online teaching and learning experience essay

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, insights into students’ experiences and perceptions of remote learning methods: from the covid-19 pandemic to best practice for the future.

• 1 Minerva Schools at Keck Graduate Institute, San Francisco, CA, United States
• 2 Ronin Institute for Independent Scholarship, Montclair, NJ, United States
• 3 Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

This spring, students across the globe transitioned from in-person classes to remote learning as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This unprecedented change to undergraduate education saw institutions adopting multiple online teaching modalities and instructional platforms. We sought to understand students’ experiences with and perspectives on those methods of remote instruction in order to inform pedagogical decisions during the current pandemic and in future development of online courses and virtual learning experiences. Our survey gathered quantitative and qualitative data regarding students’ experiences with synchronous and asynchronous methods of remote learning and specific pedagogical techniques associated with each. A total of 4,789 undergraduate participants representing institutions across 95 countries were recruited via Instagram. We find that most students prefer synchronous online classes, and students whose primary mode of remote instruction has been synchronous report being more engaged and motivated. Our qualitative data show that students miss the social aspects of learning on campus, and it is possible that synchronous learning helps to mitigate some feelings of isolation. Students whose synchronous classes include active-learning techniques (which are inherently more social) report significantly higher levels of engagement, motivation, enjoyment, and satisfaction with instruction. Respondents’ recommendations for changes emphasize increased engagement, interaction, and student participation. We conclude that active-learning methods, which are known to increase motivation, engagement, and learning in traditional classrooms, also have a positive impact in the remote-learning environment. Integrating these elements into online courses will improve the student experience.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically changed the demographics of online students. Previously, almost all students engaged in online learning elected the online format, starting with individual online courses in the mid-1990s through today’s robust online degree and certificate programs. These students prioritize convenience, flexibility and ability to work while studying and are older than traditional college age students ( Harris and Martin, 2012 ; Levitz, 2016 ). These students also find asynchronous elements of a course are more useful than synchronous elements ( Gillingham and Molinari, 2012 ). In contrast, students who chose to take courses in-person prioritize face-to-face instruction and connection with others and skew considerably younger ( Harris and Martin, 2012 ). This leaves open the question of whether students who prefer to learn in-person but are forced to learn remotely will prefer synchronous or asynchronous methods. One study of student preferences following a switch to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic indicates that students enjoy synchronous over asynchronous course elements and find them more effective ( Gillis and Krull, 2020 ). Now that millions of traditional in-person courses have transitioned online, our survey expands the data on student preferences and explores if those preferences align with pedagogical best practices.

An extensive body of research has explored what instructional methods improve student learning outcomes (Fink. 2013). Considerable evidence indicates that active-learning or student-centered approaches result in better learning outcomes than passive-learning or instructor-centered approaches, both in-person and online ( Freeman et al., 2014 ; Chen et al., 2018 ; Davis et al., 2018 ). Active-learning approaches include student activities or discussion in class, whereas passive-learning approaches emphasize extensive exposition by the instructor ( Freeman et al., 2014 ). Constructivist learning theories argue that students must be active participants in creating their own learning, and that listening to expert explanations is seldom sufficient to trigger the neurological changes necessary for learning ( Bostock, 1998 ; Zull, 2002 ). Some studies conclude that, while students learn more via active learning, they may report greater perceptions of their learning and greater enjoyment when passive approaches are used ( Deslauriers et al., 2019 ). We examine student perceptions of remote learning experiences in light of these previous findings.

In this study, we administered a survey focused on student perceptions of remote learning in late May 2020 through the social media account of @unjadedjade to a global population of English speaking undergraduate students representing institutions across 95 countries. We aim to explore how students were being taught, the relationship between pedagogical methods and student perceptions of their experience, and the reasons behind those perceptions. Here we present an initial analysis of the results and share our data set for further inquiry. We find that positive student perceptions correlate with synchronous courses that employ a variety of interactive pedagogical techniques, and that students overwhelmingly suggest behavioral and pedagogical changes that increase social engagement and interaction. We argue that these results support the importance of active learning in an online environment.

Materials and Methods

Participant pool.

Students were recruited through the Instagram account @unjadedjade. This social media platform, run by influencer Jade Bowler, focuses on education, effective study tips, ethical lifestyle, and promotes a positive mindset. For this reason, the audience is presumably academically inclined, and interested in self-improvement. The survey was posted to her account and received 10,563 responses within the first 36 h. Here we analyze the 4,789 of those responses that came from undergraduates. While we did not collect demographic or identifying information, we suspect that women are overrepresented in these data as followers of @unjadedjade are 80% women. A large minority of respondents were from the United Kingdom as Jade Bowler is a British influencer. Specifically, 43.3% of participants attend United Kingdom institutions, followed by 6.7% attending university in the Netherlands, 6.1% in Germany, 5.8% in the United States and 4.2% in Australia. Ninety additional countries are represented in these data (see Supplementary Figure 1 ).

Survey Design

The purpose of this survey is to learn about students’ instructional experiences following the transition to remote learning in the spring of 2020.

This survey was initially created for a student assignment for the undergraduate course Empirical Analysis at Minerva Schools at KGI. That version served as a robust pre-test and allowed for identification of the primary online platforms used, and the four primary modes of learning: synchronous (live) classes, recorded lectures and videos, uploaded or emailed materials, and chat-based communication. We did not adapt any open-ended questions based on the pre-test survey to avoid biasing the results and only corrected language in questions for clarity. We used these data along with an analysis of common practices in online learning to revise the survey. Our revised survey asked students to identify the synchronous and asynchronous pedagogical methods and platforms that they were using for remote learning. Pedagogical methods were drawn from literature assessing active and passive teaching strategies in North American institutions ( Fink, 2013 ; Chen et al., 2018 ; Davis et al., 2018 ). Open-ended questions asked students to describe why they preferred certain modes of learning and how they could improve their learning experience. Students also reported on their affective response to learning and participation using a Likert scale.

The revised survey also asked whether students had responded to the earlier survey. No significant differences were found between responses of those answering for the first and second times (data not shown). See Supplementary Appendix 1 for survey questions. Survey data was collected from 5/21/20 to 5/23/20.

Qualitative Coding

We applied a qualitative coding framework adapted from Gale et al. (2013) to analyze student responses to open-ended questions. Four researchers read several hundred responses and noted themes that surfaced. We then developed a list of themes inductively from the survey data and deductively from the literature on pedagogical practice ( Garrison et al., 1999 ; Zull, 2002 ; Fink, 2013 ; Freeman et al., 2014 ). The initial codebook was revised collaboratively based on feedback from researchers after coding 20–80 qualitative comments each. Before coding their assigned questions, alignment was examined through coding of 20 additional responses. Researchers aligned in identifying the same major themes. Discrepancies in terms identified were resolved through discussion. Researchers continued to meet weekly to discuss progress and alignment. The majority of responses were coded by a single researcher using the final codebook ( Supplementary Table 1 ). All responses to questions 3 (4,318 responses) and 8 (4,704 responses), and 2,512 of 4,776 responses to question 12 were analyzed. Valence was also indicated where necessary (i.e., positive or negative discussion of terms). This paper focuses on the most prevalent themes from our initial analysis of the qualitative responses. The corresponding author reviewed codes to ensure consistency and accuracy of reported data.

Statistical Analysis

The survey included two sets of Likert-scale questions, one consisting of a set of six statements about students’ perceptions of their experiences following the transition to remote learning ( Table 1 ). For each statement, students indicated their level of agreement with the statement on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). The second set asked the students to respond to the same set of statements, but about their retroactive perceptions of their experiences with in-person instruction before the transition to remote learning. This set was not the subject of our analysis but is present in the published survey results. To explore correlations among student responses, we used CrossCat analysis to calculate the probability of dependence between Likert-scale responses ( Mansinghka et al., 2016 ).

Table 1. Likert-scale questions.

Mean values are calculated based on the numerical scores associated with each response. Measures of statistical significance for comparisons between different subgroups of respondents were calculated using a two-sided Mann-Whitney U -test, and p -values reported here are based on this test statistic. We report effect sizes in pairwise comparisons using the common-language effect size, f , which is the probability that the response from a random sample from subgroup 1 is greater than the response from a random sample from subgroup 2. We also examined the effects of different modes of remote learning and technological platforms using ordinal logistic regression. With the exception of the mean values, all of these analyses treat Likert-scale responses as ordinal-scale, rather than interval-scale data.

Students Prefer Synchronous Class Sessions

Students were asked to identify their primary mode of learning given four categories of remote course design that emerged from the pilot survey and across literature on online teaching: live (synchronous) classes, recorded lectures and videos, emailed or uploaded materials, and chats and discussion forums. While 42.7% ( n = 2,045) students identified live classes as their primary mode of learning, 54.6% ( n = 2613) students preferred this mode ( Figure 1 ). Both recorded lectures and live classes were preferred over uploaded materials (6.22%, n = 298) and chat (3.36%, n = 161).

Figure 1. Actual (A) and preferred (B) primary modes of learning.

In addition to a preference for live classes, students whose primary mode was synchronous were more likely to enjoy the class, feel motivated and engaged, be satisfied with instruction and report higher levels of participation ( Table 2 and Supplementary Figure 2 ). Regardless of primary mode, over two-thirds of students reported they are often distracted during remote courses.

Table 2. The effect of synchronous vs. asynchronous primary modes of learning on student perceptions.

Variation in Pedagogical Techniques for Synchronous Classes Results in More Positive Perceptions of the Student Learning Experience

To survey the use of passive vs. active instructional methods, students reported the pedagogical techniques used in their live classes. Among the synchronous methods, we identify three different categories ( National Research Council, 2000 ; Freeman et al., 2014 ). Passive methods (P) include lectures, presentations, and explanation using diagrams, white boards and/or other media. These methods all rely on instructor delivery rather than student participation. Our next category represents active learning through primarily one-on-one interactions (A). The methods in this group are in-class assessment, question-and-answer (Q&A), and classroom chat. Group interactions (F) included classroom discussions and small-group activities. Given these categories, Mann-Whitney U pairwise comparisons between the 7 possible combinations and Likert scale responses about student experience showed that the use of a variety of methods resulted in higher ratings of experience vs. the use of a single method whether or not that single method was active or passive ( Table 3 ). Indeed, students whose classes used methods from each category (PAF) had higher ratings of enjoyment, motivation, and satisfaction with instruction than those who only chose any single method ( p < 0.0001) and also rated higher rates of participation and engagement compared to students whose only method was passive (P) or active through one-on-one interactions (A) ( p < 0.00001). Student ratings of distraction were not significantly different for any comparison. Given that sets of Likert responses often appeared significant together in these comparisons, we ran a CrossCat analysis to look at the probability of dependence across Likert responses. Responses have a high probability of dependence on each other, limiting what we can claim about any discrete response ( Supplementary Figure 3 ).

Table 3. Comparison of combinations of synchronous methods on student perceptions. Effect size (f).

Mann-Whitney U pairwise comparisons were also used to check if improvement in student experience was associated with the number of methods used vs. the variety of types of methods. For every comparison, we found that more methods resulted in higher scores on all Likert measures except distraction ( Table 4 ). Even comparison between four or fewer methods and greater than four methods resulted in a 59% chance that the latter enjoyed the courses more ( p < 0.00001) and 60% chance that they felt more motivated to learn ( p < 0.00001). Students who selected more than four methods ( n = 417) were also 65.1% ( p < 0.00001), 62.9% ( p < 0.00001) and 64.3% ( p < 0.00001) more satisfied with instruction, engaged, and actively participating, respectfully. Therefore, there was an overlap between how the number and variety of methods influenced students’ experiences. Since the number of techniques per category is 2–3, we cannot fully disentangle the effect of number vs. variety. Pairwise comparisons to look at subsets of data with 2–3 methods from a single group vs. 2–3 methods across groups controlled for this but had low sample numbers in most groups and resulted in no significant findings (data not shown). Therefore, from the data we have in our survey, there seems to be an interdependence between number and variety of methods on students’ learning experiences.

Table 4. Comparison of the number of synchronous methods on student perceptions. Effect size (f).

Variation in Asynchronous Pedagogical Techniques Results in More Positive Perceptions of the Student Learning Experience

Along with synchronous pedagogical methods, students reported the asynchronous methods that were used for their classes. We divided these methods into three main categories and conducted pairwise comparisons. Learning methods include video lectures, video content, and posted study materials. Interacting methods include discussion/chat forums, live office hours, and email Q&A with professors. Testing methods include assignments and exams. Our results again show the importance of variety in students’ perceptions ( Table 5 ). For example, compared to providing learning materials only, providing learning materials, interaction, and testing improved enjoyment ( f = 0.546, p < 0.001), motivation ( f = 0.553, p < 0.0001), satisfaction with instruction ( f = 0.596, p < 0.00001), engagement ( f = 0.572, p < 0.00001) and active participation ( f = 0.563, p < 0.00001) (row 6). Similarly, compared to just being interactive with conversations, the combination of all three methods improved five out of six indicators, except for distraction in class (row 11).

Table 5. Comparison of combinations of asynchronous methods on student perceptions. Effect size (f).

Ordinal logistic regression was used to assess the likelihood that the platforms students used predicted student perceptions ( Supplementary Table 2 ). Platform choices were based on the answers to open-ended questions in the pre-test survey. The synchronous and asynchronous methods used were consistently more predictive of Likert responses than the specific platforms. Likewise, distraction continued to be our outlier with no differences across methods or platforms.

Students Prefer In-Person and Synchronous Online Learning Largely Due to Social-Emotional Reasoning

As expected, 86.1% (4,123) of survey participants report a preference for in-person courses, while 13.9% (666) prefer online courses. When asked to explain the reasons for their preference, students who prefer in-person courses most often mention the importance of social interaction (693 mentions), engagement (639 mentions), and motivation (440 mentions). These students are also more likely to mention a preference for a fixed schedule (185 mentions) vs. a flexible schedule (2 mentions).

In addition to identifying social reasons for their preference for in-person learning, students’ suggestions for improvements in online learning focus primarily on increasing interaction and engagement, with 845 mentions of live classes, 685 mentions of interaction, 126 calls for increased participation and calls for changes related to these topics such as, “Smaller teaching groups for live sessions so that everyone is encouraged to talk as some people don’t say anything and don’t participate in group work,” and “Make it less of the professor reading the pdf that was given to us and more interaction.”

Students who prefer online learning primarily identify independence and flexibility (214 mentions) and reasons related to anxiety and discomfort in in-person settings (41 mentions). Anxiety was only mentioned 12 times in the much larger group that prefers in-person learning.

The preference for synchronous vs. asynchronous modes of learning follows similar trends ( Table 6 ). Students who prefer live classes mention engagement and interaction most often while those who prefer recorded lectures mention flexibility.

Table 6. Most prevalent themes for students based on their preferred mode of remote learning.

Student Perceptions Align With Research on Active Learning

The first, and most robust, conclusion is that incorporation of active-learning methods correlates with more positive student perceptions of affect and engagement. We can see this clearly in the substantial differences on a number of measures, where students whose classes used only passive-learning techniques reported lower levels of engagement, satisfaction, participation, and motivation when compared with students whose classes incorporated at least some active-learning elements. This result is consistent with prior research on the value of active learning ( Freeman et al., 2014 ).

Though research shows that student learning improves in active learning classes, on campus, student perceptions of their learning, enjoyment, and satisfaction with instruction are often lower in active-learning courses ( Deslauriers et al., 2019 ). Our finding that students rate enjoyment and satisfaction with instruction higher for active learning online suggests that the preference for passive lectures on campus relies on elements outside of the lecture itself. That might include the lecture hall environment, the social physical presence of peers, or normalization of passive lectures as the expected mode for on-campus classes. This implies that there may be more buy-in for active learning online vs. in-person.

A second result from our survey is that student perceptions of affect and engagement are associated with students experiencing a greater diversity of learning modalities. We see this in two different results. First, in addition to the fact that classes that include active learning outperform classes that rely solely on passive methods, we find that on all measures besides distraction, the highest student ratings are associated with a combination of active and passive methods. Second, we find that these higher scores are associated with classes that make use of a larger number of different methods.

This second result suggests that students benefit from classes that make use of multiple different techniques, possibly invoking a combination of passive and active methods. However, it is unclear from our data whether this effect is associated specifically with combining active and passive methods, or if it is associated simply with the use of multiple different methods, irrespective of whether those methods are active, passive, or some combination. The problem is that the number of methods used is confounded with the diversity of methods (e.g., it is impossible for a classroom using only one method to use both active and passive methods). In an attempt to address this question, we looked separately at the effect of number and diversity of methods while holding the other constant. Across a large number of such comparisons, we found few statistically significant differences, which may be a consequence of the fact that each comparison focused on a small subset of the data.

Thus, our data suggests that using a greater diversity of learning methods in the classroom may lead to better student outcomes. This is supported by research on student attention span which suggests varying delivery after 10–15 min to retain student’s attention ( Bradbury, 2016 ). It is likely that this is more relevant for online learning where students report high levels of distraction across methods, modalities, and platforms. Given that number and variety are key, and there are few passive learning methods, we can assume that some combination of methods that includes active learning improves student experience. However, it is not clear whether we should predict that this benefit would come simply from increasing the number of different methods used, or if there are benefits specific to combining particular methods. Disentangling these effects would be an interesting avenue for future research.

Students Value Social Presence in Remote Learning

Student responses across our open-ended survey questions show a striking difference in reasons for their preferences compared with traditional online learners who prefer flexibility ( Harris and Martin, 2012 ; Levitz, 2016 ). Students reasons for preferring in-person classes and synchronous remote classes emphasize the desire for social interaction and echo the research on the importance of social presence for learning in online courses.

