and research on how to improve this learning process should be carried out.

Anon, C. (2001). E-learning is taking off in Europe. Industrial and Commercial Training , 33 (7), 280-282.

Berge, Z., & Giles, L. (2008). Implementing and sustaining e-learning in the workplace. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies , 3(3), 44-53.

Burgess, J. & Russell, J. (2003).The effectiveness of distance learning initiatives in organizations. Journal of Vocational Behaviour , 63 (2),289-303.

Conrad, D. (2006). E-Learning and social change, Perspectives on higher education in the digital age . New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Gilli, R., Pulcini, M., Tonchia, S. & Zavagno, M. (2002), E-learning: A strategic Instrument. International Journal of Business Performance Management , 4 (1), 2-4.

Moore, J. L., Camille, D. & Galyen, K. (2011). E-Learning, online learning and distance learning environments: Are they the same? Internet and Higher Education, 14(1), 129-135.

Spector, J., Merrill, M., Merrienboer, J. & Driscoll, M. P. (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.), New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• General Curriculum for Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Learners
• Student Survival Guide to Research
• Students With Children and Teachers’ High Expectations
• Nursing Terminologies: NANDA International
• Tutoring Programs for College Students
• Strategies for Motivating Students
• Importance of Sexual Education in School
• New School Program in Seattle
• General Education Courses
• E-learning as an Integral Part of Education System
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 19). Impact of Online Classes on Students Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/impact-of-online-courses-on-education/

"Impact of Online Classes on Students Essay." IvyPanda , 19 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/impact-of-online-courses-on-education/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Impact of Online Classes on Students Essay'. 19 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Impact of Online Classes on Students Essay." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/impact-of-online-courses-on-education/.

1. IvyPanda . "Impact of Online Classes on Students Essay." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/impact-of-online-courses-on-education/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Impact of Online Classes on Students Essay." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/impact-of-online-courses-on-education/.

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > E-Learning and Digital Education in the Twenty-First Century

The Impact of Online Learning Strategies on Students’ Academic Performance

Submitted: 01 September 2020 Reviewed: 11 October 2020 Published: 18 May 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.94425

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

E-Learning and Digital Education in the Twenty-First Century

Edited by M. Mahruf C. Shohel

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

2,615 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

Higher education institutions have shifted from traditional face to face to online teaching due to Corona virus pandemic which has forced both teachers and students to be put in a compulsory lockdown. However the online teaching/learning constitutes a serious challenge that both university teachers and students have to face, as it necessarily requires the adoption of different new teaching/learning strategies to attain effective academic outcomes, imposing a virtual learning world which involves from the students’ part an online access to lectures and information, and on the teacher’s side the adoption of a new teaching approach to deliver the curriculum content, new means of evaluation of students’ personal skills and learning experience. This chapter explores and assesses the online teaching and learning impact on students’ academic achievement, encompassing the passing in review the adoption of students’ research strategies, the focus of the students’ main source of information viz. library online consultation and the collaboration with their peers. To reach this end, descriptive and parametric analyses are conducted in order to identify the impact of these new factors on students’ academic performance. The findings of the study shows that to what extent the students’ online learning has or has not led to any remarkable improvements in the students’ academic achievements and, whether or not, to any substantial changes in their e-learning competence. This study was carried out on a sample of University College (UAEU) students selected in Spring 2019 and Fall 2020.

• online learning environment
• content-based research
• process-based research
• success factors assessment

Author Information

Khaled hamdan *.

• UAEU-University College, UAE

Abid Amorri

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

With the advent of COVID-19 pandemic and the shutdown of universities worldwide for fear of contamination due to the spread of the coronavirus, higher educational institutions have deemed necessary to adopt new teaching strategies, exclusively online, to deliver their curriculum content and keep from the Corona virus widespread at bay [ 1 ]. Technology was called upon to play this pivotal teaching/learning online role, as it has influenced people’s task accomplishment in various ways. It has become a part of our ever changing lives. It is an important part of e-learning to create relationship-involving technology, course content and pedagogy in learning/teaching environment. Therefore, e-learning is becoming unavoidable in a virtual teaching environment where students can take control of their learning and optimize it in a virtual classroom and elsewhere. So, learning today has shifted from the conventional face to face learning to online learning and to a direct access to information through technologies available as e-learning has proven to be more beneficial to students in terms of knowledge or information acquisition. Online teaching promotes learning by encouraging the students’ use of various learning strategies at hand and increases the level of their commitment to studying their majors. Virtual world represents an effective learning environment, providing users with an experience-based information acquisition. Instructors set up the course outcomes by creating tasks involving problem or challenge-based learning situations and offering the learner a full control of exploratory learning experiences. However, there are some challenges for instructors such as the selection of the most appropriate educational strategies and how best to design learning tasks and activities to meet learners’ needs and expectations. Various approaches can lead towards strong students’ behavioral changes especially when combined with ethical principles. However, with careful selection of the learning environment, pedagogical strategies lining up with the concrete specifics of the educational context, the building of learners’ self-confidence and their empowerment during the learning process becomes within reach. Another benefit of using online teaching/learning is that here is a need to explore new teaching strategies and principles that positively influence distance education, as traditional teaching/learning methods are becoming less effective at engaging students in the learning process. Finally, e-learning can solve many of the students’ learning issues in a conventional learning environment, as it helps them to attend classes for various reasons, as it has made the communication/interaction between them and their instructors much easier and the access to lectures much more at hand. Students can attend online university courses and at the same time meet other social obligations. Therefore, the circumstances in a learner’s life, and whatever problems or distraction he/she may have such as family problems or illnesses, may no longer be an impediment to his education. Learners can practice in virtual situations and face challenges in a safe environment, which leads to a more engaged learning experience that facilitates better knowledge acquisition.

The work presents the educational processes as a modern strategy for teaching/learning. e-learning tends to persuade the users to be virtually available to act naturally. There are a few factors affecting the outcomes such as learning aims and objectives, and different pedagogical choices. Instructors use various factors to measure the learning quality like Competence, Attitude, Content Delivery, Reliability, and Globalization [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. In this work, we are going to pass in review positive and negative impacts of online learning followed by recommendations to increase awareness regarding online learning and the use of this new strategic technology. Modern teaching methods like brainstorming, problem solving, indirect-consultancy, and inquiry-based method have a significant effect in the educational progress [ 5 ].

The aim of this research is to examine the effect of using modern teaching methods, such as teacher-student interactive and student-centered methods, on students’ academic performance. Factors that may affect students’ performance and success- the technology used, students’ collaboration/teamwork, time management and communication skills are taken into consideration [ 6 ]. It also attempts to identify and to show to what extent online learning environment, when well integrated and adapted in course planning and objectives, can cater for students’ needs and wants. Does online teaching make a significant improvement in students’ academic performance and their personal skills such as organizations, communications, responsibilities, problem-solving tasks, engagement, learning interest, self-evolution, and abilities to reach their potential? Is students’ struggle is not purely academic, but rather related to the lack of personal skills?

2. Online learning experience

There are many motives behind the implementation of the online learning experience. The online learning is mandatory nowadays to all audience due to COVID −19 pandemic, which forced the higher educational authorities to start the online teaching [ 1 ]. We believe that we reached a tipping point where making changes to the current learning process is inevitable for many reasons. Today learners have instant access to information through technology and the web, can manage their own acquisition of knowledge through online learning. As a result, traditional teaching and learning methods are becoming less effective at engaging students, who no longer rely exclusively on the teacher as the only source of knowledge. Indeed, 90% of the respondents use internet as their major source of information. So the teacher is new role is to be a learning facilitator, a guide for his students. He should not only help his students locate information, but more importantly question it and reflect upon it and formulate an opinion about it. Another reason for the adoption of the online learning is that higher institution did not hesitate one moment to integrate it as a primary tool of education. So, it transformed the conventional course and current learning process into e-learning concept. The integration of the online teaching into the curriculum resulted in several issues to instructors, curriculum designer and administrators, starting from the infrastructure to online teaching and assessment. Does the current IT infrastructure support this integration? What course content should the instructor teach and how it should be delivered? What effective pedagogy needs to be adopted? How learning should be assessed? What is the direct effect of the online learning on students’ performance? [ 7 ].

With reference to the survey findings, the majority of students were among the staunch supporters of online learning taking into consideration the imposed COVID-19 lockdown circumstances, as they expressed their full support and confidence in computer skills to share digital content, using online learning and collaboration platforms with their peers, and expressed their satisfaction with the support of the online teaching and learning [ 8 ].

However, a small percentage of the survey respondents, expressed their below average satisfaction when higher educational institutions have invested in digital literacy and infrastructure, as they believe they should provide more flexible delivery methods, digital platforms and modernized user-friendly curricula to both students and teachers [ 9 ]. On the same lines, the higher education authorities regard the quick and unexpected development of the UAE’s higher education landscape, ICT infrastructure, and advanced online learning/teaching methods, imposed by COVID-19, have had a tremendous adverse impact on the students’ culture, thus leading to students’ social seclusion from their peers, imposing new social norms and behavior regarding plagiarism, affecting students’ cultural ethics and learning and collaboration with their peers, when adopting the digital culture [ 10 ].

A current study emphasized the need for adoption of technology in education as a way to lessen the effects of Coronavirus pandemic lockdown in education to palliate the loss of face- to- face teaching/learning which has more beneficial aspects of learning for students than online learning as it offers more interactive learning opportunities.

We recommend that all these questions should be taken into consideration when designing a new course i.e. the e-learning strategies, the learners’ and instructor’s new roles, course content and pedagogy and students’ performance/achievement assessment ( Figure 1 ). In this experience, we focus only on the implementation of new learning academic objectives- how they are infused into the curriculum and how they are assessed. The ultimate objective of implementing a new learning process is to design a curriculum conveyed by a creative pedagogy and oriented towards the cultivation of a creative person yearning for the exploration of new ideas [ 11 ]. The afore-mentioned objectives lead to design a comprehensive learning experience with new learning outcomes where instructors infuse new practical skills - Critical thinking and Problem-Solving Tasks, Creativity and Innovation, Communication and Collaboration. Other skills are implicitly infused into the curriculum such as, self-independent learning, interdependence, lifelong learning, flexibility, adaptability, and assuming academic learning responsibilities. Online learning is defined as virtual learning using mobile and wireless computing technologies in a way to promote learners’ learning abilities [ 12 ]. In ( Figure 2 ), each component of the e-learning process is defined clearly below [ 13 ].

E-learning approach.

E-learning process.

2.1 Active instructor

His role is to facilitate learning process in the virtual classroom, to engage students in the learning process, to allow them to participate in designing their own course content and to contribute to design learning assessment parameters.

2.2 Active learner

He can access course content anytime and from anywhere, engage with his peers in a collaborative environment, formulate his opinions continuously, interact with other learning communities, communicate effectively, share and publish their findings with others in online environment.

2.3 Creative pedagogy

Both instructors and learners decide on what to learn online and how it should be learned. This experience is designed to promote an inquiry and challenge-based learning models where teachers and students work together to learn about compelling issues, propose solutions to real problems and take actions [ 11 ]. The approach involves students to reflect on their learning, on the impact of their actions and to publish their solutions to a worldwide audience [ 14 ].

2.4 Flexible curriculum

A core curriculum is designed, but the facilitator has the freedom to innovate and customize course content accordingly up to the aspiration of the learners; this means that the learner’s knowledge of the material will mainly come from his own online research (formal and informal content), and from his own creativity and collaboration with his peers (teamwork).

2.5 Communities outreach

This allows a group of students to formulate real-world context research question, connect with local learning and global communities to find creative solutions to their problems, create opportunities to connect themselves with international communities. These opportunities will foster students’ social and leadership skills [ 15 ].

According to students’ observation, more than 70% of instructors found that the online learning using Blackboard ultra-collaboration boosts students’ learning interest, engagement and motivation. 84% of teachers use required to use interactive tools in order to engage students in presenting and sharing a five minutes presentation to their classmates, write a reflective essay on their experience, be involved in a collaborative project (interest- based learning project). 97% of students contributed to self and peer assessments, and 97% interacted using online management systems. Students were also encouraged to interact with their peers using blackboard group collaborate. Thanks to the online teaching strategy, 70% of students were able to deliver on time their work.

For the study purpose, several assessments components incorporate both individual and group work. For the individual work, each student was required to make an individual presentation on any subject of his own interest, write a reflective essay, self -assessment, class peer assessment, midterm and final exams. For the collaborative work, students were assigned teams and each student should contribute to the project delivered every two weeks in the form of a final presentation and a final project. Rubrics were designed and all students were well instructed to use them. Teachers were trained to monitor and facilitate the experience and the internal learning management systems such as Blackboard.

The subsequent ( Figure 3 ) shows the feedback loop of content mapping of factors and their relationships in relation to students’ performance and intake. The first feedback loop begins at the node called “Students”. The second one begins at the node entitled “Teacher”. There are two major positive feedback loops. For instance, a good team improves co-operation and creativity which increase the team’s learning experience. Setting clear goals and interactive strategies will enhance online learning and performance results. The E-learning process and the project outcomes are influenced by technology use [ 13 ].

Conceptual model of students’ E-learning environment parameters.

3. Research methodology

We studied the impact of online learning using technology in virtual classrooms and the effect of performance factors on students’ learning behavior and achievement. The study focused on a sample of 6045 students, collected from the enrolment of University College students in spring 2020, at United Arab Emirates University has used online teaching strategy in comparison to fall 2019 teaching/learning experience, which used conventional teaching strategy involving 7369 students (See Table 1 ). The study shows the learning outcomes are similar for both virtual and conventional learning, although the assessment methods are different. They include students’ learning outcomes assessment, testing (assessing prior and post knowledge acquisition) and quantitative versus conventional research. The findings of the survey are discussed below. Descriptive statistics were obtained to summarize the sample characteristics and performance variables. Pearson Correlation was used to evaluate the association between the learning outcomes dimensions. Independent Samples t-test was used to compare the mean overall performance of the online learning. Linear Regression was used to determine the impact of the learning characteristics (Critical thinking, Creativity, Communication and Collaboration) on the overall performance score. Factor Analysis was used to study the inter-relationships among the learning characteristics and compare the online methods.

Students’ population.

The objectives of the learning process consist of providing a diversified learning environment. The positive impact of this diversity is reflected in the students’ performance. Students in various represented colleges have similar passing grades as high (80–98%) for both Online Approach (OLA) and Conventional learning -Face-to-Face (FoF). The University College is the largest college in the University with more than 4000 students. Most of UAEU students start their study in UC; they take English, Arabic, IT and Math ( Figure 4 ).

University college percentage passing rate.

This study was limited to GEIL101 foundation students. Surveys were sent out to all information literacy sections at the end of the first semester 2019/2020, but there were only 87 respondents. The survey had 2 parts, one part is about students’ achievement/performance, and the second part use is about online learning in a virtual classroom. All sessions were conducted online by trained instructors in tandem with the University library delivered by professional librarians. In this report, fall 2019 students’ data are used as the sample for the study ( Table 2 ).

GEIL students.

Overall, the results indicate the online learning was beneficial for students as it shown in their academic achievements and in tables below. A significant number of students reported high comfort levels of attending online courses in virtual classroom instead of conventional learning. Results indicated students have a positive reception to online approach rather than traditional classrooms. Additionally, qualitative data identified a clearconsiderations for the integration of new technology into the new teaching and learning experience.

4. E-learning results and analyses

Table 3 shows the IL students’ pre and post tests performance. The analysis on the pre and post-tests, using the means comparison and one sample test, shows an increase of students’ performance by 84%, the mean of the pre-test is around 7.5 and the post test is 13.85, a significant difference of 6.35. 65% of students score above 60% (passing rate for the course) in the post-test, only 2.4% of students scored above 60% in the pre-test. This means that 97.6% of students did not have basic information literacy knowledge, but after going through intensive 12 week learning under e-learning conditions, 65% achieved the course outcomes with higher scores.

Students’ academic performance.

The following tables ( Tables 3 and 4 ) shows the students’ performance by each learning activity:

Students’ learning activity.

The scores in the post-test ranged between 11 and 20, whereas it ranged between 6 to 9 in the pre-test ( Figure 5 ).

Pre and post-tests comparison distribution.

The above results show that OLA students scored higher than the FoF in the majority of the learning activities. There is an important performance of online students in the midterm and final exams though both approaches where offered the similar assessments criteria under the same test conditions. In the next section, the online learning process validity, the learning activities, and the learning outcome achievements, will be discussed in greater details. Several statistical models, qualitative and quantitative analysis have been applied for this purpose.

5. Impact analysis of the learning activities

It is important for an educator to evaluate which type of learning activity that has an important impact on students’ performance. It will help the curriculum designers to adjust and improve the syllabus content accordingly. Two types of analyses are conducted quantitatively and qualitatively; the first analysis relies on the learning activities grades and course final scores. The second one relies on students’ feedback through reflective essays and teachers’ perception towards their students’ learning progress.

5.1 Quantitative analysis

5.1.1 impact of the learning activities on students’ performance.

To analyze the significance of each learning activity on students’ performance, a regression linear model was used to analyze the impact of each learning skill on students’ performance. According to the output report, the model is significant at 95% (p < 0.000), and there is a strong correlation between 95.8% of the learning skills and students’ performance (r2 = 0.919).

Overall, all learning skills strategies have a significant impact on students’ performance. Each student’s learning skills and their impact will be analyzed. The following graph shows that individual contribution has less impact on the student’s performance, but the course component is very important where students demonstrate their interaction with the course content. The quality of the students’ online participation, their assiduity and interaction with others and their contribution in the projects are different from class participation. Therefore, statistically speaking, it has a lower impact. So, it is highly recommended to review how this component is graded.

5.1.2 Impact of each learning skill on students’ achievement

The following table describes the impact of each individual learning skill on students’ performance. To do this analysis, we used Pearson Correlation Coefficient to measure the strength of the linear relationship between the learning skills. The following figure shows the relationship between the learning skills.

From the table below, the test 1 (Midterm Exam) and test 2 (Final Exam) have the strongest impact (754 and 758) respectively on the final grades, even though students scored lower in these activities compared to other assessed learning activities. They are still the most efficient assessment methods to evaluate students’ achievement. The projects, individual presentation and reflective essays have also a significant impact on students’ performance. The only learning activity with the lowest impact is the individual participation and engagement in the class, which is an important learning activity, and it needs a review on how to assess it in an effective way.

6. Teachers’ observations

Students’ e-learning performance data is processed and presented. The six characteristic attributes are identified. Each characteristic is divided into further sub-items that are rated from 1 to 5 by the respondents. Then, for each of the six main characteristics, the average of the sub-items rating is calculated. The box plot (see Figure 6 ) shows a detailed distribution of each response. This is made up of the results, comparing the responses given to the different factors affecting learning. The result shows that the teachers rating of the effect of online learning in the following table. Example: 50% of teachers think that 70% of students improved their creativity skills.

Using e-learning in the virtual classroom.

Descriptive statistics for the learning variables are shown below in Table 5 . In general, the mean and median of all the characteristics are quite high-around 3.5 ( Table 6 ). Regarding correlations between learning parameters, the results show that almost all characteristics are highly inter-correlated (p < 0.001) (See Table 7 ).

Regression model on learning skill of students’ performance.

Dependent Variable: FinalGrades.

Correlation between the learning skills on students’ academic performance.

. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

E-learning characteristics.

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

7. Students’ results and analysis

The survey was to collect feedback from students after they started using online learning courses. The effects of this methods on students’ learning and understanding A scale of 1–5 range from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Different dimensions of online approach are analyzed and Eighty-seven UAE College Students coming from different Universities were asked to give their perception on different aspects of online learning methods.

For the question (1), “Do you like online learning technology?” 84 respondents representing 97.6% of the students said they do. As for the question (2), “Do you feel ready to use online environment?”, 61 students representing 71.2% said they do.

While 7 students or 8% said, they do not. Only 19 student or 21.8% were neutral (see Table 8 ).

Ready for online transformation.

As for question (3), “whether students have all the required technology tools for online learning”, 71 of the respondents representing 83.53% agreed but only 4 students disagreed (See Table 9 ).

Do students have the required tools for online learning?

Regarding the question (4), as to “whether students have reliable internet connection for online learning, 56 of the respondents representing 64% said that they agreed, while 7 students said that they disagree (See Table 10 ).

Do students have the reliable internet connection for online learning?

For question (5), “Did Online learning help your study when you have flexible schedule?” 53 students representing 63% of the respondents said it helped them because of time restriction. On the other hand, 31 students representing 37% said that time was not visible (See Table 11 ).

Did you have a flexible schedule when online learning was used?

For question (6), “Did online learning help you to be more productive?” 38 students representing 45% of the respondents said that online class helped them to be more organized and productive. On the other hand, 19 students representing 23% said that it was not productive for them (See Table 12 ).

Did online learning help you be more productive?

For question (7), “How do rate your experience with your team online” 58 students representing 60% of the respondents said that online learning class is like normal class. On the other hand, 9 students representing 10% said that they were not satisfied with online learning (See Table 13 ).

How do you rate your online experience with your team?

For question (7), “How do rate your internet connectivity and how often problems occurred?” 37 students representing 43% of the respondents said that online class runs into technical issues which lead to reduce their productivity and confidence. On the other hand, 42 students representing 48% said that there were no issues with their internet connections (See Table 14 ).

How often do you face technical problems?

For question (8), “Did you develop any health issues since the start of online learning? 41 students representing 48% of the respondents said that online class causes health issues which lead to reduce their productivity and confidence. On the other hand, 25 students representing 29% said that there were no health issues using online learning (See Table 15 ).

Did you develop any health issues since the start of online learning?

For question (9), “Rate the distractions you have had online”, 31 students representing 37% of the respondents said that online class did not face distractions. On the other hand, 23 students representing 27% said that there were not issues concerning online distraction (See Table 16 ).

Rate the distractions you have had at home.

8. Conclusion

The ultimate purpose of this investigation was to explore the impact of online learning on students’ academic achievement as the demand has increased in recent times for online courses among institutions and college students who solely rely on flexible and comfortable education. We tried to measure in quantifiable terms the students’ final academic performance after their exposure to online learning during this pandemic lockdown. The final results obtained in this study were quite self-eloquent, as they unequivocally show the tremendous impact of e- learning on students’ academic performance and achievements, as it can benefit students in many ways, including enhancing and maximizing their learning independence and classroom participation. It is a good experience for students’ transitional preparation to pursue college education and seek employment. Students were more engaged in the learning process than in conventional teaching, and online learning experience has revealed that didactic teaching style is no longer effective. They no longer regard teachers as the only source of information, but as learning facilitator and online learning from different internet sources as their main source of information. They have proved that they can assume their responsibilities, contribute to course design assessment and learning process personalization. Online learning also helped overcome time and space constraints imposed by the convention learning process and helped students to effectively communicate their findings and share their ideas with their peers locally and globally. The introduction of a new technology such as the online learning will undoubtedly have more impact on the learning outcomes only if we reconsider the delivery mode, content redesign, new assessment system. A suitable pedagogy and an appropriate content are the most important sources of students’ learning motivation. Finally, e-learning has a bright future, tremendous learning potentialities and excellent organizational culture. Universities will incontrovertibly use many of the lessons learned during this pandemic lockdown period of this forced online teaching to adjust curriculum contents, teaching methods/lesson delivery, and assessment tools.

