research design of distance learning

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

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Distance learning in higher education during COVID-19: The role of basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation for persistence and procrastination–a multi-country study

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Roles Data curation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology

Affiliation Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Aleksandër Moisiu University, Durrës, Albania

Affiliation Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Philology and Education, Bedër University, Tirana, Albania

Affiliation Xiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, China

Affiliations Xiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, China, Department of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

Affiliation Study of Nursing, University of Applied Sciences Bjelovar, Bjelovar, Croatia

Affiliation Baltic Film, Media and Arts School, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

Affiliation Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Affiliation Department of Psychology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

Affiliation Chair of Educational Psychology, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Affiliation Department of Educational Studies, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

Affiliation Faculty of Education, University of Akureyri, Akureyri, Iceland

Affiliation Department of Global Education, Tsuru University, Tsuru, Japan

Affiliation Career Center, Osaka University, Osaka University, Suita, Japan

Affiliation Graduate School of Education, Osaka Kyoiku University, Kashiwara, Japan

Affiliation Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Prishtina ’Hasan Prishtina’, Pristina, Kosovo

Affiliation Department of Social Work, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Pristina ’Hasan Prishtina’, Pristina, Kosovo

Affiliation Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Klaipėda University, Klaipėda, Lithuania

Affiliation Geography Department, Junior College, University of Malta, Msida, Malta

Affiliation Institute of Family Studies, Faculty of Philosophy, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Skopje, North Macedonia

Affiliation Institute of Psychology, Faculty of Social Science, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland

Affiliation Faculty of Historical and Pedagogical Sciences, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland

Affiliation Faculty of Educational Studies, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

Affiliation CERNESIM Environmental Research Center, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Iași, România

Affiliation Social Sciences and Humanities Research Department, Institute for Interdisciplinary Research, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, Iași, România

Affiliation Department of Informatics, Örebro University School of Business, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

Affiliation Faculty of Social Studies, Penn State University, State College, Pennsylvania, United States of America

•  [ ... ],

Affiliations Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, Department for Teacher Education, Centre for Teacher Education, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

• [ view all ]
• [ view less ]
• Elisabeth R. Pelikan, 
• Selma Korlat, 
• Julia Reiter, 
• Julia Holzer, 
• Martin Mayerhofer, 
• Barbara Schober, 
• Christiane Spiel, 
• Oriola Hamzallari, 
• Ana Uka, 

• Published: October 6, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, higher educational institutions worldwide switched to emergency distance learning in early 2020. The less structured environment of distance learning forced students to regulate their learning and motivation more independently. According to self-determination theory (SDT), satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and social relatedness affects intrinsic motivation, which in turn relates to more active or passive learning behavior. As the social context plays a major role for basic need satisfaction, distance learning may impair basic need satisfaction and thus intrinsic motivation and learning behavior. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between basic need satisfaction and procrastination and persistence in the context of emergency distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in a cross-sectional study. We also investigated the mediating role of intrinsic motivation in this relationship. Furthermore, to test the universal importance of SDT for intrinsic motivation and learning behavior under these circumstances in different countries, we collected data in Europe, Asia and North America. A total of N = 15,462 participants from Albania, Austria, China, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Kosovo, Lithuania, Poland, Malta, North Macedonia, Romania, Sweden, and the US answered questions regarding perceived competence, autonomy, social relatedness, intrinsic motivation, procrastination, persistence, and sociodemographic background. Our results support SDT’s claim of universality regarding the relation between basic psychological need fulfilment, intrinsic motivation, procrastination, and persistence. However, whereas perceived competence had the highest direct effect on procrastination and persistence, social relatedness was mainly influential via intrinsic motivation.

Citation: Pelikan ER, Korlat S, Reiter J, Holzer J, Mayerhofer M, Schober B, et al. (2021) Distance learning in higher education during COVID-19: The role of basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation for persistence and procrastination–a multi-country study. PLoS ONE 16(10): e0257346. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346

Editor: Shah Md Atiqul Haq, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, BANGLADESH

Received: March 30, 2021; Accepted: August 29, 2021; Published: October 6, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Pelikan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data is now publicly available: Pelikan ER, Korlat S, Reiter J, Lüftenegger M. Distance Learning in Higher Education During COVID-19: Basic Psychological Needs and Intrinsic Motivation 2021. doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/8CZX3 .

Funding: This work was funded by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) [ https://www.wwtf.at/ ] and the MEGA Bildungsstiftung [ https://www.megabildung.at/ ] through project COV20-025, as well as the Academy of Finland [ https://www.aka.fi ] through project 308351, 336138, and 345117. BS is the grant recipient of COV20-025. KSA is the grant recipient of 308351, 336138, and 345117. Open access funding was provided by University of Vienna. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

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

Introduction

In early 2020, countries across the world faced rising COVID-19 infection rates, and various physical and social distancing measures to contain the spread of the virus were adopted, including curfews and closures of businesses, schools, and universities. By the end of April 2020, roughly 1.3 billion learners were affected by the closure of educational institutions [ 1 ]. At universities, instruction was urgently switched to distance learning, bearing challenges for all actors involved, particularly for students [ 2 ]. Moreover, since distance teaching requires ample preparation time and situation-specific didactic adaptation to be successful, previously established concepts for and research findings on distance learning cannot be applied undifferentiated to the emergency distance learning situation at hand [ 3 ].

Generally, it has been shown that the less structured learning environment in distance learning requires students to regulate their learning and motivation more independently [ 4 ]. In distance learning in particular, high intrinsic motivation has proven to be decisive for learning success, whereas low intrinsic motivation may lead to maladaptive behavior like procrastination (delaying an intended course of action despite negative consequences) [ 5 , 6 ]. According to self-determination theory (SDT), satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and social relatedness leads to higher intrinsic motivation [ 7 ], which in turn promotes adaptive patterns of learning behavior. On the other hand, dissatisfaction of these basic psychological needs can detrimentally affect intrinsic motivation. According to SDT, satisfaction of the basic psychological needs occurs in interaction with the social environment. The context in which learning takes place as well as the support of social interactions it encompasses play a major role for basic need satisfaction [ 7 , 8 ]. Distance learning, particularly when it occurs simultaneously with other physical and social distancing measures, may impair basic need satisfaction and, in consequence, intrinsic motivation and learning behavior.

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between basic need satisfaction and two important learning behaviors—procrastination (as a consequence of low or absent intrinsic motivation) and persistence (as the volitional implementation of motivation)—in the context of emergency distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. In line with SDT [ 7 ] and previous studies (e.g., [ 9 ]), we also investigated the mediating role of intrinsic motivation in this relationship. Furthermore, to test the universal importance of SDT for intrinsic motivation and learning behavior under these specific circumstances, we collected data in 17 countries in Europe, Asia, and North America.

The fundamental role of basic psychological needs for intrinsic motivation and learning behavior

SDT [ 7 ] provides a broad framework for understanding human motivation, proposing that the three basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and social relatedness must be satisfied for optimal functioning and intrinsic motivation. The need for autonomy refers to an internal perceived locus of control and a sense of agency. In an academic context, students who learn autonomously feel that they have an active choice in shaping their learning process. The need for competence refers to the feeling of being effective in one’s actions. In addition, students who perceive themselves as competent feel that they can successfully meet challenges and accomplish the tasks they are given. Finally, the need for social relatedness refers to feeling connected to and accepted by others. SDT proposes that the satisfaction of each of these three basic needs uniquely contributes to intrinsic motivation, a claim that has been proved in numerous studies and in various learning contexts. For example, Martinek and colleagues [ 10 ] found that autonomy satisfaction was positively whereas autonomy frustration was negatively related to intrinsic motivation in a sample of university students during COVID-19. The same held true for competence satisfaction and dissatisfaction. A recent study compared secondary school students who perceived themselves as highly competent in dealing with their school-related tasks during pandemic-induced distance learning to those who perceived themselves as low in competence [ 11 ]. Students with high perceived competence not only reported higher intrinsic motivation but also implemented more self-regulated learning strategies (such as goal setting, planning, time management and metacognitive strategies) and procrastinated less than students who perceived themselves as low in competence. Of the three basic psychological needs, the findings on the influence of social relatedness on intrinsic motivation have been most ambiguous. While in some studies, social relatedness enhanced intrinsic motivation (e.g., [ 12 ]), others could not establish a clear connection (e.g., [ 13 ]).

Intrinsic motivation, in turn, is regarded as particularly important for learning behavior and success (e.g., [ 6 , 14 ]). For example, students with higher intrinsic motivation tend to engage more in learning activities [ 9 , 15 ], show higher persistence [ 16 ] and procrastinate less [ 6 , 17 , 18 ]. Notably, intrinsic motivation is considered to be particularly important in distance learning, where students have to regulate their learning themselves. Distance-learning students not only have to consciously decide to engage in learning behavior but also persist despite manifold distractions and less external regulation [ 4 ].

Previous research also indicates that the satisfaction of each basic need uniquely contributes to the regulation of learning behavior [ 19 ]. Indeed, studies have shown a positive relationship between persistence and the three basic needs (autonomy [ 20 ]; competence [ 21 ]; social relatedness [ 22 ]). Furthermore, all three basic psychological needs have been found to be related to procrastination. In previous research with undergraduate students, autonomy-supportive teaching behavior was positively related to satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence, both of which led to less procrastination [ 23 ]. A qualitative study by Klingsieck and colleagues [ 18 ] supports the findings of previous studies on the relations of perceived competence and autonomy with procrastination, but additionally suggests a lack of social relatedness as a contributing factor to procrastination. Haghbin and colleagues [ 24 ] likewise found that people with low perceived competence avoided challenging tasks and procrastinated.

SDT has been applied in research across various contexts, including work (e.g., [ 25 ]), health (e.g., [ 26 ]), everyday life (e.g., [ 27 ]) and education (e.g., [ 15 , 28 ]). Moreover, the pivotal role of the three basic psychological needs for learning outcomes and functioning has been shown across multiple countries, including collectivistic as well as individualistic cultures (e.g., [ 29 , 30 ]), leading to the conclusion that satisfaction of the three basic needs is a fundamental and universal determinant of human motivation and consequently learning success [ 31 ].

Self-determination theory in a distance learning setting during COVID-19

As Chen and Jang [ 28 ] observed, SDT lends itself particularly well to investigating distance learning, as the three basic needs for autonomy, competence and social relatedness all relate to important aspects of distance learning. For example, distance learning usually offers students greater freedom in deciding where and when they want to learn [ 32 ]. This may provide students with a sense of agency over their learning, leading to increased perceived autonomy. At the same time, it requires students to regulate their motivation and learning more independently [ 4 ]. In the unique context of distance learning during COVID-19, it should be noted that students could not choose whether and to what extent to engage in distance learning, but had to comply with external stipulations, which in turn may have had a negative effect on perceived autonomy. Furthermore, distance learning may also influence perceived competence, as this is in part developed by receiving explicit or implicit feedback from teachers and peers [ 33 ]. Implicit feedback in particular may be harder to receive in a distance learning setting, where informal discussions and social cues are largely absent. The lack of face-to-face contact may also impede social relatedness between students and their peers as well as students and their teachers. Well-established communication practices are crucial for distance learning success (see [ 34 ] for an overview). However, providing a nurturing social context requires additional effort and guidance from teachers, which in turn necessitates sufficient skills and preparation on their part [ 34 , 35 ]. Moreover, the sudden switch to distance learning due to COVID-19 did not leave teachers and students time to gradually adjust to the new learning situation [ 36 ]. As intrinsic motivation is considered particularly relevant in the context of distance education [ 28 , 37 ], applying the SDT framework to the novel situation of pandemic-induced distance learning may lead to important insights that allow for informed recommendations for teachers and educational institutions about how to proceed in the context of continued distance teaching and learning.

In summary, the COVID-19 situation is a completely new environment, and basic need satisfaction during learning under pandemic-induced conditions has not been explored before. Considering that closures of educational institutions have affected billions of students worldwide and have been strongly debated in some countries, it seems particularly relevant to gain insights into which factors consistently influence conducive or maladaptive learning behavior in these circumstances in a wide range of countries and contextual settings.

Therefore, the overall goal of this study is to investigate the well-established relationship between the three basic needs for autonomy, competence, and social relatedness with intrinsic motivation in the new and specific situation of pandemic-induced distance learning. Firstly, we examine the relationship between each of the basic needs with intrinsic motivation. We expect that perceived satisfaction of the basic needs for autonomy (H1a), competence (H1b) and social relatedness (H1c) would be positively related to intrinsic motivation. In our second research question, we furthermore extend SDT’s predictions regarding two important aspects of learning behavior–procrastination (as a consequence of low or absent intrinsic motivation) and persistence (as the implementation of the volitional part of motivation) and hypothesize that each basic need will be positively related to persistence and negatively related to procrastination, both directly (procrastination: H2a –c; persistence: H3a –c) and mediated by intrinsic motivation (procrastination: H4a –c; persistence: H5a –c). We also proposed that perceived autonomy, competence, and social relatedness would have a direct negative relation with procrastination (H6a –c) and a direct positive relation with persistence (H7a –c). Finally, we investigate SDT’s claim of universality, and assume that the aforementioned relationships will emerge across countries we therefore expect a similar pattern of results in all observed countries (H8a –c). As previous studies have indicated that gender [ 4 , 17 , 38 ] and age [ 39 , 40 ]. May influence intrinsic motivation, persistence, and procrastination, we included participants’ gender and age as control variables.

Study design

Due to the circumstances, we opted for a cross-sectional study design across multiple countries, conducted as an online survey. We decided for an online-design due to the pandemic-related restrictions on physical contact with potential survey participants as well as due to the potential to reach a larger audience. As we were interested in the current situation in schools than in long-term development, and we were particularly interested in a large-scale section of the population in multiple countries, we decided on a cross-sectional design. In addition, a multi-country design is particularly interesting in a pandemic setting: During this global health crisis, educational institutions in all countries face the same challenge (to provide distance learning in a way that allows students to succeed) but do so within different frameworks depending on the specific measures each country has implemented. This provides a unique basis for comparing the effects of need fulfillment on students’ learning behavior cross-nationally, thus testing the universality of SDT.

Sample and procedure

The study was carried out across 17 countries, with central coordination taking place in Austria. It was approved and supported by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research and conducted online. International cooperation partners were recruited from previously established research networks (e.g., European Family Support Network [COST Action 18123]; Transnational Collaboration on Bullying, Migration and Integration at School Level [COST Action 18115]; International Panel on Social), resulting in data collection in 16 countries (Albania, China, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Kosovo, Lithuania, Poland, Malta, North Macedonia, Romania, Sweden, USA) in addition to Austria. Data collection was carried out between April and August 2020. During this period, all participating countries were in some degree of pandemic-induced lockdown, which resulted in universities temporarily switching to distance learning. The online questionnaires were distributed among university students via online surveys by the research groups in each respective country. No restrictions were placed on participation other than being enrolled at a university in the sampling country. Participants were informed about the goals of the study, expected time it would take to fill out the questionnaire, voluntariness of participation and anonymity of the acquired data. All research partners ensured that all ethical and legal requirements related to data collection in their country context were met.

Only data from students who gave their written consent to participate, had reached the age of majority (18 or older) and filled out all questions regarding the study’s main variables were included in the analyses (for details on data cleaning rules and exclusion criteria, see [ 41 ]). Additional information on data collection in the various countries is provided in S1 Table in S1 File .

The overall sample of N = 15,462 students was predominantly female (71.7%, 27.4% male and 0.7% diverse) and ranged from 18 to 71 years, with the average participant age being 24.41 years ( SD = 6.93, Mdn = 22.00). Sample descriptives per country are presented in Table 1 .

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

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.t001

The variables analyzed here were part of a more extensive questionnaire; the complete questionnaire, as well as the analysis code and the data set, can be found at OSF [ 42 ] In order to take the unique situation into account, existing scales were adapted to the current pandemic context (e.g., adding “In the current home-learning situation …”), and supplemented with a small number of newly developed items. Subsequently, the survey was revised based on expert judgements from our research group and piloted with cognitive interview testing. The items were sent to the research partners in English and translated separately by each respective research team either using the translation-back-translation method or by at least two native-speaking experts. Subsequently, any differences were discussed, and a consolidated version was established.