Short et al. (1976) outlined Social Presence Theory in depicting students’ perceptions of each other as real in different means of telecommunications. These ideas translate directly to questions surrounding online education and pedagogy in regards to educational design in networked learning where connection across learners and instructors improves learning outcomes especially with “Human-Human interaction” ( Goodyear, 2002 , 2005 ; Tu, 2002 ). These ideas play heavily into asynchronous vs. synchronous learning, where Tu reports students having positive responses to both synchronous “real-time discussion in pleasantness, responsiveness and comfort with familiar topics” and real-time discussions edging out asynchronous computer-mediated communications in immediate replies and responsiveness. Tu’s research indicates that students perceive more interaction with synchronous mediums such as discussions because of immediacy which enhances social presence and support the use of active learning techniques ( Gunawardena, 1995 ; Tu, 2002 ). Thus, verbal immediacy and communities with face-to-face interactions, such as those in synchronous learning classrooms, lessen the psychological distance of communicators online and can simultaneously improve instructional satisfaction and reported learning ( Gunawardena and Zittle, 1997 ; Richardson and Swan, 2019 ; Shea et al., 2019 ). While synchronous learning may not be ideal for traditional online students and a subset of our participants, this research suggests that non-traditional online learners are more likely to appreciate the value of social presence.

Social presence also connects to the importance of social connections in learning. Too often, current systems of education emphasize course content in narrow ways that fail to embrace the full humanity of students and instructors ( Gay, 2000 ). With the COVID-19 pandemic leading to further social isolation for many students, the importance of social presence in courses, including live interactions that build social connections with classmates and with instructors, may be increased.

Limitations of These Data

Our undergraduate data consisted of 4,789 responses from 95 different countries, an unprecedented global scale for research on online learning. However, since respondents were followers of @unjadedjade who focuses on learning and wellness, these respondents may not represent the average student. Biases in survey responses are often limited by their recruitment techniques and our bias likely resulted in more robust and thoughtful responses to free-response questions and may have influenced the preference for synchronous classes. It is unlikely that it changed students reporting on remote learning pedagogical methods since those are out of student control.

Though we surveyed a global population, our design was rooted in literature assessing pedagogy in North American institutions. Therefore, our survey may not represent a global array of teaching practices.

This survey was sent out during the initial phase of emergency remote learning for most countries. This has two important implications. First, perceptions of remote learning may be clouded by complications of the pandemic which has increased social, mental, and financial stresses globally. Future research could disaggregate the impact of the pandemic from students’ learning experiences with a more detailed and holistic analysis of the impact of the pandemic on students.

Second, instructors, students and institutions were not able to fully prepare for effective remote education in terms of infrastructure, mentality, curriculum building, and pedagogy. Therefore, student experiences reflect this emergency transition. Single-modality courses may correlate with instructors who lacked the resources or time to learn or integrate more than one modality. Regardless, the main insights of this research align well with the science of teaching and learning and can be used to inform both education during future emergencies and course development for online programs that wish to attract traditional college students.

Global Student Voices Improve Our Understanding of the Experience of Emergency Remote Learning

Our survey shows that global student perspectives on remote learning agree with pedagogical best practices, breaking with the often-found negative reactions of students to these practices in traditional classrooms ( Shekhar et al., 2020 ). Our analysis of open-ended questions and preferences show that a majority of students prefer pedagogical approaches that promote both active learning and social interaction. These results can serve as a guide to instructors as they design online classes, especially for students whose first choice may be in-person learning. Indeed, with the near ubiquitous adoption of remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, remote learning may be the default for colleges during temporary emergencies. This has already been used at the K-12 level as snow days become virtual learning days ( Aspergren, 2020 ).

In addition to informing pedagogical decisions, the results of this survey can be used to inform future research. Although we survey a global population, our recruitment method selected for students who are English speakers, likely majority female, and have an interest in self-improvement. Repeating this study with a more diverse and representative sample of university students could improve the generalizability of our findings. While the use of a variety of pedagogical methods is better than a single method, more research is needed to determine what the optimal combinations and implementations are for courses in different disciplines. Though we identified social presence as the major trend in student responses, the over 12,000 open-ended responses from students could be analyzed in greater detail to gain a more nuanced understanding of student preferences and suggestions for improvement. Likewise, outliers could shed light on the diversity of student perspectives that we may encounter in our own classrooms. Beyond this, our findings can inform research that collects demographic data and/or measures learning outcomes to understand the impact of remote learning on different populations.

Importantly, this paper focuses on a subset of responses from the full data set which includes 10,563 students from secondary school, undergraduate, graduate, or professional school and additional questions about in-person learning. Our full data set is available here for anyone to download for continued exploration: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId= doi: 10.7910/DVN/2TGOPH .

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

GS: project lead, survey design, qualitative coding, writing, review, and editing. TN: data analysis, writing, review, and editing. CN and PB: qualitative coding. JW: data analysis, writing, and editing. CS: writing, review, and editing. EV and KL: original survey design and qualitative coding. PP: data analysis. JB: original survey design and survey distribution. HH: data analysis. MP: writing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Minerva Schools at KGI for providing funding for summer undergraduate research internships. We also want to thank Josh Fost and Christopher V. H.-H. Chen for discussion that helped shape this project.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.647986/full#supplementary-material

Aspergren, E. (2020). Snow Days Canceled Because of COVID-19 Online School? Not in These School Districts.sec. Education. USA Today. Available online at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2020/12/15/covid-school-canceled-snow-day-online-learning/3905780001/ (accessed December 15, 2020).

Google Scholar

Bostock, S. J. (1998). Constructivism in mass higher education: a case study. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 29, 225–240. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00066

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bradbury, N. A. (2016). Attention span during lectures: 8 seconds, 10 minutes, or more? Adv. Physiol. Educ. 40, 509–513. doi: 10.1152/advan.00109.2016

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, B., Bastedo, K., and Howard, W. (2018). Exploring best practices for online STEM courses: active learning, interaction & assessment design. Online Learn. 22, 59–75. doi: 10.24059/olj.v22i2.1369

Davis, D., Chen, G., Hauff, C., and Houben, G.-J. (2018). Activating learning at scale: a review of innovations in online learning strategies. Comput. Educ. 125, 327–344. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.019

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., and Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 19251–19257. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1821936116

Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. Somerset, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 8410–8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., and Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 13:117. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. Internet High. Educ. 2, 87–105. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. Multicultural Education Series. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gillingham, and Molinari, C. (2012). Online courses: student preferences survey. Internet Learn. 1, 36–45. doi: 10.18278/il.1.1.4

Gillis, A., and Krull, L. M. (2020). COVID-19 remote learning transition in spring 2020: class structures, student perceptions, and inequality in college courses. Teach. Sociol. 48, 283–299. doi: 10.1177/0092055X20954263

Goodyear, P. (2002). “Psychological foundations for networked learning,” in Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues. Computer Supported Cooperative Work , eds C. Steeples and C. Jones (London: Springer), 49–75. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-0181-9_4

Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 21, 82–101. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1344

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. Int. J. Educ. Telecommun. 1, 147–166.

Gunawardena, C. N., and Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. Am. J. Distance Educ. 11, 8–26. doi: 10.1080/08923649709526970

Harris, H. S., and Martin, E. (2012). Student motivations for choosing online classes. Int. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 6, 1–8. doi: 10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060211

Levitz, R. N. (2016). 2015-16 National Online Learners Satisfaction and Priorities Report. Cedar Rapids: Ruffalo Noel Levitz, 12.

Mansinghka, V., Shafto, P., Jonas, E., Petschulat, C., Gasner, M., and Tenenbaum, J. B. (2016). CrossCat: a fully Bayesian nonparametric method for analyzing heterogeneous, high dimensional data. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 17, 1–49. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-69765-9_7

National Research Council (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, doi: 10.17226/9853

Richardson, J. C., and Swan, K. (2019). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Online Learn. 7, 68–88. doi: 10.24059/olj.v7i1.1864

Shea, P., Pickett, A. M., and Pelz, W. E. (2019). A Follow-up investigation of ‘teaching presence’ in the suny learning network. Online Learn. 7, 73–75. doi: 10.24059/olj.v7i2.1856

Shekhar, P., Borrego, M., DeMonbrun, M., Finelli, C., Crockett, C., and Nguyen, K. (2020). Negative student response to active learning in STEM classrooms: a systematic review of underlying reasons. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 49, 45–54.

Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Tu, C.-H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. Int. J. E Learn. 1, 34–45. doi: 10.17471/2499-4324/421

Zull, J. E. (2002). The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning , 1st Edn. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Keywords : online learning, COVID-19, active learning, higher education, pedagogy, survey, international

Citation: Nguyen T, Netto CLM, Wilkins JF, Bröker P, Vargas EE, Sealfon CD, Puthipiroj P, Li KS, Bowler JE, Hinson HR, Pujar M and Stein GM (2021) Insights Into Students’ Experiences and Perceptions of Remote Learning Methods: From the COVID-19 Pandemic to Best Practice for the Future. Front. Educ. 6:647986. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.647986

Received: 30 December 2020; Accepted: 09 March 2021; Published: 09 April 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Nguyen, Netto, Wilkins, Bröker, Vargas, Sealfon, Puthipiroj, Li, Bowler, Hinson, Pujar and Stein. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Geneva M. Stein, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Covid-19 and Beyond: From (Forced) Remote Teaching and Learning to ‘The New Normal’ in Higher Education

• Columbia University in the City of New York
• Office of Teaching, Learning, and Innovation
• University Policies
• Columbia Online
• Academic Calendar
• Resources and Technology
• Instructional Technologies
• Teaching in All Modalities

Reflecting On Your Experiences with Remote Teaching: Making Meaning of Pandemic Teaching

Whether you are seeking to recover the joy of teaching after an online pivot during the pandemic, be a better online teacher , be more responsive to student needs, prevent teaching burnout , or plan ahead to teach an in-person, hybrid, or fully online course, it can be important to hit pause. Taking an intentional moment of pause affords you an opportunity to reflect back on your teaching experiences, evaluate your approaches, and consider how your course design decisions impacted your students’ learning. This meaning-making process allows us to use what we have learned from past experiences and data interpretation to inform future practices (see Dewey, 1910; Schön,1983; and Kolb, 1984 – works that define the reflective process). 

This resource provides suggestions, tips, and questions to guide your self-reflective process. Interwoven are Columbia faculty insights shared during the 2021 Celebration of Teaching and Learning , which can offer context and community for processing the last year. 

As you plan ahead, consider how you might:

Raise your self-awareness

• Examine your practices and online course design

Watch yourself on video

Explore other data.

• Plan forward
• Incorporating Reflection Into Your Practice

Cite this resource: Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (2021). Reflecting On Your Experiences with Remote Teaching: Making Meaning of Pandemic Teaching. Columbia University. Retrieved [today’s date] from https://ctl.columbia.edu/resources-and-technology/teaching-with-technology/teaching-online/reflecting-on-your-experiences/

Reflecting Back to Reflect Forward: On Becoming a Remote Instructor

Looking back on the transition to remote teaching and your pandemic pedagogy, consider:

• what you discovered about yourself as an instructor and your teaching strategies; 
• how you managed your time and the teaching workload; 
• what you learned about your students and their learning; and 
• what affordances of instructional technologies supported your teaching and your students’ learning.

Watch Dr. Yesilevskiy talk about his teaching at the 2021 Celebration of Teaching and Learning .

Teaching and learning during the pandemic shed light on access and equity issues, as well as  the need to rethink teaching norms and pedagogical practices that better meet the needs of diverse learners. Principle 5 in the Columbia Guide for Inclusive Teaching reminds us that reflecting on personal beliefs about teaching can help to maximize self-awareness and commitment to inclusion. Think about the identities you brought to your remote teaching, and how your students perceived you.

What implicit or explicit biases were present in your remote teaching? If challenging moments arose, how did you handle them? To what extent did the activities used via Zoom and in CourseWorks foster inclusion or disinclusion?

When asked, students were open about the challenges of being in front of a screen for extended periods of time, and how much they appreciated opportunities to connect with peers, instructors, guest speakers when possible; flexible course policies, and accessible course materials and activities.

What did you learn about your students, their needs, and from their experiences as remote learners? How did your course structure impact students’ ability to take responsibility for their learning and complete asynchronous work?

Examine your practices and online course design 

With the pivot to remote teaching, consider the changes you made to your practices (e.g., updated communication approach, made course policies more flexible, experimented with new engagement strategies, reimagined assessments, made expectations and learning outcomes more explicit, integrated instructional technologies, etc.).

Which of the changes you made were most effective? How do you know? What sources of information can inform your evaluation of these practices? (e.g., self-assessment, student feedback, student performance).

Evaluate the design of your course using the Quality Matters Course Design Rubric Standards ( Higher Ed. Standards ; accessible version ).

How well did the course components – learning objectives, assessments, instructional materials, learning activities, and instructional technology – align and help students achieve the desired learning outcomes?

Watch Dr. Weaver talk about her teaching at the 2021 Celebration of Teaching and Learning .

Additionally, reflect on the asynchronous components of your course: 

How well did your use of CourseWorks promote student engagement with content and peers, and student learning? Which CourseWorks tools were particularly effective? To what extent were the organizational structure and modules clear and effective?

“… we were able to adapt some of our prior lessons to the virtual environment, and create new virtual learning tools that were more engaging and efficient for our learners. My main takeaway from this experience is that more isn’t better, better is better. We all likely have materials that are not as efficient in teaching as they could be, and ways we could maximize the learning in our sessions that do occur.”  – Dr. Beth Barron , Associate Professor of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons, CUIMC. 

Watch Dr. Barron talk about her teaching at the 2021 Celebration of Teaching and Learning .

Other elements you may want to reflect on include: course planning, communication practices, community-building strategies, course climate, student engagement / interactions, organization of course material and its accessibility to students, and inclusive teaching practices.

Reflect on your synchronous class sessions–look for what worked and the impact of your teaching on your students’ learning. With hours of Zoom class recordings (stored in Panopto) to choose from, watch class sessions in which you tried something new, or ones that you suspect did not go as well as you had hoped. Consider strengths and areas for development. Use the following questions to guide your viewing.

Before viewing:

• What did you hope to accomplish in this class? What did you want students to learn, do, and/or value?
• To what degree were the goals met? / Did students learn what was intended? How do you know?
• To what extent were students engaged in learning activities? 

While viewing:

• What are your observations? 
• What specific teaching practices are you doing effectively that are helping your students meet the learning goals of the class session?  
• What practices were not as effective as they could have been? What do you see on the recording that makes you think this is the case?
• What segments of the class do students seem to be most engaged? Least engaged? What might be the cause(s)?

After viewing:

• If you could teach this class session again, what would you do differently? Why? 
• Should the session goals and strategies be revised for the next iteration?  
• What is the key thing that you would like to improve for next time?  
• What are your action steps to making this change? (e.g., schedule a consultation, revise class session plan)

Interpret student feedback 

Consider all the feedback that you collected from students whether through early and mid-semester student feedback or end-of-semester course evaluations. 

How did your students perceive the course? What was the students’ experience? Were the course learning objectives and expectations clear to the students? Does your interpretation of the course align with that of your students? 

As you explore and interpret the data, consider taking these actions: 

• Identify patterns or common themes in the comments.
• Note what students found most useful in supporting their learning. Based on what students thought worked well, what practices will you continue doing? 
• Reflect on the insights gained, and decide on the areas for improvement that would enhance the student learning experience. What changes to the course design and/or teaching practices might be needed?

“…I would really continue to work on and develop my asynchronous lectures. (…) the response from the students was that the asynchronous lecture was really beneficial in preparing for the course. And it also allows for a richer discussion and collaboration within the classroom. (…) I want to continue to keep up on current technology, being prepared with the technologies for this was very beneficial.” 

– Dr. Amanda Sarafian , Assistant Professor of Rehabilitation and Regenerative Medicine, Occupational Therapy. 

Watch Dr. Sarafian talk about her teaching at the 2021 Celebration of Teaching and Learning .

Discussing your evaluations with a trusted colleague or CTL consultant can help make sense of the data and put it in perspective (especially any negative comments, outlier or contradictory feedback). Schedule a CTL consultation by contacting [email protected] . 

Explore course analytics and student performance

CourseWorks Course Statistics , Course Analytics , and Panopto Analytics (see How to View User Statistics ), provide a glimpse into student performance and engagement with assignments, discussions, quizzes, or course videos. For components that lacked student engagement, consider what improvements might be needed in the future (e.g., improved communication, clearer instructions, guidance or expectations). 

How did students perform on assessments? Did students achieve the desired learning outcomes? To what extent did students actively engage with asynchronous content and learning activities outside of class? 

Plan Forward

Looking ahead to the next time you teach this course or material, consider the lessons learned from remote teaching and what changes are needed to maximize student learning. 

What might you carry forward from your online teaching experience into other modes of course delivery (e.g., in-person, hybrid) or future online iterations of the course? 

As you reflect forward, consider taking these actions: 

• Develop an action plan in which you outline what changes you will make, how you will make them, and by when. 
• Identify the new approaches to course design, community building, engagement, and/or assessment that you will use, and the instructional technologies and tools you will carry forward from your remote teaching experiences.

Watch Dr. Cruz talk about her teaching at the 2021 Celebration of Teaching and Learning .

Incorporate Reflection Into Your Practice

This resource has focused on your personal reflection and the interpretation of your students’ perceptions to inform your practice. However Brookfield (2017) suggests the use of four lenses of critical reflection – colleagues’ perceptions, theory, students’ eyes, and personal experience – to see your teaching practices from different angles (p. 61-77). 

To make critical reflection part of your ongoing practice, consider the following:

• Think about your personal experiences (e.g., how your experiences as a learner shaped your teaching practices). Build in time for metacognitive work (see CTL’s resource on metacognition ). Set aside time before, during, and after a course to reflect. Keep track of things to keep or modify for next time. For instance, after every synchronous class session, annotate class session plans or briefly engage in reflective writing (in a journal or digital space). Ask yourself: what worked well? What could be improved? What would I do differently the next time I teach this class session? And document what changes you plan to make.
• Check in with your students, and ask them how they are experiencing the learning. Collect feedback from students early in the semester (see the CTL’s resource on Early and Mid-Semester Student Feedback ). This can be done via an anonymous survey (e.g., using Google Form, Qualtrics, or other survey tool). Reflect on the data and share back with students the changes that you will make based on their feedback.
• Ask your TAs (if applicable) to provide feedback. They provide valuable insights into how students may be experiencing the course and common questions or issues that students bring to the course.  
• Talk to colleagues about teaching issues or challenges, and brainstorm solutions. This can help place our teaching in perspective. Join us for an upcoming synchronous CTL event to connect with colleagues across campus. Learn from colleagues and their experiences experimenting with innovations in their classrooms. Read, listen, and watch Columbia colleagues share their reflections and experiences through the Voices of Hybrid and Online Teaching and Learning initiative; the 2021 Celebration of Teaching and Learning Symposium (see select quotes below); and Faculty Spotlights . 
• Open up your classroom to peer feedback. Invite colleagues to observe your class (live or a recording), review your CourseWorks site, or review course materials (e.g., syllabi, assignments, activities). Prior to the peer review, discuss the goals and the desired feedback. 