E-learning is here to stay and can make a much stronger contribution to higher education in the years to come. However, there are some negative effects of online class as it does not offer real a face to face contact and interaction with instructors and imposes time commitment and less accountability on students. There are also many online struggles that students face such as the impossibility to stay motivated all the time, as they sometimes feel that they are completely isolated. In addition, instructors feel impotent to control students’ cheating, impose classroom discipline. In addition to that, poor students struggle to get the necessary electronic equipment to access this new mode of learning to interact in due time with their instructor, make necessary comments and raise questions to clear ambiguities and any equivocal statements and get appropriate feedback from their instructor.

There are other academic issues that need to be investigated deeply such as the perspectives of higher education quality focusing on the study of cultural, emotional, technological, ethical, health, financial or academic achievements. Furthermore, more academic research should be done about e-learning theories/distance learning to truly improvise a new and adequate teaching/learning approach.

• 1. Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher Education: A case of Peking University. Wiley Online Library,2(2),113-115
• 2. Zheleva M., Tramonti M., “Use of the Virtual World for Educational Purposes”, in Electronic Journal for Computer Science and Communications, n. Issue 4(2), Burgas Free University, pp. 106-125, 2015
• 3. Usoro, A., & Majewski, G. (2009). Measuring Quality e-Learning in Higher Education international Journal of Global Management Studies (2), 1-32
• 4. Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The Future of Higher Education? Student Perceptions on Learning with Mobile Tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1-26
• 5. MacTeer, C. F. (2011). Distance education (Ser. Education in a competitive and globalizing world). Nova Science
• 6. Nathan, S. (2020). AL-FANAR MEDIA covering Education, Research and Culture, Retrieved from https://www.al - fanarmedia.org/2020/05/future-higher-education-go-from-here /
• 7. Joshi, H. (2012). Towards Transformed Teaching: Engaging Learners Anytime, Anywhere. UAE Journal of Education Technology and Learning v3, pp. 3:5
• 8. Onyema,E. Eucheria, N Dr. Obafemi, F. , Fyneface, S. Atonye, G. Sharma, A. Alsayed, O. (2020), Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic on Education, Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.11, No.13, 2020
• 9. Aristovnik, A.(2020),How Covid-19 pandemic affected higher education students’ lives globally and in the United States
• 10. Aman, S. (2020). Flexible learning in UAE: a case for e-lessons post COVID-19 too. Gulf News
• 11. Hamdan, K., Al-Qirim, N., Asmar, M. (2012) The Effect of Smart Board on Students Behavior and Motivation, IEEE, 2012, pp. 162-166. International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT)
• 12. Carmozzino, E., Corvello, V., & Grimaldi, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial learning through online social networking in high-tech startups. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(3), 406-425
• 13. Hamdan,K and Asmar, M (2012), Improving Student Performance Using Interactive Smart Board Technology, Innovations 9TH International Conference in Information Technology, UAEU
• 14. O’Malley, C., Vavoula, G., Glew, J.P., Taylor, J., Sharples, M., & Lefrere, P., (2004). Guidelines for learning/teaching/tutoring in a mobile environment. [Online] Available http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/ guidelines.pdf
• 15. Walker, A. A. (2017). Why education practitioners and stakeholders should care about person fit in educational assessments. Harvard Educational Review , 87 (3), 426-443

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Published: 18 May 2022

By Miran Zlatović, Igor Balaban and Željko Hutinski

454 downloads

By Dominique Verpoorten, Johanne Huart, Pascal Detroz...

902 downloads

By Mildred Atieno Ayere

304 downloads

IntechOpen Author/Editor? To get your discount, log in .

Discounts available on purchase of multiple copies. View rates

Local taxes (VAT) are calculated in later steps, if applicable.

Support: [email protected]

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Assessing the impact of online-learning effectiveness and benefits in knowledge management, the antecedent of online-learning strategies and motivations: an empirical study.

1. Introduction

2. literature review and research hypothesis, 2.1. online-learning self-efficacy terminology, 2.2. online-learning monitoring terminology, 2.3. online-learning confidence in technology terminology, 2.4. online-learning willpower terminology, 2.5. online-learning attitude terminology, 2.6. online-learning motivation terminology, 2.7. online-learning strategies and online-learning effectiveness terminology, 2.8. online-learning effectiveness terminology, 3. research method, 3.1. instruments, 3.2. data analysis and results, 4.1. reliability and validity analysis, 4.2. hypothesis result, 5. discussion, 6. conclusions, 7. limitations and future directions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• UNESCO. COVID-19 Educational Disruption and Response ; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore, D.R. E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2006 , 54 , 197–200. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McDonald, E.W.; Boulton, J.L.; Davis, J.L. E-learning and nursing assessment skills and knowledge–An integrative review. Nurse Educ. Today 2018 , 66 , 166–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Homan, S.R.; Wood, K. Taming the mega-lecture: Wireless quizzing. Syllabus Sunnyvale Chatsworth 2003 , 17 , 23–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emran, M.A.; Shaalan, K. E-podium technology: A medium of managing knowledge at al buraimi university college via mlearning. In Proceedings of the 2nd BCS International IT Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 9–10 March 2014; pp. 1–4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tenório, T.; Bittencourt, I.I.; Isotani, S.; Silva, A.P. Does peer assessment in on-line learning environments work? A systematic review of the literature. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016 , 64 , 94–107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sheshasaayee, A.; Bee, M.N. Analyzing online learning effectiveness for knowledge society. In Information Systems Design and Intelligent Applications ; Bhateja, V., Nguyen, B., Nguyen, N., Satapathy, S., Le, D.N., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 995–1002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Panigrahi, R.; Srivastava, P.R.; Sharma, D. Online learning: Adoption, continuance, and learning outcome—A review of literature. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2018 , 43 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Alias, N.; Othman, M.S.; Alzahrani, A.I.; Alfarraj, O.; Saged, A.A. Use of e-learning by university students in Malaysian higher educational institutions: A case in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. IEEE Access 2018 , 6 , 14268–14276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Yahaya, N.; Aldraiweesh, A.A.; Alamri, M.M.; Aljarboa, N.A.; Alturki, U. Integrating technology acceptance model with innovation diffusion theory: An empirical investigation on students’ intention to use E-learning systems. IEEE Access 2019 , 7 , 26797–26809. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gunawan, I.; Hui, L.K.; Ma’sum, M.A. Enhancing learning effectiveness by using online learning management system. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Education and Technology (ICET), Beijing, China, 18–20 June 2021; pp. 48–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen, P.H.; Tangworakitthaworn, P.; Gilbert, L. Individual learning effectiveness based on cognitive taxonomies and constructive alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE Region 10 Conference (Tencon), Osaka, Japan, 16–19 November 2020; pp. 1002–1006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pee, L.G. Enhancing the learning effectiveness of ill-structured problem solving with online co-creation. Stud. High. Educ. 2020 , 45 , 2341–2355. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kintu, M.J.; Zhu, C.; Kagambe, E. Blended learning effectiveness: The relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2017 , 14 , 1–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Wang, M.H.; Vogel, D.; Ran, W.J. Creating a performance-oriented e-learning environment: A design science approach. Inf. Manag. 2011 , 48 , 260–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hew, K.F.; Cheung, W.S. Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educ. Res. Rev. 2014 , 12 , 45–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bryant, J.; Bates, A.J. Creating a constructivist online instructional environment. TechTrends 2015 , 59 , 17–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, M.C. Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Comput. Educ. 2010 , 54 , 506–516. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, K.M. E-Learning continuance intention: Moderating effects of user e-learning experience. Comput. Educ. 2011 , 56 , 515–526. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, E.Y.; Lin, S.W.; Huang, T.K. What type of learning style leads to online participation in the mixed-mode e-learning environment? A study of software usage instruction. Comput. Educ. 2012 , 58 , 338–349. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chu, T.H.; Chen, Y.Y. With good we become good: Understanding e-learning adoption by theory of planned behavior and group influences. Comput. Educ. 2016 , 92 , 37–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977 , 84 , 191–215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Torkzadeh, G.; Van Dyke, T.P. Development and validation of an Internet self-efficacy scale. Behav. Inform. Technol. 2001 , 20 , 275–280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saadé, R.G.; Kira, D. Computer anxiety in e-learning: The effect of computer self-efficacy. J. Inform. Technol. Educ. Res. 2009 , 8 , 177–191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tucker, J.; Gentry, G. Developing an E-Learning strategy in higher education. In Proceedings of the SITE 2009–Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Charleston, SC, USA, 2–6 March 2009; pp. 2702–2707. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, Y.; Peng, H.M.; Huang, R.H.; Hou, Y.; Wang, J. Characteristics of distance learners: Research on relationships of learning motivation, learning strategy, self-efficacy, attribution and learning results. Open Learn. J. Open Distance Elearn. 2008 , 23 , 17–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mahmud, B.H. Study on the impact of motivation, self-efficacy and learning strategies of faculty of education undergraduates studying ICT courses. In Proceedings of the 4th International Postgraduate Research Colloquium (IPRC) Proceedings, Bangkok, Thailand, 29 October 2009; pp. 59–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yusuf, M. Investigating relationship between self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and self-regulated learning strategies of undergraduate Students: A study of integrated motivational models. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011 , 15 , 2614–2617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• De la Fuente, J.; Martínez-Vicente, J.M.; Peralta-Sánchez, F.J.; GarzónUmerenkova, A.; Vera, M.M.; Paoloni, P. Applying the SRL vs. ERL theory to the knowledge of achievement emotions in undergraduate university students. Front. Psychol. 2019 , 10 , 2070. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ahmadi, S. Academic self-esteem, academic self-efficacy and academic achievement: A path analysis. J. Front. Psychol. 2020 , 5 , 155. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyen, E.L.; Aust, R.J.; Bui, Y.N. Assessing and monitoring student progress in an E-learning personnel preparation environment. Teach. Educ. Spec. Educ. 2002 , 25 , 187–198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Dunlosky, J.; Kubat-Silman, A.K.; Christopher, H. Training monitoring skills improves older adults’ self-paced associative learning. Psychol. Aging 2003 , 18 , 340–345. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, H.J. Research on the relationship between English learning motivation. Self-monitoring and Test Score. Ethnic Educ. Res. 2005 , 6 , 66–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenberg, M.J. E-Learning: Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age ; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhat, S.A.; Bashir, M. Measuring ICT orientation: Scale development & validation. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018 , 23 , 1123–1143. [ Google Scholar ]
• Achuthan, K.; Francis, S.P.; Diwakar, S. Augmented reflective learning and knowledge retention perceived among students in classrooms involving virtual laboratories. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2017 , 22 , 2825–2855. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, X.; Yelland, N. An investigation of preservice early childhood teachers’ adoption of ICT in a teaching practicum context in Hong Kong. J. Early Child. Teach. Educ. 2017 , 38 , 259–274. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fraillon, J.; Ainley, J.; Schulz, W.; Friedman, T.; Duckworth, D. Preparing for Life in a Digital World: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report ; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huber, S.G.; Helm, C. COVID-19 and schooling: Evaluation, assessment and accountability in times of crises—Reacting quickly to explore key issues for policy, practice and research with the school barometer. Educ. Assess. Eval. Account. 2020 , 32 , 237–270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eickelmann, B.; Gerick, J. Learning with digital media: Objectives in times of Corona and under special consideration of social Inequities. Dtsch. Schule. 2020 , 16 , 153–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shehzadi, S.; Nisar, Q.A.; Hussain, M.S.; Basheer, M.F.; Hameed, W.U.; Chaudhry, N.I. The role of e-learning toward students’ satisfaction and university brand image at educational institutes of Pakistan: A post-effect of COVID-19. Asian Educ. Dev. Stud. 2020 , 10 , 275–294. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, E.M.; Walton, G.M.; Dweck, C.S.; Job, V.; Trzesniewski, K.; McClure, S. Theories of willpower affect sustained learning. PLoS ONE 2012 , 7 , 38680. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Moriña, A.; Molina, V.M.; Cortés-Vega, M.D. Voices from Spanish students with disabilities: Willpower and effort to survive university. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2018 , 33 , 481–494. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koballa, T.R., Jr.; Crawley, F.E. The influence of attitude on science teaching and learning. Sch. Sci. Math. 1985 , 85 , 222–232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chao, C.Y.; Chen, Y.T.; Chuang, K.Y. Exploring students’ learning attitude and achievement in flipped learning supported computer aided design curriculum: A study in high school engineering education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2015 , 23 , 514–526. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stefan, M.; Ciomos, F. The 8th and 9th grades students’ attitude towards teaching and learning physics. Acta Didact. Napocensia. 2010 , 3 , 7–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedighi, F.; Zarafshan, M.A. Effects of attitude and motivation on the use of language learning strategies by Iranian EFL University students. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Shiraz Univ. 2007 , 23 , 71–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Megan, S.; Jennifer, H.C.; Stephanie, V.; Kyla, H. The relationship among middle school students’ motivation orientations, learning strategies, and academic achievement. Middle Grades Res. J. 2013 , 8 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nasser, O.; Majid, V. Motivation, attitude, and language learning. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011 , 29 , 994–1000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Özhan, Ş.Ç.; Kocadere, S.A. The effects of flow, emotional engagement, and motivation on success in a gamified online learning environment. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2020 , 57 , 2006–2031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, A.P.; Che, H.S. A research on the relationship between learning anxiety, learning attitude, motivation and test performance. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 2005 , 21 , 55–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin, C.H.; Zhang, Y.N.; Zheng, B.B. The roles of learning strategies and motivation in online language learning: A structural equation modeling analysis. Comput. Educ. 2017 , 113 , 75–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deschênes, M.F.; Goudreau, J.; Fernandez, N. Learning strategies used by undergraduate nursing students in the context of a digital educational strategy based on script concordance: A descriptive study. Nurse Educ. Today 2020 , 95 , 104607. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jerusalem, M.; Schwarzer, R. Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal processes. In Self-Efficacy: Thought Control of Action ; Schwarzer, R., Ed.; Hemisphere Publishing Corp: Washington, DC, USA, 1992; pp. 195–213. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman, B.J. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Pract. 2002 , 41 , 64–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pintrich, P.R.; Smith, D.A.F.; García, T.; McKeachie, W.J. A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies Questionnaire (MSLQ) ; University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Post Secondary Teaching and Learning: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Knowles, E.; Kerkman, D. An investigation of students attitude and motivation toward online learning. InSight Collect. Fac. Scholarsh. 2007 , 2 , 70–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective , 7th ed.; Pearson Education International: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981 , 18 , 39–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) ; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiliç-Çakmak, E. Learning strategies and motivational factors predicting information literacy self-efficacy of e-learners. Aust. J. Educ. Technol. 2010 , 26 , 192–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zheng, C.; Liang, J.C.; Li, M.; Tsai, C. The relationship between English language learners’ motivation and online self-regulation: A structural equation modelling approach. System 2018 , 76 , 144–157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• May, M.; George, S.; Prévôt, P. TrAVis to enhance students’ self-monitoring in online learning supported by computer-mediated communication tools. Int. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. Ind. Manag. Appl. 2011 , 3 , 623–634. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rafart, M.A.; Bikfalvi, A.; Soler, J.; Poch, J. Impact of using automatic E-Learning correctors on teaching business subjects to engineers. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2019 , 35 , 1630–1641. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, P.M.; Tsui, W.H.; Hsiao, T.C. A low-cost scalable solution for monitoring affective state of students in E-learning environment using mouse and keystroke data. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems ; Cerri, S.A., Clancey, W.J., Papadourakis, G., Panourgia, K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 679–680. [ Google Scholar ]
• Metz, D.; Karadgi, S.S.; Müller, U.J.; Grauer, M. Self-Learning monitoring and control of manufacturing processes based on rule induction and event processing. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information, Process, and Knowledge Management eKNOW, Valencia, Spain, 21–25 November 2012; pp. 78–85. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fitch, J.L.; Ravlin, E.C. Willpower and perceived behavioral control: Intention-behavior relationship and post behavior attributions. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 2005 , 33 , 105–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sridharan, B.; Deng, H.; Kirk, J.; Brian, C. Structural equation modeling for evaluating the user perceptions of e-learning effectiveness in higher education. In Proceedings of the ECIS 2010: 18th European Conference on Information Systems, Pretoria, South Africa, 7–9 June 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tarhini, A.; Hone, K.; Liu, X. The effects of individual differences on e-learning users’ behaviour in developing countries: A structural equation model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014 , 41 , 153–163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• de Leeuw, R.A.; Logger, D.N.; Westerman, M.; Bretschneider, J.; Plomp, M.; Scheele, F. Influencing factors in the implementation of postgraduate medical e-learning: A thematic analysis. BMC Med. Educ. 2019 , 19 , 300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Erenler, H.H.T. A structural equation model to evaluate students’ learning and satisfaction. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2020 , 28 , 254–267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fee, K. Delivering E-learning: A complete strategy for design, application and assessment. Dev. Learn. Organ. 2013 , 27 , 40–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• So, W.W.N.; Chen, Y.; Wan, Z.H. Multimedia e-Learning and self-regulated science learning: A study of primary school learners’ experiences and perceptions. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2019 , 28 , 508–522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Hongsuchon, T.; Emary, I.M.M.E.; Hariguna, T.; Qhal, E.M.A. Assessing the Impact of Online-Learning Effectiveness and Benefits in Knowledge Management, the Antecedent of Online-Learning Strategies and Motivations: An Empirical Study. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 2570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052570

Hongsuchon T, Emary IMME, Hariguna T, Qhal EMA. Assessing the Impact of Online-Learning Effectiveness and Benefits in Knowledge Management, the Antecedent of Online-Learning Strategies and Motivations: An Empirical Study. Sustainability . 2022; 14(5):2570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052570

Hongsuchon, Tanaporn, Ibrahiem M. M. El Emary, Taqwa Hariguna, and Eissa Mohammed Ali Qhal. 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Online-Learning Effectiveness and Benefits in Knowledge Management, the Antecedent of Online-Learning Strategies and Motivations: An Empirical Study" Sustainability 14, no. 5: 2570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052570

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 09 January 2024

Online vs in-person learning in higher education: effects on student achievement and recommendations for leadership

• Bandar N. Alarifi 1 &
• Steve Song 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  86 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

3 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

This study is a comparative analysis of online distance learning and traditional in-person education at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia, with a focus on understanding how different educational modalities affect student achievement. The justification for this study lies in the rapid shift towards online learning, especially highlighted by the educational changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. By analyzing the final test scores of freshman students in five core courses over the 2020 (in-person) and 2021 (online) academic years, the research provides empirical insights into the efficacy of online versus traditional education. Initial observations suggested that students in online settings scored lower in most courses. However, after adjusting for variables like gender, class size, and admission scores using multiple linear regression, a more nuanced picture emerged. Three courses showed better performance in the 2021 online cohort, one favored the 2020 in-person group, and one was unaffected by the teaching format. The study emphasizes the crucial need for a nuanced, data-driven strategy in integrating online learning within higher education systems. It brings to light the fact that the success of educational methodologies is highly contingent on specific contextual factors. This finding advocates for educational administrators and policymakers to exercise careful and informed judgment when adopting online learning modalities. It encourages them to thoroughly evaluate how different subjects and instructional approaches might interact with online formats, considering the variable effects these might have on learning outcomes. This approach ensures that decisions about implementing online education are made with a comprehensive understanding of its diverse and context-specific impacts, aiming to optimize educational effectiveness and student success.

Similar content being viewed by others

Elementary school teachers’ perspectives about learning during the COVID-19 pandemic

Quality of a master’s degree in education in Ecuador

Co-designing inclusive excellence in higher education: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives on the ideal online learning environment using the I-TPACK model

Introduction.

The year 2020 marked an extraordinary period, characterized by the global disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Governments and institutions worldwide had to adapt to unforeseen challenges across various domains, including health, economy, and education. In response, many educational institutions quickly transitioned to distance teaching (also known as e-learning, online learning, or virtual classrooms) to ensure continued access to education for their students. However, despite this rapid and widespread shift to online learning, a comprehensive examination of its effects on student achievement in comparison to traditional in-person instruction remains largely unexplored.

In research examining student outcomes in the context of online learning, the prevailing trend is the consistent observation that online learners often achieve less favorable results when compared to their peers in traditional classroom settings (e.g., Fischer et al., 2020 ; Bettinger et al., 2017 ; Edvardsson and Oskarsson, 2008 ). However, it is important to note that a significant portion of research on online learning has primarily focused on its potential impact (Kuhfeld et al., 2020 ; Azevedo et al., 2020 ; Di Pietro et al., 2020 ) or explored various perspectives (Aucejo et al., 2020 ; Radha et al., 2020 ) concerning distance education. These studies have often omitted a comprehensive and nuanced examination of its concrete academic consequences, particularly in terms of test scores and grades.

Given the dearth of research on the academic impact of online learning, especially in light of Covid-19 in the educational arena, the present study aims to address that gap by assessing the effectiveness of distance learning compared to in-person teaching in five required freshmen-level courses at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. To accomplish this objective, the current study compared the final exam results of 8297 freshman students who were enrolled in the five courses in person in 2020 to their 8425 first-year counterparts who has taken the same courses at the same institution in 2021 but in an online format.

The final test results of the five courses (i.e., University Skills 101, Entrepreneurship 101, Computer Skills 101, Computer Skills 101, and Fitness and Health Culture 101) were examined, accounting for potential confounding factors such as gender, class size and admission scores, which have been cited in past research to be correlated with student achievement (e.g., Meinck and Brese, 2019 ; Jepsen, 2015 ) Additionally, as the preparatory year at King Saud University is divided into five tracks—health, nursing, science, business, and humanity, the study classified students based on their respective disciplines.

Motivation for the study

The rapid expansion of distance learning in higher education, particularly highlighted during the recent COVID-19 pandemic (Volk et al., 2020 ; Bettinger et al., 2017 ), underscores the need for alternative educational approaches during crises. Such disruptions can catalyze innovation and the adoption of distance learning as a contingency plan (Christensen et al., 2015 ). King Saud University, like many institutions worldwide, faced the challenge of transitioning abruptly to online learning in response to the pandemic.

E-learning has gained prominence in higher education due to technological advancements, offering institutions a competitive edge (Valverde-Berrocoso et al., 2020 ). Especially during conditions like the COVID-19 pandemic, electronic communication was utilized across the globe as a feasible means to overcome barriers and enhance interactions (Bozkurt, 2019 ).

Distance learning, characterized by flexibility, became crucial when traditional in-person classes are hindered by unforeseen circumstance such as the ones posed by COVID-19 (Arkorful and Abaidoo, 2015 ). Scholars argue that it allows students to learn at their own pace, often referred to as self-directed learning (Hiemstra, 1994 ) or self-education (Gadamer, 2001 ). Additional advantages include accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility (Sadeghi, 2019 ).

However, distance learning is not immune to its own set of challenges. Technical impediments, encompassing network issues, device limitations, and communication hiccups, represent formidable hurdles (Sadeghi, 2019 ). Furthermore, concerns about potential distractions in the online learning environment, fueled by the ubiquity of the internet and social media, have surfaced (Hall et al., 2020 ; Ravizza et al., 2017 ). The absence of traditional face-to-face interactions among students and between students and instructors is also viewed as a potential drawback (Sadeghi, 2019 ).

Given the evolving understanding of the pros and cons of distance learning, this study aims to contribute to the existing literature by assessing the effectiveness of distance learning, specifically in terms of student achievement, as compared to in-person classroom learning at King Saud University, one of Saudi Arabia’s largest higher education institutions.