To assure the reliability of the scales, we analyzed them using alpha coefficients separately for each country (see S2–S18 Tables in S1 File ). All items were answered on a rating scale from 1 (= strongly agree) to 5 (= strongly disagree) and students were instructed to answer with regard to the current situation (distance learning during the COVID-19 lockdown). Analyses were conducted with recoded items so that higher values reflected higher agreement with the statements.

Perceived autonomy was measured with two newly constructed items (“Currently, I can define my own areas of focus in my studies” and “Currently, I can perform tasks in the way that best suits me”; average α = .78, ranging from .62 to .86).

Perceived competence was measured with three items, which were constructed based on the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale (W-BNS; [ 25 ]) and transferred to the learning context (“Currently, I am dealing well with the demands of my studies”, “Currently, I have no doubts about whether I am capable of doing well in my studies” and “Currently, I am managing to make progress in studying for university”; average α = .83, ranging from .74 to .91).

Perceived social relatedness was assessed with three items, based on the W-BNS [ 43 ], (“Currently, I feel connected with my fellow students”, “Currently, I feel supported by my fellow students”) and the German Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale [ 44 ]; “Currently, I feel connected with the people who are important to me (family, friends)”; average α = .73, ranging from .64 to .88).

Intrinsic motivation was measured with three items which were slightly adapted from the Scales for the Measurement of Motivational Regulation for Learning in University Students (SMR-LS; [ 45 ]; “Currently, doing work for university is really fun”, “Currently, I am really enjoying studying and doing work for university” and “Currently, I find studying for university really exciting”; average α = .91, ranging from .83 to .94).

Procrastination was measured with three items adapted from the Procrastination Questionnaire for Students (Prokrastinationsfragebogen für Studierende; PFS; [ 46 ]): “In the current home-learning situation, I postpone tasks until the last minute”, “In the current home-learning situation, I often do not manage to start a task when I set out to do so”, and “In the current home-learning situation, I only start working on a task when I really need to”; average α = .88, ranging from .74 to .91).

Persistence was measured with three items adapted from the EPOCH measure [ 47 ]: “In the current home-learning situation, I finish whatever task I begin”, “In the current home-learning situation, I keep at my tasks until I am done with them” and “In the current home-learning situation, once I make a plan to study, I stick to it”; average α = .81, ranging from .74 to .88).

Data analysis.

Data analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS version 26.0 and Mplus version 8.4. First, we tested for measurement invariance between countries prior to any substantial analyses. We conducted a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFAs) for all scales individually to test for configural, metric, and scalar invariance [ 48 , 49 ] (see S19 Table in S1 File ). We used maximum likelihood parameter estimates with robust standard errors (MLR) to deal with the non-normality of the data. CFI and RMSEA were used as indicators for absolute goodness of model fit. In line with Hu and Bentler [ 50 ], the following cutoff scores were considered to reflect excellent and adequate fit to the data, respectively: (a) CFI > 0.95 and CFI > 0.90; (b) RMSEA < .06 and RMSEA < .08. Relative model fit was assessed by comparing BICs of the nested models, with smaller BIC values indicating a better trade-off between model fit and model complexity [ 51 ]. Configural invariance indicates a factor structure that is universally applicable to all subgroups in the analysis, metric invariance implies that participants across all groups attribute the same meaning to the latent constructs measured, and scalar invariance indicates that participants across groups attribute the same meaning to the levels of the individual items [ 51 ]. Consequently, the extent to which the results can be interpreted depends on the level of measurement invariance that can be established.

For the main analyses, three latent multiple group mediation models were computed, each including one of the basic psychological needs as a predictor, intrinsic motivation as the mediator and procrastination and persistence as the outcomes. These three models served to test the hypothesis that perceived autonomy, competence and social relatedness are related to levels of procrastination and persistence, both directly and mediated through intrinsic motivation. We used bootstrapping in order to provide analyses robust to non-normal distribution variations, specifying 5,000 bootstrap iterations [ 52 ]. Results were estimated using the maximum likelihood (ML) method. Bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals are reported.

Finally, in an exploratory step, we investigated the international applicability of the direct and mediated effects. To this end, an additional set of latent mediation models was computed where the path estimates were fixed in order to create an average model across all countries. This was prompted by the consistent patterns of results across countries we observed in the multigroup analyses. Model fit indices of these average models were compared to those of the multigroup models in order to establish the similarity of path coefficients between countries.

Statistical prerequisites

Table 2 provides overall descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables (see S2–S18 Tables in S1 File for descriptive statistics for the individual countries).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.t002

Metric measurement variance, but not scalar measurement invariance could be established for a simple model including the three individual items and no inter-correlations between perceived competence, perceived social relatedness, intrinsic motivation, and procrastination. For these four variables, the metric invariance model had a good absolute fit, whereas the scalar model did not, due to too high RMSEA; moreover, the relative fit was best for the metric model compared to both the configural and scalar model (see S18 Table in S1 File ). Metric, but not scalar invariance could also be established for persistence after modelling residual correlations between items 1 and 2 and items 2 and 3 of the scale. This was necessary due to the similar wording of the items (see “Measures” section for item wordings). Consequently, the same residual correlations were incorporated into all mediation models.

Finally, as the perceived autonomy scale consisted of only two items, it had to be fitted in a model with a correlating factor in order to compute measurement invariance. Both perceived competence and perceived social relatedness were correlated with perceived autonomy ( r = .59** and r = .31**, respectively; see Table 2 ). Therefore, we fit two models combining perceived autonomy with each of these factors; in both cases, metric measurement invariance was established (see S19 Table in S1 File ).

In summary, these results suggest that the meaning of all constructs we aimed to measure was understood similarly by participants across different countries. Consequently, we were able to fit the same mediation model in all countries and compare the resulting path coefficients.

Both gender and age were statistically significantly correlated with perceived competence, perceived social relatedness, intrinsic motivation, procrastination, and persistence (see S20–S22 Tables in S1 File ).

Mediation analyses

Autonomy hypothesis..

We hypothesized that higher perceived autonomy would relate to less procrastination and more persistence, both directly and indirectly (mediated through intrinsic learning motivation). Indeed, perceived autonomy was related negatively to procrastination (H6a) in most countries. Confidence intervals did not include zero in 10 out of 17 countries, all effect estimates were negative and standardized effect estimates ranged from b stand = - .02 to -.46 (see Fig 1 ). Furthermore, perceived autonomy was directly positively related to persistence in most countries. Specifically, for the direct effect of perceived autonomy on persistence (H7a), all but one country (USA, b stand = -.02; p = .621; CI [-.13, .08]) exhibited distinctly positive effect estimates ranging from b stand = .18 to .72 and confidence intervals that did not include zero.

Countries are ordered by sample size from top (highest) to bottom (lowest).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.g001

In terms of indirect effects of perceived autonomy on procrastination mediated by intrinsic motivation (H7a), confidence intervals did not include zero in 8 out of 17 countries and effect estimates were mostly negative, ranging from b stand = -.33 to .03. Indirect effects of perceived autonomy on persistence (mediated by intrinsic motivation; H5a) were distinctly positive and confidence intervals did not include zero in 12 out of 17 countries. The indirect effect estimates and confidence intervals for all remaining countries were consistently positive, with the standardized effect estimates ranging from b stand = .13 to .39, indicating a robust, positive mediated effect of autonomy on persistence. Fig 2 displays the unstandardized path coefficients and their two-sided 5% confidence intervals for the indirect effects of perceived autonomy on procrastination via intrinsic motivation (left) and of perceived autonomy on persistence via intrinsic motivation (right).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.g002

Unstandardized and standardized path coefficients, standard errors, p-values and bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals for the direct and indirect effects of perceived autonomy on procrastination and persistence for each country are provided in S23–S26 Tables in S1 File , respectively.

Competence hypothesis. Secondly, we hypothesized that higher perceived competence would relate to less procrastination and more persistence both directly and indirectly, mediated through intrinsic learning motivation. Direct effects on procrastination (H6b) were negative in most countries and confidence intervals did not include zero in 10 out of 17 countries (see Fig 3 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.g003

Standardized effect estimates ranged from b stand = -.02 to -.60, with 10 out of 17 countries exhibiting at least a medium-sized effect. Correspondingly, effect estimates for the direct effects on persistence were positive everywhere except the USA and confidence intervals did not include zero in 14 out of 17 countries (see Fig 3 ). Standardized effect estimates ranged from b stand = -.05 to .64 with 14 out of 17 countries displaying an at least medium-sized positive effect.

The pattern of results for the indirect effects of perceived competence on procrastination mediated by learning motivation (H4b) is illustrated in Fig 4 : Effect estimates were negative with the exception of China and the USA. Confidence intervals did not include zero in 7 out of 17 countries. Standardized effect estimates range between b stand = .06 and -.46. Indirect effects of perceived competence on persistence were positive everywhere except for two countries and confidence intervals did not include zero in 7 out of 17 countries (see Fig 4 ). Standardized effect estimates varied between b stand = -.07 and .46 (see S23–S26 Tables in S1 File for unstandardized and standardized path coefficients).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.g004

Social relatedness hypothesis.

Finally, we hypothesized that stronger perceived social relatedness would be both directly and indirectly (mediated through intrinsic learning motivation) related to less procrastination and more persistence. The pattern of results was more ambiguous here than for perceived autonomy and perceived competence. Direct effect estimates on procrastination (H6c) were negative in 12 countries; however, the confidence intervals included zero in 12 out of 17 countries (see Fig 5 ). Standardized effect estimates ranged from b stand = -.01 to b stand = .33. The direct relation between perceived social relatedness and persistence (H7c) yielded 14 negative and three positive effect estimates. Confidence intervals did not include zero in 7 out of 17 countries (see Fig 5 ), with standardized effect estimates ranging from b stand = -.01 to b stand = .31.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.g005

In terms of indirect effects of perceived social relatedness being related to procrastination mediated by intrinsic motivation (H4c), the pattern of results was consistent: All effect estimates except those for the USA were clearly negative, and confidence intervals did not include zero in 15 out of 17 countries (see Fig 6 ). Standardized effect estimates ranged between b stand = .00 and b stand = -.46. Indirect paths of perceived social relatedness on persistence showed positive effect estimates and standardized effect estimates ranging from b stand = .00 to .44 and confidence intervals not including zero in 16 out of 17 countries (see Fig 6 ; see S23–S26 Tables in S1 File for unstandardized and standardized path coefficients).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.g006

Meta-analytic approach

Due to the overall similarity of the results across many countries, we decided to compute, in an additional, exploratory step, the same models with path estimates fixed across countries. This resulted in three models with average path estimates across the entire sample. Standardized path coefficients for the direct and indirect effects of the basic psychological needs on procrastination and persistence are presented in S27 and S28 Tables in S1 File , respectively. We compared the model fits of these three average models to those of the multigroup mediation models: If the fit of the average model is better than that of the multigroup model, it indicates that the individual countries are similar enough to be combined into one model. The amount of explained variance per model, outcome variable and country are provided in S29 Table in S1 File for procrastination and S30 Table in S1 File for persistence.

Perceived autonomy.

Relative model fit was better for the perceived autonomy model with fixed paths (BIC = 432,707.89) compared to the multigroup model (BIC = 432,799.01). Absolute model fit was equally good in the multigroup model (RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97) and in the fixed path model (RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97). Consequently, the general model in Fig 7 describes the data from all 17 countries equally well. The average amount of explained variance, however, is slightly higher in the multigroup model, with 19.9% of the variance in procrastination and 33.7% of the variance in persistence explained, as compared to 18.3% and 27.6% in the fixed path model. The amount of variance explained increased substantially in some countries when fixing the paths: in the multigroup model, explained variance ranges from 2.2% to 44.4% for procrastination and from 0.9% to 69.9% for persistence, compared to 13.0% - 27.7% and 18.2% to 63.2% in the fixed path model. Notably, the amount of variance explained did not change much in the three countries with the largest samples, Austria, Sweden, and Finland; countries with much smaller samples and larger confidence intervals were more affected.

*** p = < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.g007

Overall, perceived autonomy had significant direct and indirect effects on both procrastination and persistence; higher perceived autonomy was related to less procrastination directly ( b unstand = -.27, SE = .02, p = < .001) and mediated by learning motivation ( b unstand = -.20, SE = .01, p = < .001) and to more persistence directly ( b unstand = .24, SE = .01, p = < .001) and mediated by learning motivation ( b unstand = .12, SE = .01, p = < .001). Direct effects for the autonomy model are shown in Fig 7 ; for the indirect effects see Table 3 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.t003

Effects of age and gender varied across countries (see S20 Table in S1 File ).

Perceived competence.

For the perceived competence model, relative fit decreased when fixing the path coefficient estimates (BIC = 465,830.44 to BIC = 466,020.70). The absolute fit indices were also better for the multigroup model (RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96) than for the fixed path model (RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96). Hence, multigroup modelling describes the data across all countries somewhat better than a fixed path model as depicted in Fig 8 . Correspondingly, the fixed path model explained less variance on average than did the multigroup model, with 23.2% instead of 24.3% of the variance in procrastination and 32.9% instead of 37.3% of the variance in persistence explained. Explained variance ranged from 1.0% to 51.9% for procrastination in the multigroup model, as compared to 13.9% - 34.4% in the fixed path model. The amount of variance in persistence explained ranged from 1.0% to 58.1% in the multigroup model and from 23.5% to 55.9% in the fixed path model (see S29 and S30 Tables in S1 File ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.g008

Overall, higher perceived competence was related to less procrastination ( b unstand = -.44, SE = .02, p = < .001) and to higher persistence ( b unstand = .32, SE = .01, p = < .001). These effects were partly mediated by intrinsic learning motivation ( b unstand = -.11, SE = .01, p = < .001, and b unstand = .07, SE = .01, p = < .001, respectively; see Table 3 ). Effects of gender and age varied between countries, see S21 Table in S1 File .

Perceived social relatedness.

Finally, the perceived social relatedness model with fixed paths had a relatively better model fit (BIC = 479,428.46) than the multigroup model (BIC = 479,604.61). Likewise, the absolute model fit was similar in the model with path coefficients fixed across countries (RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96) and the multigroup model (RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97). The multigroup model explained 17.6% of the variance in procrastination and 26.3% of the variance in persistence, as compared to 15.2% and 21.6%, respectively in the fixed path model. Explained variance for procrastination ranged between 0.5% and 48.1% in the multigroup model, and from 9.0% to 23.0% in the fixed path model. Similarly, the multigroup model explained between 1.0% and 56.5% of the variance in persistence across countries, while the fixed path model explained between 15.6% and 48.3% (see S29 and S30 Tables in S1 File ).

Hence, the fixed path model depicted in Fig 9 is well-suited for describing data across all 17 countries. Higher perceived social relatedness is related to less procrastination both directly ( b unstand = -.06, SE = .01, p = < .001) and indirectly through learning motivation ( b unstand = -.12, SE = .01, p = < .001). Likewise, it is related to higher persistence both directly ( b unstand = .07, SE = .01, p = < .001) and indirectly through learning motivation ( b unstand = .08, SE = .00, p = < .001; see Table 3 ). Effects of gender and age are shown in S22 Table in S1 File .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.g009

The aim of this study was to extend current research on the association between the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and social relatedness with intrinsic motivation and two important aspects of learning behavior—procrastination and persistence—in the new and unique situation of pandemic-induced distance learning. We also investigated SDT’s [ 7 ] postulate that the relation between basic psychological need satisfaction and active (persistence) as well as passive (procrastination) learning behavior is mediated by intrinsic motivation. To test the theory’s underlying claim of universality, we collected data from N = 15,462 students across 17 countries in Europe, Asia, and North America.