Explore the teaching and learning literature to discover evidence-based approaches to incorporate into your practice. Various journals publish the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) and Discipline Based Education Research (DBER); access e-journals through Columbia Libraries . (To learn more about SoTL and DBER, see the SOLER faculty guide ).

The CTL is here to help!

For assistance as you reflect on your teaching, interpret student feedback, and plan forward, please request a Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) consultation by emailing [email protected] .   

CTL Resources

• Request a CTL Teaching Observation . A CTL consultant will provide individualized feedback on your teaching. This service can help you think through your course goals, and plan your future teaching.
• Engage with our on-demand resources including: Early and Mid-Semester Student Feedback ; Metacognition ; the Guide for Inclusive Teaching ; and Transition to In-Person Teaching (CTL resource), among others available on our website . 
• For the undergraduate student perspective on teaching and learning, explore the resources developed by our student consultants or ask a student !  Submit a question and one of the CTL’s Students as Pedagogical Partners will share their thoughts and experiences. 

Blumberg, P. (2014). Assessing and Improving Your Teaching: Strategies and Rubrics for Faculty Growth and Student Learning . Jossey-Bass. 

Brookfield, S.D. (2017). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. Second Edition . Jossey-Bass.

Darby, F. (2021). 8 Strategies to Prevent Teaching Burnout . The Chronicle of Higher Education. January 13, 2021. 

Darby, F. (2020). How to Recover the Joy of Teaching After an Online Pivot . The Chronicle of Higher Education. March 24, 2020. 

Darby, F. (2019). How to Be a Better Online Teacher . Advice Guide. The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 17, 2019. 

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think . D. C. Heath & Co. https://doi-org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/10.1037/10903-000

Fink, L. D. (2012). Getting Better as Teachers. Thriving in Academe. NEA Higher Education Advocate. 

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. 

The CTL researches and experiments.

The Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning provides an array of resources and tools for instructional activities.

This website uses cookies to identify users, improve the user experience and requires cookies to work. By continuing to use this website, you consent to Columbia University's use of cookies and similar technologies, in accordance with the Columbia University Website Cookie Notice .

Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Remote Teaching: A Student's Perspective

By a purdue student.

As many teachers are well aware, the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 required sudden, drastic changes to course curricula. What they may not be aware of are all of the many ways in which this has affected and complicated students’ learning and their academic experiences. This essay, which is written by a student enrolled in several Spring and Summer 2020 remote courses at Purdue University, describes the firsthand experiences (and those of interviewed peers) of participating in remote courses. The aim of this essay is to make teachers aware of the unexpected challenges that remote learning can pose for students.

Emergency remote teaching differs from well-planned online learning

During the past semester, many students and faculty colloquially referred to their courses as “online classes.” While these courses were being taught online, it is nonetheless helpful to distinguish classes that were deliberately designed to be administered online from courses that suddenly shifted online due to an emergency. Perhaps the most significant difference is that students knowingly register for online courses, whereas the switch to remote teaching in spring 2020 was involuntary (though unavoidable). Additionally, online courses are designed in accordance with theoretical and practical standards for teaching in virtual contexts. By contrast, the short transition timeline for implementing online instruction in spring 2020 made applying these standards and preparing instructors next to impossible. As a result, logistical and technical problems were inevitable. I've listed a few of these below.

"...students knowingly register for online courses, whereas the switch to remote teaching in spring 2020 was involuntary..."

Observed Challenges

When teachers are forced to adjust on short notice, some course components may need to be sacrificed..

Two characteristics of high-quality online classes are that their learning outcomes mirror those of in-person classes and that significant time is devoted to course design prior to the beginning of the course. These characteristics ensure the quality of the student learning experience. However, as both students and faculty were given little chance to prepare for the move to remote teaching in spring 2020, adjustments to their learning outcomes were all but unavoidable. Instructors were required to move their courses to a remote teaching format in the span of little over a week during a time when they, like their students, would normally be on break. It was a monumental challenge and one that university faculty rose to meet spectacularly well. However, many components of courses that were originally designed to be taught in person could not be replicated in a remote learning context. Time for the development of contingency plans was limited, which posed additional challenges for the remainder of the semester.

Students' internet connections play a big role in their ability to participate.

At the start of the remote move, many instructors hoped to continue instruction synchronously, but this quickly became infeasible due to technological and logistical issues (e.g., internet bandwidth, student internet access, and time differences). A large number of my fellow students shared internet with other household members, who were also working remotely and were also reliant on conferencing software for meetings. The full-time job of a parent or sibling may be prioritized over a student’s lecture in limited-bandwidth situations. Worse, students in rural areas may simply not have a strong enough connection to participate in synchronous activities at all. These common realities suggest that less technologically reliant contingency plans are necessary and that course material should be made accessible in multiple formats. For example, in addition to offering a video recorded lecture, instructors could also consider providing notes for their lecture.

"These common realities suggest that less technologically reliant contingency plans are necessary and that course material should be made accessible in multiple formats."

It’s also important to design assignments carefully in online courses. For example, group projects, which can pose challenges even when courses are held in person (e.g., in terms of communication, coordination of responsibilities, and access to needed materials), can nevertheless offer students valuable opportunities for personal growth. However, these challenges only become more significant when group projects must be completed remotely. In these cases, access to secure internet and needed materials becomes critical to student success. Partnered students may be in different time zones or may even have been affected by COVID-19 in a way that hampers their ability to contribute to the project. Therefore, teachers may find it advisable to provide students with the option to complete work that would normally constitute group projects as individual assignments.

Teachers underestimate how much harder it is to focus in online courses.

When students no longer share a single learning environment, environmental diffferences can cause significant differences in their engagement. Students forced to use their home as a mixed work/academic space may encounter distractions that wouldn't be a factor in a traditional classroom. These distractions challenge students’ abilities to focus and self-regulate. The shift to remote leadning may also disrupt students’ academic routines. Experts in educational psychology and learning design and technology I spoke to for this piece argued that students’ abilities to handle this transition is partly age-dependent. Older students may not only have more familiarity with online classes, but also with the sort of self-regulation and planning that is required for academic success in the university. Thus, age and course level should be taken into consideration when devising ways to engage, challenge, and support students in remote learning contexts.

"...age and course level should be taken into consideration when devising ways to engage, challenge, and support students in remote learning contexts."

When students are new to taking classes online, explicit prompting from the instructor can be needed to replicate the missing human interactions that normally spur enagagement in the classroom. Thus, it is especially important that instructors closely monitor online learning spaces like discussion boards, looking for appropriate opportunities to chime in. An expert in learning design and technology I spoke to said that instructors should ideally be in touch with their students twice per week. They should frequently outline course expectations and maintain some availability to answer questions. This is especially true in instances where course expectations change due to the shift to online learning. This expert also noted that it is important that instructors provide timely feedback on assignments and assessments. This communicates to students where they stand in their courses and helps students adjust their study strategies as needed.

Students need opportunities to connect and collaborate.

One of the most special parts about being a student at Purdue University is being part of a single large learning community made up of a spectrum of smaller learning communities. At Purdue, students can form bonds with classmates, neighbors, and roommates with a diverse range of skills and interests. Through these friendships and connections, social networks develop, providing emotional and academic support for the many challenges that our rigorous coursework poses.

The closure of the university's physical classrooms created a barrier to the utilization and maintenance of these networks, and it is important that students still have access to one another even when at a distance. One way in which instructors can support their students in remote learning contexts is to create a student-only discussion board on their course page where students can get to know one another and connect. Students may also have questions related to course content that they may feel uncomfortable asking an instructor but that can be easily answered by a classmate.

Many students are dealing with a time change/difference.

For personal reasons, I finished the spring 2020 semester in Europe. Navigating the time difference while juggling the responsibilities of my job, which required synchronous work, and my coursework was challenging (to say the least). One of my courses had a large group project, which was a significant source of stress this past semester. My partner, like many of my instructors, did not seem to understand the significance of this time difference, which often required me to keep a schedule that made daily life in my time zone difficult. When having to make conference calls at 10:00 p.m. and respond to time-sensitive emails well after midnight, work-life balance is much more difficult to achieve. This was abundently clear to me after dealing with time difference of merely six hours. Keep in mind that some students may be dealing with even greater time differences. Thus, try to provide opportunities for asynchronous participation whenever you can.

"Navigating the time difference while juggling the responsibilities of my job, which required synchronous work, and my coursework was challenging (to say the least)"

While flexibility is necessary, academic integrity is still important.

Both teachers and students in my courses expressed discomfort and concern over issues relating to academic integrity. Some students questioned why lockdown browsers (i.e., special browsers used to prevent students from cheating during exams) were not used. According to a learning design and technology expert I spoke to, the short timeline for the transition to remote teaching and learning made the incorporation of such software infeasible. In addition this software can be incredibly expensive, and many professors do not even know that it exists (much less how to use it effectively).

However, several students I spoke with reported that, in their efforts to maintain academic integrity via exam monitoring, some of their professors mandated that students take exams synchronously. This decision disregarded the potential for technical issues and ignored the time differences many students faced, placing unfair stress on students in faraway countries and those with poor connections. Other faculty took an opposite approach by extending the window of time in which students could take exams. Receiving changing and often unclear instructions led to confusion about what students' instructors expected of them. Incorporating this software more consistently in online or remote courses may be a good way to ensure both students and teachers are familiar with it in the future.

The most difficult part of this pandemic has not been the coursework, nor the transition the remote learning, but instead the many unknowns that have faced students and teachers alike. We at Purdue are lucky that our education has been able to continue relatively unabated, and we can be grateful for that fact that most of our instructors have done their best to support us. This coming fall, nearly 500 courses will be offered as online courses, and many others will be presented in hybrid formats. With more time to prepare, courses this fall can be expected to be of higher quality and to have more student-centered contingency plans. As long as it strives for flexibility and gives consideration to students’ evolving needs, the Purdue educational experience will continue to earn its high-quality reputation.

Thank you. Boiler up!

Advertisement

Learning and Teaching Online During Covid-19: Experiences of Student Teachers in an Early Childhood Education Practicum

• Original Article
• Published: 30 July 2020
• Volume 52 , pages 145–158, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Jinyoung Kim   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4448-0862 1  

192k Accesses

245 Citations

13 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Online learning is an educational process which takes place over the Internet as a form of distance education. Distance education became ubiquitous as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020. Because of these circumstances, online teaching and learning had an indispensable role in early childhood education programs, even though debates continue on whether or not it is beneficial for young children to be exposed extensively to Information and Communication Technology (ICT). This descriptive study demonstrates how a preservice teacher education course in early childhood education was redesigned to provide student teachers with opportunities to learn and teach online. It reports experiences and reflections from a practicum course offered in the Spring Semester of 2020, in the USA. It describes three phases of the online student teachers’ experiences–Preparation, Implementation, and Reflection. Tasks accomplished in each phase are reported. Online teaching experiences provided these preservice teachers with opportunities to interact with children, as well as to encourage reflection on how best to promote young children’s development and learning with online communication tools.

L’apprentissage en ligne est un processus éducatif qui se déroule sur l’internet comme forme d’enseignement à distance. L’enseignement à distance est devenu omniprésent suite à la pandémie de COVID-19 en 2020. En raison de ces circonstances, l’enseignement et l’apprentissage en ligne ont joué un rôle indispensable dans les programmes d’éducation de la petite enfance, même si les débats se poursuivent sur les effets bénéfiques ou non d’une exposition intense des jeunes enfants aux technologies de l’information et des communications (TIC). Cette étude descriptive montre comment un cours en éducation de la petite enfance en formation initiale à l’enseignement a donné à des enseignants-étudiants des occasions d’apprendre et d’enseigner en ligne. Elle rend compte des expériences et des réflexions d’un enseignant universitaire dans le cadre d’un cours pratique offert aux États-Unis pendant la session du printemps de 2020. Elle décrit trois phases de l’expérience en ligne des enseignants-étudiants : préparation, application et réflexion. Les candidats enseignants rendent compte des tâches réalisées durant chaque phase en lien avec leur apprentissage et leur enseignement. Les expériences d’enseignement en ligne ont apporté à ces enseignants en formation initiale des occasions d’interagir en ligne avec les enfants et ont aussi favorisé une réflexion sur la meilleure façon de promouvoir le développement et l’apprentissage des jeunes enfants avec des outils de communication en ligne.

La enseñanza en línea es un proceso educativo que se lleva a cabo por Internet como forma de educación a distancia. La educación a distancia se generalizó como resultado de la pandemia COVID-19 en el 2020. Como resultado, la educación en línea asumió un papel indispensable en programas de educación preescolar, a pesar de que sus beneficios continúan siendo materia de discusión y no existe consenso en el beneficio de exponer a niños pequeños a tecnologías de comunicación e información. El presente estudio descriptivo demostró cómo un curso de educación a docentes antes de la práctica en educación preescolar brindó oportunidades a los estudiantes de educación para aprender y enseñar en línea. Este estudio muestra las experiencias y reflexiones de un profesor académico en un curso de práctica ofrecido en el Semestre de Primavera del 2020 en los Estados Unidos. Describe tres fases de las experiencias en línea de estudiantes de educación: Preparación, Implementación y Reflexión. Los estudiantes de educación informaron sobre las tareas de aprendizaje y enseñanza logradas en cada fase. Las experiencias de enseñanza en línea brindaron a estos maestros en práctica, oportunidades para interactuar con los niños y así mismo motivaron la reflexión sobre la mejor forma de promover el desarrollo y aprendizaje de niños pequeños por medio del uso de herramientas de comunicación en línea.

Similar content being viewed by others

Education and the COVID-19 pandemic

Sir John Daniel

The COVID-19 pandemic and E-learning: challenges and opportunities from the perspective of students and instructors

Abdelsalam M. Maatuk, Ebitisam K. Elberkawi, … Hadeel Alharbi

Investigating blended learning interactions in Philippine schools through the community of inquiry framework

Juliet Aleta R. Villanueva, Petrea Redmond, … Douglas Eacersall

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

A teaching practicum provides student teachers with authentic and hands-on experience for teaching in classrooms. In early childhood education, practicums provide student teachers with opportunities to apply their knowledge about children’s development as well as about curriculum content. It supports the development of teaching skills to be effective early childhood teachers (Johnson et al. 2017 ; NAEYC 2009 ), including dealing with various challenges which influence teaching efficacy in practice (Johnson et al. 2017 ). A number of teaching practicums are usually required to be completed in course accreditation of early childhood teacher education programs. For example, New York State Education Department requires college-supervised, student teaching experiences in different early childhood settings-Pre/Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and primary grades. Footnote 1

In March of 2020, however, most states in the USA had to close all schools due to coronavirus (COVID-19). College classes moved online and remained closed for the rest of the academic year. Student teachers in practicum courses also had to discontinue teaching in schools. As an alternative to student teaching, it was suggested that student teachers should observe videos of early childhood classrooms and present lessons to their colleagues online. As an instructor and supervisor of a practicum course, I considered the possibilities for the student teachers to teach children online. The student teachers would learn more from teaching and interacting directly with children. In a short period of time, I had to redesign and arrange an online teaching schedule so that my students could meet with me as the supervisor and also to teach children online, in order to meet practicum requirements.

This descriptive study discusses how online teaching with my students was completed in the practicum class, while also addressing the following questions:

What should be done at different phases of an online student teaching course for early childhood student teachers to teach children online?

What kinds of support are needed for online student teaching in early childhood education?

What are the limitations and possibilities for online student teaching in practicums for early childhood education?

Online Learning and Distance Education

Online learning is an educational process which takes place over the Internet. It is a form of distance education to provide learning experiences for students, both children and adults, to access education from remote locations or who, for various reasons, cannot attend a school, vocational college, or university. Distance education addresses issues related to geographical distance but also for many other reasons which prevent in-person attendance at classes (Hrastinski 2008 ; Moore et al. 2011 ; Singh and Thurman 2019 ; Watts 2016 ; Yilmaz 2019 ).

Online learning experiences through distance education can be either asynchronous or synchronous (Table  1 ). Asynchronous learning occurs when students can choose their own time for participation in learning through different media tools such as e-mail or discussion boards. Students can log-into communicate and complete activities at times of their own choosing and learn at their own pace. In contrast, synchronous learning activities occur through live video and/or audio conferencing with immediate feedback (Hrastinski 2008 ).

Benefits & Limitations of Online Learning

Whether it is asynchronous or synchronous, online learning has several advantages: For instance, it does not depend on being in the same physical location and can thus increase participation rates. In addition, it can be cost-effective because online learning reduces travel and other costs required to attend in-person classes and also may provide learning opportunities for adult students while also engaged in full-time or part-time jobs (Fedynich 2014 ; Yilmaz 2019 ). Moreover, online learning can be a convenient means for communication among participants as well as instructors because participants do not have to meet in person.

Limitations of online learning can vary depending on the instructors’ or students’ technological abilities to access online sites and use computers. These limitations are more evident for young children or school-age students who may not have online access or who have had limited experience with online learning tools, such as computers (Fedynich 2014 ; Wedenoja 2020 ). An additional limitation to consider is that young children’s online learning, as well as online access, requires adult supervision and, therefore, adult availability and involvement also (Schroeder and Kelley 2010 ; Youn et al. 2012 ). Moreover, online learning may not give sufficient or appropriate opportunities to involve young children who need more interactions and hands-on activities to focus and learn compared to adult learners.