Academic achievement: in-person vs online learning

The primary driving force behind the rapid integration of technology in education has been its emphasis on student performance (Lai and Bower, 2019 ). Over the past decade, numerous studies have undertaken comparisons of student academic achievement in online and in-person settings (e.g., Bettinger et al., 2017 ; Fischer et al., 2020 ; Iglesias-Pradas et al., 2021 ). This section offers a concise review of the disparities in academic achievement between college students engaged in in-person and online learning, as identified in existing research.

A number of studies point to the superiority of traditional in-person education over online learning in terms of academic outcomes. For example, Fischer et al. ( 2020 ) conducted a comprehensive study involving 72,000 university students across 433 subjects, revealing that online students tend to achieve slightly lower academic results than their in-class counterparts. Similarly, Bettinger et al. ( 2017 ) found that students at for-profit online universities generally underperformed when compared to their in-person peers. Supporting this trend, Figlio et al. ( 2013 ) indicated that in-person instruction consistently produced better results, particularly among specific subgroups like males, lower-performing students, and Hispanic learners. Additionally, Kaupp’s ( 2012 ) research in California community colleges demonstrated that online students faced lower completion and success rates compared to their traditional in-person counterparts (Fig. 1 ).

The figure compared student achievement in the final tests in the five courses by year, using independent-samples t-tests; the results show a statistically-significant drop in test scores from 2020 (in person) to 2021 (online) for all courses except CT_101.

In contrast, other studies present evidence of online students outperforming their in-person peers. For example, Iglesias-Pradas et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a comparative analysis of 43 bachelor courses at Telecommunication Engineering College in Malaysia, revealing that online students achieved higher academic outcomes than their in-person counterparts. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Gonzalez et al. ( 2020 ) found that students engaged in online learning performed better than those who had previously taken the same subjects in traditional in-class settings.

Expanding on this topic, several studies have reported mixed results when comparing the academic performance of online and in-person students, with various student and instructor factors emerging as influential variables. Chesser et al. ( 2020 ) noted that student traits such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extraversion play a substantial role in academic achievement, regardless of the learning environment—be it traditional in-person classrooms or online settings. Furthermore, Cacault et al. ( 2021 ) discovered that online students with higher academic proficiency tend to outperform those with lower academic capabilities, suggesting that differences in students’ academic abilities may impact their performance. In contrast, Bergstrand and Savage ( 2013 ) found that online classes received lower overall ratings and exhibited a less respectful learning environment when compared to in-person instruction. Nevertheless, they also observed that the teaching efficiency of both in-class and online courses varied significantly depending on the instructors’ backgrounds and approaches. These findings underscore the multifaceted nature of the online vs. in-person learning debate, highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of the factors at play.

Theoretical framework

Constructivism is a well-established learning theory that places learners at the forefront of their educational experience, emphasizing their active role in constructing knowledge through interactions with their environment (Duffy and Jonassen, 2009 ). According to constructivist principles, learners build their understanding by assimilating new information into their existing cognitive frameworks (Vygotsky, 1978 ). This theory highlights the importance of context, active engagement, and the social nature of learning (Dewey, 1938 ). Constructivist approaches often involve hands-on activities, problem-solving tasks, and opportunities for collaborative exploration (Brooks and Brooks, 1999 ).

In the realm of education, subject-specific pedagogy emerges as a vital perspective that acknowledges the distinctive nature of different academic disciplines (Shulman, 1986 ). It suggests that teaching methods should be tailored to the specific characteristics of each subject, recognizing that subjects like mathematics, literature, or science require different approaches to facilitate effective learning (Shulman, 1987 ). Subject-specific pedagogy emphasizes that the methods of instruction should mirror the ways experts in a particular field think, reason, and engage with their subject matter (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner, 2005 ).

When applying these principles to the design of instruction for online and in-person learning environments, the significance of adapting methods becomes even more pronounced. Online learning often requires unique approaches due to its reliance on technology, asynchronous interactions, and potential for reduced social presence (Anderson, 2003 ). In-person learning, on the other hand, benefits from face-to-face interactions and immediate feedback (Allen and Seaman, 2016 ). Here, the interplay of constructivism and subject-specific pedagogy becomes evident.

Online learning. In an online environment, constructivist principles can be upheld by creating interactive online activities that promote exploration, reflection, and collaborative learning (Salmon, 2000 ). Discussion forums, virtual labs, and multimedia presentations can provide opportunities for students to actively engage with the subject matter (Harasim, 2017 ). By integrating subject-specific pedagogy, educators can design online content that mirrors the discipline’s methodologies while leveraging technology for authentic experiences (Koehler and Mishra, 2009 ). For instance, an online history course might incorporate virtual museum tours, primary source analysis, and collaborative timeline projects.

In-person learning. In a traditional brick-and-mortar classroom setting, constructivist methods can be implemented through group activities, problem-solving tasks, and in-depth discussions that encourage active participation (Jonassen et al., 2003 ). Subject-specific pedagogy complements this by shaping instructional methods to align with the inherent characteristics of the subject (Hattie, 2009). For instance, in a physics class, hands-on experiments and real-world applications can bring theoretical concepts to life (Hake, 1998 ).

In sum, the fusion of constructivism and subject-specific pedagogy offers a versatile approach to instructional design that adapts to different learning environments (Garrison, 2011 ). By incorporating the principles of both theories, educators can tailor their methods to suit the unique demands of online and in-person learning, ultimately providing students with engaging and effective learning experiences that align with the nature of the subject matter and the mode of instruction.

Course description

The Self-Development Skills Department at King Saud University (KSU) offers five mandatory freshman-level courses. These courses aim to foster advanced thinking skills and cultivate scientific research abilities in students. They do so by imparting essential skills, identifying higher-level thinking patterns, and facilitating hands-on experience in scientific research. The design of these classes is centered around aiding students’ smooth transition into university life. Brief descriptions of these courses are as follows:

University Skills 101 (CI 101) is a three-hour credit course designed to nurture essential academic, communication, and personal skills among all preparatory year students at King Saud University. The primary goal of this course is to equip students with the practical abilities they need to excel in their academic pursuits and navigate their university lives effectively. CI 101 comprises 12 sessions and is an integral part of the curriculum for all incoming freshmen, ensuring a standardized foundation for skill development.

Fitness and Health 101 (FAJB 101) is a one-hour credit course. FAJB 101 focuses on the aspects of self-development skills in terms of health and physical, and the skills related to personal health, nutrition, sports, preventive, psychological, reproductive, and first aid. This course aims to motivate students’ learning process through entertainment, sports activities, and physical exercises to maintain their health. This course is required for all incoming freshmen students at King Saud University.

Entrepreneurship 101 (ENT 101) is a one-hour- credit course. ENT 101 aims to develop students’ skills related to entrepreneurship. The course provides students with knowledge and skills to generate and transform ideas and innovations into practical commercial projects in business settings. The entrepreneurship course consists of 14 sessions and is taught only to students in the business track.

Computer Skills 101 (CT 101) is a three-hour credit course. This provides students with the basic computer skills, e.g., components, operating systems, applications, and communication backup. The course explores data visualization, introductory level of modern programming with algorithms and information security. CT 101 course is taught for all tracks except those in the human track.

Computer Skills 102 (CT 102) is a three-hour credit course. It provides IT skills to the students to utilize computers with high efficiency, develop students’ research and scientific skills, and increase capability to design basic educational software. CT 102 course focuses on operating systems such as Microsoft Office. This course is only taught for students in the human track.

Structure and activities

These courses ranged from one to three hours. A one-hour credit means that students must take an hour of the class each week during the academic semester. The same arrangement would apply to two and three credit-hour courses. The types of activities in each course are shown in Table 1 .

At King Saud University, each semester spans 15 weeks in duration. The total number of semester hours allocated to each course serves as an indicator of its significance within the broader context of the academic program, including the diverse tracks available to students. Throughout the two years under study (i.e., 2020 and 2021), course placements (fall or spring), course content, and the organizational structure remained consistent and uniform.

Participants

The study’s data comes from test scores of a cohort of 16,722 first-year college students enrolled at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia over the span of two academic years: 2020 and 2021. Among these students, 8297 were engaged in traditional, in-person learning in 2020, while 8425 had transitioned to online instruction for the same courses in 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2020, the student population consisted of 51.5% females and 48.5% males. However, in 2021, there was a reversal in these proportions, with female students accounting for 48.5% and male students comprising 51.5% of the total participants.

Regarding student enrollment in the five courses, Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown by average class size, admission scores, and the number of students enrolled in the courses during the two years covered by this study. While the total number of students in each course remained relatively consistent across the two years, there were noticeable fluctuations in average class sizes. Specifically, four out of the five courses experienced substantial increases in class size, with some nearly doubling in size (e.g., ENT_101 and CT_102), while one course (CT_101) showed a reduction in its average class size.

In this study, it must be noted that while some students enrolled in up to three different courses within the same academic year, none repeated the same exam in both years. Specifically, students who failed to pass their courses in 2020 were required to complete them in summer sessions and were consequently not included in this study’s dataset. To ensure clarity and precision in our analysis, the research focused exclusively on student test scores to evaluate and compare the academic effectiveness of online and traditional in-person learning methods. This approach was chosen to provide a clear, direct comparison of the educational impacts associated with each teaching format.

Descriptive analysis of the final exam scores for the two years (2020 and 2021) were conducted. Additionally, comparison of student outcomes in in-person classes in 2020 to their online platform peers in 2021 were conducted using an independent-samples t -test. Subsequently, in order to address potential disparities between the two groups arising from variables such as gender, class size, and admission scores (which serve as an indicator of students’ academic aptitude and pre-enrollment knowledge), multiple regression analyses were conducted. In these multivariate analyses, outcomes of both in-person and online cohorts were assessed within their respective tracks. By carefully considering essential aforementioned variables linked to student performance, the study aimed to ensure a comprehensive and equitable evaluation.

Study instrument

The study obtained students’ final exam scores for the years 2020 (in-person) and 2021 (online) from the school’s records office through their examination management system. In the preparatory year at King Saud University, final exams for all courses are developed by committees composed of faculty members from each department. To ensure valid comparisons, the final exam questions, crafted by departmental committees of professors, remained consistent and uniform for the two years under examination.

Table 3 provides a comprehensive assessment of the reliability of all five tests included in our analysis. These tests exhibit a strong degree of internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients spanning a range from 0.77 to 0.86. This robust and consistent internal consistency measurement underscores the dependable nature of these tests, affirming their reliability and suitability for the study’s objectives.

In terms of assessing test validity, content validity was ensured through a thorough review by university subject matter experts, resulting in test items that align well with the content domain and learning objectives. Additionally, criterion-related validity was established by correlating students’ admissions test scores with their final required freshman test scores in the five subject areas, showing a moderate and acceptable relationship (0.37 to 0.56) between the test scores and the external admissions test. Finally, construct validity was confirmed through reviews by experienced subject instructors, leading to improvements in test content. With guidance from university subject experts, construct validity was established, affirming the effectiveness of the final tests in assessing students’ subject knowledge at the end of their coursework.

Collectively, these validity and reliability measures affirm the soundness and integrity of the final subject tests, establishing their suitability as effective assessment tools for evaluating students’ knowledge in their five mandatory freshman courses at King Saud University.

After obtaining research approval from the Research Committee at King Saud University, the coordinators of the five courses (CI_101, ENT_101, CT_101, CT_102, and FAJB_101) supplied the researchers with the final exam scores of all first-year preparatory year students at King Saud University for the initial semester of the academic years 2020 and 2021. The sample encompassed all students who had completed these five courses during both years, resulting in a total of 16,722 students forming the final group of participants.

Limitations

Several limitations warrant acknowledgment in this study. First, the research was conducted within a well-resourced major public university. As such, the experiences with online classes at other types of institutions (e.g., community colleges, private institutions) may vary significantly. Additionally, the limited data pertaining to in-class teaching practices and the diversity of learning activities across different courses represents a gap that could have provided valuable insights for a more thorough interpretation and explanation of the study’s findings.

To compare student achievement in the final tests in the five courses by year, independent-samples t -tests were conducted. Table 4 shows a statistically-significant drop in test scores from 2020 (in person) to 2021 (online) for all courses except CT_101. The biggest decline was with CT_102 with 3.58 points, and the smallest decline was with CI_101 with 0.18 points.

However, such simple comparison of means between the two years (via t -tests) by subjects does not account for the differences in gender composition, class size, and admission scores between the two academic years, all of which have been associated with student outcomes (e.g., Ho and Kelman, 2014 ; De Paola et al., 2013 ). To account for such potential confounding variables, multiple regressions were conducted to compare the 2 years’ results while controlling for these three factors associated with student achievement.

Table 5 presents the regression results, illustrating the variation in final exam scores between 2020 and 2021, while controlling for gender, class size, and admission scores. Importantly, these results diverge significantly from the outcomes obtained through independent-sample t -test analyses.

Taking into consideration the variables mentioned earlier, students in the 2021 online cohort demonstrated superior performance compared to their 2020 in-person counterparts in CI_101, FAJB_101, and CT_101, with score advantages of 0.89, 0.56, and 5.28 points, respectively. Conversely, in the case of ENT_101, online students in 2021 scored 0.69 points lower than their 2020 in-person counterparts. With CT_102, there were no statistically significant differences in final exam scores between the two cohorts of students.

The study sought to assess the effectiveness of distance learning compared to in-person learning in the higher education setting in Saudi Arabia. We analyzed the final exam scores of 16,722 first-year college students in King Saud University in five required subjects (i.e., CI_101, ENT_101, CT_101, CT_102, and FAJB_101). The study initially performed a simple comparison of mean scores by tracks by year (via t -tests) and then a number of multiple regression analyses which controlled for class size, gender composition, and admission scores.

Overall, the study’s more in-depth findings using multiple regression painted a wholly different picture than the results obtained using t -tests. After controlling for class size, gender composition, and admissions scores, online students in 2021 performed better than their in-person instruction peers in 2020 in University Skills (CI_101), Fitness and Health (FAJB_101), and Computer Skills (CT_101), whereas in-person students outperformed their online peers in Entrepreneurship (ENT_101). There was no meaningful difference in outcomes for students in the Computer Skills (CT_102) course for the two years.

In light of these findings, it raises the question: why do we observe minimal differences (less than a one-point gain or loss) in student outcomes in courses like University Skills, Fitness and Health, Entrepreneurship, and Advanced Computer Skills based on the mode of instruction? Is it possible that when subjects are primarily at a basic or introductory level, as is the case with these courses, the mode of instruction may have a limited impact as long as the concepts are effectively communicated in a manner familiar and accessible to students?

In today’s digital age, one could argue that students in more developed countries, such as Saudi Arabia, generally possess the skills and capabilities to effectively engage with materials presented in both in-person and online formats. However, there is a notable exception in the Basic Computer Skills course, where the online cohort outperformed their in-person counterparts by more than 5 points. Insights from interviews with the instructors of this course suggest that this result may be attributed to the course’s basic and conceptual nature, coupled with the availability of instructional videos that students could revisit at their own pace.

Given that students enter this course with varying levels of computer skills, self-paced learning may have allowed them to cover course materials at their preferred speed, concentrating on less familiar topics while swiftly progressing through concepts they already understood. The advantages of such self-paced learning have been documented by scholars like Tullis and Benjamin ( 2011 ), who found that self-paced learners often outperform those who spend the same amount of time studying identical materials. This approach allows learners to allocate their time more effectively according to their individual learning pace, providing greater ownership and control over their learning experience. As such, in courses like introductory computer skills, it can be argued that becoming familiar with fundamental and conceptual topics may not require extensive in-class collaboration. Instead, it may be more about exposure to and digestion of materials in a format and at a pace tailored to students with diverse backgrounds, knowledge levels, and skill sets.

Further investigation is needed to more fully understand why some classes benefitted from online instruction while others did not, and vice versa. Perhaps, it could be posited that some content areas are more conducive to in-person (or online) format while others are not. Or it could be that the different results of the two modes of learning were driven by students of varying academic abilities and engagement, with low-achieving students being more vulnerable to the limitations of online learning (e.g., Kofoed et al., 2021 ). Whatever the reasons, the results of the current study can be enlightened by a more in-depth analysis of the various factors associated with such different forms of learning. Moreover, although not clear cut, what the current study does provide is additional evidence against any dire consequences to student learning (at least in the higher ed setting) as a result of sudden increase in online learning with possible benefits of its wider use being showcased.

Based on the findings of this study, we recommend that educational leaders adopt a measured approach to online learning—a stance that neither fully embraces nor outright denounces it. The impact on students’ experiences and engagement appears to vary depending on the subjects and methods of instruction, sometimes hindering, other times promoting effective learning, while some classes remain relatively unaffected.

Rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach, educational leaders should be open to exploring the nuances behind these outcomes. This involves examining why certain courses thrived with online delivery, while others either experienced a decline in student achievement or remained largely unaffected. By exploring these differentiated outcomes associated with diverse instructional formats, leaders in higher education institutions and beyond can make informed decisions about resource allocation. For instance, resources could be channeled towards in-person learning for courses that benefit from it, while simultaneously expanding online access for courses that have demonstrated improved outcomes through its virtual format. This strategic approach not only optimizes resource allocation but could also open up additional revenue streams for the institution.

Considering the enduring presence of online learning, both before the pandemic and its accelerated adoption due to Covid-19, there is an increasing need for institutions of learning and scholars in higher education, as well as other fields, to prioritize the study of its effects and optimal utilization. This study, which compares student outcomes between two cohorts exposed to in-person and online instruction (before and during Covid-19) at the largest university in Saudi Arabia, represents a meaningful step in this direction.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Allen IE, Seaman J (2016) Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States . Babson Survey Group

Anderson T (2003) Getting the mix right again: an updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn , 4 (2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149

Arkorful V, Abaidoo N (2015) The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. Int J Instruct Technol Distance Learn 12(1):29–42

Google Scholar  

Aucejo EM, French J, Araya MP, Zafar B (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey. Journal of Public Economics 191:104271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104271

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Azevedo JP, Hasan A, Goldemberg D, Iqbal SA, and Geven K (2020) Simulating the potential impacts of COVID-19 school closures on schooling and learning outcomes: a set of global estimates. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper

Bergstrand K, Savage SV (2013) The chalkboard versus the avatar: Comparing the effectiveness of online and in-class courses. Teach Sociol 41(3):294–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X13479949

Article   Google Scholar  

Bettinger EP, Fox L, Loeb S, Taylor ES (2017) Virtual classrooms: How online college courses affect student success. Am Econ Rev 107(9):2855–2875. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151193

Bozkurt A (2019) From distance education to open and distance learning: a holistic evaluation of history, definitions, and theories. Handbook of research on learning in the age of transhumanism , 252–273. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8431-5.ch016

Brooks JG, Brooks MG (1999) In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms . Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Cacault MP, Hildebrand C, Laurent-Lucchetti J, Pellizzari M (2021) Distance learning in higher education: evidence from a randomized experiment. J Eur Econ Assoc 19(4):2322–2372. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvaa060

Chesser S, Murrah W, Forbes SA (2020) Impact of personality on choice of instructional delivery and students’ performance. Am Distance Educ 34(3):211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1705116

Christensen CM, Raynor M, McDonald R (2015) What is disruptive innovation? Harv Bus Rev 93(12):44–53

Cochran-Smith M, Zeichner KM (2005) Studying teacher education: the report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Choice Rev Online 43 (4). https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.43-2338

De Paola M, Ponzo M, Scoppa V (2013) Class size effects on student achievement: heterogeneity across abilities and fields. Educ Econ 21(2):135–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2010.511811

Dewey, J (1938) Experience and education . Simon & Schuster

Di Pietro G, Biagi F, Costa P, Karpinski Z, Mazza J (2020) The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: reflections based on the existing literature and recent international datasets. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

Duffy TM, Jonassen DH (2009) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation . Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

Edvardsson IR, Oskarsson GK (2008) Distance education and academic achievement in business administration: the case of the University of Akureyri. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn, 9 (3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i3.542

Figlio D, Rush M, Yin L (2013) Is it live or is it internet? Experimental estimates of the effects of online instruction on student learning. J Labor Econ 31(4):763–784. https://doi.org/10.3386/w16089

Fischer C, Xu D, Rodriguez F, Denaro K, Warschauer M (2020) Effects of course modality in summer session: enrollment patterns and student performance in face-to-face and online classes. Internet Higher Educ 45:100710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100710

Gadamer HG (2001) Education is self‐education. J Philos Educ 35(4):529–538

Garrison DR (2011) E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838761

Gonzalez T, de la Rubia MA, Hincz KP, Comas-Lopez M, Subirats L, Fort S, & Sacha GM (2020) Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PLOS One 15 (10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239490

Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66(1):64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Hall ACG, Lineweaver TT, Hogan EE, O’Brien SW (2020) On or off task: the negative influence of laptops on neighboring students’ learning depends on how they are used. Comput Educ 153:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103901

Harasim L (2017) Learning theory and online technologies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846933

Hiemstra R (1994) Self-directed learning. In WJ Rothwell & KJ Sensenig (Eds), The sourcebook for self-directed learning (pp 9–20). HRD Press

Ho DE, Kelman MG (2014) Does class size affect the gender gap? A natural experiment in law. J Legal Stud 43(2):291–321

Iglesias-Pradas S, Hernández-García Á, Chaparro-Peláez J, Prieto JL (2021) Emergency remote teaching and students’ academic performance in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study. Comput Hum Behav 119:106713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106713

Jepsen C (2015) Class size: does it matter for student achievement? IZA World of Labor . https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.190

Jonassen DH, Howland J, Moore J, & Marra RM (2003) Learning to solve problems with technology: a constructivist perspective (2nd ed). Columbus: Prentice Hall

Kaupp R (2012) Online penalty: the impact of online instruction on the Latino-White achievement gap. J Appli Res Community Coll 19(2):3–11. https://doi.org/10.46569/10211.3/99362

Koehler MJ, Mishra P (2009) What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemp Issues Technol Teacher Educ 9(1):60–70

Kofoed M, Gebhart L, Gilmore D, & Moschitto R (2021) Zooming to class?: Experimental evidence on college students’ online learning during COVID-19. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3846700

Kuhfeld M, Soland J, Tarasawa B, Johnson A, Ruzek E, Liu J (2020) Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educ Res 49(8):549–565. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x20965918

Lai JW, Bower M (2019) How is the use of technology in education evaluated? A systematic review. Comput Educ 133:27–42

Meinck S, Brese F (2019) Trends in gender gaps: using 20 years of evidence from TIMSS. Large-Scale Assess Educ 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-019-0076-3

Radha R, Mahalakshmi K, Kumar VS, Saravanakumar AR (2020) E-Learning during lockdown of COVID-19 pandemic: a global perspective. Int J Control Autom 13(4):1088–1099

Ravizza SM, Uitvlugt MG, Fenn KM (2017) Logged in and zoned out: How laptop Internet use relates to classroom learning. Psychol Sci 28(2):171–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679761667731

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sadeghi M (2019) A shift from classroom to distance learning: advantages and limitations. Int J Res Engl Educ 4(1):80–88

Salmon G (2000) E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203816684

Shulman LS (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Edu Res 15(2):4–14

Shulman LS (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harv Educ Rev 57(1):1–22

Tullis JG, Benjamin AS (2011) On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. J Mem Lang 64(2):109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.002

Valverde-Berrocoso J, Garrido-Arroyo MDC, Burgos-Videla C, Morales-Cevallos MB (2020) Trends in educational research about e-learning: a systematic literature review (2009–2018). Sustainability 12(12):5153

Volk F, Floyd CG, Shaler L, Ferguson L, Gavulic AM (2020) Active duty military learners and distance education: factors of persistence and attrition. Am J Distance Educ 34(3):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1708842

Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sports and Recreation Management, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Bandar N. Alarifi

Division of Research and Doctoral Studies, Concordia University Chicago, 7400 Augusta Street, River Forest, IL, 60305, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Bandar Alarifi collected and organized data for the five courses and wrote the manuscript. Dr. Steve Song analyzed and interpreted the data regarding student achievement and revised the manuscript. These authors jointly supervised this work and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bandar N. Alarifi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at King Saud University on 25 March 2021 (No. 4/4/255639). This research does not involve the collection or analysis of data that could be used to identify participants (including email addresses or other contact details). All information is anonymized and the submission does not include images that may identify the person. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alarifi, B.N., Song, S. Online vs in-person learning in higher education: effects on student achievement and recommendations for leadership. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 86 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02590-1

Download citation

Received : 07 June 2023

Accepted : 21 December 2023

Published : 09 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02590-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Capturing the benefits of remote learning

How education experts are applying lessons learned in the pandemic to promote positive outcomes for all students

Vol. 52 No. 6 Print version: page 46

• Schools and Classrooms
• Technology and Design

With schools open again after more than a year of teaching students outside the classroom, the pandemic sometimes feels like a distant memory. The return to classrooms this fall brings major relief for many families and educators. Factors such as a lack of reliable technology and family support, along with an absence of school resources, resulted in significant academic setbacks, not to mention stress for everyone involved.