Confirming our hypothesis, we found that the three basic psychological needs were consistently and positively related to intrinsic motivation in all countries except for the USA (H1a - c). This consistent result is in line with self-determination theory [ 7 ] and other previous studies (e.g., 9), which have found that satisfaction of the three basic needs for autonomy, competence and social relatedness is related to higher intrinsic motivation. Notably, the association with intrinsic motivation was stronger for perceived autonomy and perceived competence than for perceived social relatedness. This also has been found in previous studies [ 4 , 9 , 28 ]. Pandemic-induced distance learning, where physical and subsequential social contact in all areas of life was severely constricted, might further exacerbate this discrepancy, as instructors may have not been able to establish adequate communication structures due to the rapid switch to distance learning [ 36 , 53 ]. As hypothesized, intrinsic motivation was in general negatively related to procrastination (H2a - c) and positively related to persistence (H3a - c), indicating that students who are intrinsically motivated are less prone to procrastination and more persistent when studying. This again underlines the importance of intrinsic motivation for adaptive learning behavior, even and particularly in a distance learning setting, where students are more prone to disengage from classes [ 34 ].

The mediating effect of intrinsic motivation on procrastination and persistence

Direct effects of the basic needs on the outcomes were consistently more ambiguous (with smaller effect estimates and larger confidence intervals, including zero in more countries) than indirect effects mediated by intrinsic motivation. This difference was particularly pronounced for perceived social relatedness, where a clear negative direct effect on procrastination (H6c) could be observed only in the three countries with the largest sample size (Austria, Sweden, Finland) and Romania, whereas the confidence interval in most countries included zero. Moreover, in Estonia there was even a clear positive effect. The unexpected effect in the Estonian sample may be attributed to the fact that this country collected data only from international exchange students. Since the lockdown in Estonia was declared only a few weeks after the start of the semester, international exchange students had only a very short period of time to establish contacts with fellow students on site. Accordingly, there was probably little integration into university structures and social contacts were maintained more on a personal level with contacts from the home country. Thus, such students’ fulfillment of this basic need might have required more time and effort, leading to higher procrastination and less persistence in learning.

A diametrically opposite pattern was observed for persistence (H7c), where some direct effects of social relatedness were unexpectedly negative or close to zero. We therefore conclude that evidence for a direct negative relationship between social relatedness and procrastination and a direct positive relationship between social relatedness and persistence is lacking. This could be due to the specificity of the COVID-19 situation and resulting lockdowns, in which maintaining social contact took students’ focus off learning. In line with SDT, however, indirect effects of perceived social relatedness on procrastination (H4c) and persistence (H5c) mediated via intrinsic motivation were much more visible and in the expected directions. We conclude that, while the direct relation between perceived social relatedness and procrastination is ambiguous, there is strong evidence that the relationship between social relatedness and the measured learning behaviors is mediated by intrinsic motivation. Our results strongly underscore SDT’s assumption that close social relations promote intrinsic motivation, which in turn has a positive effect on learning behavior (e.g., [ 6 , 14 ]). The effects for perceived competence exhibited a somewhat clearer and hypothesis-conforming pattern. All direct effects of perceived competence on procrastination (H6b) were in the expected negative direction, albeit with confidence intervals spanning zero in 7 out of 17 countries. Direct effects of perceived competence on persistence (H7b) were consistently positive with the exception of the USA, where we observed a very small and non-significant negative effect. Indirect effects of perceived competence on procrastination (H4b) and persistence (H5b) as mediated by intrinsic motivation were mostly consistent with our expectations as well. Considering this overall pattern of results, we conclude that there is strong evidence that perceived competence is negatively associated with procrastination and positively associated with persistence. Furthermore, our results also support SDT’s postulate that the relationship between perceived competence and the measured learning behaviors is mediated by intrinsic motivation.

It is notable that the estimated direct effects of perceived competence on procrastination and persistence were higher than the indirect effects in most countries we investigated. Although SDT proposes that perceived competence leads to higher intrinsic motivation, Deci and Ryan [ 8 ] also argue that it affects all types of motivation and regulation, including less autonomous forms such as introjected and identified motivation, indicating that if the need for competence is not satisfied, all types of motivation are negatively affected. This may result in a general amotivation and lack of action. In our study, we only investigated intrinsic motivation as a mediator. For future research, it might be advantageous to further differentiate between different types of externally and internally controlled behavior. Furthermore, perceived competence increases when tasks are experienced as optimally challenging [ 7 , 54 ]. However, in order for instructors to provide the optimal level of difficulty and support needed, frequent communication with students is essential. Considering that data collection for the present study took place at a time of great uncertainty, when many countries had only transitioned to distance learning a few weeks prior, it is reasonable to assume that both structural support as well as communication and feedback mechanisms had not yet matured to a degree that would favor individualized and competency-based work.

However, our findings corroborate those from earlier studies insofar as they underline the associations between perceived competence and positive learning behavior (e.g., [ 19 ]), that is, lower procrastination [ 18 ] and higher persistence (e.g., [ 21 ]), even in an exceptional situation like pandemic-induced distance learning.

Turning to perceived autonomy, although the confidence intervals for the direct effects of perceived autonomy on procrastination (H6a) did span zero in most countries with smaller sample sizes, all effect estimates indicated a negative relation with procrastination. We expected these relationships from previous studies [ 18 , 23 ]; however, the effect might have been even more pronounced in the relatively autonomous learning situation of distance learning, where students usually have increased autonomy in deciding when, where, and how to learn. While this bears the risk of procrastination, it also comes with the opportunity to consciously delay less pressing tasks in favor of other, more important or urgent tasks (also called strategic delay ) [ 5 ], resulting in lower procrastination. In future studies, it might be beneficial to differentiate between passive forms of procrastination and active strategic delay in order to obtain more detailed information on the mechanisms behind this relationship. Direct effects of autonomy on persistence (H7a) were consistently positive. Students who are free to choose their preferred time and place to study may engage more with their studies and therefore be more persistent.

Indirect effects of perceived autonomy on procrastination mediated by intrinsic motivation (H4a) were negative in all but two countries (China and the USA), which is generally consistent with our hypothesis and in line with previous research (e.g., [ 23 ]). Additionally, we found a positive indirect effect of autonomy on persistence (H5a), indicating that autonomy and intrinsic motivation play a crucial role in students’ persistence in a distance learning setting. Based on our results, we conclude that perceived autonomy is negatively related to procrastination and positively related to persistence, and that this relationship is mediated by intrinsic motivation. It is worth noting that, unlike with perceived competence, the direct and indirect effects of perceived autonomy on the outcomes procrastination and persistence were similarly strong, suggesting that perceived autonomy is important not only as a driver of intrinsic motivation but also at a more direct level. It is important to make the best possible use of the opportunity for greater autonomy that distance learning offers. However, autonomy is not to be equated with a lack of structure; instead, learners should be given the opportunity to make their own decisions within certain framework conditions.

The applicability of self-determination theory across countries

Overall, the results of our mediation analysis for the separate countries support the claim posited by SDT that basic need satisfaction is essential for intrinsic motivation and learning across different countries and settings. In an exploratory analysis, we tested a fixed path model including all countries at once, in order to test whether a simplified general model would yield a similar amount of explained variance. For perceived autonomy and social relatedness, the model fit increased, whereas for perceived competence it decreased slightly compared to the multigroup model. However, all fixed path models exhibited adequate model fit. Considering that the circumstances in which distance learning took place in different countries varied to some degree (see also Limitations), these findings are a strong indicator for the universality of SDT.

Study strengths and limitations

Although the current study has several strengths, including a large sample size and data from multiple countries, three limitations must be considered. First, it must be noted that sample sizes varied widely across the 17 countries in our study, with one country above 6,000 (Austria), two above 1,000 (Finland and Sweden) and the rest ranging between 104 and 905. Random sampling effects are more problematic in smaller samples; hence, this large variation weakens our ability to conduct cross-country comparisons. At the same time, small sample sizes weaken the interpretability of results within each country; thus, our results for Austria, Finland and Sweden are considerably more robust than for the remaining fourteen countries. Additionally, two participating countries collected specific subsamples: In China, participants were only recruited from one university, a nursing school. In Estonia, only international exchange students were invited to participate. Nevertheless, with the exception of the unexpected positive direct relationship between social relatedness and procrastination, all observed divergent effects were non-significant. Indeed, this adds to the support for SDT’s claims to universality regarding the relationship between perceived autonomy, competence, and social relatedness with intrinsic motivation: Results in the included countries were, despite their differing subsamples, in line with the overall trend of results, supporting the idea that SDT applies equally to different groups of learners.

Second, due to the large number of countries in our sample and the overall volatility of the situation, learning circumstances were not identical for all participants. Due to factors such as COVID-19 case counts and national governments’ political priorities, lockdown measures varied in their strictness across settings. Some universities were fully closed, some allowed on-site teaching for particular groups (e.g., students in the middle of a laboratory internship), and some switched to distance learning but held exams on site (see S1 Table in S1 File for further information). Therefore, learning conditions were not as comparable as in a strict experimental setting. On the other hand, this strengthens the ecological validity of our study. The fact that the pattern of results was similar across contexts with certain variation in learning conditions further supports the universal applicability of SDT.

Finally, due to the novelty of the COVID-19 situation, some of the measures were newly developed for this study. Due to the need to react swiftly and collect data on the constantly evolving situation, it was not possible to conduct a comprehensive validation study of the instruments. Nevertheless, we were able to confirm the validity of our instruments in several ways, including cognitive interview testing, CFAs, CR, and measurement invariance testing.

Conclusion and future directions

In general, our results further support previous research on the relation between basic psychological need fulfilment and intrinsic motivation, as proposed in self-determination theory. It also extends past findings by applying this well-established theory to the new and unique situation of pandemic-induced distance learning across 17 different countries. Moreover, it underlines the importance of perceived autonomy and competence for procrastination and persistence in this setting. However, various other directions for further research remain to be pursued. While our findings point to the relevance of social relatedness for intrinsic motivation in addition to perceived competence and autonomy, further research should explore the specific mechanisms necessary to promote social connectedness in distance learning. Furthermore, in our study, we investigated intrinsic motivation, as the most autonomous form of motivation. Future research might address different types of externally and internally regulated motivation in order to further differentiate our results regarding the relations between basic need satisfaction and motivation. Finally, a longitudinal study design could provide deeper insights into the trajectory of need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and learning behavior during extended periods of social distancing and could provide insights into potential forms of support implemented by teachers and coping mechanisms developed by students.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257346.s001

• 1. UNESCO [Internet]. 2020. COVID-19 Impact on Education; [cited 13 th March 2021]. Available from: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
• 2. United Nations. Policy Brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond [cited 13 th March 2021]. [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf#
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 16. Schunk DH, Pintrich PR, Meece JL. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. 4th ed. London: Pearson Higher Education; 2014.
• 19. Connell JP, Wellborn JG. Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In: Gunnar MR, Sroufe LA, editors. Self-processes and development. Hilsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1991. pp. 43–77.
• 33. Legault L. The Need for Competence. 2017 [cited 22 March 2021]. In: Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing. [pp. 1–3]. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1123-1
• 36. Hodges C, Moore S, Lockee B, Trust T, Bond A. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. 2020 March 27 [cited 13 th March 2021]. In: Educause Review [Internet]. Available from: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
• 37. Mills R. The centrality of learner support in open and distance learning. In: Mills R, Tait A, editors. Rethinking learner support in distance education: Change and continuity in an international context. London: Routledge; 2003. pp. 102–113.
• 41. Schober B, Lüftenegger M, Spiel C. Learning conditions during COVID-19 Students (SUF edition); 2021 [cited 2021 Mar 22]. Database: AUSSDA [Internet]. Available from: https://data.aussda.at/citation?persistentId=10.11587/XIU3TX
• 42. Pelikan ER, Korlat S, Reiter J, Lüftenegger M. Distance Learning in Higher Education During COVID-19: Basic Psychological Needs and Intrinsic Motivation [Internet]. OSF; 2021. Available from: osf.io/8czx3
• 46. Glöckner-Rist A, Engberding M, Höcker A, Rist F. Prokrastinationsfragebogen für Studierende (PfS) [Procrastination Scale for Students]. In: Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen [Summary of items and scales in social science] ZIS Version 1300. Bonn: GESIS; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714002803 pmid:25482960
• 48. Millsap RE. Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2011.
• 52. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2018.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 06 February 2017

Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes

• Mugenyi Justice Kintu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4500-1168 1 , 2 ,
• Chang Zhu 2 &
• Edmond Kagambe 1  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  14 , Article number:  7 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

760k Accesses

223 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

This paper investigates the effectiveness of a blended learning environment through analyzing the relationship between student characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. It is aimed at determining the significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness taking student characteristics/background and design features as independent variables and learning outcomes as dependent variables. A survey was administered to 238 respondents to gather data on student characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. The final semester evaluation results were used as a measure for performance as an outcome. We applied the online self regulatory learning questionnaire for data on learner self regulation, the intrinsic motivation inventory for data on intrinsic motivation and other self-developed instruments for measuring the other constructs. Multiple regression analysis results showed that blended learning design features (technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support) and student characteristics (attitudes and self-regulation) predicted student satisfaction as an outcome. The results indicate that some of the student characteristics/backgrounds and design features are significant predictors for student learning outcomes in blended learning.

Introduction

The teaching and learning environment is embracing a number of innovations and some of these involve the use of technology through blended learning. This innovative pedagogical approach has been embraced rapidly though it goes through a process. The introduction of blended learning (combination of face-to-face and online teaching and learning) initiatives is part of these innovations but its uptake, especially in the developing world faces challenges for it to be an effective innovation in teaching and learning. Blended learning effectiveness has quite a number of underlying factors that pose challenges. One big challenge is about how users can successfully use the technology and ensuring participants’ commitment given the individual learner characteristics and encounters with technology (Hofmann, 2014 ). Hofmann adds that users getting into difficulties with technology may result into abandoning the learning and eventual failure of technological applications. In a report by Oxford Group ( 2013 ), some learners (16%) had negative attitudes to blended learning while 26% were concerned that learners would not complete study in blended learning. Learners are important partners in any learning process and therefore, their backgrounds and characteristics affect their ability to effectively carry on with learning and being in blended learning, the design tools to be used may impinge on the effectiveness in their learning.

This study tackles blended learning effectiveness which has been investigated in previous studies considering grades, course completion, retention and graduation rates but no studies regarding effectiveness in view of learner characteristics/background, design features and outcomes have been done in the Ugandan university context. No studies have also been done on how the characteristics of learners and design features are predictors of outcomes in the context of a planning evaluation research (Guskey, 2000 ) to establish the effectiveness of blended learning. Guskey ( 2000 ) noted that planning evaluation fits in well since it occurs before the implementation of any innovation as well as allowing planners to determine the needs, considering participant characteristics, analyzing contextual matters and gathering baseline information. This study is done in the context of a plan to undertake innovative pedagogy involving use of a learning management system (moodle) for the first time in teaching and learning in a Ugandan university. The learner characteristics/backgrounds being investigated for blended learning effectiveness include self-regulation, computer competence, workload management, social and family support, attitude to blended learning, gender and age. We investigate the blended learning design features of learner interactions, face-to-face support, learning management system tools and technology quality while the outcomes considered include satisfaction, performance, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction. Establishing the significant predictors of outcomes in blended learning will help to inform planners of such learning environments in order to put in place necessary groundwork preparations for designing blended learning as an innovative pedagogical approach.

Kenney and Newcombe ( 2011 ) did their comparison to establish effectiveness in view of grades and found that blended learning had higher average score than the non-blended learning environment. Garrison and Kanuka ( 2004 ) examined the transformative potential of blended learning and reported an increase in course completion rates, improved retention and increased student satisfaction. Comparisons between blended learning environments have been done to establish the disparity between academic achievement, grade dispersions and gender performance differences and no significant differences were found between the groups (Demirkol & Kazu, 2014 ).