The need to take account of children’s developmental levels is necessary, as well as to find online learning tools, which are appropriate and which can promote children’s participation and learning. Many video communication platforms are convenient tools for children’s online learning. Such platforms allow for real-time class meetings and conversations similar to those that take place in face-to-face classes, even though it still does not provide exactly the same social experiences as face-to-face interactions. Young children may not have the technology skills necessary for online learning tasks, such as typing responses into a chat screen or sharing files with written information. However, the different functions and tools of many video communication platforms can benefit children’s learning when teachers use them appropriately. For example, the ‘share screen’ function allows participants to present pictures, video clips, or use other visual/audio presentations from a computer. Whiteboards can be pulled up by a teacher to draw or write, while at the same time, explaining ideas and interacting with children online.

Children’s Online Learning and Teaching in Early Childhood Education

There are researchers and educators who believe that the use of Information Communications Technology (ICT) in preschool education is necessary and that it can support both the teachers’ and children’s development. However, others have pointed out that technology can also come with risks and limitations (McPake et al. 2013 ; Plowman et al. 2011 ). Despite these controversies, the numbers of young children who are now using online tools is increasing rapidly due to touchscreen technologies and Internet accessibility. ICT in contemporary education offers also potential to provide creative and communicative activities for children. Therefore, it is important to draw educators’ attention to these issues about how to provide safe and healthy online environments which are appropriate for children, to develop their thinking skills and understanding of technologies for learning in the 21st century (Edwards et al. 2018 ; Manches and Plowman 2017 ; McPake et al. 2013 ).

The quality of children’s online experiences can differ depending on the support provided, as described in a sociocultural framework. Children can learn the benefits from observing a diverse range of technologies. Guided interactions can support children to acquire knowledge and skills, and develop positive dispositions about distance education. How teachers enhance children’s encounters with technologies through guided interactions is a key consideration to support children’s engagement with online learning (NAEYC 2012 ; Plowman and McPake 2013 ; Stephen and Plowman 2008 ).

Early childhood teachers’ efficacy in using technology is another issue in the effectiveness of distance education. The attitudes and skills of early childhood teachers in the use of technology also affect children’s motivation and learning. Early childhood teachers often use technologies in their teaching, but usually as teaching tools to show pictures or videos. They need to take on additional roles if they are to teach online (Kalogiannakis 2010 ). Teachers might find that the use of technology is difficult (Konca et al. 2016 ; Lindahl and Folkesson 2012 ; Yurt and Cevher-Kalburan 2011 ). Early childhood teachers’ difficulties in using ICT may come from the gap between e courses they took in their educational programs and the level of ICT now in use that they are expected to use in practice (Kalogiannakis 2010 ; Wetzel et al. 2004 ). Therefore, well-designed courses can increase teachers’ motivation and their use of new technology (Chen and Chang 2006 ; Kerry and Farrow 1996 ).

In teacher education courses, the opportunities to learn how to effectively teach young children through online programs have not been an important consideration. However, because of COVID-19, then it may well mean that much more consideration needs to be given to designing appropriate approaches and practices. The traditional delivery of teacher education programs in classrooms may need to be considered with new ways, new skills and knowledge that early childhood teachers may need in the future in order to teach online.

Delivering Student Teaching Online

The following sections describe the different phases of planning, implementation, and reflection in redesigning the process for the practicum for the student teachers. Many problem-solving skills are required for any teacher educators, whether they are teaching online or in face-to-face classes. With no other option but to offer courses online due to recent school closures in the USA as a result of COVID-19, I decided to take a new path and design an online course for the student practicum which I was required to teach in 2020.

Phase 1: Planning

Learning to teach online When the college took a pause for a week in March of 2020 to move classes to distance education for the rest of the semester, I spent most of that time trying out different online tools, mostly video communication technology such as Zoom, Google hangout, and Blackboard Collaborate. I had used these different technologies in my classes but needed to think about these technologies in new ways to teach online in order to implement new ideas that my students could use when interacting with young children online.

There was no major difference in terms of content knowledge. My main subject area is music education. However, I also added other information about online teaching and distance education to the existing content. Ways to deliver the online content had to be considered. I incorporated both asynchronous and synchronous approaches to teaching. Asynchronous classes were designed for discussion boards so that students could post their reflections on the topic of the week and respond to others’ postings. Synchronous sessions were created, as scheduled classes, so that contents could be delivered while we interacted with each other online. A few days before the classes resumed, I sent the students an e-mail with information about the online meetings.

Preparing student teachers for online teaching Immediately after the planning break, the class met using a video communication tool. It took a while until everyone was able to join with enabled audio and video. The first online class began with an introduction to online communication tools. Student teachers got an opportunity to practice different functions of the tools, such as sharing screens from their computers, drawing on a whiteboard, and typing on a chat screen. This first class went better than expected, relieving the students of their concerns and frustrations.

While teaching online, I tried to use various tools: whiteboard for drawing, screen share to present course materials using software programs I had on my computer. My use of online tools gave the students opportunities to reflect on what was efficient and what should be considered by observing my different ways of teaching online. I also tried to make class activities more hands-on. For example, I asked them to bring a household object that could make a sound and download a virtual instrument to be played for an online music session.

While the students became skilled and adapted to new situations, I also needed to recruit child and family participants in order for the student teachers to have opportunities to teach children online, in order to fulfill the course requirements for a practicum. Each student teacher needed to have the opportunity to teach young children in, at least, one online class.

I recruited a number of Pre/Kindergarten and Kindergarten children, aged 4 and 5 years, by posting on a Social Networking Service (SNS). I was able to recruit enough number of volunteers from different US states within 2 weeks. After receiving applications, I e-mailed the parents of the children to inform them of what would be done in a virtual class and collected consents to video recording. Subsequently, I had an online interview session with each family to check out their accessibility and usage with the video communication tool. I also had an informal conversation with each individual child to get some ideas about each child’s developmental characteristics such as attention level, ability to speak, and so forth. Every conversation with a child was video-recorded and presented to the students in the next online class. Class discussion included what they found out about each individual child from the online interviews and how they could make online teaching effective, motivate children, while taking account of individual differences, and providing appropriate materials.

Phase 2: Implementing

Communication Based on my trials of online teaching and class discussion, we decided to have four children for each student teacher’s online class session so that each student could interact with each child efficiently and also see all the children clearly while sharing the screen in the visual presentation. It was also discussed that each student’s online class session would involve their peers, not as participants, but as observers to provide wider experience for each student about how to deliver online teaching by observing each other. This would provide important experiences for students to understand how each person’s approach might differ and how different children’s participation could also differ, including to assess the nature of children’s level of engagement, interest, and learning, and what could be understood about children from these observations.

Good communication was the key to better online teaching. In preparing lessons, student teachers communicated with each other as well as with me. The drafts of their lesson plans were sent by e-mail, and I provided electronic feedback. Virtual office hours also helped when student teachers had questions or materials to show and wanted face-to-face discussion. The students also communicated with each other. For example, one student met her colleague virtually to practice her teaching, checking to see if the sounds or visual materials were appropriately delivered online.

Emails were sent to the parents every week to confirm the date and time of the online class. If needed, parents were asked to gather materials for the online class. For example, parents might ensure that there was a box or a container available for the online class so that children could bang on it to make sounds during the lesson. Handouts were attached to the email so that parents could print information out and be ready for the class, as well as to understand the activities and goals for the online lesson.

Teaching and supervision Before and after each student’s lesson, time was spent in rehearsal and debriefing: Before the online session, time was spent to check that the teaching materials and sounds were working fine and that the student teacher would be able to see all the families when sharing the screen. The video communication tool was set up with a waiting room so that children would wait until they were invited into the ‘main room’ when the student teacher was ready for the virtual class. Before inviting each child into the ‘main room’, all the student teachers except the one who would teach muted their video and audio so that children could only see one teacher and the other three children. As the supervisor, I also muted myself except at the beginning of the first teaching day when I introduced the student teacher to the children in the class, because I had already met each child and it was, therefore, respectful to the children to introduce their ‘new’ teacher.

Each teaching session lasted about 30 min, in consideration of preschool children’s attention span. The student teachers taught their lessons using different online tools. However, children didn’t use other functions of video communication such as muting/unmuting, chatting, going into break out rooms. While observing, other student teachers could also use the chat function if they needed to communicate with each other.

Phase 3: Reflecting

Reflection on children’s learning At the end of each lesson, the student teacher asked the children what they learned. The children were also asked about their favorite parts of the lesson. This procedure was designed to informally assess children’s learning to see what children remembered and how they felt about the lesson. At the same time, it was a signal to indicate the end of the lesson so that parents could help the children to log out. Each lesson was video-recorded and sent to the student teacher after the class so that she could write a self-reflection after reviewing her own teaching.

A debriefing session with the larger class was also carried out after each student’s teaching session. Student teachers unmuted and joined together in the main online room. Since they all had observed the same online teaching session, at the same time, students were able to share their reflections on these shared episodes because they had been able to observe the teaching as well as each child’s behavior, facial expression, and answers on screen. Each student who had taught shared their reflections of their experience and how it might have been done better. Other student teachers also shared ideas and suggestions for future teaching sessions.

Reflection on distance learning At the end of the semester, the students had opportunities to reflect on their overall experiences of distance education. This was done through two different formats—an online group discussion and an individually written reflection. Student teachers reflected on the benefits and limitations of online teaching and learning, based on their overall experiences. They discussed how they could improve if they were to teach online again in the future.

Discussion and Implications

We are living in a rapidly changing world where we need critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity to solve problems and live together. Educators are expected to prepare their students so that they can accommodate any challenges when they face unexpected circumstances (Kim 2017 ). This year, a ‘small’ virus brought drastic changes to educational settings. Frustrations emerged from uncertainty about what and how to deal with the circumstances that educators or student teachers had not experienced before. However, whether it is online or in person, teacher educators are required to find appropriate and efficient ways to help develop the skills of their students for problem-solving.

Drawing on the Best of Alternatives

Unexpected events and circumstances often bring frustration and problem-solving capacities are needed to evaluate alternative courses for actions. Generating alternatives are the means to modify the original plan in the best ways possible, but these ways may also become the better ways of doing things. After the semester was over, a reflection from a student teacher about her experiences included:

“I remember the first Zoom class we had. After that, I did sit down and take breather, cause I was like ‘Wow, this is gonna be a long semester, long learning.’ It was just a hard lesson online. But as the weeks passed, we got more familiar with Zoom and other features. I feel a lot more comfortable. And I feel like ways of online learning make you become more creative with your lessons, like the online images teach you in ways you wouldn’t have considered if you’re in the classroom. So, I think it is very beneficial that we’ve learned all of this now.”

One of the benefits of distance education is that it’s not limited by the learner’s location (Fedynich 2014 ). In fact, the children recruited for the online classes were from different states, from New York to California. This implies that distance education can be offered not only for the students who cannot come to educational sites but also to student teachers who need experience to engage children from various backgrounds, and not be bound by their locations.

Online communication is a major advancement for distance education, at this point in time, and the types of information and knowledge that can be conveyed. Student teachers didn’t have to travel and wait to meet with me during office hours. They sent lesson plans and got feedback through e-mail in a timely manner. Moreover, when further discussion or conversation was needed, a virtual meeting could be arranged using video communication technology. When they had questions, the student teachers were able to share their visual materials to be reviewed, shown in front of the web camera or using online presentation programs. Online communications with parents were also very efficient because information about the class with attached handouts was delivered electronically within a day. It also provided a means to involve the parents in their children’s online learning experiences.

Online teaching gave student teachers opportunities to learn not only through their direct teaching experience but also by observing others’ teaching. When a student only teaches children in a classroom setting, only the supervisor can observe the lesson and debrief with an individual candidate. However, in an online class, other ‘muted’ peers were able to observe the class as if they were in a laboratory with one-way mirror. In addition to observation, student teachers were able to learn from each other by giving feedback and sharing ideas during debriefing sessions.

Overcoming Limitations: Supporting Environments for Online Learning

A limitation of online teaching often comes from teachers’ limited experience or skills for using ICT. Teacher preparation programs need to focus more extensively on the development of skills for teaching with technology. As an instructor and supervisor in a teacher education program, it was my role to find ways and provide the environment in which my students could learn and teach online. At the same time, the students had to find effective ways to interact with, and teach children online, just as they would do in a classroom. For example, one reflective comment from a student teacher was:

“For me, it has been difficult to adjust because my technical skills are not well developed yet. Besides that, I had very little exposure to taking classes online. Fortunately, my professor developed a well - designed instructional method. This method made us continue our learning in an effective and productive way. Despite the struggles that I had while teaching the lessons online, I can say that I have learned more than I could ever have imagined. For many of the students this semester might have been the worst of all, but for me, I see it as a semester that took me out of my comfort zone. And when you are out of your comfort zone you can learn and experience imaginable things.”

Learning subject content is a major purpose for online teaching (Yildiz and İşman 2016 ). However, the student teachers in this class experienced feelings of success in learning about the processes of online teaching and this had to do with their confidence in utilizing technology and managing a group of children ‘properly’ online. Even though it was not included in the original syllabus for this subject, in the modified plan delivered to students, they had opportunities to learn about the different communication tools that they could use when teaching online.

While minimizing the limitations of not being able to meet in classrooms, we tried to maximize the benefits of online teaching and learning. Student teachers still need to develop their presentation skills though the online tools, as these skills are somewhat different from those needed to teach in a classroom. For example, student teachers presented visual materials on the screen more attractively through drawing on the whiteboard or showing picture stories on a PowerPoint. Whether a class is offered online or offline, the skills to be a good teacher remain the same. It involves interacting with children, building rapport, keeping their attention, encouraging, listening and questioning.

My original ideas to supervise my students online brought up a series of questions, including if it could be done efficiently. The approach presented in this paper made it possible to fill a gap so that students’ uncertainties about teaching online could be minimized. For example, student teachers were able to observe children online through watching my informal interviews with children. This helped the student teachers with their planning and preparation of their activities for the children. It also was not easy to provide hands-on activities because children could not touch the materials that the student teachers were showing online. Still, the student teachers always added activities for the children such as drawing, making things, or singing, to their lessons. Overall, the children showed a high degree of concentration in the tasks presented and always mentioned the hands-on activities as their favorite part of the lessons. Parents’ support was crucial for distance education not only because children needed help with technology but also the student teachers needed parents’ help in preparing materials in order to include more hands-on activities within the lessons. I also needed to stay in close contact with the parents so that I could ask for their help, in preparing materials or printing out a worksheet each week.

Future Delivery of Online Classes with Young Children

It was an unusual semester and there were trials and errors in the process of transitioning the practicum course to online delivery. If we cannot go back to where we were before COVID-19, our current situation may become a new normal, we should find new ways to improve distance education and online learning and its applications to early childhood education.

The ratio between a teacher and the number of children will be critical in distance education. Synchronous online teaching limits the number of children for several reasons: (a) only one person can speak because an audio communication tool allows us to hear participants’ voices only one at a time; (b) a teacher can view only a limited number of children when sharing a screen to present visual materials; (c) young children cannot be separated online for group work or ‘turn and talk’ because they cannot control the online features for themselves and a teacher cannot supervise different groups in breakout rooms at the same time. Therefore, synchronous online teaching will work better with a small number of the children so that each child has enough opportunity to share and interact. Online teaching in this study worked very well with four children, aged 4–5 years, but it could also be possible with six to eight children, as long as the teacher can manage the processes to engage this number effectively.

When teaching online, it is be an additional task for student teachers to reflect on children’s individual differences, as well as their developmental levels. Once children are logged in, the student teachers need to manage each child’s different needs, consider their learning styles, personality, and interests. However, online teaching does limit the number of interactions that are possible with children, so student teachers have to maximize the value of their communications and language with each child and build a comfortable social environment to encourage all children’s participation. A reflection from a student teacher captures this process:

A child was very shy… but I explained to him that he does not have to participate but just listen if he doesn’t want to say anything and I tried to encourage him to participate whenever he was ready to do so. He was able to feel more comfortable by the end of the lesson and was participating more frequently which made me really happy.”

Play and hands-on activities are important in young children’s learning, but they are not easy to do online. The student teachers tried to include hands-on activities children, such as singing and dancing, cutting from a handout and creating a pattern, drawing pictures about a topic, and making an instrument with recycled materials. There was difficulty in singing together because of the sound delay between the teacher and the children when delivered online. The children still loved the singing and playing, and these activities were their favorite parts of the online classes. It is necessary to think creatively about how to design developmentally appropriate practices in which children can engage in a range of hands-on activities online.

Children learn best through play and concentrate when they can be active through hands-on activities. We may not be able to go back to teaching and learning in the same ways as we did before COVID-19 or to provide the same types of environments and activities as we can implement in a classroom. Therefore, it is critical to think ahead so that we can plan and consider limitations that we may face in the future. It is necessary to provide student teachers with opportunities and skills for such online teaching, including interacting with children through this medium, and also have students reflect about how best to promote development and learning using online communication tools.

Online teaching requires various tasks to be accomplished in the different phases of planning, implementation, and reflection. Critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication are always required no matter whether the class is taught online or offline. Student teachers’ experiences for efficient online teaching and learning can be supported by appropriate instructional strategies in college courses for teacher education, as well as through online collaborations with schools and families.

http://www.nysed.gov/college-university-evaluation/general-and-program-specific-requirements-early-childhood-education

Chen, J., & Chang, C. (2006). Using computers in early childhood classrooms: Teachers’ attitudes, skills and practices. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4 (2), 169–188.

Article   Google Scholar  

Edwards, S., Mantilla, A., Henderson, M., Nolan, A., Skouteris, H., & Plowman, L. (2018). Teacher practices for building young children’s concepts of the internet through play-based learning. Educational Practice and Theory, 40 (1), 29–50.

Fedynich, L. V. (2014). Teaching beyond the classroom walls: The pros and cons of cyber learning. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 13, 1. https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/131701.pdf .

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 4. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2008/11/asynchronous-and-synchronouselearning .

Johnson, A. V., La Paro, J., & Crosby, D. A. (2017). Early practicum experiences: Preservice early childhood students’ perceptions and sense of efficacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45, 229–236.

Google Scholar  

Kalogiannakis, M. (2010). Training with ICT for ICT from the trainer’s perspective. A local ICT teacher training experience. Education and Information Technologies, 15 (1), 3–17.