But for all the downsides of distance learning, educators, psychologists, and parents have seen some benefits as well. For example, certain populations of students found new ways to be more engaged in learning, without the distractions and difficulties they faced in the classroom, and the general challenges of remote learning and the pandemic brought mental health to the forefront of the classroom experience.

Peter Faustino, PsyD, a school psychologist in Scarsdale, New York, said the pandemic also prompted educators and school psychologists to find creative new ways of ensuring students’ emotional and academic well-being. “So many students were impacted by the pandemic, so we couldn’t just assume they would find resources on their own,” said Faustino. “We had to work hard at figuring out new ways to connect with them.”

Here are some of the benefits of distance learning that school psychologists and educators have observed and the ways in which they’re implementing those lessons post-pandemic, with the goal of creating a more equitable, productive environment for all students.

Prioritizing mental health

Faustino said that during the pandemic, he had more mental health conversations with students, families, and teachers than ever. “Because COVID-19 affected everyone, we’re now having mental health discussions as school leaders on a daily and weekly basis,” he said.

This renewed focus on mental health has the potential to improve students’ well-being in profound ways—starting with helping them recover from the pandemic’s effects. In New York City, for example, schools are hiring more than 600 new clinicians, including psychologists , to screen students’ mental health and help them process pandemic-related trauma and adjust to the “new normal” of attending school in person.

Educators and families are also realizing the importance of protecting students’ mental health more generally—not only for their health and safety but for their learning. “We’ve been seeing a broader appreciation for the fact that mental health is a prerequisite for learning rather than an extracurricular pursuit,” said Eric Rossen, PhD, director of professional development and standards at the National Association of School Psychologists.

As a result, Rossen hopes educators will embed social and emotional learning components into daily instruction. For example, teachers could teach mindfulness techniques in the classroom and take in-the-moment opportunities to help kids resolve conflicts or manage stress.

Improved access to mental health resources in schools is another positive effect. Because of physical distancing guidelines, school leaders had to find ways to deliver mental health services remotely, including via online referrals and teletherapy with school psychologists and counselors.

Early in the pandemic, Faustino said he was hesitant about teletherapy’s effectiveness; now, he hopes to continue offering a virtual option. Online scheduling and remote appointments make it easier for students to access mental health resources, and some students even enjoy virtual appointments more, as they can attend therapy in their own spaces rather than showing up in the counselor’s office. For older students, Faustino said that level of comfort often leads to more productive, open conversations.

Autonomy as a key to motivation

Research suggests that when students have more choices about their materials and activities, they’re more motivated—which may translate to increased learning and academic success. In a 2016 paper, psychology researcher Allan Wigfield, PhD, and colleagues make the case that control and autonomy in reading activities can improve both motivation and comprehension ( Child Development Perspectives , Vol. 10, No. 3 ).

During the period of online teaching, some students had opportunities to learn at their own pace, which educators say improved their learning outcomes—especially in older students. In a 2020 survey of more than 600 parents, researchers found the second-most-valued benefit of distance learning was flexibility—not only in schedule but in method of learning.

In a recent study, researchers found that 18% of parents pointed to greater flexibility in a child’s schedule or way of learning as the biggest benefit or positive outcome related to remote learning ( School Psychology , Roy, A., et al., in press).

This individualized learning helps students find more free time for interests and also allows them to conduct their learning at a time they’re most likely to succeed. During the pandemic, Mark Gardner, an English teacher at Hayes Freedom High School in Camas, Washington, said he realized how important student-centered learning is and that whether learning happens should take precedence over how and when it occurs.

For example, one of his students thrived when he had the choice to do work later at night because he took care of his siblings during the day. Now, Gardner posts homework online on Sundays so students can work at their own pace during the week. “Going forward, we want to create as many access points as we can for kids to engage with learning,” he said.

Rosanna Breaux , PhD, an assistant professor of psychology and assistant director of the Child Study Center at Virginia Tech, agrees. “I’d like to see this flexibility continue in some way, where—similar to college—students can guide their own learning based on their interests or when they’re most productive,” she said.

During the pandemic, many educators were forced to rethink how to keep students engaged. Rossen said because many school districts shared virtual curricula during the period of remote learning, older students could take more challenging or interesting courses than they could in person. The same is true for younger students: Megan Hibbard, a teacher in White Bear Lake, Minnesota, said many of her fifth graders enjoyed distance learning more than in-person because they could work on projects that aligned with their interests.

“So much of motivation is discovering the unique things the student finds interesting,” said Hunter Gehlbach, PhD, a professor and vice dean at the Johns Hopkins School of Education. “The more you can facilitate students spending more time on the things they’re really interested in, the better.”

Going forward, Rossen hopes virtual curricula will allow students greater opportunities to pursue their interests, such as by taking AP classes, foreign languages, or vocational electives not available at their own schools.

Conversely, Hibbard’s goal is to increase opportunities for students to pursue their interests in the in-person setting. For example, she plans to increase what she calls “Genius Hours,” a time at the end of the school day when students can focus on high-interest projects they’ll eventually share with the class.

Better understanding of children's needs

One of the most important predictors of a child’s success in school is parental involvement in their education. For example, in a meta-analysis of studies, researchers linked parental engagement in their middle schoolers’ education with greater measures of success (Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F., Developmental Psychology , Vol. 45, No. 3, 2009).

During the pandemic, parents had new opportunities to learn about their kids and, as a result, help them learn. According to a study by Breaux and colleagues, many parents reported that the pandemic allowed them a better understanding of their child’s learning style, needs, or curriculum.

James C. Kaufman , PhD, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Connecticut and the father of an elementary schooler and a high schooler, said he’s had a front-row seat for his sons’ learning for the first time. “Watching my kids learn and engage with classmates has given me some insight in how to parent them,” he said.

Stephen Becker , PhD, a pediatric psychologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said some parents have observed their children’s behavior or learning needs for the first time, which could prompt them to consider assessment and Individualized Education Program (IEP) services. Across the board, Gehlbach said parents are realizing how they can better partner with schools to ensure their kids’ well-being and academic success.

For example, Samantha Marks , PsyD, a Florida-based clinical psychologist, said she realized how much help her middle school daughter, a gifted and talented student with a 504 plan (a plan for how the school will offer support for a student’s disability) for anxiety, needed with independence. “Bringing the learning home made it crystal clear what we needed to teach our daughter to be independent and improve executive functioning” she said. “My takeaway from this is that more parents need to be involved in their children’s education in a healthy, helpful way.”

Marks also gained a deeper understanding of her daughter’s mental health needs. Through her 504 plan, she received help managing her anxiety at school—at home, though, Marks wasn’t always available to help, which taught her the importance of helping her daughter manage her anxiety independently.

Along with parents gaining a deeper understanding of their kids’ needs, the pandemic also prompted greater parent participation in school. For example, Rossen said his kids’ school had virtual school board meetings; he hopes virtual options continue for events like back-to-school information sessions and parenting workshops. “These meetings are often in the evening, and if you’re a single parent or sole caregiver, you may not want to pay a babysitter in order to attend,” he said.

Brittany Greiert, PhD, a school psychologist in Aurora, Colorado, says culturally and linguistically diverse families at her schools benefited from streamlined opportunities to communicate with administrators and teachers. Her district used an app that translates parent communication into 150 languages. Parents can also remotely participate in meetings with school psychologists or teachers, which Greiert says she plans to continue post-pandemic.

Decreased bullying

During stay-at-home orders, kids with neurodevelopmental disorders experienced less bullying than pre-pandemic (McFayden, T. C., et al., Journal of Rural Mental Health , No. 45, Vol. 2, 2021). According to 2019 research, children with emotional, behavioral, and physical health needs experience increased rates of bullying victimization ( Lebrun-Harris, L. A., et al., ), and from the U.S. Department of Education suggests the majority of bullying takes place in person and in unsupervised areas (PDF) .

Scott Graves , PhD, an associate professor of educational studies at The Ohio State University and a member of APA’s Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education (CPSE), said the supervision by parents and teachers in remote learning likely played a part in reducing bullying. As a result, he’s less worried his Black sons will be victims of microaggressions and racist behavior during online learning.

Some Asian American families also report that remote learning offered protection against racism students may have experienced in person. Shereen Naser, PhD, an associate professor of psychology at Cleveland State University and a member of CPSE, and colleagues found that students are more comfortable saying discriminatory things in school when their teachers are also doing so; Naser suspects this trickle-down effect is less likely to happen when students learn from home ( School Psychology International , 2019).

Reductions in bullying and microaggressions aren’t just beneficial for students’ long-term mental health. Breaux said less bullying at school results in less stress, which can improve students’ self-esteem and mood—both of which impact their ability to learn.

Patricia Perez, PhD, an associate professor of international psychology at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology and a member of CPSE, said it’s important for schools to be proactive in providing spaces for support and cultural expression for students from vulnerable backgrounds, whether in culture-specific clubs, all-school assemblies that address racism and other diversity-related topics, or safe spaces to process feelings with teachers.

According to Rossen, many schools are already considering how to continue supporting students at risk for bullying, including by restructuring the school environment.

One principal, Rossen said, recently switched to single-use bathrooms to avoid congregating in those spaces once in-person learning commences to maintain social distancing requirements. “The principal received feedback from students about how going to the bathroom is much less stressful for these students in part due to less bullying,” he said.

More opportunities for special needs students

In Becker and Breaux’s research, parents of students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), particularly those with a 504 plan and IEP, reported greater difficulties with remote learning. But some students with special learning needs—including those with IEPs and 504 plans—thrived in an at-home learning environment. Recent reporting in The New York Times suggests this is one reason many students want to continue online learning.

According to Cara Laitusis, PhD, a principal research scientist at Educational Testing Service ( ETS ) and a member of CPSE, reduced distractions may improve learning outcomes for some students with disabilities that impact attention in a group setting. “In assessments, small group or individual settings are frequently requested accommodations for some students with ADHD, anxiety, or autism. Being in a quiet place alone without peers for part of the instructional day may also allow for more focus,” she said. However, she also pointed out the benefits of inclusion in the classroom for developing social skills with peers.

Remote learning has improved academic outcomes for students with different learning needs, too. Marks said her seventh-grade daughter, a visual learner, appreciated the increase in video presentations and graphics. Similarly, Hibbard said many of her students who struggle to grasp lessons on the first try have benefited from the ability to watch videos over again until they understand. Post-pandemic, she plans to record bite-size lessons—for example, a 1-minute video of a long division problem—so her students can rewatch and process at their own rate.

Learners with anxiety also appreciate the option not to be in the classroom, because the social pressures of being surrounded by peers can make it hard to focus on academics. “Several of my students have learned more in the last year simply due to the absence of anxiety,” said Rosie Reid, an English teacher at Ygnacio Valley High School in Concord, California, and a 2019 California Teacher of the Year. “It’s just one less thing to negotiate in a learning environment.”

On online learning platforms, it’s easier for kids with social anxiety or shyness to participate. One of Gardner’s students with social anxiety participated far more in virtual settings and chats. Now, Gardner is brainstorming ways to encourage students to chat in person, such as by projecting a chat screen on the blackboard.

Technology has helped school psychologists better engage students, too. For example, Greiert said the virtual setting gave her a new understanding of her students’ personalities and needs. “Typing out their thoughts, they were able to demonstrate humor or complex thoughts they never demonstrated in person,” she said. “I really want to keep incorporating technology into sessions so kids can keep building on their strengths.”

Reid says that along with the high school students she teaches, she’s seen her 6-year-old daughter benefit from learning at her own pace in the familiarity of her home. Before the pandemic, she was behind academically, but by guiding her own learning—writing poems, reading books, playing outside with her siblings—she’s blossomed. “For me, as both a mother and as a teacher, this whole phenomenon has opened the door to what education can be,” Reid said.

Eleanor Di Marino-Linnen, PhD, a psychologist and superintendent of the Rose Tree Media School District in Media, Pennsylvania, says the pandemic afforded her district a chance to rethink old routines and implement new ones. “As challenging as it is, it’s definitely an exciting time to be in education when we have a chance to reenvision what schools have looked like for many years,” she said. “We want to capitalize on what we’ve learned.”

Further reading

Why are some kids thriving during remote learning? Fleming, N., Edutopia, 2020

Remote learning has been a disaster for many students. But some kids have thrived. Gilman, A., The Washington Post , Oct. 3, 2020

A preliminary examination of key strategies, challenges, and benefits of remote learning expressed by parents during the COVID-19 pandemic Roy, A., et al., School Psychology , in press

Remote learning during COVID-19: Examining school practices, service continuation, and difficulties for adolescents with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder Becker S. P., et al., Journal of Adolescent Health , 2020

Recommended Reading

Contact apa, you may also like.

How does virtual learning impact students in higher education?

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, stephanie riegg cellini stephanie riegg cellini nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy.

August 13, 2021

In 2020, the pandemic pushed millions of college students around the world into virtual learning. As the new academic year begins, many colleges in the U.S. are poised to bring students back to campus, but a large amount of uncertainty remains. Some institutions will undoubtedly continue to offer online or hybrid classes, even as in-person instruction resumes. At the same time, low vaccination rates, new coronavirus variants, and travel restrictions for international students may mean a return to fully online instruction for some U.S. students and many more around the world.

Public attention has largely focused on the learning losses of K-12 students who shifted online during the pandemic. Yet, we may have reason to be concerned about postsecondary students too. What can we expect from the move to virtual learning? How does virtual learning impact student outcomes? And how does it compare to in-person instruction at the postsecondary level?

Several new papers shed light on these issues, building on previous work in higher education and assessing the efficacy of online education in new contexts. The results are generally consistent with past research: Online coursework generally yields worse student performance than in-person coursework. The negative effects of online course-taking are particularly pronounced for less-academically prepared students and for students pursuing bachelor’s degrees. New evidence from 2020 also suggests that the switch to online course-taking in the pandemic led to declines in course completion. However, a few new studies point to some positive effects of online learning, too. This post discusses this new evidence and its implications for the upcoming academic year.

Evaluating online instruction in higher education

A number of studies have assessed online versus in-person learning at the college level in recent years. A key concern in this literature is that students typically self-select into online or in-person programs or courses, confounding estimates of student outcomes. That is, differences in the characteristics of students themselves may drive differences in the outcome measures we observe that are unrelated to the mode of instruction. In addition, the content, instructor, assignments, and other course features might differ across online and in-person modes as well, which makes apples-to-apples comparisons difficult.

The most compelling studies of online education draw on a random assignment design (i.e., randomized control trial or RCT) to isolate the causal effect of online versus in-person learning. Several pathbreaking studies were able to estimate causal impacts of performance on final exams or course grades in recent years. Virtually all of these studies found that online instruction resulted in lower student performance relative to in-person instruction; although in one case , students with hybrid instruction performed similarly to their in-person peers. Negative effects of online course-taking were particularly pronounced for males and less-academically prepared students.

A new paper by Kofoed and co-authors adds to this literature looking specifically at online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in a novel context: the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. When many colleges moved classes completely online or let students choose their own mode of instruction at the start of the pandemic, West Point economics professors arranged to randomly assign students to in-person or online modes of learning. The same instructors taught one online and one in-person economics class each, and all materials, exams, and assignments were otherwise identical, minimizing biases that otherwise stand in the way of true comparisons. They find that online education lowered a student’s final grade by about 0.2 standard deviations. Their work also confirms the results of previous papers, finding that the negative effect of online learning was driven by students with lower academic ability. A follow-up survey of students’ experiences suggests that online students had trouble concentrating on their coursework and felt less connected to both their peers and instructors relative to their in-person peers.

Cacault et al. (2021) also use an RCT to assess the effects of online lectures in a Swiss university. The authors find that having access to a live-streamed lecture in addition to an in-person option improves the achievement of high-ability students, but lowers the achievement of low-ability students. The key to understanding this two-pronged effect is the counterfactual: When streamed lectures substitute for no attendance (e.g., if a student is ill), they can help students, but when streaming lectures substitute for in-person attendance, they can hurt students.

Broader impacts of online learning

One drawback of RCTs is that these studies are typically limited to a single college and often a single course within that college, so it is not clear if the results generalize to other contexts. Several papers in the literature draw on larger samples of students in non-randomized settings and mitigate selection problems with various econometric methods. These papers find common themes: Students in online courses generally get lower grades, are less likely to perform well in follow-on coursework, and are less likely to graduate than similar students taking in-person classes.

In a recent paper , my co-author Hernando Grueso and I add to this strand of the literature, expanding it to a very different context. We draw on data from the country of Colombia, where students take a mandatory exit exam when they graduate. Using these data, we can assess test scores as an outcome, rather than (more subjective) course grades used in other studies. We can also assess performance across a wide range of institutions, degree programs, and majors.

We find that bachelor’s degree students in online programs perform worse on nearly all test score measures—including math, reading, writing, and English—relative to their counterparts in similar on-campus programs. Results for shorter technical certificates, however, are more mixed. While online students perform significantly worse than on-campus students on exit exams in private institutions, they perform better in SENA, the main public vocational institution in the country, suggesting substantial heterogeneity across institutions in the quality of online programming. Interviews with SENA staff indicate that SENA’s approach of synchronous learning and real-world projects may be working for some online students, but we cannot definitively call this causal evidence, particularly because we can only observe the students who graduate.

A new working paper by Fischer et al. pushes beyond near-term outcomes, like grades and scores, to consider longer-term outcomes, like graduation and time-to-degree, for bachelor’s degree-seeking students in a large public university in California. They find reason to be optimistic about online coursework: When students take courses required for their major online, they are more likely to graduate in four years and see a small decrease in time-to-degree relative to students taking the requirements in-person.

On the other hand, new work considering course completion during the pandemic is less promising. Looking at student outcomes in spring 2020 in Virginia’s community college system, Bird et al. find that the switch to online instruction resulted in an 8.5% reduction in course completion. They find that both withdrawals and failures rose. They also confirm findings in the literature that negative impacts are more extreme among less-academically-prepared students.

Online learning in the fall and beyond

Much more research on virtual learning will undoubtedly be forthcoming post-pandemic. For now, college professors and administrators should consider that college students pushed online may be less prepared for future follow-on classes, their GPAs may be lower, course completion may suffer, and overall learning may have declined relative to in-person cohorts in previous years. These results seem particularly problematic for students with less academic preparation and those in bachelor’s degree programs.

The research is less clear on the impact of virtual instruction on college completion. Although course completion rates appear to be lower for online courses relative to in-person, the evidence is mixed on the impact of virtual instruction on graduation and time-to-degree. The negative learning impacts, reduced course completion, and lack of connection with other students and faculty in a virtual environment could ultimately reduce college completion rates. On the other hand, there is also evidence that the availability of online classes may allow students to move through their degree requirement more quickly.

As the fall semester approaches, colleges will need to make critical choices about online, hybrid, and in-person course offerings. Maintaining some of the most successful online courses will enhance flexibility at this uncertain time and allow some students to continue to make progress on their degrees if they get sick or cannot return to campus for other reasons. For those transitioning back to campus, administrators might consider additional in-person programming, review sessions, tutoring, and other enhanced supports as students make up for learning losses associated with the virtual instruction of the past year.

Related Content

Stephanie Riegg Cellini, Kathryn J. Blanchard

July 22, 2021

Daphna Bassok, Lauren Bauer, Stephanie Riegg Cellini, Helen Shwe Hadani, Michael Hansen, Douglas N. Harris, Brad Olsen, Richard V. Reeves, Jon Valant, Kenneth K. Wong

March 12, 2021

Education Policy Higher Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Phillip Levine

September 3, 2024

Zachary Billot, Annie Vong, Nicole Dias Del Valle, Emily Markovich Morris

August 26, 2024

Online only

11:00 am - 12:00 pm EDT

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Distance Education — The Impact of Online Learning on College Students

The Impact of Online Learning on College Students

• Categories: Distance Education

About this sample

Words: 507 |

Published: Mar 6, 2024

Words: 507 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Advantages of online learning, long-term effects of online learning.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1214 words

3 pages / 1162 words

3 pages / 1637 words

1 pages / 609 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Distance Education

Online education has become an increasingly popular option for students seeking to further their education and obtain a degree. With the advancement of technology, the accessibility and convenience of online education have made [...]

Over the past few decades, the field of education has undergone significant changes due to the rapid evolution of technology. These changes have brought about innovative techniques, approaches, and tools that have revolutionized [...]

In recent years, with the rapid advancement of technology, the landscape of education has undergone a significant transformation. Traditional brick-and-mortar institutions are no longer the only option for those seeking higher [...]

As the educational landscape continues to evolve, distance learning has emerged as a prominent mode of instruction, enabled by technological advancements. While distance learning offers unprecedented flexibility and [...]

Have you ever heard a announcement from a student gaining knowledge of in one of a million schools right here in the Philippines that they by no means had a tough time customizing him or herself simply to suit in the new flow of [...]

This chapter is intended to analyze the fundamentals required by a student in order to enhance their academic development by self-directed modular distance learning . Nowadays, a large population spends considerable time [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Impact of Online Learning during the Covid-19 Pandemic on Academic Outcomes for Newly-Struggling High School Students

• Kristine Webster

The Covid-19 pandemic caused worldwide closures of schools resulting in a sudden shift to online instruction for students.  For many students, this shift caused a decrease in academic performance. This study was conducted to explore whether particular demographic variables were associated with decreased academic outcomes for newly-struggling students as well as to determine if there was a relationship between these demographic variables and the frequency of D and F final course grades.  Student final course grades were collected from a Midwestern United States high school’s student information system.  The data were used to compare academic performance between the fall semester of 2019 during in-person learning and the fall semester of 2020 when the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in school closures and a shift to online learning.  Logistic regression analysis was used to answer each of the research questions. The findings from this study suggest that there was a significant relationship between low household income status and status as a newly-struggling student.  Additionally this study suggests a significant relationship between low household income status and an increased frequency of D and F final course grades between semesters when compared with sample group peers.  Conversely, while special education students did see an increase in frequency of D and F final course grades between semesters it was a significantly lower increase between semesters than their newly-struggling sample group peers.  