However, blended learning effectiveness may be dependent on many other factors and among them student characteristics, design features and learning outcomes. Research shows that the failure of learners to continue their online education in some cases has been due to family support or increased workload leading to learner dropout (Park & Choi, 2009 ) as well as little time for study. Additionally, it is dependent on learner interactions with instructors since failure to continue with online learning is attributed to this. In Greer, Hudson & Paugh’s study as cited in Park and Choi ( 2009 ), family and peer support for learners is important for success in online and face-to-face learning. Support is needed for learners from all areas in web-based courses and this may be from family, friends, co-workers as well as peers in class. Greer, Hudson and Paugh further noted that peer encouragement assisted new learners in computer use and applications. The authors also show that learners need time budgeting, appropriate technology tools and support from friends and family in web-based courses. Peer support is required by learners who have no or little knowledge of technology, especially computers, to help them overcome fears. Park and Choi, ( 2009 ) showed that organizational support significantly predicts learners’ stay and success in online courses because employers at times are willing to reduce learners’ workload during study as well as supervisors showing that they are interested in job-related learning for employees to advance and improve their skills.

The study by Kintu and Zhu ( 2016 ) investigated the possibility of blended learning in a Ugandan University and examined whether student characteristics (such as self-regulation, attitudes towards blended learning, computer competence) and student background (such as family support, social support and management of workload) were significant factors in learner outcomes (such as motivation, satisfaction, knowledge construction and performance). The characteristics and background factors were studied along with blended learning design features such as technology quality, learner interactions, and Moodle with its tools and resources. The findings from that study indicated that learner attitudes towards blended learning were significant factors to learner satisfaction and motivation while workload management was a significant factor to learner satisfaction and knowledge construction. Among the blended learning design features, only learner interaction was a significant factor to learner satisfaction and knowledge construction.

The focus of the present study is on examining the effectiveness of blended learning taking into consideration learner characteristics/background, blended learning design elements and learning outcomes and how the former are significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness.

Studies like that of Morris and Lim ( 2009 ) have investigated learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes in blended learning. They however do not deal with such variables in the contexts of blended learning design as an aspect of innovative pedagogy involving the use of technology in education. Apart from the learner variables such as gender, age, experience, study time as tackled before, this study considers social and background aspects of the learners such as family and social support, self-regulation, attitudes towards blended learning and management of workload to find out their relationship to blended learning effectiveness. Identifying the various types of learner variables with regard to their relationship to blended learning effectiveness is important in this study as we embark on innovative pedagogy with technology in teaching and learning.

Literature review

This review presents research about blended learning effectiveness from the perspective of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes. It also gives the factors that are considered to be significant for blended learning effectiveness. The selected elements are as a result of the researcher’s experiences at a Ugandan university where student learning faces challenges with regard to learner characteristics and blended learning features in adopting the use of technology in teaching and learning. We have made use of Loukis, Georgiou, and Pazalo ( 2007 ) value flow model for evaluating an e-learning and blended learning service specifically considering the effectiveness evaluation layer. This evaluates the extent of an e-learning system usage and the educational effectiveness. In addition, studies by Leidner, Jarvenpaa, Dillon and Gunawardena as cited in Selim ( 2007 ) have noted three main factors that affect e-learning and blended learning effectiveness as instructor characteristics, technology and student characteristics. Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino ( 2001 ) showed the need for examining learner characteristics for effective instructional technology use and showed that user characteristics do impact on behavioral intention to use technology. Research has dealt with learner characteristics that contribute to learner performance outcomes. They have dealt with emotional intelligence, resilience, personality type and success in an online learning context (Berenson, Boyles, & Weaver, 2008 ). Dealing with the characteristics identified in this study will give another dimension, especially for blended learning in learning environment designs and add to specific debate on learning using technology. Lin and Vassar, ( 2009 ) indicated that learner success is dependent on ability to cope with technical difficulty as well as technical skills in computer operations and internet navigation. This justifies our approach in dealing with the design features of blended learning in this study.

Learner characteristics/background and blended learning effectiveness

Studies indicate that student characteristics such as gender play significant roles in academic achievement (Oxford Group, 2013 ), but no study examines performance of male and female as an important factor in blended learning effectiveness. It has again been noted that the success of e- and blended learning is highly dependent on experience in internet and computer applications (Picciano & Seaman, 2007 ). Rigorous discovery of such competences can finally lead to a confirmation of high possibilities of establishing blended learning. Research agrees that the success of e-learning and blended learning can largely depend on students as well as teachers gaining confidence and capability to participate in blended learning (Hadad, 2007 ). Shraim and Khlaif ( 2010 ) note in their research that 75% of students and 72% of teachers were lacking in skills to utilize ICT based learning components due to insufficient skills and experience in computer and internet applications and this may lead to failure in e-learning and blended learning. It is therefore pertinent that since the use of blended learning applies high usage of computers, computer competence is necessary (Abubakar & Adetimirin, 2015 ) to avoid failure in applying technology in education for learning effectiveness. Rovai, ( 2003 ) noted that learners’ computer literacy and time management are crucial in distance learning contexts and concluded that such factors are meaningful in online classes. This is supported by Selim ( 2007 ) that learners need to posses time management skills and computer skills necessary for effectiveness in e- learning and blended learning. Self-regulatory skills of time management lead to better performance and learners’ ability to structure the physical learning environment leads to efficiency in e-learning and blended learning environments. Learners need to seek helpful assistance from peers and teachers through chats, email and face-to-face meetings for effectiveness (Lynch & Dembo, 2004 ). Factors such as learners’ hours of employment and family responsibilities are known to impede learners’ process of learning, blended learning inclusive (Cohen, Stage, Hammack, & Marcus, 2012 ). It was also noted that a common factor in failure and learner drop-out is the time conflict which is compounded by issues of family , employment status as well as management support (Packham, Jones, Miller, & Thomas, 2004 ). A study by Thompson ( 2004 ) shows that work, family, insufficient time and study load made learners withdraw from online courses.

Learner attitudes to blended learning can result in its effectiveness and these shape behavioral intentions which usually lead to persistence in a learning environment, blended inclusive. Selim, ( 2007 ) noted that the learners’ attitude towards e-learning and blended learning are success factors for these learning environments. Learner performance by age and gender in e-learning and blended learning has been found to indicate no significant differences between male and female learners and different age groups (i.e. young, middle-aged and old above 45 years) (Coldwell, Craig, Paterson, & Mustard, 2008 ). This implies that the potential for blended learning to be effective exists and is unhampered by gender or age differences.

Blended learning design features

The design features under study here include interactions, technology with its quality, face-to-face support and learning management system tools and resources.

Research shows that absence of learner interaction causes failure and eventual drop-out in online courses (Willging & Johnson, 2009 ) and the lack of learner connectedness was noted as an internal factor leading to learner drop-out in online courses (Zielinski, 2000 ). It was also noted that learners may not continue in e- and blended learning if they are unable to make friends thereby being disconnected and developing feelings of isolation during their blended learning experiences (Willging & Johnson, 2009). Learners’ Interactions with teachers and peers can make blended learning effective as its absence makes learners withdraw (Astleitner, 2000 ). Loukis, Georgious and Pazalo (2007) noted that learners’ measuring of a system’s quality, reliability and ease of use leads to learning efficiency and can be so in blended learning. Learner success in blended learning may substantially be affected by system functionality (Pituch & Lee, 2006 ) and may lead to failure of such learning initiatives (Shrain, 2012 ). It is therefore important to examine technology quality for ensuring learning effectiveness in blended learning. Tselios, Daskalakis, and Papadopoulou ( 2011 ) investigated learner perceptions after a learning management system use and found out that the actual system use determines the usefulness among users. It is again noted that a system with poor response time cannot be taken to be useful for e-learning and blended learning especially in cases of limited bandwidth (Anderson, 2004 ). In this study, we investigate the use of Moodle and its tools as a function of potential effectiveness of blended learning.

The quality of learning management system content for learners can be a predictor of good performance in e-and blended learning environments and can lead to learner satisfaction. On the whole, poor quality technology yields no satisfaction by users and therefore the quality of technology significantly affects satisfaction (Piccoli, Ahmad, & Ives, 2001 ). Continued navigation through a learning management system increases use and is an indicator of success in blended learning (Delone & McLean, 2003 ). The efficient use of learning management system and its tools improves learning outcomes in e-learning and blended learning environments.

It is noted that learner satisfaction with a learning management system can be an antecedent factor for blended learning effectiveness. Goyal and Tambe ( 2015 ) noted that learners showed an appreciation to Moodle’s contribution in their learning. They showed positivity with it as it improved their understanding of course material (Ahmad & Al-Khanjari, 2011 ). The study by Goyal and Tambe ( 2015 ) used descriptive statistics to indicate improved learning by use of uploaded syllabus and session plans on Moodle. Improved learning is also noted through sharing study material, submitting assignments and using the calendar. Learners in the study found Moodle to be an effective educational tool.

In blended learning set ups, face-to-face experiences form part of the blend and learner positive attitudes to such sessions could mean blended learning effectiveness. A study by Marriot, Marriot, and Selwyn ( 2004 ) showed learners expressing their preference for face-to-face due to its facilitation of social interaction and communication skills acquired from classroom environment. Their preference for the online session was only in as far as it complemented the traditional face-to-face learning. Learners in a study by Osgerby ( 2013 ) had positive perceptions of blended learning but preferred face-to-face with its step-by-stem instruction. Beard, Harper and Riley ( 2004 ) shows that some learners are successful while in a personal interaction with teachers and peers thus prefer face-to-face in the blend. Beard however dealt with a comparison between online and on-campus learning while our study combines both, singling out the face-to-face part of the blend. The advantage found by Beard is all the same relevant here because learners in blended learning express attitude to both online and face-to-face for an effective blend. Researchers indicate that teacher presence in face-to-face sessions lessens psychological distance between them and the learners and leads to greater learning. This is because there are verbal aspects like giving praise, soliciting for viewpoints, humor, etc and non-verbal expressions like eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, etc which make teachers to be closer to learners psychologically (Kelley & Gorham, 2009 ).

Learner outcomes

The outcomes under scrutiny in this study include performance, motivation, satisfaction and knowledge construction. Motivation is seen here as an outcome because, much as cognitive factors such as course grades are used in measuring learning outcomes, affective factors like intrinsic motivation may also be used to indicate outcomes of learning (Kuo, Walker, Belland, & Schroder, 2013 ). Research shows that high motivation among online learners leads to persistence in their courses (Menager-Beeley, 2004 ). Sankaran and Bui ( 2001 ) indicated that less motivated learners performed poorly in knowledge tests while those with high learning motivation demonstrate high performance in academics (Green, Nelson, Martin, & Marsh, 2006 ). Lim and Kim, ( 2003 ) indicated that learner interest as a motivation factor promotes learner involvement in learning and this could lead to learning effectiveness in blended learning.

Learner satisfaction was noted as a strong factor for effectiveness of blended and online courses (Wilging & Johnson, 2009) and dissatisfaction may result from learners’ incompetence in the use of the learning management system as an effective learning tool since, as Islam ( 2014 ) puts it, users may be dissatisfied with an information system due to ease of use. A lack of prompt feedback for learners from course instructors was found to cause dissatisfaction in an online graduate course. In addition, dissatisfaction resulted from technical difficulties as well as ambiguous course instruction Hara and Kling ( 2001 ). These factors, once addressed, can lead to learner satisfaction in e-learning and blended learning and eventual effectiveness. A study by Blocker and Tucker ( 2001 ) also showed that learners had difficulties with technology and inadequate group participation by peers leading to dissatisfaction within these design features. Student-teacher interactions are known to bring satisfaction within online courses. Study results by Swan ( 2001 ) indicated that student-teacher interaction strongly related with student satisfaction and high learner-learner interaction resulted in higher levels of course satisfaction. Descriptive results by Naaj, Nachouki, and Ankit ( 2012 ) showed that learners were satisfied with technology which was a video-conferencing component of blended learning with a mean of 3.7. The same study indicated student satisfaction with instructors at a mean of 3.8. Askar and Altun, ( 2008 ) found that learners were satisfied with face-to-face sessions of the blend with t-tests and ANOVA results indicating female scores as higher than for males in the satisfaction with face-to-face environment of the blended learning.

Studies comparing blended learning with traditional face-to-face have indicated that learners perform equally well in blended learning and their performance is unaffected by the delivery method (Kwak, Menezes, & Sherwood, 2013 ). In another study, learning experience and performance are known to improve when traditional course delivery is integrated with online learning (Stacey & Gerbic, 2007 ). Such improvement as noted may be an indicator of blended learning effectiveness. Our study however, delves into improved performance but seeks to establish the potential of blended learning effectiveness by considering grades obtained in a blended learning experiment. Score 50 and above is considered a pass in this study’s setting and learners scoring this and above will be considered to have passed. This will make our conclusions about the potential of blended learning effectiveness.

Regarding knowledge construction, it has been noted that effective learning occurs where learners are actively involved (Nurmela, Palonen, Lehtinen & Hakkarainen, 2003 , cited in Zhu, 2012 ) and this may be an indicator of learning environment effectiveness. Effective blended learning would require that learners are able to initiate, discover and accomplish the processes of knowledge construction as antecedents of blended learning effectiveness. A study by Rahman, Yasin and Jusoff ( 2011 ) indicated that learners were able to use some steps to construct meaning through an online discussion process through assignments given. In the process of giving and receiving among themselves, the authors noted that learners learned by writing what they understood. From our perspective, this can be considered to be accomplishment in the knowledge construction process. Their study further shows that learners construct meaning individually from assignments and this stage is referred to as pre-construction which for our study, is an aspect of discovery in the knowledge construction process.

Predictors of blended learning effectiveness

Researchers have dealt with success factors for online learning or those for traditional face-to-face learning but little is known about factors that predict blended learning effectiveness in view of learner characteristics and blended learning design features. This part of our study seeks to establish the learner characteristics/backgrounds and design features that predict blended learning effectiveness with regard to satisfaction, outcomes, motivation and knowledge construction. Song, Singleton, Hill, and Koh ( 2004 ) examined online learning effectiveness factors and found out that time management (a self-regulatory factor) was crucial for successful online learning. Eom, Wen, and Ashill ( 2006 ) using a survey found out that interaction, among other factors, was significant for learner satisfaction. Technical problems with regard to instructional design were a challenge to online learners thus not indicating effectiveness (Song et al., 2004 ), though the authors also indicated that descriptive statistics to a tune of 75% and time management (62%) impact on success of online learning. Arbaugh ( 2000 ) and Swan ( 2001 ) indicated that high levels of learner-instructor interaction are associated with high levels of user satisfaction and learning outcomes. A study by Naaj et al. ( 2012 ) indicated that technology and learner interactions, among other factors, influenced learner satisfaction in blended learning.

Objective and research questions of the current study

The objective of the current study is to investigate the effectiveness of blended learning in view of student satisfaction, knowledge construction, performance and intrinsic motivation and how they are related to student characteristics and blended learning design features in a blended learning environment.

Research questions

What are the student characteristics and blended learning design features for an effective blended learning environment?

Which factors (among the learner characteristics and blended learning design features) predict student satisfaction, learning outcomes, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction?

Conceptual model of the present study

The reviewed literature clearly shows learner characteristics/background and blended learning design features play a part in blended learning effectiveness and some of them are significant predictors of effectiveness. The conceptual model for our study is depicted as follows (Fig.  1 ):

Conceptual model of the current study

Research design

This research applies a quantitative design where descriptive statistics are used for the student characteristics and design features data, t-tests for the age and gender variables to determine if they are significant in blended learning effectiveness and regression for predictors of blended learning effectiveness.

This study is based on an experiment in which learners participated during their study using face-to-face sessions and an on-line session of a blended learning design. A learning management system (Moodle) was used and learner characteristics/background and blended learning design features were measured in relation to learning effectiveness. It is therefore a planning evaluation research design as noted by Guskey ( 2000 ) since the outcomes are aimed at blended learning implementation at MMU. The plan under which the various variables were tested involved face-to-face study at the beginning of a 17 week semester which was followed by online teaching and learning in the second half of the semester. The last part of the semester was for another face-to-face to review work done during the online sessions and final semester examinations. A questionnaire with items on student characteristics, design features and learning outcomes was distributed among students from three schools and one directorate of postgraduate studies.