Kerry, T., & Farrow, J. (1996). Changes in initial teacher training: Students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of school-based mentoring over time. Educational Studies, 22, 99–110.

Kim, J. (2017). Transforming music education for the next generation: Planting ‘Four Cs’ through children’s song. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49 (2), 181–193.

Konca, A. S., Ozel, E., & Zelyurt, H. (2016). Attitudes of preschool teachers towards using information and communication technologies (ICT). International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 2 (1), 10–15.

Lindahl, M. G., & Folkesson, A. M. (2012). ICT in preschool: Friend or foe? The significance of norms in a changing practice. International Journal of Early Years Education, 20 (4), 422–436.

Manches, A., & Plowman, L. (2017). Computing education in children’s early years: A call for debate. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48 (1), 191–201.

McPake, J., Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2013). Preschool children creating and communicating with digital technologies in the home. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44 (3), 421–431.

Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14 (2), 129–135.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2009). NAEYC standards for early childhood professional preparation, position statement. https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/ProfPrepStandards09.pdf .

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2012). Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8 . Washington DC. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/topics/PS_technology_WEB.pdf

Plowman, L., & McPake, J. (2013). Seven myths about young children and technology. Childhood Education, 89 (1), 27–33.

Plowman, L., Stevenson, O., McPake, J., Stephen, C., & Adey, C. (2011). Parents, preschoolers and learning with technology at home: some implications for policy. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 27, 361–371.

Schroeder, V. M., & Kelley, M. L. (2010). Family environment and parent-child relationships as related to executive functioning in children. Early Child Development and Care, 180 (1), 1285–1298.

Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988–2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33 (4), 289–306.

Stephen, C., & Plowman, L. (2008). Enhancing learning with information and communication technologies in pre-school. Early Child Development and Care, 178 (6), 637–654.

Watts, L. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17 (1), 23–32.

Wedenoja, L. (2020). What to expect when you weren’t expecting online classes . Rockefeller Institute of Government . https://rockinst.org/blog/what-to-expect-when-you-werent-expecting-online-classes/

Wetzel, K., Wilhelm, L., & Williams, M. K. (2004). The introductory technology course: A tool for technology integration. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3, 453–465.

Yildiz, E. P., & İşman, A. (2016). Quality content in distance education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4 (12), 2857–2862.

Yilmaz, A. B. (2019). Distance and face-to-face students’ perceptions towards distance education: A comparative metaphorical study. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 20 (1), 1302–6488. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1201959.pdf .

Youn, M. H., Leon, J., & Lee, K. J. (2012). The influence of maternal employment on children’s learning growth and the role of parental involvement. Early Childhood Development and Care, 182 (9), 1227–1246.

Yurt, Ö., & Cevher-Kalburan, N. (2011). Early childhood teachers’ thoughts and practices about the use of computers in early childhood education. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1562–1570.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, College of Staten Island, The City University of New York, 2800 Victory Boulevard, Staten Island, NY, 10314, USA

Jinyoung Kim

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinyoung Kim .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kim, J. Learning and Teaching Online During Covid-19: Experiences of Student Teachers in an Early Childhood Education Practicum. IJEC 52 , 145–158 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-020-00272-6

Download citation

Published : 30 July 2020

Issue Date : August 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-020-00272-6

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

• Distance education
• Online learning
• Early childhood education
• Preservice teacher education
• Student teachers
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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
• Published: 25 January 2021

Online education in the post-COVID era

• Barbara B. Lockee 1  

Nature Electronics volume  4 ,  pages 5–6 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

137k Accesses

199 Citations

337 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

The coronavirus pandemic has forced students and educators across all levels of education to rapidly adapt to online learning. The impact of this — and the developments required to make it work — could permanently change how education is delivered.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the world to engage in the ubiquitous use of virtual learning. And while online and distance learning has been used before to maintain continuity in education, such as in the aftermath of earthquakes 1 , the scale of the current crisis is unprecedented. Speculation has now also begun about what the lasting effects of this will be and what education may look like in the post-COVID era. For some, an immediate retreat to the traditions of the physical classroom is required. But for others, the forced shift to online education is a moment of change and a time to reimagine how education could be delivered 2 .

Looking back

Online education has traditionally been viewed as an alternative pathway, one that is particularly well suited to adult learners seeking higher education opportunities. However, the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has required educators and students across all levels of education to adapt quickly to virtual courses. (The term ‘emergency remote teaching’ was coined in the early stages of the pandemic to describe the temporary nature of this transition 3 .) In some cases, instruction shifted online, then returned to the physical classroom, and then shifted back online due to further surges in the rate of infection. In other cases, instruction was offered using a combination of remote delivery and face-to-face: that is, students can attend online or in person (referred to as the HyFlex model 4 ). In either case, instructors just had to figure out how to make it work, considering the affordances and constraints of the specific learning environment to create learning experiences that were feasible and effective.

The use of varied delivery modes does, in fact, have a long history in education. Mechanical (and then later electronic) teaching machines have provided individualized learning programmes since the 1950s and the work of B. F. Skinner 5 , who proposed using technology to walk individual learners through carefully designed sequences of instruction with immediate feedback indicating the accuracy of their response. Skinner’s notions formed the first formalized representations of programmed learning, or ‘designed’ learning experiences. Then, in the 1960s, Fred Keller developed a personalized system of instruction 6 , in which students first read assigned course materials on their own, followed by one-on-one assessment sessions with a tutor, gaining permission to move ahead only after demonstrating mastery of the instructional material. Occasional class meetings were held to discuss concepts, answer questions and provide opportunities for social interaction. A personalized system of instruction was designed on the premise that initial engagement with content could be done independently, then discussed and applied in the social context of a classroom.

These predecessors to contemporary online education leveraged key principles of instructional design — the systematic process of applying psychological principles of human learning to the creation of effective instructional solutions — to consider which methods (and their corresponding learning environments) would effectively engage students to attain the targeted learning outcomes. In other words, they considered what choices about the planning and implementation of the learning experience can lead to student success. Such early educational innovations laid the groundwork for contemporary virtual learning, which itself incorporates a variety of instructional approaches and combinations of delivery modes.

Online learning and the pandemic

Fast forward to 2020, and various further educational innovations have occurred to make the universal adoption of remote learning a possibility. One key challenge is access. Here, extensive problems remain, including the lack of Internet connectivity in some locations, especially rural ones, and the competing needs among family members for the use of home technology. However, creative solutions have emerged to provide students and families with the facilities and resources needed to engage in and successfully complete coursework 7 . For example, school buses have been used to provide mobile hotspots, and class packets have been sent by mail and instructional presentations aired on local public broadcasting stations. The year 2020 has also seen increased availability and adoption of electronic resources and activities that can now be integrated into online learning experiences. Synchronous online conferencing systems, such as Zoom and Google Meet, have allowed experts from anywhere in the world to join online classrooms 8 and have allowed presentations to be recorded for individual learners to watch at a time most convenient for them. Furthermore, the importance of hands-on, experiential learning has led to innovations such as virtual field trips and virtual labs 9 . A capacity to serve learners of all ages has thus now been effectively established, and the next generation of online education can move from an enterprise that largely serves adult learners and higher education to one that increasingly serves younger learners, in primary and secondary education and from ages 5 to 18.

The COVID-19 pandemic is also likely to have a lasting effect on lesson design. The constraints of the pandemic provided an opportunity for educators to consider new strategies to teach targeted concepts. Though rethinking of instructional approaches was forced and hurried, the experience has served as a rare chance to reconsider strategies that best facilitate learning within the affordances and constraints of the online context. In particular, greater variance in teaching and learning activities will continue to question the importance of ‘seat time’ as the standard on which educational credits are based 10 — lengthy Zoom sessions are seldom instructionally necessary and are not aligned with the psychological principles of how humans learn. Interaction is important for learning but forced interactions among students for the sake of interaction is neither motivating nor beneficial.

While the blurring of the lines between traditional and distance education has been noted for several decades 11 , the pandemic has quickly advanced the erasure of these boundaries. Less single mode, more multi-mode (and thus more educator choices) is becoming the norm due to enhanced infrastructure and developed skill sets that allow people to move across different delivery systems 12 . The well-established best practices of hybrid or blended teaching and learning 13 have served as a guide for new combinations of instructional delivery that have developed in response to the shift to virtual learning. The use of multiple delivery modes is likely to remain, and will be a feature employed with learners of all ages 14 , 15 . Future iterations of online education will no longer be bound to the traditions of single teaching modes, as educators can support pedagogical approaches from a menu of instructional delivery options, a mix that has been supported by previous generations of online educators 16 .

Also significant are the changes to how learning outcomes are determined in online settings. Many educators have altered the ways in which student achievement is measured, eliminating assignments and changing assessment strategies altogether 17 . Such alterations include determining learning through strategies that leverage the online delivery mode, such as interactive discussions, student-led teaching and the use of games to increase motivation and attention. Specific changes that are likely to continue include flexible or extended deadlines for assignment completion 18 , more student choice regarding measures of learning, and more authentic experiences that involve the meaningful application of newly learned skills and knowledge 19 , for example, team-based projects that involve multiple creative and social media tools in support of collaborative problem solving.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, technological and administrative systems for implementing online learning, and the infrastructure that supports its access and delivery, had to adapt quickly. While access remains a significant issue for many, extensive resources have been allocated and processes developed to connect learners with course activities and materials, to facilitate communication between instructors and students, and to manage the administration of online learning. Paths for greater access and opportunities to online education have now been forged, and there is a clear route for the next generation of adopters of online education.

Before the pandemic, the primary purpose of distance and online education was providing access to instruction for those otherwise unable to participate in a traditional, place-based academic programme. As its purpose has shifted to supporting continuity of instruction, its audience, as well as the wider learning ecosystem, has changed. It will be interesting to see which aspects of emergency remote teaching remain in the next generation of education, when the threat of COVID-19 is no longer a factor. But online education will undoubtedly find new audiences. And the flexibility and learning possibilities that have emerged from necessity are likely to shift the expectations of students and educators, diminishing further the line between classroom-based instruction and virtual learning.

Mackey, J., Gilmore, F., Dabner, N., Breeze, D. & Buckley, P. J. Online Learn. Teach. 8 , 35–48 (2012).

Google Scholar  

Sands, T. & Shushok, F. The COVID-19 higher education shove. Educause Review https://go.nature.com/3o2vHbX (16 October 2020).

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. & Bond, M. A. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review https://go.nature.com/38084Lh (27 March 2020).

Beatty, B. J. (ed.) Hybrid-Flexible Course Design Ch. 1.4 https://go.nature.com/3o6Sjb2 (EdTech Books, 2019).

Skinner, B. F. Science 128 , 969–977 (1958).

Article   Google Scholar  

Keller, F. S. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 1 , 79–89 (1968).

Darling-Hammond, L. et al. Restarting and Reinventing School: Learning in the Time of COVID and Beyond (Learning Policy Institute, 2020).

Fulton, C. Information Learn. Sci . 121 , 579–585 (2020).

Pennisi, E. Science 369 , 239–240 (2020).

Silva, E. & White, T. Change The Magazine Higher Learn. 47 , 68–72 (2015).

McIsaac, M. S. & Gunawardena, C. N. in Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (ed. Jonassen, D. H.) Ch. 13 (Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1996).

Irvine, V. The landscape of merging modalities. Educause Review https://go.nature.com/2MjiBc9 (26 October 2020).

Stein, J. & Graham, C. Essentials for Blended Learning Ch. 1 (Routledge, 2020).

Maloy, R. W., Trust, T. & Edwards, S. A. Variety is the spice of remote learning. Medium https://go.nature.com/34Y1NxI (24 August 2020).

Lockee, B. J. Appl. Instructional Des . https://go.nature.com/3b0ddoC (2020).

Dunlap, J. & Lowenthal, P. Open Praxis 10 , 79–89 (2018).

Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G. & Seaman, J. Online Learn. 24 , 6–21 (2020).

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M. & Garrison, D. R. Assessment in Teaching in Blended Learning Environments: Creating and Sustaining Communities of Inquiry (Athabasca Univ. Press, 2013).

Conrad, D. & Openo, J. Assessment Strategies for Online Learning: Engagement and Authenticity (Athabasca Univ. Press, 2018).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

Barbara B. Lockee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara B. Lockee .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lockee, B.B. Online education in the post-COVID era. Nat Electron 4 , 5–6 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-00534-0

Download citation

Published : 25 January 2021

Issue Date : January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-00534-0

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

This article is cited by

A comparative study on the effectiveness of online and in-class team-based learning on student performance and perceptions in virtual simulation experiments.

BMC Medical Education (2024)

Leveraging privacy profiles to empower users in the digital society

• Davide Di Ruscio
• Paola Inverardi
• Phuong T. Nguyen

Automated Software Engineering (2024)

Growth mindset and social comparison effects in a peer virtual learning environment

• Pamela Sheffler
• Cecilia S. Cheung

Social Psychology of Education (2024)

Nursing students’ learning flow, self-efficacy and satisfaction in virtual clinical simulation and clinical case seminar

• Sunghee H. Tak

BMC Nursing (2023)

Online learning for WHO priority diseases with pandemic potential: evidence from existing courses and preparing for Disease X

• Heini Utunen
• Corentin Piroux

Archives of Public Health (2023)

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Student Opinion

Is Online Learning Effective?

A new report found that the heavy dependence on technology during the pandemic caused “staggering” education inequality. What was your experience?

By Natalie Proulx

During the coronavirus pandemic, many schools moved classes online. Was your school one of them? If so, what was it like to attend school online? Did you enjoy it? Did it work for you?

In “ Dependence on Tech Caused ‘Staggering’ Education Inequality, U.N. Agency Says ,” Natasha Singer writes:

In early 2020, as the coronavirus spread, schools around the world abruptly halted in-person education. To many governments and parents, moving classes online seemed the obvious stopgap solution. In the United States, school districts scrambled to secure digital devices for students. Almost overnight, videoconferencing software like Zoom became the main platform teachers used to deliver real-time instruction to students at home. Now a report from UNESCO , the United Nations’ educational and cultural organization, says that overreliance on remote learning technology during the pandemic led to “staggering” education inequality around the world. It was, according to a 655-page report that UNESCO released on Wednesday, a worldwide “ed-tech tragedy.” The report, from UNESCO’s Future of Education division, is likely to add fuel to the debate over how governments and local school districts handled pandemic restrictions, and whether it would have been better for some countries to reopen schools for in-person instruction sooner. The UNESCO researchers argued in the report that “unprecedented” dependence on technology — intended to ensure that children could continue their schooling — worsened disparities and learning loss for hundreds of millions of students around the world, including in Kenya, Brazil, Britain and the United States. The promotion of remote online learning as the primary solution for pandemic schooling also hindered public discussion of more equitable, lower-tech alternatives, such as regularly providing schoolwork packets for every student, delivering school lessons by radio or television — and reopening schools sooner for in-person classes, the researchers said. “Available evidence strongly indicates that the bright spots of the ed-tech experiences during the pandemic, while important and deserving of attention, were vastly eclipsed by failure,” the UNESCO report said. The UNESCO researchers recommended that education officials prioritize in-person instruction with teachers, not online platforms, as the primary driver of student learning. And they encouraged schools to ensure that emerging technologies like A.I. chatbots concretely benefited students before introducing them for educational use. Education and industry experts welcomed the report, saying more research on the effects of pandemic learning was needed. “The report’s conclusion — that societies must be vigilant about the ways digital tools are reshaping education — is incredibly important,” said Paul Lekas, the head of global public policy for the Software & Information Industry Association, a group whose members include Amazon, Apple and Google. “There are lots of lessons that can be learned from how digital education occurred during the pandemic and ways in which to lessen the digital divide. ” Jean-Claude Brizard, the chief executive of Digital Promise, a nonprofit education group that has received funding from Google, HP and Verizon, acknowledged that “technology is not a cure-all.” But he also said that while school systems were largely unprepared for the pandemic, online education tools helped foster “more individualized, enhanced learning experiences as schools shifted to virtual classrooms.” ​Education International, an umbrella organization for about 380 teachers’ unions and 32 million teachers worldwide, said the UNESCO report underlined the importance of in-person, face-to-face teaching. “The report tells us definitively what we already know to be true, a place called school matters,” said Haldis Holst, the group’s deputy general secretary. “Education is not transactional nor is it simply content delivery. It is relational. It is social. It is human at its core.”

Students, read the entire article and then tell us:

What findings from the report, if any, surprised you? If you participated in online learning during the pandemic, what in the report reflected your experience? If the researchers had asked you about what remote learning was like for you, what would you have told them?

At this point, most schools have returned to in-person teaching, but many still use technology in the classroom. How much tech is involved in your day-to-day education? Does this method of learning work well for you? If you had a say, would you want to spend more or less time online while in school?

What are some of the biggest benefits you have seen from technology when it comes to your education? What are some of the biggest drawbacks?

Haldis Holst, UNESCO’s deputy general secretary, said: “The report tells us definitively what we already know to be true, a place called school matters. Education is not transactional nor is it simply content delivery. It is relational. It is social. It is human at its core.” What is your reaction to that statement? Do you agree? Why or why not?

As a student, what advice would you give to schools that are already using or are considering using educational technology?

Students 13 and older in the United States and Britain, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public and may appear in print.

Find more Student Opinion questions here. Teachers, check out this guide to learn how you can incorporate these prompts into your classroom.

Natalie Proulx joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2017 after working as an English language arts teacher and curriculum writer. More about Natalie Proulx

Essays About Online Learning: Top 6 Examples And Prompts

If you are writing essays about online learning, you can start by reading some essay examples and prompts in this article. 

People often regard online learning as kids stuck at home, glued to their devices. However, there is so much more to it than this simplistic concept. Many parents may see it as an “easy way out” for students to slack off on their studies while still passing their classes, but online learning has not reached its full potential yet. 

It has dramatically impacted how education is handled globally, for better or worse. It has forced teachers to take on extra work , while students say it has helped reduce their stress levels. It is undoubtedly a contentious topic. 

If you need help writing an essay about online learning, here are some essay examples you can use for inspiration.