Anger S., Dietrich, H., Patzina, A., Sandner, M., Lerche, A., Bernhard, S., & Toussaint, C. (2020, May 15). School closings during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from German high school students. IAB-Forum; Institute for Employment Research. https://www.iab-forum.de/en/school-closings-

Andrew, A., Cattan, S., Costa-Dias, M., Farquharson, C., Kraftman, L., Krutikova, S., Phimister A., & Sevilla, A. (2020). Learning during the lockdown: Real-time data on children’s experiences during home learning. Institute for Fiscal Studies. https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/Edited_Final-BN288%20Learning%20during%20the%20lockdown.pdf

Atchley, W., Wingenbach, G., & Akers, C. (2013). Comparison of course completion and student performance through online and traditional courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4), 104-116.

Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Yiping, L., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439.

Brown, G., & Wack, M. (1999, May 1). The difference frenzy and matching buckshot with buckshot. The Technology Source. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=academicexcellence_pub&httpsredir=1&referer= .

Burgess, S., & Sievertsen, H. H. (2020, April 1). Schools, skills, and learning: The impact of COVID-19 on education. CEPR Policy Portal. https://voxeu.org/article/impact-covid-19-education .

Capra, T. (2011). Online education: Promise and problems. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 288-293.

Cheng-Chia, B., & Swan, K. (2020). Using innovative and scientifically-based debate to build e-learning community. Online Learning, 24(30), 67-80.

Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285-300.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2020, June 1). COVID-19 and student learning in the United States: The hurt could last a lifetime. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/covid-19-and-student-learning-in-the-united-states-the-hurt-could-last-a-lifetime .

Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312–331.

El Refae, G.E., Kaba, A., & Eletter, S. (2021). The impact of demographic characteristics on academic performance: Face-to-face versus distance learning implemented to prevent the spread of COVID-19. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 22(1), 91-110.

Goudeau, S., Sanrey, C., Stanczke, A., Manstead, A., & Darnon, C. (2021). Why lockdown and distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to increase the social class achievement gap. Nature Human Behavior, 5, 1273-1281.

Grewenig, E., Lergetporer, P., Woessman, L., & Zierow, L. (2021). COVID-19 and educational inequality: How school closures affect low- and high-achieving students. European Economic Review, 140, 1-21.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2021.103920

Hackbarth, S. (1996). The educational technology handbook: A comprehensive guide. Educational Technology Publications.

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2001). Student distress in Web-based distance education. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 3, 68-69.

Harasim, L. M. (1990). Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. Praeger.

Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3, 41-61.

Hart, C., Berger, D., Jacob, B., Loeb, S., & Hill, M. (2019). Online learning, offline outcomes: Online course taking and high school student performance. AERA Open, 5(1), 1-17.

Herbert, M. (2006). Staying the course: A study in online student satisfaction and retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(4).

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.566.1253&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Hogan, R. (1997). Analysis of student success in distance learning courses compared to traditional courses. U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED412992.pdf

Horowitz, J. M. (2020, April 15). Lower-income parents most concerned about their children falling behind amid COVID-19 school closures. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2020/04/15/lower-income-parents-most-concerned-about- their-children-falling-behind-amid-covid-19-school-closures/

Idrizi, E., Filiposka, S., & Trajkovik, V. (2021, May). Analysis of success indicators in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 205-222.

Kaur, K., Chung, H. T., & Lee, N. (2010, November). Correlates of Academic Achievement for Master of Education Students at Open University Malaysia. Paper presented in 6th Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning, Kochi, India.

Kiser, K., & Matthews, D., (1999). The origins of distance education and its use in the United States. T.H.E. Journal, 27(2), 54–66. https://thejournal.com/articles/1999/09/01/the-origins-of-distance-education-and-its-use-in-the-united-states.aspx

Lewis, K., Kuhfeld, M., Ruzek, E., & McEachin, A. (2021, July). Learning during COVID-19: Reading and math achievement in the 2020-21 school year. NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/content/uploads/2021/07/Learning-during-COVID-19-Reading-and-math-achievement-in-the-2020-2021-school-year.research-brief-1.pdf

Lupas, K., Mavrakis, A., Altszuler, A., Tower, D., Gnagy, E., MacPhee, F., Ramos, M., Merrill, B., Ward, L., Gordon, C., Schatz, N., Fabiano, G., & Pelham, W. (2021). The short-term impact of remote instruction on achievement in children with ADHD during the COVID-19 pandemic. School Psychology, (36)5, 313-324.

Maki, W. S., & Maki, R.H. (2002). Multimedia comprehension skill predicts differential outcomes of Web-based and lecture courses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 85–98.

McLaren, C. (2004). A comparison of student persistence and performance in online and classroom business statistics experiences. Decision Sciences, Journal of Innovation Education, 2(1), 1-10.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Bakia, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-47.

Moody, J. (2004). Distance education: Why are the attrition rates so high? The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(3), 205-210.

Moore, M. G., & Thompson, M. M. (1990). The effects of distance learning: A summary of literature. Paper for Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, Washington D.C. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc97312/

Morgan, C.K., & Tam, M. (1999). Unraveling the complexities of distance education and student attrition. Distance Education, 20(1), 96-105.

Murat, M., & Bonacini, L. (2020). Coronavirus pandemic, remote learning, and education inequalities. Paper for Global Labor Organization, Essen, Germany. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/224765

Nasir, M. (2012). Demographic characteristics as correlates of academic achievement of university students. Academic Research International 2(2), 400-405.

Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309 – 319.

Paden, R.R. (2006). A comparison of student achievement and retention in an introductory math course delivered in online, face-to-face, and blended modalities. (Publication No. 3237076) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Paul, J., & Jefferson, F. (2019). A comparative analysis of student performance in an online vs. face-to-face Environmental Science course from 2009 – 2016. Frontiers in Computer Science, 1(7), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007 .

Phipps, R. A., & Merisotis, J. P. (1999). What’s the difference: A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Paper for Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, D.C., American Federation of Teachers, Washington, D.C., & National Education Association, Washington, D.C. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED429524.pdf

Picciano, A., Seaman, J., Shea, P., & Swan, K. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of online learning in American K-12 education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 127-135.

Schachar, 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 Teaching, 6(2), 318-344.

Scott, S., & Aquino, K. (2020). COVID-19 transitions: Higher education professionals’ perspectives on access barriers, services, and solutions for students with disabilities. Association on Higher Education and Disability. https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AHEAD/38b602f4-ec53-451c-9be0-5c0bf5d27c0a/UploadedImages/COVID-19_/AHEAD_COVID_Survey_Report_Barriers_and_Resource_Needs.pdf

Shah S., Shah A., Memon F., Kemal A., & Soomro A. (2021) Online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Applying the self-determination theory in the ‘new normal’. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.), 26(2) 168-177.

Sirin, S. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.

Small, S., & Uttal, L. (2005). Action‐oriented research: Strategies for engaged scholarship. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 936-948.

UNESCO. (2020). Education: From disruption to discovery. https://en.unesco.org/news/covid-19-learning-disruption-recovery-snapshot-unescos-work-education-2020

World Health Organization. (2020). Listings of WHO’s response to Covid-19. https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline

Wu, J., Smith, S., Khurana, M., Siemaszko, C., & DeJesus-Banos, B. (2020, April 29). Stay at home orders across the country. What each state is doing - or not doing - amid widespread coronavirus lockdowns.

Ya Ni, A. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom online learning: Teaching research methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199-215.

Yates, A., Starkey, L., Egerton, B., & Flueggen, F. (2021). High school students’ experience of online learning during Covid-19: The influence of technology and pedagogy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 59-73.

Youngju, L., Choi, J., & Taehyun, K. (2012). Discriminating factors between completers of and dropouts from online learning courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 328-337.

Yousefi, F. (2010). The effects of family income on test-anxiety and academic achievement among Iranian high school students. Asian Social Science, 6(6), 89-93.

Copyright (c) 2024 Kristine Webster

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions

The DOAJ Seal is awarded to journals that demonstrate best practice in open access publishing

OLC Membership

OLC Research Center

Information

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

COVID-19’s impacts on the scope, effectiveness, and interaction characteristics of online learning: A social network analysis

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

¶ ‡ JZ and YD are contributed equally to this work as first authors.

Affiliation School of Educational Information Technology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft

Affiliations School of Educational Information Technology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, Hangzhou Zhongce Vocational School Qiantang, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Roles Data curation, Writing – original draft

Roles Data curation

Roles Writing – original draft

Affiliation Faculty of Education, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected] (JH); [email protected] (YZ)

• Junyi Zhang, 
• Yigang Ding, 
• Xinru Yang, 
• Jinping Zhong, 
• XinXin Qiu, 
• Zhishan Zou, 
• Yujie Xu, 
• Xiunan Jin, 
• Xiaomin Wu, 

• Published: August 23, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016
• Reader Comments

The COVID-19 outbreak brought online learning to the forefront of education. Scholars have conducted many studies on online learning during the pandemic, but only a few have performed quantitative comparative analyses of students’ online learning behavior before and after the outbreak. We collected review data from China’s massive open online course platform called icourse.163 and performed social network analysis on 15 courses to explore courses’ interaction characteristics before, during, and after the COVID-19 pan-demic. Specifically, we focused on the following aspects: (1) variations in the scale of online learning amid COVID-19; (2a) the characteristics of online learning interaction during the pandemic; (2b) the characteristics of online learning interaction after the pandemic; and (3) differences in the interaction characteristics of social science courses and natural science courses. Results revealed that only a small number of courses witnessed an uptick in online interaction, suggesting that the pandemic’s role in promoting the scale of courses was not significant. During the pandemic, online learning interaction became more frequent among course network members whose interaction scale increased. After the pandemic, although the scale of interaction declined, online learning interaction became more effective. The scale and level of interaction in Electrodynamics (a natural science course) and Economics (a social science course) both rose during the pan-demic. However, long after the pandemic, the Economics course sustained online interaction whereas interaction in the Electrodynamics course steadily declined. This discrepancy could be due to the unique characteristics of natural science courses and social science courses.

Citation: Zhang J, Ding Y, Yang X, Zhong J, Qiu X, Zou Z, et al. (2022) COVID-19’s impacts on the scope, effectiveness, and interaction characteristics of online learning: A social network analysis. PLoS ONE 17(8): e0273016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016

Editor: Heng Luo, Central China Normal University, CHINA

Received: April 20, 2022; Accepted: July 29, 2022; Published: August 23, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the results presented in the study were downloaded from https://www.icourse163.org/ and are now shared fully on Github ( https://github.com/zjyzhangjunyi/dataset-from-icourse163-for-SNA ). These data have no private information and can be used for academic research free of charge.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

The development of the mobile internet has spurred rapid advances in online learning, offering novel prospects for teaching and learning and a learning experience completely different from traditional instruction. Online learning harnesses the advantages of network technology and multimedia technology to transcend the boundaries of conventional education [ 1 ]. Online courses have become a popular learning mode owing to their flexibility and openness. During online learning, teachers and students are in different physical locations but interact in multiple ways (e.g., via online forum discussions and asynchronous group discussions). An analysis of online learning therefore calls for attention to students’ participation. Alqurashi [ 2 ] defined interaction in online learning as the process of constructing meaningful information and thought exchanges between more than two people; such interaction typically occurs between teachers and learners, learners and learners, and the course content and learners.

Massive open online courses (MOOCs), a 21st-century teaching mode, have greatly influenced global education. Data released by China’s Ministry of Education in 2020 show that the country ranks first globally in the number and scale of higher education MOOCs. The COVID-19 outbreak has further propelled this learning mode, with universities being urged to leverage MOOCs and other online resource platforms to respond to government’s “School’s Out, But Class’s On” policy [ 3 ]. Besides MOOCs, to reduce in-person gatherings and curb the spread of COVID-19, various online learning methods have since become ubiquitous [ 4 ]. Though Lederman asserted that the COVID-19 outbreak has positioned online learning technologies as the best way for teachers and students to obtain satisfactory learning experiences [ 5 ], it remains unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic has encouraged interaction in online learning, as interactions between students and others play key roles in academic performance and largely determine the quality of learning experiences [ 6 ]. Similarly, it is also unclear what impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the scale of online learning.

Social constructivism paints learning as a social phenomenon. As such, analyzing the social structures or patterns that emerge during the learning process can shed light on learning-based interaction [ 7 ]. Social network analysis helps to explain how a social network, rooted in interactions between learners and their peers, guides individuals’ behavior, emotions, and outcomes. This analytical approach is especially useful for evaluating interactive relationships between network members [ 8 ]. Mohammed cited social network analysis (SNA) as a method that can provide timely information about students, learning communities and interactive networks. SNA has been applied in numerous fields, including education, to identify the number and characteristics of interelement relationships. For example, Lee et al. also used SNA to explore the effects of blogs on peer relationships [ 7 ]. Therefore, adopting SNA to examine interactions in online learning communities during the COVID-19 pandemic can uncover potential issues with this online learning model.

Taking China’s icourse.163 MOOC platform as an example, we chose 15 courses with a large number of participants for SNA, focusing on learners’ interaction characteristics before, during, and after the COVID-19 outbreak. We visually assessed changes in the scale of network interaction before, during, and after the outbreak along with the characteristics of interaction in Gephi. Examining students’ interactions in different courses revealed distinct interactive network characteristics, the pandemic’s impact on online courses, and relevant suggestions. Findings are expected to promote effective interaction and deep learning among students in addition to serving as a reference for the development of other online learning communities.

2. Literature review and research questions

Interaction is deemed as central to the educational experience and is a major focus of research on online learning. Moore began to study the problem of interaction in distance education as early as 1989. He defined three core types of interaction: student–teacher, student–content, and student–student [ 9 ]. Lear et al. [ 10 ] described an interactivity/ community-process model of distance education: they specifically discussed the relationships between interactivity, community awareness, and engaging learners and found interactivity and community awareness to be correlated with learner engagement. Zulfikar et al. [ 11 ] suggested that discussions initiated by the students encourage more students’ engagement than discussions initiated by the instructors. It is most important to afford learners opportunities to interact purposefully with teachers, and improving the quality of learner interaction is crucial to fostering profound learning [ 12 ]. Interaction is an important way for learners to communicate and share information, and a key factor in the quality of online learning [ 13 ].

Timely feedback is the main component of online learning interaction. Woo and Reeves discovered that students often become frustrated when they fail to receive prompt feedback [ 14 ]. Shelley et al. conducted a three-year study of graduate and undergraduate students’ satisfaction with online learning at universities and found that interaction with educators and students is the main factor affecting satisfaction [ 15 ]. Teachers therefore need to provide students with scoring justification, support, and constructive criticism during online learning. Some researchers examined online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. They found that most students preferred face-to-face learning rather than online learning due to obstacles faced online, such as a lack of motivation, limited teacher-student interaction, and a sense of isolation when learning in different times and spaces [ 16 , 17 ]. However, it can be reduced by enhancing the online interaction between teachers and students [ 18 ].

Research showed that interactions contributed to maintaining students’ motivation to continue learning [ 19 ]. Baber argued that interaction played a key role in students’ academic performance and influenced the quality of the online learning experience [ 20 ]. Hodges et al. maintained that well-designed online instruction can lead to unique teaching experiences [ 21 ]. Banna et al. mentioned that using discussion boards, chat sessions, blogs, wikis, and other tools could promote student interaction and improve participation in online courses [ 22 ]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mahmood proposed a series of teaching strategies suitable for distance learning to improve its effectiveness [ 23 ]. Lapitan et al. devised an online strategy to ease the transition from traditional face-to-face instruction to online learning [ 24 ]. The preceding discussion suggests that online learning goes beyond simply providing learning resources; teachers should ideally design real-life activities to give learners more opportunities to participate.

As mentioned, COVID-19 has driven many scholars to explore the online learning environment. However, most have ignored the uniqueness of online learning during this time and have rarely compared pre- and post-pandemic online learning interaction. Taking China’s icourse.163 MOOC platform as an example, we chose 15 courses with a large number of participants for SNA, centering on student interaction before and after the pandemic. Gephi was used to visually analyze changes in the scale and characteristics of network interaction. The following questions were of particular interest:

• (1) Can the COVID-19 pandemic promote the expansion of online learning?
• (2a) What are the characteristics of online learning interaction during the pandemic?
• (2b) What are the characteristics of online learning interaction after the pandemic?
• (3) How do interaction characteristics differ between social science courses and natural science courses?

3. Methodology

3.1 research context.

We selected several courses with a large number of participants and extensive online interaction among hundreds of courses on the icourse.163 MOOC platform. These courses had been offered on the platform for at least three semesters, covering three periods (i.e., before, during, and after the COVID-19 outbreak). To eliminate the effects of shifts in irrelevant variables (e.g., course teaching activities), we chose several courses with similar teaching activities and compared them on multiple dimensions. All course content was taught online. The teachers of each course posted discussion threads related to learning topics; students were expected to reply via comments. Learners could exchange ideas freely in their responses in addition to asking questions and sharing their learning experiences. Teachers could answer students’ questions as well. Conversations in the comment area could partly compensate for a relative absence of online classroom interaction. Teacher–student interaction is conducive to the formation of a social network structure and enabled us to examine teachers’ and students’ learning behavior through SNA. The comment areas in these courses were intended for learners to construct knowledge via reciprocal communication. Meanwhile, by answering students’ questions, teachers could encourage them to reflect on their learning progress. These courses’ successive terms also spanned several phases of COVID-19, allowing us to ascertain the pandemic’s impact on online learning.

3.2 Data collection and preprocessing

To avoid interference from invalid or unclear data, the following criteria were applied to select representative courses: (1) generality (i.e., public courses and professional courses were chosen from different schools across China); (2) time validity (i.e., courses were held before during, and after the pandemic); and (3) notability (i.e., each course had at least 2,000 participants). We ultimately chose 15 courses across the social sciences and natural sciences (see Table 1 ). The coding is used to represent the course name.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.t001

To discern courses’ evolution during the pandemic, we gathered data on three terms before, during, and after the COVID-19 outbreak in addition to obtaining data from two terms completed well before the pandemic and long after. Our final dataset comprised five sets of interactive data. Finally, we collected about 120,000 comments for SNA. Because each course had a different start time—in line with fluctuations in the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in China and the opening dates of most colleges and universities—we divided our sample into five phases: well before the pandemic (Phase I); before the pandemic (Phase Ⅱ); during the pandemic (Phase Ⅲ); after the pandemic (Phase Ⅳ); and long after the pandemic (Phase Ⅴ). We sought to preserve consistent time spans to balance the amount of data in each period ( Fig 1 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.g001

3.3 Instrumentation

Participants’ comments and “thumbs-up” behavior data were converted into a network structure and compared using social network analysis (SNA). Network analysis, according to M’Chirgui, is an effective tool for clarifying network relationships by employing sophisticated techniques [ 25 ]. Specifically, SNA can help explain the underlying relationships among team members and provide a better understanding of their internal processes. Yang and Tang used SNA to discuss the relationship between team structure and team performance [ 26 ]. Golbeck argued that SNA could improve the understanding of students’ learning processes and reveal learners’ and teachers’ role dynamics [ 27 ].

To analyze Question (1), the number of nodes and diameter in the generated network were deemed as indicators of changes in network size. Social networks are typically represented as graphs with nodes and degrees, and node count indicates the sample size [ 15 ]. Wellman et al. proposed that the larger the network scale, the greater the number of network members providing emotional support, goods, services, and companionship [ 28 ]. Jan’s study measured the network size by counting the nodes which represented students, lecturers, and tutors [ 29 ]. Similarly, network nodes in the present study indicated how many learners and teachers participated in the course, with more nodes indicating more participants. Furthermore, we investigated the network diameter, a structural feature of social networks, which is a common metric for measuring network size in SNA [ 30 ]. The network diameter refers to the longest path between any two nodes in the network. There has been evidence that a larger network diameter leads to greater spread of behavior [ 31 ]. Likewise, Gašević et al. found that larger networks were more likely to spread innovative ideas about educational technology when analyzing MOOC-related research citations [ 32 ]. Therefore, we employed node count and network diameter to measure the network’s spatial size and further explore the expansion characteristic of online courses. Brief introduction of these indicators can be summarized in Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.t002

To address Question (2), a list of interactive analysis metrics in SNA were introduced to scrutinize learners’ interaction characteristics in online learning during and after the pandemic, as shown below:

• (1) The average degree reflects the density of the network by calculating the average number of connections for each node. As Rong and Xu suggested, the average degree of a network indicates how active its participants are [ 33 ]. According to Hu, a higher average degree implies that more students are interacting directly with each other in a learning context [ 34 ]. The present study inherited the concept of the average degree from these previous studies: the higher the average degree, the more frequent the interaction between individuals in the network.
• (2) Essentially, a weighted average degree in a network is calculated by multiplying each degree by its respective weight, and then taking the average. Bydžovská took the strength of the relationship into account when determining the weighted average degree [ 35 ]. By calculating friendship’s weighted value, Maroulis assessed peer achievement within a small-school reform [ 36 ]. Accordingly, we considered the number of interactions as the weight of the degree, with a higher average degree indicating more active interaction among learners.
• (3) Network density is the ratio between actual connections and potential connections in a network. The more connections group members have with each other, the higher the network density. In SNA, network density is similar to group cohesion, i.e., a network of more strong relationships is more cohesive [ 37 ]. Network density also reflects how much all members are connected together [ 38 ]. Therefore, we adopted network density to indicate the closeness among network members. Higher network density indicates more frequent interaction and closer communication among students.
• (4) Clustering coefficient describes local network attributes and indicates that two nodes in the network could be connected through adjacent nodes. The clustering coefficient measures users’ tendency to gather (cluster) with others in the network: the higher the clustering coefficient, the more frequently users communicate with other group members. We regarded this indicator as a reflection of the cohesiveness of the group [ 39 ].
• (5) In a network, the average path length is the average number of steps along the shortest paths between any two nodes. Oliveres has observed that when an average path length is small, the route from one node to another is shorter when graphed [ 40 ]. This is especially true in educational settings where students tend to become closer friends. So we consider that the smaller the average path length, the greater the possibility of interaction between individuals in the network.
• (6) A network with a large number of nodes, but whose average path length is surprisingly small, is known as the small-world effect [ 41 ]. A higher clustering coefficient and shorter average path length are important indicators of a small-world network: a shorter average path length enables the network to spread information faster and more accurately; a higher clustering coefficient can promote frequent knowledge exchange within the group while boosting the timeliness and accuracy of knowledge dissemination [ 42 ]. Brief introduction of these indicators can be summarized in Table 3 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.t003

To analyze Question 3, we used the concept of closeness centrality, which determines how close a vertex is to others in the network. As Opsahl et al. explained, closeness centrality reveals how closely actors are coupled with their entire social network [ 43 ]. In order to analyze social network-based engineering education, Putnik et al. examined closeness centrality and found that it was significantly correlated with grades [ 38 ]. We used closeness centrality to measure the position of an individual in the network. Brief introduction of these indicators can be summarized in Table 4 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.t004

3.4 Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Academic Committee Office (ACO) of South China Normal University ( http://fzghb.scnu.edu.cn/ ), Guangzhou, China. Research data were collected from the open platform and analyzed anonymously. There are thus no privacy issues involved in this study.