Participants

Cluster sampling was used to select a total of 238 learners to participate in this study. Out of the whole university population of students, three schools and one directorate were used. From these, one course unit was selected from each school and all the learners following the course unit were surveyed. In the school of Education ( n  = 70) and Business and Management Studies ( n  = 133), sophomore students were involved due to the fact that they have been introduced to ICT basics during their first year of study. Students of the third year were used from the department of technology in the School of Applied Sciences and Technology ( n  = 18) since most of the year two courses had a lot of practical aspects that could not be used for the online learning part. From the Postgraduate Directorate ( n  = 17), first and second year students were selected because learners attend a face-to-face session before they are given paper modules to study away from campus.

The study population comprised of 139 male students representing 58.4% and 99 females representing 41.6% with an average age of 24 years.

Instruments

The end of semester results were used to measure learner performance. The online self-regulated learning questionnaire (Barnard, Lan, To, Paton, & Lai, 2009 ) and the intrinsic motivation inventory (Deci & Ryan, 1982 ) were applied to measure the constructs on self regulation in the student characteristics and motivation in the learning outcome constructs. Other self-developed instruments were used for the other remaining variables of attitudes, computer competence, workload management, social and family support, satisfaction, knowledge construction, technology quality, interactions, learning management system tools and resources and face-to-face support.

Instrument reliability

Cronbach’s alpha was used to test reliability and the table below gives the results. All the scales and sub-scales had acceptable internal consistency reliabilities as shown in Table  1 below:

Data analysis

First, descriptive statistics was conducted. Shapiro-Wilk test was done to test normality of the data for it to qualify for parametric tests. The test results for normality of our data before the t- test resulted into significant levels (Male = .003, female = .000) thereby violating the normality assumption. We therefore used the skewness and curtosis results which were between −1.0 and +1.0 and assumed distribution to be sufficiently normal to qualify the data for a parametric test, (Pallant, 2010 ). An independent samples t -test was done to find out the differences in male and female performance to explain the gender characteristics in blended learning effectiveness. A one-way ANOVA between subjects was conducted to establish the differences in performance between age groups. Finally, multiple regression analysis was done between student variables and design elements with learning outcomes to determine the significant predictors for blended learning effectiveness.

Student characteristics, blended learning design features and learning outcomes ( RQ1 )

A t- test was carried out to establish the performance of male and female learners in the blended learning set up. This was aimed at finding out if male and female learners do perform equally well in blended learning given their different roles and responsibilities in society. It was found that male learners performed slightly better ( M  = 62.5) than their female counterparts ( M  = 61.1). An independent t -test revealed that the difference between the performances was not statistically significant ( t  = 1.569, df = 228, p  = 0.05, one tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means is small with effect size ( d  = 0.18). A one way between subjects ANOVA was conducted on the performance of different age groups to establish the performance of learners of young and middle aged age groups (20–30, young & and 31–39, middle aged). This revealed a significant difference in performance (F(1,236 = 8.498, p < . 001).

Average percentages of the items making up the self regulated learning scale are used to report the findings about all the sub-scales in the learner characteristics/background scale. Results show that learner self-regulation was good enough at 72.3% in all the sub-scales of goal setting, environment structuring, task strategies, time management, help-seeking and self-evaluation among learners. The least in the scoring was task strategies at 67.7% and the highest was learner environment structuring at 76.3%. Learner attitude towards blended learning environment is at 76% in the sub-scales of learner autonomy, quality of instructional materials, course structure, course interface and interactions. The least scored here is attitude to course structure at 66% and their attitudes were high on learner autonomy and course interface both at 82%. Results on the learners’ computer competences are summarized in percentages in the table below (Table  2 ):

It can be seen that learners are skilled in word processing at 91%, email at 63.5%, spreadsheets at 68%, web browsers at 70.2% and html tools at 45.4%. They are therefore good enough in word processing and web browsing. Their computer confidence levels are reported at 75.3% and specifically feel very confident when it comes to working with a computer (85.7%). Levels of family and social support for learners during blended learning experiences are at 60.5 and 75% respectively. There is however a low score on learners being assisted by family members in situations of computer setbacks (33.2%) as 53.4% of the learners reported no assistance in this regard. A higher percentage (85.3%) is reported on learners getting support from family regarding provision of essentials for learning such as tuition. A big percentage of learners spend two hours on study while at home (35.3%) followed by one hour (28.2%) while only 9.7% spend more than three hours on study at home. Peers showed great care during the blended learning experience (81%) and their experiences were appreciated by the society (66%). Workload management by learners vis-à-vis studying is good at 60%. Learners reported that their workmates stand in for them at workplaces to enable them do their study in blended learning while 61% are encouraged by their bosses to go and improve their skills through further education and training. On the time spent on other activities not related to study, majority of the learners spend three hours (35%) while 19% spend 6 hours. Sixty percent of the learners have to answer to someone when they are not attending to other activities outside study compared to the 39.9% who do not and can therefore do study or those other activities.

The usability of the online system, tools and resources was below average as shown in the table below in percentages (Table  3 ):

However, learners became skilled at navigating around the learning management system (79%) and it was easy for them to locate course content, tools and resources needed such as course works, news, discussions and journal materials. They effectively used the communication tools (60%) and to work with peers by making posts (57%). They reported that online resources were well organized, user friendly and easy to access (71%) as well as well structured in a clear and understandable manner (72%). They therefore recommended the use of online resources for other course units in future (78%) because they were satisfied with them (64.3%). On the whole, the online resources were fine for the learners (67.2%) and useful as a learning resource (80%). The learners’ perceived usefulness/satisfaction with online system, tools, and resources was at 81% as the LMS tools helped them to communicate, work with peers and reflect on their learning (74%). They reported that using moodle helped them to learn new concepts, information and gaining skills (85.3%) as well as sharing what they knew or learned (76.4%). They enjoyed the course units (78%) and improved their skills with technology (89%).

Learner interactions were seen from three angles of cognitivism, collaborative learning and student-teacher interactions. Collaborative learning was average at 50% with low percentages in learners posting challenges to colleagues’ ideas online (34%) and posting ideas for colleagues to read online (37%). They however met oftentimes online (60%) and organized how they would work together in study during the face-to-face meetings (69%). The common form of communication medium frequently used by learners during the blended learning experience was by phone (34.5%) followed by whatsapp (21.8%), face book (21%), discussion board (11.8%) and email (10.9%). At the cognitive level, learners interacted with content at 72% by reading the posted content (81%), exchanging knowledge via the LMS (58.4%), participating in discussions on the forum (62%) and got course objectives and structure introduced during the face-to-face sessions (86%). Student-teacher interaction was reported at 71% through instructors individually working with them online (57.2%) and being well guided towards learning goals (81%). They did receive suggestions from instructors about resources to use in their learning (75.3%) and instructors provided learning input for them to come up with their own answers (71%).

The technology quality during the blended learning intervention was rated at 69% with availability of 72%, quality of the resources was at 68% with learners reporting that discussion boards gave right content necessary for study (71%) and the email exchanges containing relevant and much needed information (63.4%) as well as chats comprising of essential information to aid the learning (69%). Internet reliability was rated at 66% with a speed considered averagely good to facilitate online activities (63%). They however reported that there was intermittent breakdown during online study (67%) though they could complete their internet program during connection (63.4%). Learners eventually found it easy to download necessary materials for study in their blended learning experiences (71%).

Learner extent of use of the learning management system features was as shown in the table below in percentage (Table  4 ):

From the table, very rarely used features include the blog and wiki while very often used ones include the email, forum, chat and calendar.

The effectiveness of the LMS was rated at 79% by learners reporting that they found it useful (89%) and using it makes their learning activities much easier (75.2%). Moodle has helped learners to accomplish their learning tasks more quickly (74%) and that as a LMS, it is effective in teaching and learning (88%) with overall satisfaction levels at 68%. However, learners note challenges in the use of the LMS regarding its performance as having been problematic to them (57%) and only 8% of the learners reported navigation while 16% reported access as challenges.

Learner attitudes towards Face-to-face support were reported at 88% showing that the sessions were enjoyable experiences (89%) with high quality class discussions (86%) and therefore recommended that the sessions should continue in blended learning (89%). The frequency of the face-to-face sessions is shown in the table below as preferred by learners (Table  5 ).

Learners preferred face-to-face sessions after every month in the semester (33.6%) and at the beginning of the blended learning session only (27.7%).

Learners reported high intrinsic motivation levels with interest and enjoyment of tasks at 83.7%, perceived competence at 70.2%, effort/importance sub-scale at 80%, pressure/tension reported at 54%. The pressure percentage of 54% arises from learners feeling nervous (39.2%) and a lot of anxiety (53%) while 44% felt a lot of pressure during the blended learning experiences. Learners however reported the value/usefulness of blended learning at 91% with majority believing that studying online and face-to-face had value for them (93.3%) and were therefore willing to take part in blended learning (91.2%). They showed that it is beneficial for them (94%) and that it was an important way of studying (84.3%).

Learner satisfaction was reported at 81% especially with instructors (85%) high percentage reported on encouraging learner participation during the course of study 93%, course content (83%) with the highest being satisfaction with the good relationship between the objectives of the course units and the content (90%), technology (71%) with a high percentage on the fact that the platform was adequate for the online part of the learning (76%), interactions (75%) with participation in class at 79%, and face-to-face sessions (91%) with learner satisfaction high on face-to-face sessions being good enough for interaction and giving an overview of the courses when objectives were introduced at 92%.

Learners’ knowledge construction was reported at 78% with initiation and discovery scales scoring 84% with 88% specifically for discovering the learning points in the course units. The accomplishment scale in knowledge construction scored 71% and specifically the fact that learners were able to work together with group members to accomplish learning tasks throughout the study of the course units (79%). Learners developed reports from activities (67%), submitted solutions to discussion questions (68%) and did critique peer arguments (69%). Generally, learners performed well in blended learning in the final examination with an average pass of 62% and standard deviation of 7.5.

Significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness ( RQ 2)

A standard multiple regression analysis was done taking learner characteristics/background and design features as predictor variables and learning outcomes as criterion variables. The data was first tested to check if it met the linear regression test assumptions and results showed the correlations between the independent variables and each of the dependent variables (highest 0.62 and lowest 0.22) as not being too high, which indicated that multicollinearity was not a problem in our model. From the coefficients table, the VIF values ranged from 1.0 to 2.4, well below the cut off value of 10 and indicating no possibility of multicollinearity. The normal probability plot was seen to lie as a reasonably straight diagonal from bottom left to top right indicating normality of our data. Linearity was found suitable from the scatter plot of the standardized residuals and was rectangular in distribution. Outliers were no cause for concern in our data since we had only 1% of all cases falling outside 3.0 thus proving the data as a normally distributed sample. Our R -square values was at 0.525 meaning that the independent variables explained about 53% of the variance in overall satisfaction, motivation and knowledge construction of the learners. All the models explaining the three dependent variables of learner satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and knowledge construction were significant at the 0.000 probability level (Table  6 ).

From the table above, design features (technology quality and online tools and resources), and learner characteristics (attitudes to blended learning, self-regulation) were significant predictors of learner satisfaction in blended learning. This means that good technology with the features involved and the learner positive attitudes with capacity to do blended learning with self drive led to their satisfaction. The design features (technology quality, interactions) and learner characteristics (self regulation and social support), were found to be significant predictors of learner knowledge construction. This implies that learners’ capacity to go on their work by themselves supported by peers and high levels of interaction using the quality technology led them to construct their own ideas in blended learning. Design features (technology quality, online tools and resources as well as learner interactions) and learner characteristics (self regulation), significantly predicted the learners’ intrinsic motivation in blended learning suggesting that good technology, tools and high interaction levels with independence in learning led to learners being highly motivated. Finally, none of the independent variables considered under this study were predictors of learning outcomes (grade).

In this study we have investigated learning outcomes as dependent variables to establish if particular learner characteristics/backgrounds and design features are related to the outcomes for blended learning effectiveness and if they predict learning outcomes in blended learning. We took students from three schools out of five and one directorate of post-graduate studies at a Ugandan University. The study suggests that the characteristics and design features examined are good drivers towards an effective blended learning environment though a few of them predicted learning outcomes in blended learning.

Student characteristics/background, blended learning design features and learning outcomes

The learner characteristics, design features investigated are potentially important for an effective blended learning environment. Performance by gender shows a balance with no statistical differences between male and female. There are statistically significant differences ( p  < .005) in the performance between age groups with means of 62% for age group 20–30 and 67% for age group 31 –39. The indicators of self regulation exist as well as positive attitudes towards blended learning. Learners do well with word processing, e-mail, spreadsheets and web browsers but still lag below average in html tools. They show computer confidence at 75.3%; which gives prospects for an effective blended learning environment in regard to their computer competence and confidence. The levels of family and social support for learners stand at 61 and 75% respectively, indicating potential for blended learning to be effective. The learners’ balance between study and work is a drive factor towards blended learning effectiveness since their management of their workload vis a vis study time is at 60 and 61% of the learners are encouraged to go for study by their bosses. Learner satisfaction with the online system and its tools shows prospect for blended learning effectiveness but there are challenges in regard to locating course content and assignments, submitting their work and staying on a task during online study. Average collaborative, cognitive learning as well as learner-teacher interactions exist as important factors. Technology quality for effective blended learning is a potential for effectiveness though features like the blog and wiki are rarely used by learners. Face-to-face support is satisfactory and it should be conducted every month. There is high intrinsic motivation, satisfaction and knowledge construction as well as good performance in examinations ( M  = 62%, SD = 7.5); which indicates potentiality for blended learning effectiveness.

Significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness

Among the design features, technology quality, online tools and face-to-face support are predictors of learner satisfaction while learner characteristics of self regulation and attitudes to blended learning are predictors of satisfaction. Technology quality and interactions are the only design features predicting learner knowledge construction, while social support, among the learner backgrounds, is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation as a learner characteristic is a predictor of knowledge construction. Self regulation is the only learner characteristic predicting intrinsic motivation in blended learning while technology quality, online tools and interactions are the design features predicting intrinsic motivation. However, all the independent variables are not significant predictors of learning performance in blended learning.

The high computer competences and confidence is an antecedent factor for blended learning effectiveness as noted by Hadad ( 2007 ) and this study finds learners confident and competent enough for the effectiveness of blended learning. A lack in computer skills causes failure in e-learning and blended learning as noted by Shraim and Khlaif ( 2010 ). From our study findings, this is no threat for blended learning our case as noted by our results. Contrary to Cohen et al. ( 2012 ) findings that learners’ family responsibilities and hours of employment can impede their process of learning, it is not the case here since they are drivers to the blended learning process. Time conflict, as compounded by family, employment status and management support (Packham et al., 2004 ) were noted as causes of learner failure and drop out of online courses. Our results show, on the contrary, that these factors are drivers for blended learning effectiveness because learners have a good balance between work and study and are supported by bosses to study. In agreement with Selim ( 2007 ), learner positive attitudes towards e-and blended learning environments are success factors. In line with Coldwell et al. ( 2008 ), no statistically significant differences exist between age groups. We however note that Coldwel, et al dealt with young, middle-aged and old above 45 years whereas we dealt with young and middle aged only.