1. Disabled Students Urge Universities To Make Online Learning More Accessible by Lucia Posteraro

2. why are more and more students taking online classes by perry mullins, 3. the benefits of online learning: 7 advantages of online degrees by kelsey miller, 4. why is online learning important by clare scott, 5. is online learning as effective as face-to-face learning by kelli wilkins, 6. i’m a high school student. i don’t want online learning to end. by rory selinger, prompts on essays about online learning, 1. how has online learning affected you, 2. compare and contrast online and in-person classes., 3. what can you learn from an online setup, 4. what is the future of online learning, 5. which is better- online or face-to-face learning, 6. can online learning be sustained long-term.

“Autism may hinder the ability to follow complex conversations, especially with background noise – but Charli’s lectures did not have subtitles. Moreover, extensions for group projects were too short for her extenuating circumstances.’

Posteraro tells the stories of students who want online learning to be more accessible. For example, Charli, a student with autism, was greatly affected by the transition from in-person to online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, online learning has not catered to her special needs, so she urges schools to take action to make online education more inclusive. You might also be interested in these essays about knowledge .

“The result of taking online classes is that students who take them become more proficient and comfortable with using computers. Students can learn to connect with one another online and with information in meaningful and useful ways. With that said more and more students are taking online classes because it’s the best way to save money work at your own pace and not have to be stressed about going to class.”

In his essay, Mullins discusses why more students prefer online learning. First, it lessens expenses, as students learn from the comfort of their rooms. Second, it helps students avert the fear of talking to strangers face-to-face, helping them communicate better. 

“It’s clear, then, that learning online helps prepare professionals for this shift toward online work. Below, explore what online courses entail, explore seven key benefits, and get the advice you need to determine if online courses are right for you.”

Miller briefly explains what online learning is, then proceeds to discuss its advantages. These include a self-paced schedule, improved communication, and new technical skills. However, he reminds readers that everyone is different; regardless of the benefits, they should only choose online learning if they believe it will work for them.

“Boil it right down and the answer is simple: change is constant. You must move with it. The true beauty of online learning is that it lends itself perfectly to your lifestyle. By its very nature, it can fit around you. Also, no longer are we taught how to do a job, it’s usually a case of figuring it out for yourself—and that’s where online learning can amplify your skills.”

Scott presents the importance of online learning. Similar to Miller, she mentions self-paced, giving students new skills. However, the most important lesson is that change is constant. Online learning exemplifies this precept, and these skills help us move along.

“While both ways of learning have advantages and disadvantages, what is more effective is based off of the student themselves. Students can weigh the costs and benefits between online learning and face-to-face learning. They can decide for themselves what would be best for them. Online learning can be as effective as face-to-face learning if the student is committed to putting their time and effort to study alone.”

Wilkins questions the notion that online learning is inferior to a face-to-face classes. She begins by listing the benefits of online classes, including comfort and easier schedules, as with Miller and Scott. However, she also mentions its disadvantages, such as the possibility of students being distracted and a lack of bonding between classmates. But, of course, it’s all up to the student in the end: they should decide which type of education they prefer.

“One thing I hope people now realize is that education is not a one-size-fits-all model. While the self-disciplined nature of remote learning is not for everyone, it has allowed students like me to flourish unimpeded by the challenges presented by typical classroom settings.”

A 14-year-old student, Selinger wishes to continue her education online as schools return to physical classes amid the pandemic. She discusses the relief she feels from the lack of peer pressure, judgment, and a rigorous schedule. Controlling your study schedule relieves students of pressure, and Selinger believes this is optimal for success. She believes online learning opens a path to be better rather than to “return to normal.”

In this essay, you can write about your experience of online learning. Whether you have had online coursework from school or college or taken an online course for your own interests, we’ve all had some experience learning online. Discuss how you benefited from online learning and the challenges you faced. For a compelling essay, conduct interviews to back up your experience by showing others who felt the same way.

Create an exciting comparative essay between online and in-person learning. You can compare and contrast the experiences and show the positives and negatives of each. Start by making a list or Venn diagram, and organize your essay. Include the structure, advantages, and disadvantages of each method of learning. 

Online learning can teach you some skills to succeed in the real world. In this essay, write about the unique skills you can gain from online learning. Perhaps you learn valuable IT skills, virtual note-taking, and basic administrative skills. Then, look into how these skills can benefit you in future studies or when trying to step into a new career path. 

We have barely scratched the surface of technology. In this essay, look to the future and imagine how online education will look. Then, research up-and-coming online learning technologies and see what will come next. Will the development of more online learning technology benefit students? Look into this exciting topic for an engaging discussion.

For this topic, writing an excellent argumentative essay is easy. First, from research and your own experience, list the benefits and downsides of each type of learning and determine which is more effective. Then, you can use Google and the essay examples above to support your argument.  

Online learning is most commonly used for students who are ill or during situations such as a global pandemic. It is meant to be temporary; however, can schools stick to a completely-online method of instruction? Include some advantages and disadvantages of online learning in your essay.

Tip: If writing an essay sounds like a lot of work, simplify it. Write a simple 5 paragraph essay instead.

If you’re still stuck, check out our general resource of essay writing topics .

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

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
• Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Students’ experience of online learning during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A province‐wide survey study

Lixiang yan.

1 Centre for Learning Analytics at Monash, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton VIC, Australia

Alexander Whitelock‐Wainwright

2 Portfolio of the Deputy Vice‐Chancellor (Education), Monash University, Melbourne VIC, Australia

Quanlong Guan

3 Department of Computer Science, Jinan University, Guangzhou China

Gangxin Wen

4 College of Cyber Security, Jinan University, Guangzhou China

Dragan Gašević

Guanliang chen, associated data.

The data is not openly available as it is restricted by the Chinese government.

Online learning is currently adopted by educational institutions worldwide to provide students with ongoing education during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Even though online learning research has been advancing in uncovering student experiences in various settings (i.e., tertiary, adult, and professional education), very little progress has been achieved in understanding the experience of the K‐12 student population, especially when narrowed down to different school‐year segments (i.e., primary and secondary school students). This study explores how students at different stages of their K‐12 education reacted to the mandatory full‐time online learning during the COVID‐19 pandemic. For this purpose, we conducted a province‐wide survey study in which the online learning experience of 1,170,769 Chinese students was collected from the Guangdong Province of China. We performed cross‐tabulation and Chi‐square analysis to compare students’ online learning conditions, experiences, and expectations. Results from this survey study provide evidence that students’ online learning experiences are significantly different across school years. Foremost, policy implications were made to advise government authorises and schools on improving the delivery of online learning, and potential directions were identified for future research into K‐12 online learning.

Practitioner notes

What is already known about this topic

• Online learning has been widely adopted during the COVID‐19 pandemic to ensure the continuation of K‐12 education.
• Student success in K‐12 online education is substantially lower than in conventional schools.
• Students experienced various difficulties related to the delivery of online learning.

What this paper adds

• Provide empirical evidence for the online learning experience of students in different school years.
• Identify the different needs of students in primary, middle, and high school.
• Identify the challenges of delivering online learning to students of different age.

Implications for practice and/or policy

• Authority and schools need to provide sufficient technical support to students in online learning.
• The delivery of online learning needs to be customised for students in different school years.

INTRODUCTION

The ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic poses significant challenges to the global education system. By July 2020, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2020) reported nationwide school closure in 111 countries, affecting over 1.07 billion students, which is around 61% of the global student population. Traditional brick‐and‐mortar schools are forced to transform into full‐time virtual schools to provide students with ongoing education (Van Lancker & Parolin,  2020 ). Consequently, students must adapt to the transition from face‐to‐face learning to fully remote online learning, where synchronous video conferences, social media, and asynchronous discussion forums become their primary venues for knowledge construction and peer communication.

For K‐12 students, this sudden transition is problematic as they often lack prior online learning experience (Barbour & Reeves,  2009 ). Barbour and LaBonte ( 2017 ) estimated that even in countries where online learning is growing rapidly, such as USA and Canada, less than 10% of the K‐12 student population had prior experience with this format. Maladaptation to online learning could expose inexperienced students to various vulnerabilities, including decrements in academic performance (Molnar et al.,  2019 ), feeling of isolation (Song et al.,  2004 ), and lack of learning motivation (Muilenburg & Berge,  2005 ). Unfortunately, with confirmed cases continuing to rise each day, and new outbreaks occur on a global scale, full‐time online learning for most students could last longer than anticipated (World Health Organization,  2020 ). Even after the pandemic, the current mass adoption of online learning could have lasting impacts on the global education system, and potentially accelerate and expand the rapid growth of virtual schools on a global scale (Molnar et al.,  2019 ). Thus, understanding students' learning conditions and their experiences of online learning during the COVID pandemic becomes imperative.

Emerging evidence on students’ online learning experience during the COVID‐19 pandemic has identified several major concerns, including issues with internet connection (Agung et al.,  2020 ; Basuony et al.,  2020 ), problems with IT equipment (Bączek et al.,  2021 ; Niemi & Kousa,  2020 ), limited collaborative learning opportunities (Bączek et al.,  2021 ; Yates et al.,  2020 ), reduced learning motivation (Basuony et al.,  2020 ; Niemi & Kousa,  2020 ; Yates et al.,  2020 ), and increased learning burdens (Niemi & Kousa,  2020 ). Although these findings provided valuable insights about the issues students experienced during online learning, information about their learning conditions and future expectations were less mentioned. Such information could assist educational authorises and institutions to better comprehend students’ difficulties and potentially improve their online learning experience. Additionally, most of these recent studies were limited to higher education, except for Yates et al. ( 2020 ) and Niemi and Kousa’s ( 2020 ) studies on senior high school students. Empirical research targeting the full spectrum of K‐12students remain scarce. Therefore, to address these gaps, the current paper reports the findings of a large‐scale study that sought to explore K‐12 students’ online learning experience during the COVID‐19 pandemic in a provincial sample of over one million Chinese students. The findings of this study provide policy recommendations to educational institutions and authorities regarding the delivery of K‐12 online education.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Learning conditions and technologies.

Having stable access to the internet is critical to students’ learning experience during online learning. Berge ( 2005 ) expressed the concern of the divide in digital‐readiness, and the pedagogical approach between different countries could influence students’ online learning experience. Digital‐readiness is the availability and adoption of information technologies and infrastructures in a country. Western countries like America (3rd) scored significantly higher in digital‐readiness compared to Asian countries like China (54th; Cisco,  2019 ). Students from low digital‐readiness countries could experience additional technology‐related problems. Supporting evidence is emerging in recent studies conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In Egypt's capital city, Basuony et al. ( 2020 ) found that only around 13.9%of the students experienced issues with their internet connection. Whereas more than two‐thirds of the students in rural Indonesia reported issues of unstable internet, insufficient internet data, and incompatible learning device (Agung et al.,  2020 ).

Another influential factor for K‐12 students to adequately adapt to online learning is the accessibility of appropriate technological devices, especially having access to a desktop or a laptop (Barbour et al., 2018 ). However, it is unlikely for most of the students to satisfy this requirement. Even in higher education, around 76% of students reported having incompatible devices for online learning and only 15% of students used laptop for online learning, whereas around 85% of them used smartphone (Agung et al.,  2020 ). It is very likely that K‐12 students also suffer from this availability issue as they depend on their parents to provide access to relevant learning devices.

Technical issues surrounding technological devices could also influence students’ experience in online learning. (Barbour & Reeves,  2009 ) argues that students need to have a high level of digital literacy to find and use relevant information and communicate with others through technological devices. Students lacking this ability could experience difficulties in online learning. Bączek et al. ( 2021 ) found that around 54% of the medical students experienced technical problems with IT equipment and this issue was more prevalent in students with lower years of tertiary education. Likewise, Niemi and Kousa ( 2020 ) also find that students in a Finish high school experienced increased amounts of technical problems during the examination period, which involved additional technical applications. These findings are concerning as young children and adolescent in primary and lower secondary school could be more vulnerable to these technical problems as they are less experienced with the technologies in online learning (Barbour & LaBonte,  2017 ). Therefore, it is essential to investigate the learning conditions and the related difficulties experienced by students in K‐12 education as the extend of effects on them remain underexplored.

Learning experience and interactions

Apart from the aforementioned issues, the extent of interaction and collaborative learning opportunities available in online learning could also influence students’ experience. The literature on online learning has long emphasised the role of effective interaction for the success of student learning. According to Muirhead and Juwah ( 2004 ), interaction is an event that can take the shape of any type of communication between two or subjects and objects. Specifically, the literature acknowledges the three typical forms of interactions (Moore,  1989 ): (i) student‐content, (ii) student‐student, and (iii) student‐teacher. Anderson ( 2003 ) posits, in the well‐known interaction equivalency theorem, learning experiences will not deteriorate if only one of the three interaction is of high quality, and the other two can be reduced or even eliminated. Quality interaction can be accomplished by across two dimensions: (i) structure—pedagogical means that guide student interaction with contents or other students and (ii) dialogue—communication that happens between students and teachers and among students. To be able to scale online learning and prevent the growth of teaching costs, the emphasise is typically on structure (i.e., pedagogy) that can promote effective student‐content and student‐student interaction. The role of technology and media is typically recognised as a way to amplify the effect of pedagogy (Lou et al.,  2006 ). Novel technological innovations—for example learning analytics‐based personalised feedback at scale (Pardo et al.,  2019 ) —can also empower teachers to promote their interaction with students.

Online education can lead to a sense of isolation, which can be detrimental to student success (McInnerney & Roberts,  2004 ). Therefore, integration of social interaction into pedagogy for online learning is essential, especially at the times when students do not actually know each other or have communication and collaboration skills underdeveloped (Garrison et al.,  2010 ; Gašević et al.,  2015 ). Unfortunately, existing evidence suggested that online learning delivery during the COVID‐19 pandemic often lacks interactivity and collaborative experiences (Bączek et al.,  2021 ; Yates et al.,  2020 ). Bączek et al., ( 2021 ) found that around half of the medical students reported reduced interaction with teachers, and only 4% of students think online learning classes are interactive. Likewise, Yates et al. ( 2020 )’s study in high school students also revealed that over half of the students preferred in‐class collaboration over online collaboration as they value the immediate support and the proximity to teachers and peers from in‐class interaction.

Learning expectations and age differentiation

Although these studies have provided valuable insights and stressed the need for more interactivity in online learning, K‐12 students in different school years could exhibit different expectations for the desired activities in online learning. Piaget's Cognitive Developmental Theory illustrated children's difficulties in understanding abstract and hypothetical concepts (Thomas,  2000 ). Primary school students will encounter many abstract concepts in their STEM education (Uttal & Cohen,  2012 ). In face‐to‐face learning, teachers provide constant guidance on students’ learning progress and can help them to understand difficult concepts. Unfortunately, the level of guidance significantly drops in online learning, and, in most cases, children have to face learning obstacles by themselves (Barbour,  2013 ). Additionally, lower primary school students may lack the metacognitive skills to use various online learning functions, maintain engagement in synchronous online learning, develop and execute self‐regulated learning plans, and engage in meaningful peer interactions during online learning (Barbour,  2013 ; Broadbent & Poon,  2015 ; Huffaker & Calvert, 2003; Wang et al.,  2013 ). Thus, understanding these younger students’ expectations is imperative as delivering online learning to them in the same way as a virtual high school could hinder their learning experiences. For students with more matured metacognition, their expectations of online learning could be substantially different from younger students. Niemi et al.’s study ( 2020 ) with students in a Finish high school have found that students often reported heavy workload and fatigue during online learning. These issues could cause anxiety and reduce students’ learning motivation, which would have negative consequences on their emotional well‐being and academic performance (Niemi & Kousa,  2020 ; Yates et al.,  2020 ), especially for senior students who are under the pressure of examinations. Consequently, their expectations of online learning could be orientated toward having additional learning support functions and materials. Likewise, they could also prefer having more opportunities for peer interactions as these interactions are beneficial to their emotional well‐being and learning performance (Gašević et al., 2013 ; Montague & Rinaldi, 2001 ). Therefore, it is imperative to investigate the differences between online learning expectations in students of different school years to suit their needs better.

Research questions

By building upon the aforementioned relevant works, this study aimed to contribute to the online learning literature with a comprehensive understanding of the online learning experience that K‐12 students had during the COVID‐19 pandemic period in China. Additionally, this study also aimed to provide a thorough discussion of what potential actions can be undertaken to improve online learning delivery. Formally, this study was guided by three research questions (RQs):

RQ1 . What learning conditions were experienced by students across 12 years of education during their online learning process in the pandemic period? RQ2 . What benefits and obstacles were perceived by students across 12 years of education when performing online learning? RQ3 . What expectations do students, across 12 years of education, have for future online learning practices ?

Participants

The total number of K‐12 students in the Guangdong Province of China is around 15 million. In China, students of Year 1–6, Year 7–9, and Year 10–12 are referred to as students of primary school, middle school, and high school, respectively. Typically, students in China start their study in primary school at the age of around six. At the end of their high‐school study, students have to take the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE; also known as Gaokao) to apply for tertiary education. The survey was administrated across the whole Guangdong Province, that is the survey was exposed to all of the 15 million K‐12 students, though it was not mandatory for those students to accomplish the survey. A total of 1,170,769 students completed the survey, which accounts for a response rate of 7.80%. After removing responses with missing values and responses submitted from the same IP address (duplicates), we had 1,048,575 valid responses, which accounts to about 7% of the total K‐12 students in the Guangdong Province. The number of students in different school years is shown in Figure  1 . Overall, students were evenly distributed across different school years, except for a smaller sample in students of Year 10–12.

The number of students in each school year

Survey design

The survey was designed collaboratively by multiple relevant parties. Firstly, three educational researchers working in colleges and universities and three educational practitioners working in the Department of Education in Guangdong Province were recruited to co‐design the survey. Then, the initial draft of the survey was sent to 30 teachers from different primary and secondary schools, whose feedback and suggestions were considered to improve the survey. The final survey consisted of a total of 20 questions, which, broadly, can be classified into four categories: demographic, behaviours, experiences, and expectations. Details are available in Appendix.