4.1 COVID-19’s role in promoting the scale of online courses was not as important as expected

As shown in Fig 2 , the number of course participants and nodes are closely correlated with the pandemic’s trajectory. Because the number of participants in each course varied widely, we normalized the number of participants and nodes to more conveniently visualize course trends. Fig 2 depicts changes in the chosen courses’ number of participants and nodes before the pandemic (Phase II), during the pandemic (Phase III), and after the pandemic (Phase IV). The number of participants in most courses during the pandemic exceeded those before and after the pandemic. But the number of people who participate in interaction in some courses did not increase.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.g002

In order to better analyze the trend of interaction scale in online courses before, during, and after the pandemic, the selected courses were categorized according to their scale change. When the number of participants increased (decreased) beyond 20% (statistical experience) and the diameter also increased (decreased), the course scale was determined to have increased (decreased); otherwise, no significant change was identified in the course’s interaction scale. Courses were subsequently divided into three categories: increased interaction scale, decreased interaction scale, and no significant change. Results appear in Table 5 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.t005

From before the pandemic until it broke out, the interaction scale of five courses increased, accounting for 33.3% of the full sample; one course’s interaction scale declined, accounting for 6.7%. The interaction scale of nine courses decreased, accounting for 60%. The pandemic’s role in promoting online courses thus was not as important as anticipated, and most courses’ interaction scale did not change significantly throughout.

No courses displayed growing interaction scale after the pandemic: the interaction scale of nine courses fell, accounting for 60%; and the interaction scale of six courses did not shift significantly, accounting for 40%. Courses with an increased scale of interaction during the pandemic did not maintain an upward trend. On the contrary, the improvement in the pandemic caused learners’ enthusiasm for online learning to wane. We next analyzed several interaction metrics to further explore course interaction during different pandemic periods.

4.2 Characteristics of online learning interaction amid COVID-19

4.2.1 during the covid-19 pandemic, online learning interaction in some courses became more active..

Changes in course indicators with the growing interaction scale during the pandemic are presented in Fig 3 , including SS5, SS6, NS1, NS3, and NS8. The horizontal ordinate indicates the number of courses, with red color representing the rise of the indicator value on the vertical ordinate and blue representing the decline.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.g003

Specifically: (1) The average degree and weighted average degree of the five course networks demonstrated an upward trend. The emergence of the pandemic promoted students’ enthusiasm; learners were more active in the interactive network. (2) Fig 3 shows that 3 courses had increased network density and 2 courses had decreased. The higher the network density, the more communication within the team. Even though the pandemic accelerated the interaction scale and frequency, the tightness between learners in some courses did not improve. (3) The clustering coefficient of social science courses rose whereas the clustering coefficient and small-world property of natural science courses fell. The higher the clustering coefficient and the small-world property, the better the relationship between adjacent nodes and the higher the cohesion [ 39 ]. (4) Most courses’ average path length increased as the interaction scale increased. However, when the average path length grew, adverse effects could manifest: communication between learners might be limited to a small group without multi-directional interaction.

When the pandemic emerged, the only declining network scale belonged to a natural science course (NS2). The change in each course index is pictured in Fig 4 . The abscissa indicates the size of the value, with larger values to the right. The red dot indicates the index value before the pandemic; the blue dot indicates its value during the pandemic. If the blue dot is to the right of the red dot, then the value of the index increased; otherwise, the index value declined. Only the weighted average degree of the course network increased. The average degree, network density decreased, indicating that network members were not active and that learners’ interaction degree and communication frequency lessened. Despite reduced learner interaction, the average path length was small and the connectivity between learners was adequate.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.g004

4.2.2 After the COVID-19 pandemic, the scale decreased rapidly, but most course interaction was more effective.

Fig 5 shows the changes in various courses’ interaction indicators after the pandemic, including SS1, SS2, SS3, SS6, SS7, NS2, NS3, NS7, and NS8.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.g005

Specifically: (1) The average degree and weighted average degree of most course networks decreased. The scope and intensity of interaction among network members declined rapidly, as did learners’ enthusiasm for communication. (2) The network density of seven courses also fell, indicating weaker connections between learners in most courses. (3) In addition, the clustering coefficient and small-world property of most course networks decreased, suggesting little possibility of small groups in the network. The scope of interaction between learners was not limited to a specific space, and the interaction objects had no significant tendencies. (4) Although the scale of course interaction became smaller in this phase, the average path length of members’ social networks shortened in nine courses. Its shorter average path length would expedite the spread of information within the network as well as communication and sharing among network members.

Fig 6 displays the evolution of course interaction indicators without significant changes in interaction scale after the pandemic, including SS4, SS5, NS1, NS4, NS5, and NS6.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.g006

Specifically: (1) Some course members’ social networks exhibited an increase in the average and weighted average. In these cases, even though the course network’s scale did not continue to increase, communication among network members rose and interaction became more frequent and deeper than before. (2) Network density and average path length are indicators of social network density. The greater the network density, the denser the social network; the shorter the average path length, the more concentrated the communication among network members. However, at this phase, the average path length and network density in most courses had increased. Yet the network density remained small despite having risen ( Table 6 ). Even with more frequent learner interaction, connections remained distant and the social network was comparatively sparse.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.t006

In summary, the scale of interaction did not change significantly overall. Nonetheless, some course members’ frequency and extent of interaction increased, and the relationships between network members became closer as well. In the study, we found it interesting that the interaction scale of Economics (a social science course) course and Electrodynamics (a natural science course) course expanded rapidly during the pandemic and retained their interaction scale thereafter. We next assessed these two courses to determine whether their level of interaction persisted after the pandemic.

4.3 Analyses of natural science courses and social science courses

4.3.1 analyses of the interaction characteristics of economics and electrodynamics..

Economics and Electrodynamics are social science courses and natural science courses, respectively. Members’ interaction within these courses was similar: the interaction scale increased significantly when COVID-19 broke out (Phase Ⅲ), and no significant changes emerged after the pandemic (Phase Ⅴ). We hence focused on course interaction long after the outbreak (Phase V) and compared changes across multiple indicators, as listed in Table 7 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.t007

As the pandemic continued to improve, the number of participants and the diameter long after the outbreak (Phase V) each declined for Economics compared with after the pandemic (Phase IV). The interaction scale decreased, but the interaction between learners was much deeper. Specifically: (1) The weighted average degree, network density, clustering coefficient, and small-world property each reflected upward trends. The pandemic therefore exerted a strong impact on this course. Interaction was well maintained even after the pandemic. The smaller network scale promoted members’ interaction and communication. (2) Compared with after the pandemic (Phase IV), members’ network density increased significantly, showing that relationships between learners were closer and that cohesion was improving. (3) At the same time, as the clustering coefficient and small-world property grew, network members demonstrated strong small-group characteristics: the communication between them was deepening and their enthusiasm for interaction was higher. (4) Long after the COVID-19 outbreak (Phase V), the average path length was reduced compared with previous terms, knowledge flowed more quickly among network members, and the degree of interaction gradually deepened.

The average degree, weighted average degree, network density, clustering coefficient, and small-world property of Electrodynamics all decreased long after the COVID-19 outbreak (Phase V) and were lower than during the outbreak (Phase Ⅲ). The level of learner interaction therefore gradually declined long after the outbreak (Phase V), and connections between learners were no longer active. Although the pandemic increased course members’ extent of interaction, this rise was merely temporary: students’ enthusiasm for learning waned rapidly and their interaction decreased after the pandemic (Phase IV). To further analyze the interaction characteristics of course members in Economics and Electrodynamics, we evaluated the closeness centrality of their social networks, as shown in section 4.3.2.

4.3.2 Analysis of the closeness centrality of Economics and Electrodynamics.

The change in the closeness centrality of social networks in Economics was small, and no sharp upward trend appeared during the pandemic outbreak, as shown in Fig 7 . The emergence of COVID-19 apparently fostered learners’ interaction in Economics albeit without a significant impact. The closeness centrality changed in Electrodynamics varied from that of Economics: upon the COVID-19 outbreak, closeness centrality was significantly different from other semesters. Communication between learners was closer and interaction was more effective. Electrodynamics course members’ social network proximity decreased rapidly after the pandemic. Learners’ communication lessened. In general, Economics course showed better interaction before the outbreak and was less affected by the pandemic; Electrodynamics course was more affected by the pandemic and showed different interaction characteristics at different periods of the pandemic.

(Note: "****" indicates the significant distinction in closeness centrality between the two periods, otherwise no significant distinction).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273016.g007

5. Discussion

We referred to discussion forums from several courses on the icourse.163 MOOC platform to compare online learning before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic via SNA and to delineate the pandemic’s effects on online courses. Only 33.3% of courses in our sample increased in terms of interaction during the pandemic; the scale of interaction did not rise in any courses thereafter. When the courses scale rose, the scope and frequency of interaction showed upward trends during the pandemic; and the clustering coefficient of natural science courses and social science courses differed: the coefficient for social science courses tended to rise whereas that for natural science courses generally declined. When the pandemic broke out, the interaction scale of a single natural science course decreased along with its interaction scope and frequency. The amount of interaction in most courses shrank rapidly during the pandemic and network members were not as active as they had been before. However, after the pandemic, some courses saw declining interaction but greater communication between members; interaction also became more frequent and deeper than before.

5.1 During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scale of interaction increased in only a few courses

The pandemic outbreak led to a rapid increase in the number of participants in most courses; however, the change in network scale was not significant. The scale of online interaction expanded swiftly in only a few courses; in others, the scale either did not change significantly or displayed a downward trend. After the pandemic, the interaction scale in most courses decreased quickly; the same pattern applied to communication between network members. Learners’ enthusiasm for online interaction reduced as the circumstances of the pandemic improved—potentially because, during the pandemic, China’s Ministry of Education declared “School’s Out, But Class’s On” policy. Major colleges and universities were encouraged to use the Internet and informational resources to provide learning support, hence the sudden increase in the number of participants and interaction in online courses [ 46 ]. After the pandemic, students’ enthusiasm for online learning gradually weakened, presumably due to easing of the pandemic [ 47 ]. More activities also transitioned from online to offline, which tempered learners’ online discussion. Research has shown that long-term online learning can even bore students [ 48 ].

Most courses’ interaction scale decreased significantly after the pandemic. First, teachers and students occupied separate spaces during the outbreak, had few opportunities for mutual cooperation and friendship, and lacked a sense of belonging [ 49 ]. Students’ enthusiasm for learning dissipated over time [ 50 ]. Second, some teachers were especially concerned about adapting in-person instructional materials for digital platforms; their pedagogical methods were ineffective, and they did not provide learning activities germane to student interaction [ 51 ]. Third, although teachers and students in remote areas were actively engaged in online learning, some students could not continue to participate in distance learning due to inadequate technology later in the outbreak [ 52 ].

5.2 Characteristics of online learning interaction during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

5.2.1 during the covid-19 pandemic, online interaction in most courses did not change significantly..

The interaction scale of only a few courses increased during the pandemic. The interaction scope and frequency of these courses climbed as well. Yet even as the degree of network interaction rose, course network density did not expand in all cases. The pandemic sparked a surge in the number of online learners and a rapid increase in network scale, but students found it difficult to interact with all learners. Yau pointed out that a greater network scale did not enrich the range of interaction between individuals; rather, the number of individuals who could interact directly was limited [ 53 ]. The internet facilitates interpersonal communication. However, not everyone has the time or ability to establish close ties with others [ 54 ].

In addition, social science courses and natural science courses in our sample revealed disparate trends in this regard: the clustering coefficient of social science courses increased and that of natural science courses decreased. Social science courses usually employ learning approaches distinct from those in natural science courses [ 55 ]. Social science courses emphasize critical and innovative thinking along with personal expression [ 56 ]. Natural science courses focus on practical skills, methods, and principles [ 57 ]. Therefore, the content of social science courses can spur large-scale discussion among learners. Some course evaluations indicated that the course content design was suboptimal as well: teachers paid close attention to knowledge transmission and much less to piquing students’ interest in learning. In addition, the thread topics that teachers posted were scarcely diversified and teachers’ questions lacked openness. These attributes could not spark active discussion among learners.

5.2.2 Online learning interaction declined after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Most courses’ interaction scale and intensity decreased rapidly after the pandemic, but some did not change. Courses with a larger network scale did not continue to expand after the outbreak, and students’ enthusiasm for learning paled. The pandemic’s reduced severity also influenced the number of participants in online courses. Meanwhile, restored school order moved many learning activities from virtual to in-person spaces. Face-to-face learning has gradually replaced online learning, resulting in lower enrollment and less interaction in online courses. Prolonged online courses could have also led students to feel lonely and to lack a sense of belonging [ 58 ].

The scale of interaction in some courses did not change substantially after the pandemic yet learners’ connections became tighter. We hence recommend that teachers seize pandemic-related opportunities to design suitable activities. Additionally, instructors should promote student-teacher and student-student interaction, encourage students to actively participate online, and generally intensify the impact of online learning.

5.3 What are the characteristics of interaction in social science courses and natural science courses?

The level of interaction in Economics (a social science course) was significantly higher than that in Electrodynamics (a natural science course), and the small-world property in Economics increased as well. To boost online courses’ learning-related impacts, teachers can divide groups of learners based on the clustering coefficient and the average path length. Small groups of students may benefit teachers in several ways: to participate actively in activities intended to expand students’ knowledge, and to serve as key actors in these small groups. Cultivating students’ keenness to participate in class activities and self-management can also help teachers guide learner interaction and foster deep knowledge construction.

As evidenced by comments posted in the Electrodynamics course, we observed less interaction between students. Teachers also rarely urged students to contribute to conversations. These trends may have arisen because teachers and students were in different spaces. Teachers might have struggled to discern students’ interaction status. Teachers could also have failed to intervene in time, to design online learning activities that piqued learners’ interest, and to employ sound interactive theme planning and guidance. Teachers are often active in traditional classroom settings. Their roles are comparatively weakened online, such that they possess less control over instruction [ 59 ]. Online instruction also requires a stronger hand in learning: teachers should play a leading role in regulating network members’ interactive communication [ 60 ]. Teachers can guide learners to participate, help learners establish social networks, and heighten students’ interest in learning [ 61 ]. Teachers should attend to core members in online learning while also considering edge members; by doing so, all network members can be driven to share their knowledge and become more engaged. Finally, teachers and assistant teachers should help learners develop knowledge, exchange topic-related ideas, pose relevant questions during course discussions, and craft activities that enable learners to interact online [ 62 ]. These tactics can improve the effectiveness of online learning.

As described, network members displayed distinct interaction behavior in Economics and Electrodynamics courses. First, these courses varied in their difficulty: the social science course seemed easier to understand and focused on divergent thinking. Learners were often willing to express their views in comments and to ponder others’ perspectives [ 63 ]. The natural science course seemed more demanding and was oriented around logical thinking and skills [ 64 ]. Second, courses’ content differed. In general, social science courses favor the acquisition of declarative knowledge and creative knowledge compared with natural science courses. Social science courses also entertain open questions [ 65 ]. Natural science courses revolve around principle knowledge, strategic knowledge, and transfer knowledge [ 66 ]. Problems in these courses are normally more complicated than those in social science courses. Third, the indicators affecting students’ attitudes toward learning were unique. Guo et al. discovered that “teacher feedback” most strongly influenced students’ attitudes towards learning social science courses but had less impact on students in natural science courses [ 67 ]. Therefore, learners in social science courses likely expect more feedback from teachers and greater interaction with others.

6. Conclusion and future work

Our findings show that the network interaction scale of some online courses expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic. The network scale of most courses did not change significantly, demonstrating that the pandemic did not notably alter the scale of course interaction. Online learning interaction among course network members whose interaction scale increased also became more frequent during the pandemic. Once the outbreak was under control, although the scale of interaction declined, the level and scope of some courses’ interactive networks continued to rise; interaction was thus particularly effective in these cases. Overall, the pandemic appeared to have a relatively positive impact on online learning interaction. We considered a pair of courses in detail and found that Economics (a social science course) fared much better than Electrodynamics (a natural science course) in classroom interaction; learners were more willing to partake in-class activities, perhaps due to these courses’ unique characteristics. Brint et al. also came to similar conclusions [ 57 ].

This study was intended to be rigorous. Even so, several constraints can be addressed in future work. The first limitation involves our sample: we focused on a select set of courses hosted on China’s icourse.163 MOOC platform. Future studies should involve an expansive collection of courses to provide a more holistic understanding of how the pandemic has influenced online interaction. Second, we only explored the interactive relationship between learners and did not analyze interactive content. More in-depth content analysis should be carried out in subsequent research. All in all, the emergence of COVID-19 has provided a new path for online learning and has reshaped the distance learning landscape. To cope with associated challenges, educational practitioners will need to continue innovating in online instructional design, strengthen related pedagogy, optimize online learning conditions, and bolster teachers’ and students’ competence in online learning.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 30. Serrat O. Social network analysis. Knowledge solutions: Springer; 2017. p. 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_9
• 33. Rong Y, Xu E, editors. Strategies for the Management of the Government Affairs Microblogs in China Based on the SNA of Fifty Government Affairs Microblogs in Beijing. 14th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management 2017.
• 34. Hu X, Chu S, editors. A comparison on using social media in a professional experience course. International Conference on Social Media and Society; 2013.
• 35. Bydžovská H. A Comparative Analysis of Techniques for Predicting Student Performance. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining; Raleigh, NC, USA: International Educational Data Mining Society2016. p. 306–311.
• 40. Olivares D, Adesope O, Hundhausen C, et al., editors. Using social network analysis to measure the effect of learning analytics in computing education. 19th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies 2019.
• 41. Travers J, Milgram S. An experimental study of the small world problem. Social Networks: Elsevier; 1977. p. 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-442450-0.50018–3
• 43. Okamoto K, Chen W, Li X-Y, editors. Ranking of closeness centrality for large-scale social networks. International workshop on frontiers in algorithmics; 2008; Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
• 47. Ding Y, Yang X, Zheng Y, editors. COVID-19’s Effects on the Scope, Effectiveness, and Roles of Teachers in Online Learning Based on Social Network Analysis: A Case Study. International Conference on Blended Learning; 2021: Springer.
• 64. Boys C, Brennan J., Henkel M., Kirkland J., Kogan M., Youl P. Higher Education and Preparation for Work. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 1988. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079612331381467

• DOI: 10.55681/jige.v4i1.550
• Corpus ID: 257933110

THE INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY READINESS AND LEARNING MOTIVATION ON STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE IN ONLINE LEARNING DURING THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC: A STORY OF INDONESIAN HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

• Published in JURNAL ILMIAH GLOBAL… 9 March 2023
• Education, Computer Science

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

A scoping review: what kind of built-in social tools keep students in MOOCs?

• Published: 06 September 2024

Cite this article

• Juming Jiang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0799-5357 1 &
• Luke K. Fryer 1 , 2  

The number of Massive Open Online Courses’ (MOOCs) participants has been increasing over the years but its completion rate is extremely low. Social support/social interaction is one of the key factors that has a huge impact on students’ learning motivation in both online and offline environments, but difficult to maintain in MOOCs due to its asynchronicity. Built-in social tools are therefore important in the MOOCs learning context because they can provide opportunities for students to interact with both other students and instructors. Present scoping review focused on built-in social tools in MOOCs and aimed to find out: What theories have been utilised to guide or explain how built-in social tools in MOOCs might support students? What kind of built-in social tools have been applied in MOOCs? What kind of outcomes have been investigated in research that focused on built-in social tools in MOOCs? Seventy articles have been included in this review and we found that (1) the majority of the research did not use any theories or models to guide the study design or explain the findings (2) Forum is dominating in numbers compared to other built-in social tools (3) Most studies focused on observed data such as number and content of posts in the forum, and their relationships with course grade and completion rate. However, no research has focused on how built-in social tools might affect students’ belongingness, which is considered to have a significant influence on students’ motivation to learn. Suggestions to address the research gaps were given.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ain, Q. U., Chatti, M. A., Joarder, S., Nassif, I., Teda, W., Guesmi, B. S., M., & Alatrash, R. (2022, October). Learning Channels to Support Interaction and Collaboration in CourseMapper. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers (pp. 252–260).

AlQaidoom, H., & Shah, A. (2020). The role of MOOC in higher education during coronavirus pandemic: A systematic review. International Journal of English and Education , 9 (4), 141–151.

Google Scholar  

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 (1), 19–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Badali, M., Hatami, J., Banihashem, S. K., Rahimi, E., Noroozi, O., & Eslami, Z. (2022). The role of motivation in MOOCs’ retention rates: A systematic literature review. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning , 17 (1), 1–20.

Belanger, V., & Thornton, J. (2013). Bioelectricity: A Quantitative Approach - Duke University’s First MOOC.

Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review , 21 , 141–170.

Bergin, D. A. (2016). Social influences on interest. Educational Psychologist , 51 (1), 7–22.

Bergin, D. A., Bergin, C., Van Dover, T., & Murphy, B. (2013). Learn more: Show what you know. Phi Delta Kappan , 95 , 54–60.

Cagiltay, N. E., Cagiltay, K., & Celik, B. (2020). An analysis of course characteristics, learner characteristics, and certification rates in MITx MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , 21 (3), 121–139.

Chanaa, A. (2022). Sentiment analysis on massive open online courses (MOOCs): Multi-factor analysis, and machine learning approach. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 18 (1), 1–22.

Cheng, X., Chan, L. K., Cai, H., Zhou, D., & Yang, X. (2021). Adaptions and perceptions on histology and embryology teaching practice in China during the Covid-19 pandemic. Translational Research in Anatomy, 24 , 100115.

Cheng, Y. W., Li, Q., & Wang, X. (2021). Research on the influence of quantity and emotion of Danmaku in online instructional video on learning. In Artificial intelligence in education and teaching assessment (pp. 47–55).

Dalipi, F., Imran, A. S., & Kastrati, Z. (2018, April). MOOC dropout prediction using machine learning techniques: Review and research challenges. In 2018 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1007–1014). IEEE.

Despujol, I., Castañeda, L., Marín, V. I., & Turró, C. (2022). What do we want to know about MOOCs? Results from a machine learning approach to a systematic literature mapping review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 19 (1), 53.

Dweck, C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: Foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review , 124 (6), 689.

Fryer, L. K., Ainley, M., & Thompson, A. (2016). Modelling the links between students’ interest in a domain, the tasks they experience and their interest in a course: Isn’t interest what university is all about? Learning and Individual Differences , 50 , 157–165.

Fryer, L. K., & Bovee, H. N. (2016). Supporting students’ motivation for e-learning: Teachers matter on and offline. The Internet and Higher Education , 30 , 21–29.

Galikyan, I., Admiraal, W., & Kester, L. (2021). MOOC discussion forums: The interplay of the cognitive and the social. Computers & Education , 165 , 104133.

Garg, A., Kumar, P. P., & Priya, M. S. (2023). Estimation of sustainability aspects of MOOC platforms in higher education in India using the PLS-SEM approach. Journal of Computers in Education , 1–28.

Hardt, R. (2022, November). A System to Motivate Sustained Lecture Video Engagement in Small Private Online Courses. In Proceedings of the 22nd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 1–12).

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist , 41 (2), 111–127.

Hone, K. S., & Said, E., G. R (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education , 98 , 157–168.

Huang, H., Jew, L., & Qi, D. (2023). Take a MOOC and then drop: A systematic review of MOOC engagement pattern and dropout factor. Heliyon , 9 (4).