Learner interactions at all levels are good enough and contrary to Astleitner, ( 2000 ) that their absence makes learners withdraw, they are a drive factor here. In line with Loukis (2007) the LMS quality, reliability and ease of use lead to learning efficiency as technology quality, online tools are predictors of learner satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Face-to-face sessions should continue on a monthly basis as noted here and is in agreement with Marriot et al. ( 2004 ) who noted learner preference for it for facilitating social interaction and communication skills. High learner intrinsic motivation leads to persistence in online courses as noted by Menager-Beeley, ( 2004 ) and is high enough in our study. This implies a possibility of an effectiveness blended learning environment. The causes of learner dissatisfaction noted by Islam ( 2014 ) such as incompetence in the use of the LMS are contrary to our results in our study, while the one noted by Hara and Kling, ( 2001 ) as resulting from technical difficulties and ambiguous course instruction are no threat from our findings. Student-teacher interaction showed a relation with satisfaction according to Swan ( 2001 ) but is not a predictor in our study. Initiating knowledge construction by learners for blended learning effectiveness is exhibited in our findings and agrees with Rahman, Yasin and Jusof ( 2011 ). Our study has not agreed with Eom et al. ( 2006 ) who found learner interactions as predictors of learner satisfaction but agrees with Naaj et al. ( 2012 ) regarding technology as a predictor of learner satisfaction.

Conclusion and recommendations

An effective blended learning environment is necessary in undertaking innovative pedagogical approaches through the use of technology in teaching and learning. An examination of learner characteristics/background, design features and learning outcomes as factors for effectiveness can help to inform the design of effective learning environments that involve face-to-face sessions and online aspects. Most of the student characteristics and blended learning design features dealt with in this study are important factors for blended learning effectiveness. None of the independent variables were identified as significant predictors of student performance. These gaps are open for further investigation in order to understand if they can be significant predictors of blended learning effectiveness in a similar or different learning setting.

In planning to design and implement blended learning, we are mindful of the implications raised by this study which is a planning evaluation research for the design and eventual implementation of blended learning. Universities should be mindful of the interplay between the learner characteristics, design features and learning outcomes which are indicators of blended learning effectiveness. From this research, learners manifest high potential to take on blended learning more especially in regard to learner self-regulation exhibited. Blended learning is meant to increase learners’ levels of knowledge construction in order to create analytical skills in them. Learner ability to assess and critically evaluate knowledge sources is hereby established in our findings. This can go a long way in producing skilled learners who can be innovative graduates enough to satisfy employment demands through creativity and innovativeness. Technology being less of a shock to students gives potential for blended learning design. Universities and other institutions of learning should continue to emphasize blended learning approaches through installation of learning management systems along with strong internet to enable effective learning through technology especially in the developing world.

Abubakar, D. & Adetimirin. (2015). Influence of computer literacy on post-graduates’ use of e-resources in Nigerian University Libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice. From http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/ . Retrieved 18 Aug 2015.

Ahmad, N., & Al-Khanjari, Z. (2011). Effect of Moodle on learning: An Oman perception. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC), 1 (4), 746–752.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, T. (2004). Theory and Practice of Online Learning . Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in internet-basedMBAcourses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63 (4), 9–18.

Article   Google Scholar  

Askar, P. & Altun, A. (2008). Learner satisfaction on blended learning. E-Leader Krakow , 2008.

Astleitner, H. (2000) Dropout and distance education. A review of motivational and emotional strategies to reduce dropout in web-based distance education. In Neuwe Medien in Unterricht, Aus-und Weiterbildung Waxmann Munster, New York.

Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. (2009). Measuring self regulation in online and blended learning environments’. Internet and Higher Education, 12 (1), 1–6.

Beard, L. A., Harper, C., & Riley, G. (2004). Online versus on-campus instruction: student attitudes & perceptions. TechTrends, 48 (6), 29–31.

Berenson, R., Boyles, G., & Weaver, A. (2008). Emotional intelligence as a predictor for success in online learning. International Review of Research in open & Distance Learning, 9 (2), 1–16.

Blocker, J. M., & Tucker, G. (2001). Using constructivist principles in designing and integrating online collaborative interactions. In F. Fuller & R. McBride (Eds.), Distance education. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 32–36). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 457 822.

Cohen, K. E., Stage, F. K., Hammack, F. M., & Marcus, A. (2012). Persistence of master’s students in the United States: Developing and testing of a conceptual model . USA: PhD Dissertation, New York University.

Coldwell, J., Craig, A., Paterson, T., & Mustard, J. (2008). Online students: Relationships between participation, demographics and academic performance. The Electronic Journal of e-learning, 6 (1), 19–30.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1982). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Available from selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2016.

Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The Delone and McLean model of information systems success: A Ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19 (4), 9–30.

Demirkol, M., & Kazu, I. Y. (2014). Effect of blended environment model on high school students’ academic achievement. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13 (1), 78–87.

Eom, S., Wen, H., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: an empirical investigation’. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4 (2), 215–235.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (2), 95–105.

Goyal, E., & Tambe, S. (2015). Effectiveness of Moodle-enabled blended learning in private Indian Business School teaching NICHE programs. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 5 (2), 14–22.

Green, J., Nelson, G., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. (2006). The causal ordering of self-concept and academic motivation and its effect on academic achievement. International Education Journal, 7 (4), 534–546.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development . Thousands Oaks: Corwin Press.

Hadad, W. (2007). ICT-in-education toolkit reference handbook . InfoDev. from http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.301.html . Retrieved 04 Aug 2015.

Hara, N. & Kling, R. (2001). Student distress in web-based distance education. Educause Quarterly. 3 (2001).

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2001). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Hofmann, J. (2014). Solutions to the top 10 challenges of blended learning. Top 10 challenges of blended learning. Available on cedma-europe.org .

Islam, A. K. M. N. (2014). Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a learning management system in post-adoption stage: A critical incident technique approach. Computers in Human Behaviour, 30 , 249–261.

Kelley, D. H. & Gorham, J. (2009) Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37 (3), 198–207.

Kenney, J., & Newcombe, E. (2011). Adopting a blended learning approach: Challenges, encountered and lessons learned in an action research study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15 (1), 45–57.

Kintu, M. J., & Zhu, C. (2016). Student characteristics and learning outcomes in a blended learning environment intervention in a Ugandan University. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14 (3), 181–195.

Kuo, Y., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, L. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14 (1), 16–39.

Kwak, D. W., Menezes, F. M., & Sherwood, C. (2013). Assessing the impact of blended learning on student performance. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–136.

Lim, D. H., & Kim, H. J. (2003). Motivation and learner characteristics affecting online learning and learning application. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31 (4), 423–439.

Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learner outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 282–293.

Lin, B., & Vassar, J. A. (2009). Determinants for success in online learning communities. International Journal of Web-based Communities, 5 (3), 340–350.

Loukis, E., Georgiou, S. & Pazalo, K. (2007). A value flow model for the evaluation of an e-learning service. ECIS, 2007 Proceedings, paper 175.

Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5 (2), 1–16.

Marriot, N., Marriot, P., & Selwyn. (2004). Accounting undergraduates’ changing use of ICT and their views on using the internet in higher education-A Research note. Accounting Education, 13 (4), 117–130.

Menager-Beeley, R. (2004). Web-based distance learning in a community college: The influence of task values on task choice, retention and commitment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (9-A), 3191.

Naaj, M. A., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012). Evaluating student satisfaction with blended learning in a gender-segregated environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11 , 185–200.

Nurmela, K., Palonen, T., Lehtinen, E. & Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Developing tools for analysing CSCL process. In Wasson, B. Ludvigsen, S. & Hoppe, V. (eds), Designing for change in networked learning environments (pp 333–342). Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer.

Osgerby, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of the introduction of a blended learning environment: An exploratory case study. Accounting Education, 22 (1), 85–99.

Oxford Group, (2013). Blended learning-current use, challenges and best practices. From http://www.kineo.com/m/0/blended-learning-report-202013.pdf . Accessed on 17 Mar 2016.

Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., & Thomas, B. (2004). E-learning and retention key factors influencing student withdrawal. Education and Training, 46 (6–7), 335–342.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Mannual (4th ed.). Maidenhead: OUP McGraw-Hill.

Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 207–217.

Picciano, A., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators . New York, USA: Sloan-C.

Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Quarterly, 25 (4), 401–426.

Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47 (2), 222–244.

Rahman, S. et al, (2011). Knowledge construction process in online learning. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 8 (2), 488–492.

Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. Computers & Education, 6 (1), 1–16.

Sankaran, S., & Bui, T. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on performance: A study in Web-based instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28 (3), 191–198.

Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49 (2), 396–413.

Shraim, K., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2010). An e-learning approach to secondary education in Palestine: opportunities and challenges. Information Technology for Development, 16 (3), 159–173.

Shrain, K. (2012). Moving towards e-learning paradigm: Readiness of higher education instructors in Palestine. International Journal on E-Learning, 11 (4), 441–463.

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics’. Internet and Higher Education, 7 (1), 59–70.

Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (2007). Teaching for blended learning: research perspectives from on-campus and distance students. Education and Information Technologies, 12 , 165–174.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22 (2), 306–331.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Thompson, E. (2004). Distance education drop-out: What can we do? In R. Pospisil & L. Willcoxson (Eds.), Learning Through Teaching (Proceedings of the 6th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, pp. 324–332). Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.

Tselios, N., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning university course. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (2), 224–235.

Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to drop-out of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13 (3), 115–127.

Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 127–137.

Zielinski, D. (2000). Can you keep learners online? Training, 37 (3), 64–75.

Download references

Authors’ contribution

MJK conceived the study idea, developed the conceptual framework, collected the data, analyzed it and wrote the article. CZ gave the technical advice concerning the write-up and advised on relevant corrections to be made before final submission. EK did the proof-reading of the article as well as language editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mountains of the Moon University, P.O. Box 837, Fort Portal, Uganda

Mugenyi Justice Kintu & Edmond Kagambe

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels, 1050, Ixelles, Belgium

Mugenyi Justice Kintu & Chang Zhu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mugenyi Justice Kintu .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kintu, M.J., Zhu, C. & Kagambe, E. Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 14 , 7 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

Download citation

Received : 13 July 2016

Accepted : 23 November 2016

Published : 06 February 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0043-4

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

• Blended learning effectiveness
• Learner characteristics
• Design features
• Learning outcomes and significant predictors

A Review of Dissertations from an Online Asynchronous Learning Design and Technologies Educational Doctoral Program

Practitioner-focused educational doctoral programs have grown substantially in recent years. Dissertations in Practice (DiPs), which are the culminating research report and evaluation method in these programs, differ from traditional PhD dissertations in their focus on addressing a problem of practice and on connecting theories with practice. As part of our ongoing program evaluation, we reviewed DiPs from doctoral students who graduated from an online asynchronous Educational Doctoral program in Learning Design and Technologies at the University of South Carolina. Findings revealed that most students chose a pragmatic philosophical paradigm, adopted a mixed methods research design, reported an action research intervention implemented with populations in K-12 schools, used surveys and interviews as data sources, and analyzed data with descriptive/inferential statistics and thematic analysis. Implications for the program curriculum are discussed.

Akojie, P., Entrekin, F., Bacon, D., & Kanai, T. (2019). Qualitative meta-data analysis: Perceptions and experiences of online doctoral students. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 3(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/5814

Amrein-Beardsley, A., Zambo, D., Moore, D. W., Buss, R. R., Perry, N. J., Painter, S. R., ... & Puckett, K. S. (2012). Graduates respond to an innovative educational doctorate program. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7(1), 98–122.

Anguera, M. T., Blanco-Villaseñor, A., Losada, J. L., Sánchez-Algarra, P., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2018). Revisiting the difference between mixed methods and multimethods: Is it all in the name?. Quality & Quantity, 52, 2757–2770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0700-2

Archer, L. A., & Hsiao, Y. H. (2023). Examining the frequency and implementation of validation techniques: A content analysis of EdD dissertations in educational leadership. Journal of Global Education and Research, 7(2), 166–182. https://www.doi.org/10.5038/2577-509X.7.2.1261

Ari, F., Vasconcelos, L., Tang, H., Grant, M., Arslan-Ari, I., & Moore, A. (2022). Program evaluation of an online EdD in Learning Design and Technologies: Recent graduates’ perspectives. Tech Trends, 66, 699–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00744-7

Arslan-Ari, I., Ari, F., Grant, M. M., & Morris, W. S. (2018). Action research experiences for scholarly practitioners in an online education doctorate program: Design, reality, and lessons learned. Tech Trends, 62, 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0308-3

Arslan-Ari, I., Ari, F., Grant, M. M., Vasconcelos, L., Tang, H., & Morris, W. S. (2020). Becoming action researchers: Crafting the curriculum and learning experiences for scholarly practitioners in educational technology. In E. Romero-Hall (Ed.), Research Methods in Learning Design and Technology (pp. 78-93). Routledge.

Bargal, D. (2008). Action research: A paradigm for achieving social change. Small Group Research, 39(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407313407

Belzer, A., & Ryan, S. (2013). Defining the problem of practice dissertation: where’s the practice, what’s the Problem? Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 195–207.

Bender, S., Rubel, D. J., & Dykeman, C. (2018). An interpretive phenomenological analysis of doctoral counselor education students’ experience of receiving cybersupervision. Journal of Counselor Preparation & Supervision, 11(1), Article 7. https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/jcps/vol11/iss1/7/

Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2012) Student perceptions of satisfaction and anxiety in an online doctoral program. Distance Education, 33(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667961

Buss, R. (2018). Using action research as a signature pedagogy to develop EdD students’ inquiry as practice abilities. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2018.46

Buss, R. R., & Zambo, D. (2016). A practical guide for students and faculty in CPED-influenced programs working on an action research dissertation in practice. Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate.

Byrnes, D., Uribe-Flórez, L. J., Trespalacios, J., & Chilson, J. (2019). Doctoral e-mentoring: Current practices and effective strategies. Online Learning, 23(1), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1446

Carnegie Project for the Educational Doctorate (2009). Working principles for the professional practice doctorate in education. https://cped.memberclicks.net/the-framework

Chan, E., Heaton, R. M., Swidler, S. A., & Wunder, S. (2013). Examining CPED cohort dissertations: A window into the Learning of EdD students. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 266–285.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.

Czerniawski, G. (2022). Power, positionality and practitioner research: Schoolteachers’ experiences of professional doctorates in education. British Educational Research Journal, 49, 1372–1386. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3902

Dawson, K., & Kumar, S. (2014). An analysis of professional practice EdD dissertations in educational technology. TechTrends, 58(4), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0770-5

Dawson, K., & Kumar, S. (2016). Guiding principles for quality professional practice dissertations. In V. Storey, & K. Hesbol (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to dissertation development and research methods (pp. 133-145). IGI Global.

Durak, G., Yünkül, E., Cankaya, S., Akpinar, S., Erten, E., Inam, N., ... & Tastekin, E. (2016). Content analysis of master theses and dissertations based on action research. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(12), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i12.1906

Firestone, W. A., Perry, J. A., Leland, A. S., & McKeon, R. T. (2021). Teaching research and data use in the education doctorate. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 16(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775119872231

Foster, H. A., Chesnut, S., Thomas, J., & Robinson, C. (2023). Differentiating the EdD and the PhD in higher education: A survey of characteristics and trends. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 8(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2023.288

Gillham, J. C., Williams, N. V., Rife, G., & Parker, K. K. (2019). Problems of practice: A document analysis of education doctorate dissertations. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2019.85

Grant, M. M. (2021). Asynchronous online course designs: Articulating theory, best practices, and techniques for everyday doctoral education. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 6(3), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2021.191

Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807309969

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation. Sage.

Hochbein, C., & Perry, J. A. (2013). The role of research in the professional doctorate. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 181–195.