All K‐12 students in the Guangdong Province were made to have full‐time online learning from March 1, 2020 after the outbreak of COVID‐19 in January in China. A province‐level online learning platform was provided to all schools by the government. In addition to the learning platform, these schools can also use additional third‐party platforms to facilitate the teaching activities, for example WeChat and Dingding, which provide services similar to WhatsApp and Zoom. The main change for most teachers was that they had to shift the classroom‐based lectures to online lectures with the aid of web‐conferencing tools. Similarly, these teachers also needed to perform homework marking and have consultation sessions in an online manner.

The Department of Education in the Guangdong Province of China distributed the survey to all K‐12 schools in the province on March 21, 2020 and collected responses on March 26, 2020. Students could access and answer the survey anonymously by either scan the Quick Response code along with the survey or click the survey address link on their mobile device. The survey was administrated in a completely voluntary manner and no incentives were given to the participants. Ethical approval was granted by the Department of Education in the Guangdong Province. Parental approval was not required since the survey was entirely anonymous and facilitated by the regulating authority, which satisfies China's ethical process.

The original survey was in Chinese, which was later translated by two bilingual researchers and verified by an external translator who is certified by the Australian National Accreditation Authority of Translators and Interpreters. The original and translated survey questionnaires are available in Supporting Information. Given the limited space we have here and the fact that not every survey item is relevant to the RQs, the following items were chosen to answer the RQs: item Q3 (learning media) and Q11 (learning approaches) for RQ1, item Q13 (perceived obstacle) and Q19 (perceived benefits) for RQ2, and item Q19 (expected learning activities) for RQ3. Cross‐tabulation based approaches were used to analyse the collected data. To scrutinise whether the differences displayed by students of different school years were statistically significant, we performed Chi‐square tests and calculated the Cramer's V to assess the strengths of the association after chi‐square had determined significance.

For the analyses, students were segmented into four categories based on their school years, that is Year 1–3, Year 4–6, Year 7–9, and Year 10–12, to provide a clear understanding of the different experiences and needs that different students had for online learning. This segmentation was based on the educational structure of Chinese schools: elementary school (Year 1–6), middle school (Year 7–9), and high school (Year 10–12). Children in elementary school can further be segmented into junior (Year 1–3) or senior (Year 4–6) students because senior elementary students in China are facing more workloads compared to junior students due to the provincial Middle School Entry Examination at the end of Year 6.

Learning conditions—RQ1

Learning media.

The Chi‐square test showed significant association between school years and students’ reported usage of learning media, χ 2 (55, N  = 1,853,952) = 46,675.38, p  < 0.001. The Cramer's V is 0.07 ( df ∗ = 5), which indicates a small‐to‐medium effect according to Cohen’s ( 1988 ) guidelines. Based on Figure  2 , we observed that an average of up to 87.39% students used smartphones to perform online learning, while only 25.43% students used computer, which suggests that smartphones, with widespread availability in China (2020), have been adopted by students for online learning. As for the prevalence of the two media, we noticed that both smartphones ( χ 2 (3, N  = 1,048,575) = 9,395.05, p < 0.001, Cramer's V  = 0.10 ( df ∗ = 1)) and computers ( χ 2 (3, N  = 1,048,575) = 11,025.58, p <.001, Cramer's V  = 0.10 ( df ∗ = 1)) were more adopted by high‐school‐year (Year 7–12) than early‐school‐year students (Year 1–6), both with a small effect size. Besides, apparent discrepancies can be observed between the usages of TV and paper‐based materials across different school years, that is early‐school‐year students reported more TV usage ( χ 2 (3, N  = 1,048,575) = 19,505.08, p <.001), with a small‐to‐medium effect size, Cramer's V  = 0.14( df ∗ = 1). High‐school‐year students (especially Year 10–12) reported more usage of paper‐based materials ( χ 2 (3, N  = 1,048,575) = 23,401.64, p < 0.001), with a small‐to‐medium effect size, Cramer's V  = 0.15( df ∗ = 1).

Learning media used by students in online learning

Learning approaches

School years is also significantly associated with the different learning approaches students used to tackle difficult concepts during online learning, χ 2 (55, N  = 2,383,751) = 58,030.74, p < 0.001. The strength of this association is weak to moderate as shown by the Cramer's V (0.07, df ∗ = 5; Cohen,  1988 ). When encountering problems related to difficult concepts, students typically chose to “solve independently by searching online” or “rewatch recorded lectures” instead of consulting to their teachers or peers (Figure  3 ). This is probably because, compared to classroom‐based education, it is relatively less convenient and more challenging for students to seek help from others when performing online learning. Besides, compared to high‐school‐year students, early‐school‐year students (Year 1–6), reported much less use of “solve independently by searching online” ( χ 2 (3, N  = 1,048,575) = 48,100.15, p <.001), with a small‐to‐medium effect size, Cramer's V  = 0.21 ( df ∗ = 1). Also, among those approaches of seeking help from others, significantly more high‐school‐year students preferred “communicating with other students” than early‐school‐year students ( χ 2 (3, N  = 1,048,575) = 81,723.37, p < 0.001), with a medium effect size, Cramer's V  = 0.28 ( df ∗ = 1).

Learning approaches used by students in online learning

Perceived benefits and obstacles—RQ2

Perceived benefits.

The association between school years and perceived benefits in online learning is statistically significant, χ 2 (66, N  = 2,716,127) = 29,534.23, p  < 0.001, and the Cramer's V (0.04, df ∗ = 6) indicates a small effect (Cohen,  1988 ). Unsurprisingly, benefits brought by the convenience of online learning are widely recognised by students across all school years (Figure  4 ), that is up to 75% of students reported that it is “more convenient to review course content” and 54% said that they “can learn anytime and anywhere” . Besides, we noticed that about 50% of early‐school‐year students appreciated the “access to courses delivered by famous teachers” and 40%–47% of high‐school‐year students indicated that online learning is “helpful to develop self‐regulation and autonomy” .

Perceived benefits of online learning reported by students

Perceived obstacles

The Chi‐square test shows a significant association between school years and students’ perceived obstacles in online learning, χ 2 (77, N  = 2,699,003) = 31,987.56, p < 0.001. This association is relatively weak as shown by the Cramer's V (0.04, df ∗ = 7; Cohen,  1988 ). As shown in Figure  5 , the biggest obstacles encountered by up to 73% of students were the “eyestrain caused by long staring at screens” . Disengagement caused by nearby disturbance was reported by around 40% of students, especially those of Year 1–3 and 10–12. Technological‐wise, about 50% of students experienced poor Internet connection during their learning process, and around 20% of students reported the “confusion in setting up the platforms” across of school years.

Perceived obstacles of online learning reported by students

Expectations for future practices of online learning – RQ3

Online learning activities.

The association between school years and students’ expected online learning activities is significant, χ 2 (66, N  = 2,416,093) = 38,784.81, p < 0.001. The Cramer's V is 0.05 ( df ∗ = 6) which suggests a small effect (Cohen,  1988 ). As shown in Figure  6 , the most expected activity for future online learning is “real‐time interaction with teachers” (55%), followed by “online group discussion and collaboration” (38%). We also observed that more early‐school‐year students expect reflective activities, such as “regular online practice examinations” ( χ 2 (3, N  = 1,048,575) = 11,644.98, p < 0.001), with a small effect size, Cramer's V  = 0.11 ( df ∗ = 1). In contrast, more high‐school‐year students expect “intelligent recommendation system …” ( χ 2 (3, N  = 1,048,575) = 15,327.00, p < 0.001), with a small effect size, Cramer's V  = 0.12 ( df ∗ = 1).

Students’ expected online learning activities

Regarding students’ learning conditions, substantial differences were observed in learning media, family dependency, and learning approaches adopted in online learning between students in different school years. The finding of more computer and smartphone usage in high‐school‐year than early‐school‐year students can probably be explained by that, with the growing abilities in utilising these media as well as the educational systems and tools which run on these media, high‐school‐year students tend to make better use of these media for online learning practices. Whereas, the differences in paper‐based materials may imply that high‐school‐year students in China have to accomplish a substantial amount of exercise, assignments, and exam papers to prepare for the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE), whose delivery was not entirely digitised due to the sudden transition to online learning. Meanwhile, high‐school‐year students may also have preferred using paper‐based materials for exam practice, as eventually, they would take their NCEE in the paper format. Therefore, these substantial differences in students’ usage of learning media should be addressed by customising the delivery method of online learning for different school years.

Other than these between‐age differences in learning media, the prevalence of smartphone in online learning resonates with Agung et al.’s ( 2020 ) finding on the issues surrounding the availability of compatible learning device. The prevalence of smartphone in K‐12 students is potentially problematic as the majority of the online learning platform and content is designed for computer‐based learning (Berge,  2005 ; Molnar et al.,  2019 ). Whereas learning with smartphones has its own unique challenges. For example, Gikas and Grant ( 2013 ) discovered that students who learn with smartphone experienced frustration with the small screen‐size, especially when trying to type with the tiny keypad. Another challenge relates to the distraction of various social media applications. Although similar distractions exist in computer and web‐based social media, the level of popularity, especially in the young generation, are much higher in mobile‐based social media (Montag et al.,  2018 ). In particular, the message notification function in smartphones could disengage students from learning activities and allure them to social media applications (Gikas & Grant,  2013 ). Given these challenges of learning with smartphones, more research efforts should be devoted to analysing students’ online learning behaviour in the setting of mobile learning to accommodate their needs better.

The differences in learning approaches, once again, illustrated that early‐school‐year students have different needs compared to high‐school‐year students. In particular, the low usage of the independent learning methods in early‐school‐year students may reflect their inability to engage in independent learning. Besides, the differences in help seeking behaviours demonstrated the distinctive needs for communication and interaction between different students, that is early‐school‐year students have a strong reliance on teachers and high‐school‐year students, who are equipped with stronger communication ability, are more inclined to interact with their peers. This finding implies that the design of online learning platforms should take students’ different needs into account. Thus, customisation is urgently needed for the delivery of online learning to different school years.

In terms of the perceived benefits and challenges of online learning, our results resonate with several previous findings. In particular, the benefits of convenience are in line with the flexibility advantages of online learning, which were mentioned in prior works (Appana,  2008 ; Bączek et al.,  2021 ; Barbour,  2013 ; Basuony et al.,  2020 ; Harvey et al.,  2014 ). Early‐school‐year students’ higher appreciation in having “access to courses delivered by famous teachers” and lower appreciation in the independent learning skills developed through online learning are also in line with previous literature (Barbour,  2013 ; Harvey et al.,  2014 ; Oliver et al.,  2009 ). Again, these similar findings may indicate the strong reliance that early‐school‐year students place on teachers, while high‐school‐year students are more capable of adapting to online learning by developing independent learning skills.

Technology‐wise, students’ experience of poor internet connection and confusion in setting up online learning platforms are particularly concerning. The problem of poor internet connection corroborated the findings reported in prior studies (Agung et al.,  2020 ; Barbour,  2013 ; Basuony et al.,  2020 ; Berge,  2005 ; Rice,  2006 ), that is the access issue surrounded the digital divide as one of the main challenges of online learning. In the era of 4G and 5G networks, educational authorities and institutions that deliver online education could fall into the misconception of most students have a stable internet connection at home. The internet issue we observed is particularly vital to students’ online learning experience as most students prefer real‐time communications (Figure  6 ), which rely heavily on stable internet connection. Likewise, the finding of students’ confusion in technology is also consistent with prior studies (Bączek et al.,  2021 ; Muilenburg & Berge,  2005 ; Niemi & Kousa,  2020 ; Song et al.,  2004 ). Students who were unsuccessfully in setting up the online learning platforms could potentially experience declines in confidence and enthusiasm for online learning, which would cause a subsequent unpleasant learning experience. Therefore, both the readiness of internet infrastructure and student technical skills remain as the significant challenges for the mass‐adoption of online learning.

On the other hand, students’ experience of eyestrain from extended screen time provided empirical evidence to support Spitzer’s ( 2001 ) speculation about the potential ergonomic impact of online learning. This negative effect is potentially related to the prevalence of smartphone device and the limited screen size of these devices. This finding not only demonstrates the potential ergonomic issues that would be caused by smartphone‐based online learning but also resonates with the aforementioned necessity of different platforms and content designs for different students.

A less‐mentioned problem in previous studies on online learning experiences is the disengagement caused by nearby disturbance, especially in Year 1–3 and 10–12. It is likely that early‐school‐year students suffered from this problem because of their underdeveloped metacognitive skills to concentrate on online learning without teachers’ guidance. As for high‐school‐year students, the reasons behind their disengagement require further investigation in the future. Especially it would be worthwhile to scrutinise whether this type of disengagement is caused by the substantial amount of coursework they have to undertake and the subsequent a higher level of pressure and a lower level of concentration while learning.

Across age‐level differences are also apparent in terms of students’ expectations of online learning. Although, our results demonstrated students’ needs of gaining social interaction with others during online learning, findings (Bączek et al.,  2021 ; Harvey et al.,  2014 ; Kuo et al.,  2014 ; Liu & Cavanaugh,  2012 ; Yates et al.,  2020 ). This need manifested differently across school years, with early‐school‐year students preferring more teacher interactions and learning regulation support. Once again, this finding may imply that early‐school‐year students are inadequate in engaging with online learning without proper guidance from their teachers. Whereas, high‐school‐year students prefer more peer interactions and recommendation to learning resources. This expectation can probably be explained by the large amount of coursework exposed to them. Thus, high‐school‐year students need further guidance to help them better direct their learning efforts. These differences in students’ expectations for future practices could guide the customisation of online learning delivery.

Implications

As shown in our results, improving the delivery of online learning not only requires the efforts of policymakers but also depend on the actions of teachers and parents. The following sub‐sections will provide recommendations for relevant stakeholders and discuss their essential roles in supporting online education.

Technical support

The majority of the students has experienced technical problems during online learning, including the internet lagging and confusion in setting up the learning platforms. These problems with technology could impair students’ learning experience (Kauffman,  2015 ; Muilenburg & Berge,  2005 ). Educational authorities and schools should always provide a thorough guide and assistance for students who are experiencing technical problems with online learning platforms or other related tools. Early screening and detection could also assist schools and teachers to direct their efforts more effectively in helping students with low technology skills (Wilkinson et al.,  2010 ). A potential identification method involves distributing age‐specific surveys that assess students’ Information and Communication Technology (ICT) skills at the beginning of online learning. For example, there are empirical validated ICT surveys available for both primary (Aesaert et al.,  2014 ) and high school (Claro et al.,  2012 ) students.

For students who had problems with internet lagging, the delivery of online learning should provide options that require fewer data and bandwidth. Lecture recording is the existing option but fails to address students’ need for real‐time interaction (Clark et al.,  2015 ; Malik & Fatima,  2017 ). A potential alternative involves providing students with the option to learn with digital or physical textbooks and audio‐conferencing, instead of screen sharing and video‐conferencing. This approach significantly reduces the amount of data usage and lowers the requirement of bandwidth for students to engage in smooth online interactions (Cisco,  2018 ). It also requires little additional efforts from teachers as official textbooks are often available for each school year, and thus, they only need to guide students through the materials during audio‐conferencing. Educational authority can further support this approach by making digital textbooks available for teachers and students, especially those in financial hardship. However, the lack of visual and instructor presence could potentially reduce students’ attention, recall of information, and satisfaction in online learning (Wang & Antonenko,  2017 ). Therefore, further research is required to understand whether the combination of digital or physical textbooks and audio‐conferencing is appropriate for students with internet problems. Alternatively, suppose the local technological infrastructure is well developed. In that case, governments and schools can also collaborate with internet providers to issue data and bandwidth vouchers for students who are experiencing internet problems due to financial hardship.

For future adoption of online learning, policymakers should consider the readiness of the local internet infrastructure. This recommendation is particularly important for developing countries, like Bangladesh, where the majority of the students reported the lack of internet infrastructure (Ramij & Sultana,  2020 ). In such environments, online education may become infeasible, and alternative delivery method could be more appropriate, for example, the Telesecundaria program provides TV education for rural areas of Mexico (Calderoni,  1998 ).

Other than technical problems, choosing a suitable online learning platform is also vital for providing students with a better learning experience. Governments and schools should choose an online learning platform that is customised for smartphone‐based learning, as the majority of students could be using smartphones for online learning. This recommendation is highly relevant for situations where students are forced or involuntarily engaged in online learning, like during the COVID‐19 pandemic, as they might not have access to a personal computer (Molnar et al.,  2019 ).

Customisation of delivery methods

Customising the delivery of online learning for students in different school years is the theme that appeared consistently across our findings. This customisation process is vital for making online learning an opportunity for students to develop independent learning skills, which could help prepare them for tertiary education and lifelong learning. However, the pedagogical design of K‐12 online learning programs should be differentiated from adult‐orientated programs as these programs are designed for independent learners, which is rarely the case for students in K‐12 education (Barbour & Reeves,  2009 ).

For early‐school‐year students, especially Year 1–3 students, providing them with sufficient guidance from both teachers and parents should be the priority as these students often lack the ability to monitor and reflect on learning progress. In particular, these students would prefer more real‐time interaction with teachers, tutoring from parents, and regular online practice examinations. These forms of guidance could help early‐school‐year students to cope with involuntary online learning, and potentially enhance their experience in future online learning. It should be noted that, early‐school‐year students demonstrated interest in intelligent monitoring and feedback systems for learning. Additional research is required to understand whether these young children are capable of understanding and using learning analytics that relay information on their learning progress. Similarly, future research should also investigate whether young children can communicate effectively through digital tools as potential inability could hinder student learning in online group activities. Therefore, the design of online learning for early‐school‐year students should focus less on independent learning but ensuring that students are learning effective under the guidance of teachers and parents.

In contrast, group learning and peer interaction are essential for older children and adolescents. The delivery of online learning for these students should focus on providing them with more opportunities to communicate with each other and engage in collaborative learning. Potential methods to achieve this goal involve assigning or encouraging students to form study groups (Lee et al.,  2011 ), directing students to use social media for peer communication (Dabbagh & Kitsantas,  2012 ), and providing students with online group assignments (Bickle & Rucker,  2018 ).