Jiang, J., & Fryer, L. K. (2023). The effect of virtual reality learning on students’ motivation: A scoping review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12885

Jiang, J., Shi, S., & Luan, Z. (2022, October). Making online english learning more engaging for chinese college students: A comparative analysis of MOOCs and Bilibili. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on education technology and computers (pp. 367–371).

Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (1995). The need to belong. Psychological Bulletin , 117 (3), 497–529.

Li, Q., & Sharma, P. (2023). The effects of learners’ background and social network position on content-related MOOC interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development , 1–18.

McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice.

Moore, R. L., & Blackmon, S. J. (2022). From the learner’s perspective: A systematic review of MOOC learner experiences (2008–2021). Computers & Education , 190 , 104596.

Narayanasamy, S. K., & Elçi, A. (2020). An effective prediction model for online course dropout rate. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET) , 18 (4), 94–110.

Palacios Hidalgo, F. J., Abril, H., C. A., Gómez Parra, M., & ª., E. (2020). MOOCs: Origins, concept and didactic applications: A systematic review of the literature (2012–2019). Technology Knowledge and Learning , 25 (4), 853–879.

Peng, J. E., & Jiang, Y. (2022). Mining opinions on LMOOCs: Sentiment and content analyses of Chinese students’ comments in discussion forums. System , 109 , 102879.

Phan, T., McNeil, S. G., & Robin, B. R. (2016). Students’ patterns of engagement and course performance in a massive Open Online Course. Computers & Education , 95 , 36–44.

Porter, S. (2015). To MOOC or not to MOOC: How can online learning help to build the future of higher education? Chandos Publishing.

Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education , 147 , 103778.

Rahimi, A. R., & Cheraghi, Z. (2022). Unifying EFL learners’ online self-regulation and online motivational self-system in MOOCs: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Computers in Education , 11 , 1–27.

Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2020). To level the playing field, develop interest. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 7 , 10–18.

Robnett, R. D., & Leaper, C. (2013). Friendship groups, personal motivation, and gender in relation to high school students’ STEM career interest. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 23 (4), 652–664.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 25 (1), 54–67.

Shapiro, H. B., Lee, C. H., Roth, N. E. W., Li, K., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., & Canelas, D. A. (2017). Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Computers & Education , 110 , 35–50.

Shedroff, N. (2009). Design is the problem: The future of design must be sustainable . Rosenfeld Media.

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28 (5), 675–691.

Tong, Y., & Zhan, Z. (2023). An evaluation model based on procedural behaviors for predicting MOOC learning performance: Students’ online learning behavior analytics and algorithms construction. Interactive Technology and Smart Education , 20 , 291–309.

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine , 169 (7), 467–473.

Voss, B. D. (2013). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): A primer for university and college board members. AGB Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges , 1–12.

Wang, Z., Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. A. (2014). Measuring engagement in fourth to twelfth grade classrooms: The Classroom Engagement Inventory. School Psychology Quarterly , 29 (4), 517.

Wise, A. F., & Cui, Y. (2018). Learning communities in the crowd: Characteristics of content related interactions and social relationships in MOOC discussion forums. Computers & Education , 122 , 221–242.

Yang, Y. (2020). The danmaku interface on Bilibili and the recontextualised translation practice: A semiotic technology perspective. Social Semiotics , 30 (2), 254–273.

Zhang, L. (2018). The influence of teachers’ answers on MOOC Community discussion and teaching effect. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice , 18 (6), 2885–2894.

Zhu, M. (2022). Designing and delivering MOOCs to motivate participants for self-directed learning. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning , 1–20.

Zhu, M., Bonk, C., & Sari, A. (2019). Massive open online course instructor motivations, innovations, and designs: Surveys, interviews, and course reviews. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La Revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la Technologie , 45 (1).

Zhu, M., Sari, A., & Lee, M. M. (2018). A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical MOOC literature (2014–2016). The Internet and Higher Education , 37 , 31–39.

Zhu, M., Sari, A. R., & Lee, M. M. (2020). A comprehensive systematic review of MOOC research: Research techniques, topics, and trends from 2009 to 2019. Educational Technology Research and Development , 68 , 1685–1710.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Teaching and Learning Innovation Centre, The University of Hong Kong, Room CPD-1.73, Centennial Campus, Hong Kong, China

Juming Jiang & Luke K. Fryer

Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Luke K. Fryer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Juming Jiang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing review & editing. Luke K. Fryer: Conceptualization, Writing review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juming Jiang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interest.

There is no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jiang, J., Fryer, L.K. A scoping review: what kind of built-in social tools keep students in MOOCs?. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12987-3

Download citation

Received : 19 March 2024

Accepted : 12 August 2024

Published : 06 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12987-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Built-in social tools
• Social support
• Completion rate
• Scoping review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Students’ online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines

Jessie s. barrot.

College of Education, Arts and Sciences, National University, Manila, Philippines

Ian I. Llenares

Leo s. del rosario, associated data.

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Recently, the education system has faced an unprecedented health crisis that has shaken up its foundation. Given today’s uncertainties, it is vital to gain a nuanced understanding of students’ online learning experience in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many studies have investigated this area, limited information is available regarding the challenges and the specific strategies that students employ to overcome them. Thus, this study attempts to fill in the void. Using a mixed-methods approach, the findings revealed that the online learning challenges of college students varied in terms of type and extent. Their greatest challenge was linked to their learning environment at home, while their least challenge was technological literacy and competency. The findings further revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic had the greatest impact on the quality of the learning experience and students’ mental health. In terms of strategies employed by students, the most frequently used were resource management and utilization, help-seeking, technical aptitude enhancement, time management, and learning environment control. Implications for classroom practice, policy-making, and future research are discussed.

Introduction

Since the 1990s, the world has seen significant changes in the landscape of education as a result of the ever-expanding influence of technology. One such development is the adoption of online learning across different learning contexts, whether formal or informal, academic and non-academic, and residential or remotely. We began to witness schools, teachers, and students increasingly adopt e-learning technologies that allow teachers to deliver instruction interactively, share resources seamlessly, and facilitate student collaboration and interaction (Elaish et al., 2019 ; Garcia et al., 2018 ). Although the efficacy of online learning has long been acknowledged by the education community (Barrot, 2020 , 2021 ; Cavanaugh et al., 2009 ; Kebritchi et al., 2017 ; Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006 ; Wallace, 2003 ), evidence on the challenges in its implementation continues to build up (e.g., Boelens et al., 2017 ; Rasheed et al., 2020 ).

Recently, the education system has faced an unprecedented health crisis (i.e., COVID-19 pandemic) that has shaken up its foundation. Thus, various governments across the globe have launched a crisis response to mitigate the adverse impact of the pandemic on education. This response includes, but is not limited to, curriculum revisions, provision for technological resources and infrastructure, shifts in the academic calendar, and policies on instructional delivery and assessment. Inevitably, these developments compelled educational institutions to migrate to full online learning until face-to-face instruction is allowed. The current circumstance is unique as it could aggravate the challenges experienced during online learning due to restrictions in movement and health protocols (Gonzales et al., 2020 ; Kapasia et al., 2020 ). Given today’s uncertainties, it is vital to gain a nuanced understanding of students’ online learning experience in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, many studies have investigated this area with a focus on students’ mental health (Copeland et al., 2021 ; Fawaz et al., 2021 ), home learning (Suryaman et al., 2020 ), self-regulation (Carter et al., 2020 ), virtual learning environment (Almaiah et al., 2020 ; Hew et al., 2020 ; Tang et al., 2020 ), and students’ overall learning experience (e.g., Adarkwah, 2021 ; Day et al., 2021 ; Khalil et al., 2020 ; Singh et al., 2020 ). There are two key differences that set the current study apart from the previous studies. First, it sheds light on the direct impact of the pandemic on the challenges that students experience in an online learning space. Second, the current study explores students’ coping strategies in this new learning setup. Addressing these areas would shed light on the extent of challenges that students experience in a full online learning space, particularly within the context of the pandemic. Meanwhile, our nuanced understanding of the strategies that students use to overcome their challenges would provide relevant information to school administrators and teachers to better support the online learning needs of students. This information would also be critical in revisiting the typology of strategies in an online learning environment.

Literature review

Education and the covid-19 pandemic.

In December 2019, an outbreak of a novel coronavirus, known as COVID-19, occurred in China and has spread rapidly across the globe within a few months. COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by a new strain of coronavirus that attacks the respiratory system (World Health Organization, 2020 ). As of January 2021, COVID-19 has infected 94 million people and has caused 2 million deaths in 191 countries and territories (John Hopkins University, 2021 ). This pandemic has created a massive disruption of the educational systems, affecting over 1.5 billion students. It has forced the government to cancel national examinations and the schools to temporarily close, cease face-to-face instruction, and strictly observe physical distancing. These events have sparked the digital transformation of higher education and challenged its ability to respond promptly and effectively. Schools adopted relevant technologies, prepared learning and staff resources, set systems and infrastructure, established new teaching protocols, and adjusted their curricula. However, the transition was smooth for some schools but rough for others, particularly those from developing countries with limited infrastructure (Pham & Nguyen, 2020 ; Simbulan, 2020 ).

Inevitably, schools and other learning spaces were forced to migrate to full online learning as the world continues the battle to control the vicious spread of the virus. Online learning refers to a learning environment that uses the Internet and other technological devices and tools for synchronous and asynchronous instructional delivery and management of academic programs (Usher & Barak, 2020 ; Huang, 2019 ). Synchronous online learning involves real-time interactions between the teacher and the students, while asynchronous online learning occurs without a strict schedule for different students (Singh & Thurman, 2019 ). Within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, online learning has taken the status of interim remote teaching that serves as a response to an exigency. However, the migration to a new learning space has faced several major concerns relating to policy, pedagogy, logistics, socioeconomic factors, technology, and psychosocial factors (Donitsa-Schmidt & Ramot, 2020 ; Khalil et al., 2020 ; Varea & González-Calvo, 2020 ). With reference to policies, government education agencies and schools scrambled to create fool-proof policies on governance structure, teacher management, and student management. Teachers, who were used to conventional teaching delivery, were also obliged to embrace technology despite their lack of technological literacy. To address this problem, online learning webinars and peer support systems were launched. On the part of the students, dropout rates increased due to economic, psychological, and academic reasons. Academically, although it is virtually possible for students to learn anything online, learning may perhaps be less than optimal, especially in courses that require face-to-face contact and direct interactions (Franchi, 2020 ).

Related studies

Recently, there has been an explosion of studies relating to the new normal in education. While many focused on national policies, professional development, and curriculum, others zeroed in on the specific learning experience of students during the pandemic. Among these are Copeland et al. ( 2021 ) and Fawaz et al. ( 2021 ) who examined the impact of COVID-19 on college students’ mental health and their coping mechanisms. Copeland et al. ( 2021 ) reported that the pandemic adversely affected students’ behavioral and emotional functioning, particularly attention and externalizing problems (i.e., mood and wellness behavior), which were caused by isolation, economic/health effects, and uncertainties. In Fawaz et al.’s ( 2021 ) study, students raised their concerns on learning and evaluation methods, overwhelming task load, technical difficulties, and confinement. To cope with these problems, students actively dealt with the situation by seeking help from their teachers and relatives and engaging in recreational activities. These active-oriented coping mechanisms of students were aligned with Carter et al.’s ( 2020 ), who explored students’ self-regulation strategies.

In another study, Tang et al. ( 2020 ) examined the efficacy of different online teaching modes among engineering students. Using a questionnaire, the results revealed that students were dissatisfied with online learning in general, particularly in the aspect of communication and question-and-answer modes. Nonetheless, the combined model of online teaching with flipped classrooms improved students’ attention, academic performance, and course evaluation. A parallel study was undertaken by Hew et al. ( 2020 ), who transformed conventional flipped classrooms into fully online flipped classes through a cloud-based video conferencing app. Their findings suggested that these two types of learning environments were equally effective. They also offered ways on how to effectively adopt videoconferencing-assisted online flipped classrooms. Unlike the two studies, Suryaman et al. ( 2020 ) looked into how learning occurred at home during the pandemic. Their findings showed that students faced many obstacles in a home learning environment, such as lack of mastery of technology, high Internet cost, and limited interaction/socialization between and among students. In a related study, Kapasia et al. ( 2020 ) investigated how lockdown impacts students’ learning performance. Their findings revealed that the lockdown made significant disruptions in students’ learning experience. The students also reported some challenges that they faced during their online classes. These include anxiety, depression, poor Internet service, and unfavorable home learning environment, which were aggravated when students are marginalized and from remote areas. Contrary to Kapasia et al.’s ( 2020 ) findings, Gonzales et al. ( 2020 ) found that confinement of students during the pandemic had significant positive effects on their performance. They attributed these results to students’ continuous use of learning strategies which, in turn, improved their learning efficiency.

Finally, there are those that focused on students’ overall online learning experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. One such study was that of Singh et al. ( 2020 ), who examined students’ experience during the COVID-19 pandemic using a quantitative descriptive approach. Their findings indicated that students appreciated the use of online learning during the pandemic. However, half of them believed that the traditional classroom setting was more effective than the online learning platform. Methodologically, the researchers acknowledge that the quantitative nature of their study restricts a deeper interpretation of the findings. Unlike the above study, Khalil et al. ( 2020 ) qualitatively explored the efficacy of synchronized online learning in a medical school in Saudi Arabia. The results indicated that students generally perceive synchronous online learning positively, particularly in terms of time management and efficacy. However, they also reported technical (internet connectivity and poor utility of tools), methodological (content delivery), and behavioral (individual personality) challenges. Their findings also highlighted the failure of the online learning environment to address the needs of courses that require hands-on practice despite efforts to adopt virtual laboratories. In a parallel study, Adarkwah ( 2021 ) examined students’ online learning experience during the pandemic using a narrative inquiry approach. The findings indicated that Ghanaian students considered online learning as ineffective due to several challenges that they encountered. Among these were lack of social interaction among students, poor communication, lack of ICT resources, and poor learning outcomes. More recently, Day et al. ( 2021 ) examined the immediate impact of COVID-19 on students’ learning experience. Evidence from six institutions across three countries revealed some positive experiences and pre-existing inequities. Among the reported challenges are lack of appropriate devices, poor learning space at home, stress among students, and lack of fieldwork and access to laboratories.

Although there are few studies that report the online learning challenges that higher education students experience during the pandemic, limited information is available regarding the specific strategies that they use to overcome them. It is in this context that the current study was undertaken. This mixed-methods study investigates students’ online learning experience in higher education. Specifically, the following research questions are addressed: (1) What is the extent of challenges that students experience in an online learning environment? (2) How did the COVID-19 pandemic impact the online learning challenges that students experience? (3) What strategies did students use to overcome the challenges?

Conceptual framework

The typology of challenges examined in this study is largely based on Rasheed et al.’s ( 2020 ) review of students’ experience in an online learning environment. These challenges are grouped into five general clusters, namely self-regulation (SRC), technological literacy and competency (TLCC), student isolation (SIC), technological sufficiency (TSC), and technological complexity (TCC) challenges (Rasheed et al., 2020 , p. 5). SRC refers to a set of behavior by which students exercise control over their emotions, actions, and thoughts to achieve learning objectives. TLCC relates to a set of challenges about students’ ability to effectively use technology for learning purposes. SIC relates to the emotional discomfort that students experience as a result of being lonely and secluded from their peers. TSC refers to a set of challenges that students experience when accessing available online technologies for learning. Finally, there is TCC which involves challenges that students experience when exposed to complex and over-sufficient technologies for online learning.

To extend Rasheed et al. ( 2020 ) categories and to cover other potential challenges during online classes, two more clusters were added, namely learning resource challenges (LRC) and learning environment challenges (LEC) (Buehler, 2004 ; Recker et al., 2004 ; Seplaki et al., 2014 ; Xue et al., 2020 ). LRC refers to a set of challenges that students face relating to their use of library resources and instructional materials, whereas LEC is a set of challenges that students experience related to the condition of their learning space that shapes their learning experiences, beliefs, and attitudes. Since learning environment at home and learning resources available to students has been reported to significantly impact the quality of learning and their achievement of learning outcomes (Drane et al., 2020 ; Suryaman et al., 2020 ), the inclusion of LRC and LEC would allow us to capture other important challenges that students experience during the pandemic, particularly those from developing regions. This comprehensive list would provide us a clearer and detailed picture of students’ experiences when engaged in online learning in an emergency. Given the restrictions in mobility at macro and micro levels during the pandemic, it is also expected that such conditions would aggravate these challenges. Therefore, this paper intends to understand these challenges from students’ perspectives since they are the ones that are ultimately impacted when the issue is about the learning experience. We also seek to explore areas that provide inconclusive findings, thereby setting the path for future research.

Material and methods

The present study adopted a descriptive, mixed-methods approach to address the research questions. This approach allowed the researchers to collect complex data about students’ experience in an online learning environment and to clearly understand the phenomena from their perspective.

Participants

This study involved 200 (66 male and 134 female) students from a private higher education institution in the Philippines. These participants were Psychology, Physical Education, and Sports Management majors whose ages ranged from 17 to 25 ( x ̅  = 19.81; SD  = 1.80). The students have been engaged in online learning for at least two terms in both synchronous and asynchronous modes. The students belonged to low- and middle-income groups but were equipped with the basic online learning equipment (e.g., computer, headset, speakers) and computer skills necessary for their participation in online classes. Table ​ Table1 1 shows the primary and secondary platforms that students used during their online classes. The primary platforms are those that are formally adopted by teachers and students in a structured academic context, whereas the secondary platforms are those that are informally and spontaneously used by students and teachers for informal learning and to supplement instructional delivery. Note that almost all students identified MS Teams as their primary platform because it is the official learning management system of the university.

Participants’ Online Learning Platforms

Informed consent was sought from the participants prior to their involvement. Before students signed the informed consent form, they were oriented about the objectives of the study and the extent of their involvement. They were also briefed about the confidentiality of information, their anonymity, and their right to refuse to participate in the investigation. Finally, the participants were informed that they would incur no additional cost from their participation.

Instrument and data collection

The data were collected using a retrospective self-report questionnaire and a focused group discussion (FGD). A self-report questionnaire was considered appropriate because the indicators relate to affective responses and attitude (Araujo et al., 2017 ; Barrot, 2016 ; Spector, 1994 ). Although the participants may tell more than what they know or do in a self-report survey (Matsumoto, 1994 ), this challenge was addressed by explaining to them in detail each of the indicators and using methodological triangulation through FGD. The questionnaire was divided into four sections: (1) participant’s personal information section, (2) the background information on the online learning environment, (3) the rating scale section for the online learning challenges, (4) the open-ended section. The personal information section asked about the students’ personal information (name, school, course, age, and sex), while the background information section explored the online learning mode and platforms (primary and secondary) used in class, and students’ length of engagement in online classes. The rating scale section contained 37 items that relate to SRC (6 items), TLCC (10 items), SIC (4 items), TSC (6 items), TCC (3 items), LRC (4 items), and LEC (4 items). The Likert scale uses six scores (i.e., 5– to a very great extent , 4– to a great extent , 3– to a moderate extent , 2– to some extent , 1– to a small extent , and 0 –not at all/negligible ) assigned to each of the 37 items. Finally, the open-ended questions asked about other challenges that students experienced, the impact of the pandemic on the intensity or extent of the challenges they experienced, and the strategies that the participants employed to overcome the eight different types of challenges during online learning. Two experienced educators and researchers reviewed the questionnaire for clarity, accuracy, and content and face validity. The piloting of the instrument revealed that the tool had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.96).

The FGD protocol contains two major sections: the participants’ background information and the main questions. The background information section asked about the students’ names, age, courses being taken, online learning mode used in class. The items in the main questions section covered questions relating to the students’ overall attitude toward online learning during the pandemic, the reasons for the scores they assigned to each of the challenges they experienced, the impact of the pandemic on students’ challenges, and the strategies they employed to address the challenges. The same experts identified above validated the FGD protocol.

Both the questionnaire and the FGD were conducted online via Google survey and MS Teams, respectively. It took approximately 20 min to complete the questionnaire, while the FGD lasted for about 90 min. Students were allowed to ask for clarification and additional explanations relating to the questionnaire content, FGD, and procedure. Online surveys and interview were used because of the ongoing lockdown in the city. For the purpose of triangulation, 20 (10 from Psychology and 10 from Physical Education and Sports Management) randomly selected students were invited to participate in the FGD. Two separate FGDs were scheduled for each group and were facilitated by researcher 2 and researcher 3, respectively. The interviewers ensured that the participants were comfortable and open to talk freely during the FGD to avoid social desirability biases (Bergen & Labonté, 2020 ). These were done by informing the participants that there are no wrong responses and that their identity and responses would be handled with the utmost confidentiality. With the permission of the participants, the FGD was recorded to ensure that all relevant information was accurately captured for transcription and analysis.

Data analysis

To address the research questions, we used both quantitative and qualitative analyses. For the quantitative analysis, we entered all the data into an excel spreadsheet. Then, we computed the mean scores ( M ) and standard deviations ( SD ) to determine the level of challenges experienced by students during online learning. The mean score for each descriptor was interpreted using the following scheme: 4.18 to 5.00 ( to a very great extent ), 3.34 to 4.17 ( to a great extent ), 2.51 to 3.33 ( to a moderate extent ), 1.68 to 2.50 ( to some extent ), 0.84 to 1.67 ( to a small extent ), and 0 to 0.83 ( not at all/negligible ). The equal interval was adopted because it produces more reliable and valid information than other types of scales (Cicchetti et al., 2006 ).

For the qualitative data, we analyzed the students’ responses in the open-ended questions and the transcribed FGD using the predetermined categories in the conceptual framework. Specifically, we used multilevel coding in classifying the codes from the transcripts (Birks & Mills, 2011 ). To do this, we identified the relevant codes from the responses of the participants and categorized these codes based on the similarities or relatedness of their properties and dimensions. Then, we performed a constant comparative and progressive analysis of cases to allow the initially identified subcategories to emerge and take shape. To ensure the reliability of the analysis, two coders independently analyzed the qualitative data. Both coders familiarize themselves with the purpose, research questions, research method, and codes and coding scheme of the study. They also had a calibration session and discussed ways on how they could consistently analyze the qualitative data. Percent of agreement between the two coders was 86 percent. Any disagreements in the analysis were discussed by the coders until an agreement was achieved.

This study investigated students’ online learning experience in higher education within the context of the pandemic. Specifically, we identified the extent of challenges that students experienced, how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted their online learning experience, and the strategies that they used to confront these challenges.

The extent of students’ online learning challenges

Table ​ Table2 2 presents the mean scores and SD for the extent of challenges that students’ experienced during online learning. Overall, the students experienced the identified challenges to a moderate extent ( x ̅  = 2.62, SD  = 1.03) with scores ranging from x ̅  = 1.72 ( to some extent ) to x ̅  = 3.58 ( to a great extent ). More specifically, the greatest challenge that students experienced was related to the learning environment ( x ̅  = 3.49, SD  = 1.27), particularly on distractions at home, limitations in completing the requirements for certain subjects, and difficulties in selecting the learning areas and study schedule. It is, however, found that the least challenge was on technological literacy and competency ( x ̅  = 2.10, SD  = 1.13), particularly on knowledge and training in the use of technology, technological intimidation, and resistance to learning technologies. Other areas that students experienced the least challenge are Internet access under TSC and procrastination under SRC. Nonetheless, nearly half of the students’ responses per indicator rated the challenges they experienced as moderate (14 of the 37 indicators), particularly in TCC ( x ̅  = 2.51, SD  = 1.31), SIC ( x ̅  = 2.77, SD  = 1.34), and LRC ( x ̅  = 2.93, SD  = 1.31).