Ivankova, N. V., Herbey, I. I., & Roussel, L. A. (2018). Theory and practice of using mixed methods in translational research: A cross-disciplinary perspective. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v10n1a24

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (6th ed.). Sage.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3700093

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10, 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905780

Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26

Kozikoğlu, İ., & Senemoğlu, N. (2015). The content analysis of dissertations completed in the field of curriculum and instruction (2009-2014). Education & Science/Egitim ve Bilim, 40(182). https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4784

Kumar, S., & Antonenko, P. (2014). Connecting practice, theory and method: Supporting professional doctoral students in developing conceptual frameworks. TechTrends, 58, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0769-y

Kumar, S., Dawson, K., Pollard, R., & Jeter, G. (2022). Analyzing theories, conceptual frameworks, and research methods in EdD dissertations. TechTrends, 66(4), 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00739-4

Kumar, S., Roumell, E. A., & Bolliger, D. U. (2023). Faculty perceptions of e-mentoring doctoral dissertations: Challenges, strategies, and institutional support. American Journal of Distance Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2023.2213137

Lee, H., Chang, H., & Bryan, L. (2020). Doctoral students’ learning success in online-based leadership programs: Intersection with technological and relational factors. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4462

Lowenstein, R. & Barbee, D. E. (1990). The new technology: Agent of transformation. US Department of Labor, The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED329248.pdf

Ma, V. W., Dana, N. F., Adams, A., & Kennedy, B. L. (2018). Understanding the problem of practice: An analysis of professional practice EdD dissertations. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 3, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2018.50

McChesney, K. & Aldridge, J. (2019). Weaving an interpretivist stance throughout mixed methods research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1590811

McCutcheon, G., & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory Into Practice, 29(3), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849009543447

McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2002) Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge Falmer.

Mertens, D. M. (2009). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. SAGE.

Mertler, C. A. (2017). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (5th ed.). Sage.

Mills, G. E. (2018). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (6th ed.). Pearson.

Montelongo, R. (2019). Less than/more than: Issues associated with high-impact online teaching and learning. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 9(1), 68–79.

Nelson, J. K., & Coorough, C. (1994). Content analysis of the PhD versus EdD dissertation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(2), 158-168. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20152407

Newman, I. & Covrig, D. M. (2013). Writer’s forum — Building consistency between title, problem statement, purpose, & research questions to improve the quality of research plans and reports. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 25(1), 70–79.

Nolan, S. A., & Heinzen, T. E. (2012). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Worth Publishers.

Perry, J. A. (2013). Carnegie project on the education doctorate: The education doctorate - A degree for our time. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 113–126.

Perry, J. A., Zambo, D., & Crow, R. (2020). The improvement science dissertation in practice: A guide for faculty, committee members, and their students. Myers Education Press.

Priest, S. (2001). A program evaluation primer. The Journal of Experiential Education, 24(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590102400108

Reeves, T. C., & Hedberg, J. G. (2003). Interactive learning systems evaluation. Educational Technology Publications.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusions of innovations (4th ed.). The Free Press.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Scarpena, K. R. (2016). Women in online doctoral programs: An inductive exploration of academic and non-academic factors influencing college choice (Publication No. 10251435) [Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Shan, Y. (2021). Philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. Philosophy Compass, 17(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12804

Strom, K., & Porfilio, B. (2019). Critical hybrid pedagogies: A self-study inquiry into faculty practices in a blended educational leadership EdD program. E-learning and Digital Media, 16(1), 1–14.

Studebaker, B., & Curtis, H. (2021) Building community in an online doctoral program. Christian Higher Education, 20(1-2), 15–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2020.1852133

Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Vaughan, M., & Burnaford, G. (2015). Action research in graduate teacher education: A review of the literature 2000–2015. Educational Action Research, 24(2), 280–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1062408

Vaughn, M. (2019). The body of literature on action research in education. In C. Mertler (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of action research in education (pp. 53-74). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Walker, D. W., & Haley-Mize, S. (2012). Content analysis of PhD and EdD dissertations in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(3), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411431168

Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80–83. https://doi.org/doi:10.2307/3001968

Zambo, D. (2011). Action research as signature pedagogy in an education doctorate program: The reality and hope. Innovative Higher Education, 36(4), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9171-7

Zambo, D. (2014). Theory in the service of practice: Theories in action research dissertations written by students in education doctorate programs. Educational Action Research, 22(4), 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2014.918902

Zambo, R., Zambo, D., Buss, R. R., Perry, J. A., & Williams, T. R. (2014). Seven years after the call: Students’ and graduates’ perceptions of the re-envisioned EdD Innovative Higher Education, 39, 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-013-9262-3

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Copyright (c) 2024 Lucas Vasconcelos, Michael M. Grant, Hengtao Tang, Fatih Ari, Ismahan Arslan-Ari, Yingxiao Qian

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

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

• The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
• Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
• Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
• The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
• Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
• Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
• the Work is the Author’s original work;
• the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
• the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
• the Work has not previously been published;
• the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
• the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
• The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link. 

Most read articles by the same author(s)

• Michael M. Grant, Asynchronous Online Course Designs: Articulating Theory, Best Practices, and Techniques for Everyday Doctoral Education , Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice: Vol. 6 No. 3 (2021): Online EdD Programs

Make a Submission

ISSN 2472-5889 (online)

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
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 09 January 2024

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

• Bandar N. Alarifi 1 &
• Steve Song 2  

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

5813 Accesses

1 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

Quality of a master’s degree in education in Ecuador

Impact of video-based learning in business statistics: a longitudinal study

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

Motivation for the study

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

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

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

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

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

Academic achievement: in-person vs online learning

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

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

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

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

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

Theoretical framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

Course description

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure and activities

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

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

Participants

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

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

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

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

Study instrument

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data availability

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Bandar N. Alarifi

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bandar N. Alarifi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

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

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 07 June 2023

Accepted : 21 December 2023

Published : 09 January 2024

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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

Advertisement

The research on the impact of distance learning on students’ mental health

• Published: 11 March 2023
• Volume 28 , pages 12527–12539, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Yinghua Wang 1  

12k Accesses

10 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The mental health of students learning online is a critical task for many countries around the globe. The research purpose was to analyse the factors affecting the quality of mental health of young individuals who learnt under conditions of not total lockdowns but adaptive quarantine restrictions. The research involved 186 volunteers from Zhengzhou University of Technology, 94 were first-year students, and 92 were fourth-year students. The experimental group involved first-year students, and the control group involved fourth-year students. An average age of the participants in the experimental group was 18.3 years, and in the control group, the average age was 22.4 years. The scholars conducted the research after four months of distance learning under the adaptive quarantine. The students could be involved in their usual entertainment activities and interpersonal communication outside the home. The Behavioural Health Measure, better known as BHM-20, was the core psychometric tool. The research finds that distance learning is less effective for first-year students than for fourth-year students because the former cannot effectively adapt and communicate in a new social environment, and develop trusting interpersonal relationships with fellow students and teachers. The research results coincide with other research on this issue and demonstrate a low degree of mental resilience during and after the pandemic. Previous research is not suitable for the analysis of the mental health of students under adaptive quarantine, including the freshmen, considered the most vulnerable group. The article will be useful for professionals interested in distance education in higher educational institutions, workers of socio-psychological services at universities or individuals involved in adapting curriculum materials for distance learning.

Similar content being viewed by others

Adoption of online mathematics learning in Ugandan government universities during the COVID-19 pandemic: pre-service teachers’ behavioural intention and challenges

Education and the COVID-19 pandemic

Barriers to Online Learning in the Time of COVID-19: A National Survey of Medical Students in the Philippines

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a great impact on the mental health and well-being of individuals around the world. While some citizens successfully adapted to the reality of the pandemic and societal lockdowns, others have suffered from mental health disorders caused by a new infection (Serdakova et al., 2023 ).

Moreover, access to mental health services has been severely impeded which had an impact on the mental health of individuals and significantly increased the risk of suicide (Gunnell et al., 2020 ). Most countries on different continents have introduced immediate and drastic protective measures in the fight against the spread of infection, such as closed borders, forced isolation, quarantine restrictions, and distance learning. On the one hand, the virtualization of the educational environment and distance education have reduced inequalities in poor rural regions and ensured equitable access to the education of the population. On the other hand, social isolation in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic required a unique educational environment but it has caused an increased number of psychological disorders around the world and mental illnesses, including depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, long-term episodes of counterproductive anxiety, and others (Clemente-Suárez et al., 2021 ). The unexpected shift from in-person to online learning has created a lot of problems for students, teachers, and administrators because many years distance learning has not been very popular in schools and universities (Brown & Carreno-Davidson, 2020 ). At the same time, protecting the mental health of students is vital for higher education because cognitive abilities directly depend on the psychological state of the student, which affects academic motivation, the level of aspirations, involvement in learning, and the emotional and volitional spheres.

As a stage of ontogenesis (human development), higher education may cause exacerbate mental health problems. Before the pandemic, research has primarily focused on student group relationships and campus living as the most common stress factors among students (Davis et al., 2021 ). The research finds that distance learning students report psychological problems more frequently than face-to-face learners, and it is important to analyse the factors that influence mental well-being in distance learning and help to focus on the problem identification related to the transformation of the face-to-face classroom to a virtual environment. The research is important for educators because the COVID-19 infection has not yet been completely defeated, and distance learning is already seen not only as a necessary measure but also as a way to simplify access to education around the world and in China in particular.

1.1 Literature review

Since the first cases of COVID-19 were detected, countries’ authorities have tried to find possible measures and ways to fight the pandemic around the world. Face-to-face and autonomous learning systems were replaced by distance learning platforms, and it became a significant factor of mental tension while adapting to new conditions in all areas of life and influenced by inadequate communication at the interpersonal level.

Distance or online learning is the method which helps to prevent the spread of COVID-19, but it has a negative impact on the mental health of higher education students. The main problems experienced by students include anxiety, mild and severe stress, social media fatigue, and depression. At the same time, the symptoms are not always caused by mental health problems (Grigorkevich et al., 2022 ).

The literature analysis revealed the impact of distance learning on the mental health of students and showed that the most sensitive aspects included inadequate time management, the lack of a full-fledged adaptation strategy, the development of digital technologies in a new way, the burden to ensure the quality of new material learning, as well as concerns about the impossibility of funding educational activities under the COVID-19 conditions (Aditya & Ulya, 2021 ).

Some scholars have focused on fear as an emotional response of teachers and students to the distance learning model. The research confirmed that COVID-19 as a global social phenomenon increased the feeling of fear in different areas of life. First of all, it is the fear of being isolated from the family, the fear of academic failure, and the fear of losing social relationships (Al-Maroof et al., 2020 ). At the same time, modern online learning differs significantly from emergency distance learning, influenced by the mental tension decrease, in which addiction as a form of adaptation plays an important role. Under the pandemic restrictions and conditions, universities will adopt mixed or blended formats, since the problems of distance education are turned into educational opportunities. Distance learning allows easy access to education, development of different forms and methods of control, and adaptation and revision of inadequate university programmes (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020 ).

The mental health of teachers is a part of the discussion devoted to the ecological environment of distance education. A sample of Pakistani and Malaysian teachers was used to analyse the parameters such as teacher self-efficacy and the quality of distance education. The research found that the mental well-being of teachers was a significant factor in ensuring academic success (Guoyan et al., 2021 ).

In Germany, scholars discuss the importance of psychological assistance provided by educational institutions during the crisis at the initial and final stages of distance learning. The attention of the German sociological and psychological services is on the well-being of students and burnout caused by nervous breakdown or inability to continue effective training under the COVID-19 restrictions.

In Germany, mental illness prevention strategies are introduced for first-year students who find it difficult to move into a new social environment despite the distance format. The transition to a new environment causes a high-stress level due to psychological tension, anxiety and increased learning requirements compared to previous school years.

An academic overload and a low level of knowledge among first-year students lead to learning problems, especially in specialised disciplines. Moreover, social and psychological aspects are important, such as mental exhaustion at the stage of admission, the development of new interpersonal relationships, and getting used to the university system of education and assessment (Schindler et al., 2021 ).

The factors mentioned above suggest that education during the first year of study based on the distance learning system can be more difficult for students in a situation when one problem is replaced by another. Cross-sectional research on the mental well-being of European students during the first wave of COVID-19 in May 2020 found that all university students (regardless of the year of study) had poorer mental health than before the pandemic. However, the mental health variable correlated with the belief (irrational belief) that the national government ensured effective management of the epidemic at the municipal level and reduced the risks of infection and negative macroeconomic outcomes (Allen et al., 2022 ).

The spread of the virus, long-term preventive measures and changes in daily routine have led to psychological problems such as anxiety, confusion, social deprivation, and depression. The chronic stress caused by the ongoing pandemic has a profound impact on a sharp and sustained decline of the psychological support that helped individuals cope with failure, emotional problems, disappointment, frustration, and preventing negative emotional experiences, namely resilience, optimism, psychological flexibility, and social relationships (Moroń et al., 2021 ). In China, the effectiveness of psychosocial support and the impact of COVID-19-related stressors on mental health have been investigated.

In Chinese realities, the concept of Psychosocial Support means family and social support in construct to Europe where it involves socio-psychological services.

Moreover, the assessment of the mental health of the respondents was based on the symptoms of depression and loneliness.

The scholars considered that the authorities should focus on the stress that followed the pandemic, as a serious threat to life and well-being, and the risk of infection with new and poorly researched diseases. However, the fear of infection as an independent variable was not correlated with either loneliness or depression, leading to heated debates about the impact of the pandemic on human mental health and well-being (Wang et al., 2022 ).

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to higher rates of mental disorders among the Chinese population. Many individuals have experienced increased resilience during the pandemic as a post-crisis change which had a positive impact not only on the population but on the healthcare system in the country (Zhang, 2022 ).

Restrictive measures under the quarantine have no impact on the cognitive performance of the population on different continents. However, complaints about cognitive decline increased significantly during the pandemic. High quality of life before the period of social isolation is the main factor that influences psychological disability, such as depression, anxiety, low-stress tolerance, ineffective self-regulation, and cognitive complaints (Nogueira et al., 2022 ). Reducing the negative consequences is important for young people in higher education during distance learning.

1.2 Problem identification

Only a limited number of publications covered the mental health of students during distance learning and discussed the problems faced by the post-COVID societies. This issue is of particular importance if the governments do not consider distance learning as a vital point and the only possible preventive measure against the spread of a deadly disease. The research purpose is to assess the psychological health of students learning online and investigate the factors that affect the mental health of students. Many scholars analyse the behaviour and psychological problems of schoolchildren, their parents and schoolteachers, paying less attention to the university environment.

This article considers age as the main factor to assess the opportunities and effectiveness of distance education for promoting the mental health of Chinese students in higher education. New experimental data will strengthen the debates about the opportunities promised by online education. After the weakening of quarantine measures, distance learning was no longer mandatory. This fact allowed the scholars to consider distance learning as an alternative form of education for the adult Chinese population who have already mastered social skills at earlier stages of ontogenesis and have maintained working, friendly, and romantic relationships with other people.

The scholars will complete the following tasks, such as identify the most appropriate psychometric tools to assess the quality of the student’s mental health learning remotely under weak isolation conditions; identify a sample size of first-year and fourth-year students to compare the mental health of those who entered the university and those who had experience learning online in a higher educational institution. Moreover, the research will compare the statistical data of two groups and test the null hypothesis. In this article, mental health is evaluated under conditions of adaptive quarantine, during which students have access to mobility, interpersonal communication outside their home, and quality leisure activities, which become possible due to mass vaccination and economic feasibility.

2 Methods and materials

The BHM-20 methodology can help to assess mental health and the psychotherapy progress used as the main diagnostic tool (Kopta et al., 2015 ). This technique is a 20-item questionnaire that evaluates three components of healthy behaviour: well-being (stress, life satisfaction, and motivation); psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, panic disorder, mood changes caused by bipolar disorder, eating disorder, substance abuse, suicide intentions, and risk of violence); life activities (work and study, intimate relationships, social relationships, and enjoyment of life).

The full technique name is Behavioural Health Measure often used in a short form BHM. This technique can be used remotely without the direct participation of a psychologist because the respondent can insert answers using a computer or gadget, and the average time to complete the questionnaire is about three minutes. This tool is used in behavioural health clinics of primary health care (Bryan et al., 2014 ). The test consists of 20 statements rated by respondents where 0 points mean Strongly Disagree and 4 points represent Strong Agree .