Special attention should be paid to students enrolled in high schools. For high‐school‐year students, in particular, students in Year 10–12, we also recommend to provide them with sufficient access to paper‐based learning materials, such as revision booklet and practice exam papers, so they remain familiar with paper‐based examinations. This recommendation applies to any students who engage in online learning but has to take their final examination in paper format. It is also imperative to assist high‐school‐year students who are facing examinations to direct their learning efforts better. Teachers can fulfil this need by sharing useful learning resources on the learning management system, if it is available, or through social media groups. Alternatively, students are interested in intelligent recommendation systems for learning resources, which are emerging in the literature (Corbi & Solans,  2014 ; Shishehchi et al.,  2010 ). These systems could provide personalised recommendations based on a series of evaluation on learners’ knowledge. Although it is infeasible for situations where the transformation to online learning happened rapidly (i.e., during the COVID‐19 pandemic), policymakers can consider embedding such systems in future online education.

Limitations

The current findings are limited to primary and secondary Chinese students who were involuntarily engaged in online learning during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Despite the large sample size, the population may not be representative as participants are all from a single province. Also, information about the quality of online learning platforms, teaching contents, and pedagogy approaches were missing because of the large scale of our study. It is likely that the infrastructures of online learning in China, such as learning platforms, instructional designs, and teachers’ knowledge about online pedagogy, were underprepared for the sudden transition. Thus, our findings may not represent the experience of students who voluntarily participated in well‐prepared online learning programs, in particular, the virtual school programs in America and Canada (Barbour & LaBonte,  2017 ; Molnar et al.,  2019 ). Lastly, the survey was only evaluated and validated by teachers but not students. Therefore, students with the lowest reading comprehension levels might have a different understanding of the items’ meaning, especially terminologies that involve abstract contracts like self‐regulation and autonomy in item Q17.

In conclusion, we identified across‐year differences between primary and secondary school students’ online learning experience during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Several recommendations were made for the future practice and research of online learning in the K‐12 student population. First, educational authorities and schools should provide sufficient technical support to help students to overcome potential internet and technical problems, as well as choosing online learning platforms that have been customised for smartphones. Second, customising the online pedagogy design for students in different school years, in particular, focusing on providing sufficient guidance for young children, more online collaborative opportunity for older children and adolescent, and additional learning resource for senior students who are facing final examinations.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There is no potential conflict of interest in this study.

ETHICS STATEMENT

The data are collected by the Department of Education of the Guangdong Province who also has the authority to approve research studies in K12 education in the province.

Supporting information

Supplementary Material

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (62077028, 61877029), the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong (2020B0909030005, 2020B1212030003, 2020ZDZX3013, 2019B1515120010, 2018KTSCX016, 2019A050510024), the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou (201902010041), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (21617408, 21619404).

SURVEY ITEMS

Yan, L , Whitelock‐Wainwright, A , Guan, Q , Wen, G , Gašević, D , & Chen, G . Students’ experience of online learning during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A province‐wide survey study . Br J Educ Technol . 2021; 52 :2038–2057. 10.1111/bjet.13102 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

• Aesaert, K. , Van Nijlen, D. , Vanderlinde, R. , & van Braak, J. (2014). Direct measures of digital information processing and communication skills in primary education: Using item response theory for the development and validation of an ICT competence scale . Computers & Education , 76 , 168–181. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Agung, A. S. N. , Surtikanti, M. W. , & Quinones, C. A. (2020). Students’ perception of online learning during COVID‐19 pandemic: A case study on the English students of STKIP Pamane Talino . SOSHUM: Jurnal Sosial Dan Humaniora , 10 ( 2 ), 225–235. 10.31940/soshum.v10i2.1316 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction . The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , 4 ( 2 ). 10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Appana, S. (2008). A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the context of the student, the instructor and the tenured faculty . International Journal on E‐learning , 7 ( 1 ), 5–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bączek, M. , Zagańczyk‐Bączek, M. , Szpringer, M. , Jaroszyński, A. , & Wożakowska‐Kapłon, B. (2021). Students’ perception of online learning during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A survey study of Polish medical students . Medicine , 100 ( 7 ), e24821. 10.1097/MD.0000000000024821 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour, M. K. (2013). The landscape of k‐12 online learning: Examining what is known . Handbook of Distance Education , 3 , 574–593. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour, M. , Huerta, L. , & Miron, G. (2018). Virtual schools in the US: Case studies of policy, performance and research evidence. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 672–677). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour, M. K. , & LaBonte, R. (2017). State of the nation: K‐12 e‐learning in Canada, 2017 edition . http://k12sotn.ca/wp‐content/uploads/2018/02/StateNation17.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour, M. K. , & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature . Computers & Education , 52 ( 2 ), 402–416. [ Google Scholar ]
• Basuony, M. A. K. , EmadEldeen, R. , Farghaly, M. , El‐Bassiouny, N. , & Mohamed, E. K. A. (2020). The factors affecting student satisfaction with online education during the COVID‐19 pandemic: An empirical study of an emerging Muslim country . Journal of Islamic Marketing . 10.1108/JIMA-09-2020-0301 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berge, Z. L. (2005). Virtual schools: Planning for success . Teachers College Press, Columbia University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bickle, M. C. , & Rucker, R. (2018). Student‐to‐student interaction: Humanizing the online classroom using technology and group assignments . Quarterly Review of Distance Education , 19 ( 1 ), 1–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Broadbent, J. , & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self‐regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review . The Internet and Higher Education , 27 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Calderoni, J. (1998). Telesecundaria: Using TV to bring education to rural Mexico (Tech. Rep.). The World Bank. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cisco . (2018). Bandwidth requirements for meetings with cisco Webex and collaboration meeting rooms white paper . http://dwz.date/dpbc [ Google Scholar ]
• Cisco . (2019). Cisco digital readiness 2019 . https://www.cisco.com/c/m/en_us/about/corporate‐social‐responsibility/research‐resources/digital‐readiness‐index.html#/ (Library Catalog: www.cisco.com). [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark, C. , Strudler, N. , & Grove, K. (2015). Comparing asynchronous and synchronous video vs. text based discussions in an online teacher education course . Online Learning , 19 ( 3 ), 48–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Claro, M. , Preiss, D. D. , San Martín, E. , Jara, I. , Hinostroza, J. E. , Valenzuela, S. , Cortes, F. , & Nussbaum, M. (2012). Assessment of 21st century ICT skills in Chile: Test design and results from high school level students . Computers & Education , 59 ( 3 ), 1042–1053. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . Routledge Academic. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbi, A. , & Solans, D. B. (2014). Review of current student‐monitoring techniques used in elearning‐focused recommender systems and learning analytics: The experience API & LIME model case study . IJIMAI , 2 ( 7 ), 44–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dabbagh, N. , & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self‐regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning . The Internet and Higher Education , 15 ( 1 ), 3–8. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garrison, D. R. , Cleveland‐Innes, M. , & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework . The Internet and Higher Education , 13 ( 1–2 ), 31–36. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gašević, D. , Adesope, O. , Joksimović, S. , & Kovanović, V. (2015). Externally‐facilitated regulation scaffolding and role assignment to develop cognitive presence in asynchronous online discussions . The Internet and Higher Education , 24 , 53–65. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gašević, D. , Zouaq, A. , & Janzen, R. (2013). “Choose your classmates, your GPA is at stake!” The association of cross‐class social ties and academic performance . American Behavioral Scientist , 57 ( 10 ), 1460–1479. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gikas, J. , & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media . The Internet and Higher Education , 19 , 18–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harvey, D. , Greer, D. , Basham, J. , & Hu, B. (2014). From the student perspective: Experiences of middle and high school students in online learning . American Journal of Distance Education , 28 ( 1 ), 14–26. 10.1080/08923647.2014.868739 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning . Research in Learning Technology , 23 . 10.3402/rlt.v23.26507 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo, Y.‐C. , Walker, A. E. , Belland, B. R. , Schroder, K. E. , & Kuo, Y.‐T. (2014). A case study of integrating interwise: Interaction, internet self‐efficacy, and satisfaction in synchronous online learning environments . International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , 15 ( 1 ), 161–181. 10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1664 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, S. J. , Srinivasan, S. , Trail, T. , Lewis, D. , & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning . The Internet and Higher Education , 14 ( 3 ), 158–163. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, F. , & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). Factors influencing student academic performance in online high school algebra . Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e‐Learning , 27 ( 2 ), 149–167. 10.1080/02680513.2012.678613 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lou, Y. , Bernard, R. M. , & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate distance education: A theory‐based meta‐analysis of empirical literature . Educational Technology Research and Development , 54 ( 2 ), 141–176. 10.1007/s11423-006-8252-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malik, M. , & Fatima, G. (2017). E‐learning: Students’ perspectives about asynchronous and synchronous resources at higher education level . Bulletin of Education and Research , 39 ( 2 ), 183–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• McInnerney, J. M. , & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online learning: Social interaction and the creation of a sense of community . Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 7 ( 3 ), 73–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Molnar, A. , Miron, G. , Elgeberi, N. , Barbour, M. K. , Huerta, L. , Shafer, S. R. , & Rice, J. K. (2019). Virtual schools in the US 2019 . National Education Policy Center. [ Google Scholar ]
• Montague, M. , & Rinaldi, C. (2001). Classroom dynamics and children at risk: A followup . Learning Disability Quarterly , 24 ( 2 ), 75–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Montag, C. , Becker, B. , & Gan, C. (2018). The multipurpose application Wechat: A review on recent research . Frontiers in Psychology , 9 , 2247. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02247 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction . American Journal of Distance Education , 3 ( 2 ), 1–7. 10.1080/08923648909526659 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muilenburg, L. Y. , & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study . Distance Education , 26 ( 1 ), 29–48. 10.1080/01587910500081269 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muirhead, B. , & Juwah, C. (2004). Interactivity in computer‐mediated college and university education: A recent review of the literature . Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 7 ( 1 ), 12–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Niemi, H. M. , & Kousa, P. (2020). A case study of students’ and teachers’ perceptions in a finnish high school during the COVID pandemic . International Journal of Technology in Education and Science , 4 ( 4 ), 352–369. 10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.167 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliver, K. , Osborne, J. , & Brady, K. (2009). What are secondary students’ expectations for teachers in virtual school environments? Distance Education , 30 ( 1 ), 23–45. 10.1080/01587910902845923 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pardo, A. , Jovanovic, J. , Dawson, S. , Gašević, D. , & Mirriahi, N. (2019). Using learning analytics to scale the provision of personalised feedback . British Journal of Educational Technology , 50 ( 1 ), 128–138. 10.1111/bjet.12592 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramij, M. , & Sultana, A. (2020). Preparedness of online classes in developing countries amid covid‐19 outbreak: A perspective from Bangladesh. Afrin, Preparedness of Online Classes in Developing Countries amid COVID‐19 Outbreak: A Perspective from Bangladesh (June 29, 2020) .
• Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the k–12 context . Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 38 ( 4 ), 425–448. 10.1080/15391523.2006.10782468 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shishehchi, S. , Banihashem, S. Y. , & Zin, N. A. M. (2010). A proposed semantic recommendation system for elearning: A rule and ontology based e‐learning recommendation system. In 2010 international symposium on information technology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–5).
• Song, L. , Singleton, E. S. , Hill, J. R. , & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics . The Internet and Higher Education , 7 ( 1 ), 59–70. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spitzer, D. R. (2001). Don’t forget the high‐touch with the high‐tech in distance learning . Educational Technology , 41 ( 2 ), 51–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas, R. M. (2000). Comparing theories of child development. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2020, March). Education: From disruption to recovery . https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse (Library Catalog: en.unesco.org)
• Uttal, D. H. , & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and stem education: When, why, and how? In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57 , pp. 147–181). Elsevier. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Lancker, W. , & Parolin, Z. (2020). Covid‐19, school closures, and child poverty: A social crisis in the making . The Lancet Public Health , 5 ( 5 ), e243–e244. 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30084-0 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, C.‐H. , Shannon, D. M. , & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self‐regulated learning, technology self‐efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning . Distance Education , 34 ( 3 ), 302–323. 10.1080/01587919.2013.835779 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, J. , & Antonenko, P. D. (2017). Instructor presence in instructional video: Effects on visual attention, recall, and perceived learning . Computers in Human Behavior , 71 , 79–89. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.049 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilkinson, A. , Roberts, J. , & While, A. E. (2010). Construction of an instrument to measure student information and communication technology skills, experience and attitudes to e‐learning . Computers in Human Behavior , 26 ( 6 ), 1369–1376. 10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization . (2020, July). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19): Situation Report‐164 (Situation Report No. 164). https://www.who.int/docs/default‐source/coronaviruse/situation‐reports/20200702‐covid‐19‐sitrep‐164.pdf?sfvrsn$=$ac074f58$_$2
• Yates, A. , Starkey, L. , Egerton, B. , & Flueggen, F. (2020). High school students’ experience of online learning during Covid‐19: The influence of technology and pedagogy . Technology, Pedagogy and Education , 9 , 1–15. 10.1080/1475939X.2020.1854337 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

How Effective Is Online Learning? What the Research Does and Doesn’t Tell Us

• Share article

Editor’s Note: This is part of a continuing series on the practical takeaways from research.

The times have dictated school closings and the rapid expansion of online education. Can online lessons replace in-school time?

Clearly online time cannot provide many of the informal social interactions students have at school, but how will online courses do in terms of moving student learning forward? Research to date gives us some clues and also points us to what we could be doing to support students who are most likely to struggle in the online setting.

The use of virtual courses among K-12 students has grown rapidly in recent years. Florida, for example, requires all high school students to take at least one online course. Online learning can take a number of different forms. Often people think of Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs, where thousands of students watch a video online and fill out questionnaires or take exams based on those lectures.

In the online setting, students may have more distractions and less oversight, which can reduce their motivation.

Most online courses, however, particularly those serving K-12 students, have a format much more similar to in-person courses. The teacher helps to run virtual discussion among the students, assigns homework, and follows up with individual students. Sometimes these courses are synchronous (teachers and students all meet at the same time) and sometimes they are asynchronous (non-concurrent). In both cases, the teacher is supposed to provide opportunities for students to engage thoughtfully with subject matter, and students, in most cases, are required to interact with each other virtually.

Coronavirus and Schools

Online courses provide opportunities for students. Students in a school that doesn’t offer statistics classes may be able to learn statistics with virtual lessons. If students fail algebra, they may be able to catch up during evenings or summer using online classes, and not disrupt their math trajectory at school. So, almost certainly, online classes sometimes benefit students.

In comparisons of online and in-person classes, however, online classes aren’t as effective as in-person classes for most students. Only a little research has assessed the effects of online lessons for elementary and high school students, and even less has used the “gold standard” method of comparing the results for students assigned randomly to online or in-person courses. Jessica Heppen and colleagues at the American Institutes for Research and the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research randomly assigned students who had failed second semester Algebra I to either face-to-face or online credit recovery courses over the summer. Students’ credit-recovery success rates and algebra test scores were lower in the online setting. Students assigned to the online option also rated their class as more difficult than did their peers assigned to the face-to-face option.

Most of the research on online courses for K-12 students has used large-scale administrative data, looking at otherwise similar students in the two settings. One of these studies, by June Ahn of New York University and Andrew McEachin of the RAND Corp., examined Ohio charter schools; I did another with colleagues looking at Florida public school coursework. Both studies found evidence that online coursetaking was less effective.

About this series

This essay is the fifth in a series that aims to put the pieces of research together so that education decisionmakers can evaluate which policies and practices to implement.

The conveners of this project—Susanna Loeb, the director of Brown University’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform, and Harvard education professor Heather Hill—have received grant support from the Annenberg Institute for this series.

To suggest other topics for this series or join in the conversation, use #EdResearchtoPractice on Twitter.

Read the full series here .

It is not surprising that in-person courses are, on average, more effective. Being in person with teachers and other students creates social pressures and benefits that can help motivate students to engage. Some students do as well in online courses as in in-person courses, some may actually do better, but, on average, students do worse in the online setting, and this is particularly true for students with weaker academic backgrounds.

Students who struggle in in-person classes are likely to struggle even more online. While the research on virtual schools in K-12 education doesn’t address these differences directly, a study of college students that I worked on with Stanford colleagues found very little difference in learning for high-performing students in the online and in-person settings. On the other hand, lower performing students performed meaningfully worse in online courses than in in-person courses.

But just because students who struggle in in-person classes are even more likely to struggle online doesn’t mean that’s inevitable. Online teachers will need to consider the needs of less-engaged students and work to engage them. Online courses might be made to work for these students on average, even if they have not in the past.

Just like in brick-and-mortar classrooms, online courses need a strong curriculum and strong pedagogical practices. Teachers need to understand what students know and what they don’t know, as well as how to help them learn new material. What is different in the online setting is that students may have more distractions and less oversight, which can reduce their motivation. The teacher will need to set norms for engagement—such as requiring students to regularly ask questions and respond to their peers—that are different than the norms in the in-person setting.

Online courses are generally not as effective as in-person classes, but they are certainly better than no classes. A substantial research base developed by Karl Alexander at Johns Hopkins University and many others shows that students, especially students with fewer resources at home, learn less when they are not in school. Right now, virtual courses are allowing students to access lessons and exercises and interact with teachers in ways that would have been impossible if an epidemic had closed schools even a decade or two earlier. So we may be skeptical of online learning, but it is also time to embrace and improve it.

A version of this article appeared in the April 01, 2020 edition of Education Week as How Effective Is Online Learning?

Sign Up for EdWeek Tech Leader

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Published: 2024-03-27

Navigating Controversy and Hot Topics in Required Diversity Courses

Student-teacher alliance buffers against the impact of moderate math anxiety on course performance among college students, community college psychology students’ cooperative learning experiences----a qualitative analysis by year in college, dialogue with students as a valuable tool in teacher inquiry for professional development a narrative of a novice science teacher educator learning about student interaction in biology classrooms, case studies, deconstructing a geology field trip to reconstruct around a pedagogical framework: a case study on the integration of cognitive learning theories and learning progressions., reflective essay, the limits of white privilege pedagogy: a reflective essay on using privilege walks in the college classroom.