The Extent of Students’ Challenges during the Interim Online Learning

Out of 200 students, 181 responded to the question about other challenges that they experienced. Most of their responses were already covered by the seven predetermined categories, except for 18 responses related to physical discomfort ( N  = 5) and financial challenges ( N  = 13). For instance, S108 commented that “when it comes to eyes and head, my eyes and head get ache if the session of class was 3 h straight in front of my gadget.” In the same vein, S194 reported that “the long exposure to gadgets especially laptop, resulting in body pain & headaches.” With reference to physical financial challenges, S66 noted that “not all the time I have money to load”, while S121 claimed that “I don't know until when are we going to afford budgeting our money instead of buying essentials.”

Impact of the pandemic on students’ online learning challenges

Another objective of this study was to identify how COVID-19 influenced the online learning challenges that students experienced. As shown in Table ​ Table3, 3 , most of the students’ responses were related to teaching and learning quality ( N  = 86) and anxiety and other mental health issues ( N  = 52). Regarding the adverse impact on teaching and learning quality, most of the comments relate to the lack of preparation for the transition to online platforms (e.g., S23, S64), limited infrastructure (e.g., S13, S65, S99, S117), and poor Internet service (e.g., S3, S9, S17, S41, S65, S99). For the anxiety and mental health issues, most students reported that the anxiety, boredom, sadness, and isolation they experienced had adversely impacted the way they learn (e.g., S11, S130), completing their tasks/activities (e.g., S56, S156), and their motivation to continue studying (e.g., S122, S192). The data also reveal that COVID-19 aggravated the financial difficulties experienced by some students ( N  = 16), consequently affecting their online learning experience. This financial impact mainly revolved around the lack of funding for their online classes as a result of their parents’ unemployment and the high cost of Internet data (e.g., S18, S113, S167). Meanwhile, few concerns were raised in relation to COVID-19’s impact on mobility ( N  = 7) and face-to-face interactions ( N  = 7). For instance, some commented that the lack of face-to-face interaction with her classmates had a detrimental effect on her learning (S46) and socialization skills (S36), while others reported that restrictions in mobility limited their learning experience (S78, S110). Very few comments were related to no effect ( N  = 4) and positive effect ( N  = 2). The above findings suggest the pandemic had additive adverse effects on students’ online learning experience.

Summary of students’ responses on the impact of COVID-19 on their online learning experience

Students’ strategies to overcome challenges in an online learning environment

The third objective of this study is to identify the strategies that students employed to overcome the different online learning challenges they experienced. Table ​ Table4 4 presents that the most commonly used strategies used by students were resource management and utilization ( N  = 181), help-seeking ( N  = 155), technical aptitude enhancement ( N  = 122), time management ( N  = 98), and learning environment control ( N  = 73). Not surprisingly, the top two strategies were also the most consistently used across different challenges. However, looking closely at each of the seven challenges, the frequency of using a particular strategy varies. For TSC and LRC, the most frequently used strategy was resource management and utilization ( N  = 52, N  = 89, respectively), whereas technical aptitude enhancement was the students’ most preferred strategy to address TLCC ( N  = 77) and TCC ( N  = 38). In the case of SRC, SIC, and LEC, the most frequently employed strategies were time management ( N  = 71), psychological support ( N  = 53), and learning environment control ( N  = 60). In terms of consistency, help-seeking appears to be the most consistent across the different challenges in an online learning environment. Table ​ Table4 4 further reveals that strategies used by students within a specific type of challenge vary.

Students’ Strategies to Overcome Online Learning Challenges

Discussion and conclusions

The current study explores the challenges that students experienced in an online learning environment and how the pandemic impacted their online learning experience. The findings revealed that the online learning challenges of students varied in terms of type and extent. Their greatest challenge was linked to their learning environment at home, while their least challenge was technological literacy and competency. Based on the students’ responses, their challenges were also found to be aggravated by the pandemic, especially in terms of quality of learning experience, mental health, finances, interaction, and mobility. With reference to previous studies (i.e., Adarkwah, 2021 ; Copeland et al., 2021 ; Day et al., 2021 ; Fawaz et al., 2021 ; Kapasia et al., 2020 ; Khalil et al., 2020 ; Singh et al., 2020 ), the current study has complemented their findings on the pedagogical, logistical, socioeconomic, technological, and psychosocial online learning challenges that students experience within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, this study extended previous studies and our understanding of students’ online learning experience by identifying both the presence and extent of online learning challenges and by shedding light on the specific strategies they employed to overcome them.

Overall findings indicate that the extent of challenges and strategies varied from one student to another. Hence, they should be viewed as a consequence of interaction several many factors. Students’ responses suggest that their online learning challenges and strategies were mediated by the resources available to them, their interaction with their teachers and peers, and the school’s existing policies and guidelines for online learning. In the context of the pandemic, the imposed lockdowns and students’ socioeconomic condition aggravated the challenges that students experience.

While most studies revealed that technology use and competency were the most common challenges that students face during the online classes (see Rasheed et al., 2020 ), the case is a bit different in developing countries in times of pandemic. As the findings have shown, the learning environment is the greatest challenge that students needed to hurdle, particularly distractions at home (e.g., noise) and limitations in learning space and facilities. This data suggests that online learning challenges during the pandemic somehow vary from the typical challenges that students experience in a pre-pandemic online learning environment. One possible explanation for this result is that restriction in mobility may have aggravated this challenge since they could not go to the school or other learning spaces beyond the vicinity of their respective houses. As shown in the data, the imposition of lockdown restricted students’ learning experience (e.g., internship and laboratory experiments), limited their interaction with peers and teachers, caused depression, stress, and anxiety among students, and depleted the financial resources of those who belong to lower-income group. All of these adversely impacted students’ learning experience. This finding complemented earlier reports on the adverse impact of lockdown on students’ learning experience and the challenges posed by the home learning environment (e.g., Day et al., 2021 ; Kapasia et al., 2020 ). Nonetheless, further studies are required to validate the impact of restrictions on mobility on students’ online learning experience. The second reason that may explain the findings relates to students’ socioeconomic profile. Consistent with the findings of Adarkwah ( 2021 ) and Day et al. ( 2021 ), the current study reveals that the pandemic somehow exposed the many inequities in the educational systems within and across countries. In the case of a developing country, families from lower socioeconomic strata (as in the case of the students in this study) have limited learning space at home, access to quality Internet service, and online learning resources. This is the reason the learning environment and learning resources recorded the highest level of challenges. The socioeconomic profile of the students (i.e., low and middle-income group) is the same reason financial problems frequently surfaced from their responses. These students frequently linked the lack of financial resources to their access to the Internet, educational materials, and equipment necessary for online learning. Therefore, caution should be made when interpreting and extending the findings of this study to other contexts, particularly those from higher socioeconomic strata.

Among all the different online learning challenges, the students experienced the least challenge on technological literacy and competency. This is not surprising considering a plethora of research confirming Gen Z students’ (born since 1996) high technological and digital literacy (Barrot, 2018 ; Ng, 2012 ; Roblek et al., 2019 ). Regarding the impact of COVID-19 on students’ online learning experience, the findings reveal that teaching and learning quality and students’ mental health were the most affected. The anxiety that students experienced does not only come from the threats of COVID-19 itself but also from social and physical restrictions, unfamiliarity with new learning platforms, technical issues, and concerns about financial resources. These findings are consistent with that of Copeland et al. ( 2021 ) and Fawaz et al. ( 2021 ), who reported the adverse effects of the pandemic on students’ mental and emotional well-being. This data highlights the need to provide serious attention to the mediating effects of mental health, restrictions in mobility, and preparedness in delivering online learning.

Nonetheless, students employed a variety of strategies to overcome the challenges they faced during online learning. For instance, to address the home learning environment problems, students talked to their family (e.g., S12, S24), transferred to a quieter place (e.g., S7, S 26), studied at late night where all family members are sleeping already (e.g., S51), and consulted with their classmates and teachers (e.g., S3, S9, S156, S193). To overcome the challenges in learning resources, students used the Internet (e.g., S20, S27, S54, S91), joined Facebook groups that share free resources (e.g., S5), asked help from family members (e.g., S16), used resources available at home (e.g., S32), and consulted with the teachers (e.g., S124). The varying strategies of students confirmed earlier reports on the active orientation that students take when faced with academic- and non-academic-related issues in an online learning space (see Fawaz et al., 2021 ). The specific strategies that each student adopted may have been shaped by different factors surrounding him/her, such as available resources, student personality, family structure, relationship with peers and teacher, and aptitude. To expand this study, researchers may further investigate this area and explore how and why different factors shape their use of certain strategies.

Several implications can be drawn from the findings of this study. First, this study highlighted the importance of emergency response capability and readiness of higher education institutions in case another crisis strikes again. Critical areas that need utmost attention include (but not limited to) national and institutional policies, protocol and guidelines, technological infrastructure and resources, instructional delivery, staff development, potential inequalities, and collaboration among key stakeholders (i.e., parents, students, teachers, school leaders, industry, government education agencies, and community). Second, the findings have expanded our understanding of the different challenges that students might confront when we abruptly shift to full online learning, particularly those from countries with limited resources, poor Internet infrastructure, and poor home learning environment. Schools with a similar learning context could use the findings of this study in developing and enhancing their respective learning continuity plans to mitigate the adverse impact of the pandemic. This study would also provide students relevant information needed to reflect on the possible strategies that they may employ to overcome the challenges. These are critical information necessary for effective policymaking, decision-making, and future implementation of online learning. Third, teachers may find the results useful in providing proper interventions to address the reported challenges, particularly in the most critical areas. Finally, the findings provided us a nuanced understanding of the interdependence of learning tools, learners, and learning outcomes within an online learning environment; thus, giving us a multiperspective of hows and whys of a successful migration to full online learning.

Some limitations in this study need to be acknowledged and addressed in future studies. One limitation of this study is that it exclusively focused on students’ perspectives. Future studies may widen the sample by including all other actors taking part in the teaching–learning process. Researchers may go deeper by investigating teachers’ views and experience to have a complete view of the situation and how different elements interact between them or affect the others. Future studies may also identify some teacher-related factors that could influence students’ online learning experience. In the case of students, their age, sex, and degree programs may be examined in relation to the specific challenges and strategies they experience. Although the study involved a relatively large sample size, the participants were limited to college students from a Philippine university. To increase the robustness of the findings, future studies may expand the learning context to K-12 and several higher education institutions from different geographical regions. As a final note, this pandemic has undoubtedly reshaped and pushed the education system to its limits. However, this unprecedented event is the same thing that will make the education system stronger and survive future threats.

Authors’ contributions

Jessie Barrot led the planning, prepared the instrument, wrote the report, and processed and analyzed data. Ian Llenares participated in the planning, fielded the instrument, processed and analyzed data, reviewed the instrument, and contributed to report writing. Leo del Rosario participated in the planning, fielded the instrument, processed and analyzed data, reviewed the instrument, and contributed to report writing.

No funding was received in the conduct of this study.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

The study has undergone appropriate ethics protocol.

Informed consent was sought from the participants.

Authors consented the publication. Participants consented to publication as long as confidentiality is observed.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Adarkwah MA. “I’m not against online teaching, but what about us?”: ICT in Ghana post Covid-19. Education and Information Technologies. 2021; 26 (2):1665–1685. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10331-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Almaiah MA, Al-Khasawneh A, Althunibat A. Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies. 2020; 25 :5261–5280. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10219-y. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Araujo T, Wonneberger A, Neijens P, de Vreese C. How much time do you spend online? Understanding and improving the accuracy of self-reported measures of Internet use. Communication Methods and Measures. 2017; 11 (3):173–190. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2017.1317337. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrot, J. S. (2016). Using Facebook-based e-portfolio in ESL writing classrooms: Impact and challenges. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29 (3), 286–301.
• Barrot, J. S. (2018). Facebook as a learning environment for language teaching and learning: A critical analysis of the literature from 2010 to 2017. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34 (6), 863–875.
• Barrot, J. S. (2020). Scientific mapping of social media in education: A decade of exponential growth. Journal of Educational Computing Research . 10.1177/0735633120972010.
• Barrot, J. S. (2021). Social media as a language learning environment: A systematic review of the literature (2008–2019). Computer Assisted Language Learning . 10.1080/09588221.2021.1883673.
• Bergen N, Labonté R. “Everything is perfect, and we have no problems”: Detecting and limiting social desirability bias in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research. 2020; 30 (5):783–792. doi: 10.1177/1049732319889354. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Grounded theory: A practical guide . Sage.
• Boelens R, De Wever B, Voet M. Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review. 2017; 22 :1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buehler MA. Where is the library in course management software? Journal of Library Administration. 2004; 41 (1–2):75–84. doi: 10.1300/J111v41n01_07. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter RA, Jr, Rice M, Yang S, Jackson HA. Self-regulated learning in online learning environments: Strategies for remote learning. Information and Learning Sciences. 2020; 121 (5/6):321–329. doi: 10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0114. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cavanaugh CS, Barbour MK, Clark T. Research and practice in K-12 online learning: A review of open access literature. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2009; 10 (1):1–22. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v10i1.607. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cicchetti D, Bronen R, Spencer S, Haut S, Berg A, Oliver P, Tyrer P. Rating scales, scales of measurement, issues of reliability: Resolving some critical issues for clinicians and researchers. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 2006; 194 (8):557–564. doi: 10.1097/01.nmd.0000230392.83607.c5. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Copeland WE, McGinnis E, Bai Y, Adams Z, Nardone H, Devadanam V, Hudziak JJ. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2021; 60 (1):134–141. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Day T, Chang ICC, Chung CKL, Doolittle WE, Housel J, McDaniel PN. The immediate impact of COVID-19 on postsecondary teaching and learning. The Professional Geographer. 2021; 73 (1):1–13. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2020.1823864. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donitsa-Schmidt S, Ramot R. Opportunities and challenges: Teacher education in Israel in the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2020; 46 (4):586–595. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2020.1799708. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drane, C., Vernon, L., & O’Shea, S. (2020). The impact of ‘learning at home’on the educational outcomes of vulnerable children in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Literature Review Prepared by the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. Curtin University, Australia.
• Elaish M, Shuib L, Ghani N, Yadegaridehkordi E. Mobile English language learning (MELL): A literature review. Educational Review. 2019; 71 (2):257–276. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2017.1382445. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fawaz, M., Al Nakhal, M., & Itani, M. (2021). COVID-19 quarantine stressors and management among Lebanese students: A qualitative study.  Current Psychology , 1–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Franchi T. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on current anatomy education and future careers: A student’s perspective. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2020; 13 (3):312–315. doi: 10.1002/ase.1966. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia R, Falkner K, Vivian R. Systematic literature review: Self-regulated learning strategies using e-learning tools for computer science. Computers & Education. 2018; 123 :150–163. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzalez T, De La Rubia MA, Hincz KP, Comas-Lopez M, Subirats L, Fort S, Sacha GM. Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15 (10):e0239490. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239490. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hew KF, Jia C, Gonda DE, Bai S. Transitioning to the “new normal” of learning in unpredictable times: Pedagogical practices and learning performance in fully online flipped classrooms. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2020; 17 (1):1–22. doi: 10.1186/s41239-020-00234-x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang Q. Comparing teacher’s roles of F2F learning and online learning in a blended English course. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2019; 32 (3):190–209. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1540434. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• John Hopkins University. (2021). Global map . https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/
• Kapasia N, Paul P, Roy A, Saha J, Zaveri A, Mallick R, Chouhan P. Impact of lockdown on learning status of undergraduate and postgraduate students during COVID-19 pandemic in West Bengal. India. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020; 116 :105194. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105194. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kebritchi M, Lipschuetz A, Santiague L. Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2017; 46 (1):4–29. doi: 10.1177/0047239516661713. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khalil R, Mansour AE, Fadda WA, Almisnid K, Aldamegh M, Al-Nafeesah A, Al-Wutayd O. The sudden transition to synchronized online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: A qualitative study exploring medical students’ perspectives. BMC Medical Education. 2020; 20 (1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02208-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matsumoto K. Introspection, verbal reports and second language learning strategy research. Canadian Modern Language Review. 1994; 50 (2):363–386. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.50.2.363. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ng W. Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education. 2012; 59 (3):1065–1078. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pham T, Nguyen H. COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities for Vietnamese higher education. Higher Education in Southeast Asia and beyond. 2020; 8 :22–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rasheed RA, Kamsin A, Abdullah NA. Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education. 2020; 144 :103701. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Recker MM, Dorward J, Nelson LM. Discovery and use of online learning resources: Case study findings. Educational Technology & Society. 2004; 7 (2):93–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roblek V, Mesko M, Dimovski V, Peterlin J. Smart technologies as social innovation and complex social issues of the Z generation. Kybernetes. 2019; 48 (1):91–107. doi: 10.1108/K-09-2017-0356. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seplaki CL, Agree EM, Weiss CO, Szanton SL, Bandeen-Roche K, Fried LP. Assistive devices in context: Cross-sectional association between challenges in the home environment and use of assistive devices for mobility. The Gerontologist. 2014; 54 (4):651–660. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnt030. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simbulan N. COVID-19 and its impact on higher education in the Philippines. Higher Education in Southeast Asia and beyond. 2020; 8 :15–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh K, Srivastav S, Bhardwaj A, Dixit A, Misra S. Medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a single institution experience. Indian Pediatrics. 2020; 57 (7):678–679. doi: 10.1007/s13312-020-1899-2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh V, Thurman A. How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988–2018) American Journal of Distance Education. 2019; 33 (4):289–306. doi: 10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spector P. Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1994; 15 (5):385–392. doi: 10.1002/job.4030150503. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suryaman M, Cahyono Y, Muliansyah D, Bustani O, Suryani P, Fahlevi M, Munthe AP. COVID-19 pandemic and home online learning system: Does it affect the quality of pharmacy school learning? Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy. 2020; 11 :524–530. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tallent-Runnels MK, Thomas JA, Lan WY, Cooper S, Ahern TC, Shaw SM, Liu X. Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research. 2006; 76 (1):93–135. doi: 10.3102/00346543076001093. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang, T., Abuhmaid, A. M., Olaimat, M., Oudat, D. M., Aldhaeebi, M., & Bamanger, E. (2020). Efficiency of flipped classroom with online-based teaching under COVID-19.  Interactive Learning Environments , 1–12.
• Usher M, Barak M. Team diversity as a predictor of innovation in team projects of face-to-face and online learners. Computers & Education. 2020; 144 :103702. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103702. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Varea, V., & González-Calvo, G. (2020). Touchless classes and absent bodies: Teaching physical education in times of Covid-19.  Sport, Education and Society , 1–15.
• Wallace RM. Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions among teachers and students. Education, Communication & Information. 2003; 3 (2):241–280. doi: 10.1080/14636310303143. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization (2020). Coronavirus . https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1
• Xue, E., Li, J., Li, T., & Shang, W. (2020). China’s education response to COVID-19: A perspective of policy analysis.  Educational Philosophy and Theory , 1–13.

Climate Action in Management Education: Role of Sustainability Education in Management in Driving Student Satisfaction with Blended/Online Learning as Mediator

29 Pages Posted: 2 Sep 2024

Akashdeep Joshi

Lovely Professional University

Dinesh Kumar

Mittal School of Business, Lovely Professional University; Pomento; Mission Dost-E-Jahan

Shabnam Bhagat

Nandan dhar.

The present study investigates whether incorporating sustainability into management education at university level can impact student satisfaction levels. The mediating effect of blended or online learning in influencing the relationship between sustainability education and student satisfaction is also studied. The study was conducted in one of the largest private universities of the world (based in India) by taking responses from final year MBA students. Mixed methodology was used to understand the views of students on inclusion of sustainability education and the role of blended/online learning in increasing student satisfaction. The findings indicate positive impact of sustainability education on student satisfaction and this relationship is partially mediated by blended/online learning practices. The study has important implications for higher educational institution administrators in terms of understanding the relevance of sustainability education on student satisfaction and sheds new light on understanding student viewpoint on sustainability education especially in Indian context.

Keywords: Sustainability, Higher Education Institutes, United NationsSustainable Development Goals, Blended Learning, Online Learning

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Lovely Professional University ( email )

Lovely Professional University Phagwara, 190009 India

Dinesh Kumar (Contact Author)

Mittal school of business, lovely professional university ( email ).

Jalandhar, Punjab 144402 India

HOME PAGE: http://linktr.ee/realdrdj

Pomento ( email )

HOME PAGE: http://pomento.in

Mission Dost-E-Jahan ( email )

HOME PAGE: http://dost-e-jahan.com

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, social sciences education ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences , 2024, 7(8); doi: 10.25236/AJHSS.2024.070833 .

The Formation, Impact, and Rectification of Contemporary University Students' Values under the Influence of Online Populist Ideology

Siyu Zhai, Xiaonan Hong

School of Marxism, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, Liaoning, China

• Full-Text HTML
• Full-Text XML
• Full-Text Epub
• Download PDF
• Download: 2

Populism, empowered by internet technology, has given rise to a wave of online populism characterized by irrational emotional criticism. College students, as a significant group using the internet, face the safety risks of emotional outbursts, emotional spread, and emotional exploitation associated with online populism. In response to the problems of weakened mainstream cultural identity, blurred direction in personality development, and hollow internet legal literacy among some students, society, online platforms, and universities need to take measures to jointly address the impact of online populism on the values of college students, who are still in a critical developmental stage. It is necessary to address both the symptoms and the root causes, balancing regulation with long-term effectiveness. Strengthening cultural identity, emphasizing guidance and education, cultivating independent personalities among college students, practicing core socialist values, improving governance methods, creating a positive online environment, and promoting a combination of guidance and governance are essential. This approach aims to fundamentally neutralize the wave of online populism and cultivate positive values among college students.

Online populism; College students; Values

Cite This Paper

Siyu Zhai, Xiaonan Hong. The Formation, Impact, and Rectification of Contemporary University Students' Values under the Influence of Online Populist Ideology. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences (2024) Vol. 7, Issue 8: 208-213. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJHSS.2024.070833.

[1] People's Forum "Special Planning" Group. Social Trends in China in 2020 [J]. People's Forum, 2021(03): 12-13.

[2] Ou Tingyu. Value Education and Response Strategies for College Students under Network Populism [J]. Academic Exploration, 2021(01): 135-142.

[3] The 47th Statistical Report on China's Internet Development. https://news.znds.com/ article/ 52203.html.

[4] Zhang Aijun, Wang Fu-tian. Network Populism: Counter-discourse Representation and Deconstruction Strategies [J]. Theory and Reform, 2020(01): 156-165.

[5] Cox, R. Nature’s “Crisis Disciplines”: Does Environmental Communication Have an Ethical Duty? [J]. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 2007, 1(1): 5-20.

[6] [German] Jan-Werner Müller. What Is Populism? [M]. Jiangsu: Yilin Publishing House, 2020: 15.

[7] Song Zengwei, Mei Ping. On the Generative Logic of Confidence in Traditional Chinese Culture [J]. Xinjiang Social Sciences, 2018(05): 128-133+164.

[8] Li Yan. The Violent Effects of Online Discourse—Interpreting the Generation of Online Violence through Foucault's Discourse Theory [J]. Contemporary Communication, 2014, (5).