The maximum total score of psychological well-being, without the suicidal scale, is 80 points, and the minimum score is 0 points, which means deep mental exhaustion. The scales do not have a separate gradation, and it means that the scale showed the overall score of mental health. Moreover, BHM-20 allows additional screening of suicidal thoughts and impulses, and it is considered six times better to identify suicidal intentions in primary care than the standard interview method. However, the research does not make use of this method, because it is secondary in importance to clinical psychological care.

In many cases, BHM-20 is used for primary psychological counselling at a certain number of higher education institutions, including Harvard University, the University of Minnesota, Indiana University, the University of Florida, and others, making this psychometric tool effective for data analysis. The tool is appropriate for adults aged 18 + with normal or high intelligence (Bryan et al., 2014 ). Express methods with a high level of reliability exist in modern methodology including BHQ-20 (Behavioural Health Questionnaire) with similar scales. The technique’s reliability was evaluated using four samples of different age groups, showing high results during the initial testing. Moreover, the high correlation between the scales in the BHQ-20 method indicated the presence of 1 key parameter of mental health. The analysis finds that the BHQ-20 is a reliable and valid mental health questionnaire, even though the number of questions is small (Kopta & Lowry, 2002 ).

2.1 Participants

The experimental group of first-year students included 94 individuals (38 females and 56 males) aged 18 to 19 years interested in this research. The control group of fourth-year students consisted of 92 individuals (48 females and 44 males) aged 21 to 23 years. All respondents had prior distance learning experience because the experiment was conducted during the second half of the academic year when both groups learnt for four months under adaptive quarantine. The distance learning experience differed across groups because for first-year students it was similar to their school experience while the control group actually continued professionalization, first under conditions of total quarantine, and then under conditions of adaptive quarantine.

2.2 Study design

This research was easy to organise and manage because it was conducted remotely and involved first-year and fourth-year volunteers of Zhengzhou University of Technology. The respondents received instructions in real time and proceeded to complete the electronic questionnaires on the Google platform at the agreed time on their personal computers. The preliminary briefing was conducted in the format of an online conference on ZOOM. The results were sent directly to the experimenter’s computer, entered into a common table, processed, and also remained anonymous. Although the participants logged in via e-mail in a Google form. In fact, the Google form presented to the respondents repeated the questions from BHM-20, greatly simplified the collection and processing of data. The well-structured methodology supported the high motivation level among the participants, immersed in the psycho-diagnostic process. The students were not informed about the research objective, which was the impact of distance learning on the mental health of young individuals. It helped the scholars to ensure the experiment’s purity and avoid bias. Moreover, all respondents could review the methodology results. The primary data processing did not take much time and the experimenter move quickly to statistical analysis.

2.3 Data analysis

Data processing was carried out using the SPSS Statistics 22 programme. To test the research hypothesis, the popular nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test for independent samples was used. It helped to assess the statistical homogeneity of the two samples and ensured the significant differences.

2.4 Research limitations

The research had several limitations. First, the BHM-20 is a fast test without subscales. Second, the single-item suicide risk scale was not used in this experiment because this factor is usually used for the pre-responses analysis only. Third, the mental development of first-year and fourth-year students differs due to age differences and life experience, which can affect the level of mental health. Fourth, the BHM-20 method, considered an individualised one, does not have any gradations of Mental Health Normality , which limits the possibility of using this psychometric tool for large-scale research. Fifth, both samples involved volunteers only. The research did not capture the required social section of the population. Sixth, the BHM-20 was originally developed to assess the progress of individual psychotherapeutic performance. It heats the debates about the lack of standardised tests to assess the overall mental health of an individual. Tests without subscales would simplify the assessment of the impact of distance education on the mental health of Chinese youth.

The unprecedented nature of this pandemic has caused several risk factors and events not explored in this research. The overall physical health, physical training, domestic abuse, violence, and mental health problems experienced by individuals caused by the pandemic were not examined. All indicators used in this research are self-reported, so the scholars consider that some respondents may be apt to provide truthful or false answers, which therefore could influence negatively the results.

2.5 Ethical issues

This experiment was based on high ethical standards because both samples involved volunteers and their identity was kept anonymous. Some students received feedback from the researcher on an individual basis. The experiment goals were not disclosed to the participants. The students were informed about some goals without going into detail including information about voluntary mental health monitoring. The experimenter did not benefit from the research and all the financial expenses were covered by Zhengzhou University of Technology.

The research usefulness function was realised in full because distance learning under adaptive quarantine was introduced not only in China but in Europe. This is an important factor because the pandemic has not yet been completely defeated despite the mass vaccination programmes. The use of distance learning in higher education institutions, considering mental health, has been still questioned. The research finds drawbacks in policy development especially when distance learning is proposed for first-year students who integrate into a new social environment and acquire new skills and master knowledge.

This scientific discussion is of exceptional social significance, allowing academic institutions to balance live communication in the classroom and the mental health of students who experienced an academic overload. There was no risk to the physical and mental health of freshmen. Moreover, monitoring was used as a self-report measure and forced respondents to pay attention to their mental health and analyse their overall mental conditions over the past two weeks.

The results processing started with the analysis of the mean values for groups, which made it possible to produce high-quality primary research. At this stage, significant differences between the groups were manifested. Significant differences were found in the median of grouped data, and minimum and maximum values. So, the average value in the experimental group of first-year students was 35.14 points out of 80 possible points, while in the control group of fourth-year students this indicator was higher and reached 52.66 points. The data is available in Table  1 .

If the minimum value of the BHM index in the group of first-year students is 10 points, then in the control group it is already 33 points. The difference illustrates the high vulnerability level of former school students and a need for adaptation and effective use of psychological resources during the transition period, from one social environment to another. At the same time, the maximum intragroup values are similar. In the experimental group, the BHM score did not exceed 61 points, while in the control group, the highest value was 74 points out of 80 points. The standard deviation is lower in the group of fourth-year students, which suggests a higher homogeneity in the assessment of psychological well-being.

It proves the significance of the socio-psychological services at the stage of adaptation of first-year students so that the students can receive professional support and focus on the educational process. These strategies should be introduced into practice under adaptive quarantine. For example, one of the possible interventions is support groups organised once a week and conducted by a professional psychologist online.

The second stage of data processing involved a comparison of samples to identify the statistical differences. The classical Mann-Whitney U-test for independent samples was used. The analysis revealed that there were statistically significant differences between the groups. The data are available in Table  2 .

The results reveal that the integrated value of BHM in the groups of first-year and fourth-year students is significantly different because an extremely low level of statistical error was detected, namely - p = 0.000 with admissible p = 0.05. This result suggests that the psychological well-being of fourth-year students is more stable compared to first-year students. The research considers that distance learning is not the only factor affecting the mental health of the respondents from the experimental group. The scholars assumed that psychological problems experienced by students were caused by many factors including adaptation processes to distance learning, personality crises and academic overload. The results showed that distance learning for first-year students was less desirable than for the fourth-year respondents. It is difficult for the socio-psychological service workers to support students and provide psychological help online, detect emotional burnout, apathy, and depressive episodes in a distance learning format. This research showed that age and the year of study significantly affected the mental health of students learning online.

4 Discussion

Empirical research in South Africa illustrated that university professors failed to deliver adequate psychological support to isolated students. Students relied heavily on the support of both the administrative and academic staff when it came to the learning process. As a result, the high work stress felt by teachers was added to the high academic stress of students, which increased the risk of emotional burnout and nervous exhaustion in both groups (Poalses & Bezuidenhout, 2018 ).

Distance learning sabotage denial to accept a new academic environment increases the likelihood of mental disorders and reduces the cognitive abilities of schoolchildren whose parents are against this form of teaching (Davis et al., 2021 ). Distance learning under total lockdowns can cause a sense of learned helplessness with online learning technology, and worsen the quality of mental health of students of different age groups. The factors that may eliminate the negative consequences are academic motivation, reduced fatigue and a loss of interaction that cannot be restored with any online conferences (Garcia et al., 2021 ).

The U.S.-based University conducted a multi-thousand online survey involving undergraduate and graduate students based on standardised scales for assessing physical health and anxiety, as well as additional multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions about stressors and coping mechanisms under the pandemic restrictions. The results showed that half of the respondents experienced an increased level of depression and anxiety. At the same time, less than half of the participants indicated that they coped effectively with the stress factors caused by online learning and the threat of infection (Wang et al., 2020 ).

In Malaysia, the mental health of students during distance learning was evaluated using the DASS-21 methodology, designed to assess the depressive-anxiety stress factors. The questionnaire analysis showed that 30% of students in vocational schools experienced severe or extremely severe depression, 41% had anxiety, and 20% had chronic stress. At the same time, the biological sex of the respondent had a significant impact on anxiety. The research suggests investigating and combining distance learning with face-to-face education and practical work experience within the curriculum (Ahmad et al., 2022 ).

The results comparison of the mental state of students in full-time and distance learning was performed in Eurasia. This research assessed satisfaction with academic performance and the severity of depression and anxiety symptoms. The results showed that the prevalence of depressive symptoms and anxiety among students was higher during distance learning, compared with similar results obtained during full-time education. Moreover, the research results showed that the sudden transition from one learning environment to another was a major cause of chronic stress, which led to a high prevalence of depressive symptoms and anxiety among students (Lyubetsky et al., 2021 ).

In Italy, the impact of long-term online learning on the mental health of students was also researched. The second (control) experiment used the same sample and conducted the research over six months. The results reveal significant differences on scales such as students’ connection with other students and teachers, workspace organisation, and boredom between lessons. Moreover, the results show significant correlations between student academic development and the quality of distance learning, course adaptation, workspace arrangements and communication with other students and teachers, and between students’ emotions and communication with other students and teachers (Baltà-Salvador et al., 2021 ). The research finds that the social relations in distance learning can be an additional psychological resource for students that should not be underestimated.

Cross-cultural research based on a sample of thousands of students showed higher rates of depression, suicidal intentions and post-traumatic stress disorder compared to pre-pandemic levels and current rates in individuals belonging to ethnic minorities, which could also be considered as one of the factors of influence. Though the most common pandemic outcome is PTSD (Post-traumatic stress disorder ) , recorded in 62% of the respondents. However, neither age, nor personal history of mental illness, nor perceived social support was a significant risk factor of mental health (Torres et al., 2022 ).

The UK has developed a large-scale online questionnaire designed to assess mental health under the pandemic restrictions. The authors of the questionnaire considered socio-demographic variables, previous physical or mental illness, personal experience with COVID-19, information in the media, pandemic concerns, degree of personal traumatic experiences, PTSD caused by a pandemic outbreak, generalised anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, sleep quality, emotional deregulation, loneliness, social support, and the meaning of life (Armour et al., 2021 ). This questionnaire has not yet been standardised and adapted in other countries. However, all of the above factors affect the quality of mental health during and after the pandemic. There were no publications devoted to mental health under adaptive quarantine, which proved the need to start a debate on the key theoretical and empirical questions.

5 Conclusion

This article investigated the main factors that affected the mental health of students. The theory of intelligence helps to illustrate that the pandemic and distance education increase the risk of clinical depression, generalised anxiety disorder, PTSD, apathy, learned helplessness, burnout, nervous breakdown, and so on. Furthermore, non-university students more often report mental health problems than those who learn academic disciplines in a traditional format. The results prove that therapeutic and individualistic approaches to mental health cannot be the only methods used to improve students’ mental well-being.

The scholars have to investigate inclusive curriculum design and assessment methods. Moreover, educational institutions should introduce and teach advanced telecommuting skills, implement educational systems and processes that do not cause stress, and design learning environments based on professional feedback to maintain a balance between quality education and the student’s mental health. The research proposed the holistic approach to introduce mental health practices during distance learning that can influence positively the mental well-being of students. At an empirical level, the present research investigates distance learning opportunities during adaptive quarantine and finds that it is less effective for first-year students who have just entered the university. The problems that may arise are caused by the complicated adaptation process which requires a significant amount of effort, the difficulties in developing new social relations with teachers and fellow students, and academic overload, especially in learning specialised disciplines.

The experiment shows that first-year students are a more vulnerable group than fourth-year students who have learnt online at the university and feel much more competent when it comes to university education. In addition, the research finds that first-year students need high-quality psychological support being at risk with a reduced tolerance for uncertainty. The empirical research finds that age and the year of study affect the mental well-being of students. The scholars suggest that under conditions of adaptive quarantine, it is necessary to pay attention to psychological screening and psychological interventions to prevent depressive episodes, apathy, low academic motivation, low-stress resistance, ineffective self-regulation, and so on. The scientific value of the research is that it causes a worldwide discussion about the safety of distance education and its impact on the mental health of university students.

Moreover, some risks for mental health may occur when young individuals learn remotely. However, the research proves that the psychological states of undergraduate students are more stable and the students are better prepared for distance learning. This is the main practical value of the article to the university administration and teachers. This research manifests that the quality of socio-psychological services in universities is a priority for the administration, and special strategies should be developed to prevent mental disorders among students and maintain an effective and advantageous learning environment for all parties involved in the education process.

Data availability

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

Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments , in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180

Aditya, R. R., & Ulya, Z. (2021). Impact and vulnerability of distance learning on the mental health conditions of students. Journal of Psychiatry Psychology and Behavioral Research , 2 (1), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jppbr.2021.002.01.3 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmad, W. N. W., Azman, M. N. A., & Kassymova, G. K. (2022). Correlates of mental health on online distance learning during COVID-19 among Malaysia vocational students. International Journal of Public Health , 11 (1), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijphs.v11i1.21105 .

Al-Maroof, R. S., Salloum, S. A., Hassanien, A. E., & Shaalan, K. (2020). Fear from COVID-19 and technology adoption: the impact of Google Meet during Coronavirus pandemic. Interactive Learning Environments , in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1830121

Allen, R., Kannangara, C., Vyas, M., & Carson, J. (2022). European university students’ mental health during COVID-19: Exploring attitudes towards COVID-19 and governmental response. Current Psychology , in press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02854-0

Armour, C., McGlinchey, E., Butter, S., McAloney-Kocaman, K., & McPherson, K. E. (2021). The COVID-19 psychological wellbeing study: Understanding the longitudinal psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK; a methodological overview paper. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment , 43 (1), 174–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-020-09841-4 .

Baltà-Salvador, R., Olmedo-Torre, N., Peña, M., & Renta-Davids, A. I. (2021). Academic and emotional effects of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic on engineering students. Education and Information Technologies , 26 (6), 7407–7434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10593-1 .

Brown, M. D., & Carreno-Davidson, J. T. (2020). Enabling behavioral health measurement-based care with technology. In Technology and Mental Health (pp. 1–18). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429020537-1

Bryan, C. J., Blount, T., Kanzler, K. A., Morrow, C. E., Corso, K. A., Corso, M. A., & Ray-Sannerud, B. (2014). Reliability and normative data for the behavioral health measure (BHM) in primary care behavioural health settings. Families Systems & Health , 32 (1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000014 .

Clemente-Suárez, V. J., Navarro-Jiménez, E., Jimenez, M., Hormeño-Holgado, A., Martinez-Gonzalez, M. B., Benitez-Agudelo, J. C., Perez-Palencia, N., Laborde-Cárdenas, C. C., & Tornero-Aguilera, J. F. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic in public mental health: An extensive narrative review. Sustainability , 13 , 3221. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1306322 .

Davis, C. R., Grooms, J., Ortega, A., Rubalcaba, J. A. A., & Vargas, E. (2021). Distance learning and parental mental health during COVID-19. Educational Researcher , 50 (1), 61–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20978806 .

Garcia, A., Powell, G. B., Arnold, D., Ibarra, L., Pietrucha, M., Thorson, M. K., Verhelle, A., Wade, N. B., & Webb, S. (2021). Learned helplessness and mental health issues related to distance learning due to COVID-19. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–6). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451526

Grigorkevich, A., Savelyeva, E., Gaifullina, N., & Kolomoets, E. (2022). Rigid class scheduling and its value for online learning in higher education. Education and Information Technologies , 27 , 12567–12584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11131-3 .

Gunnell, D., Appleby, L., Arensman, E., Hawton, K., John, A., Kapur, N., Khan, M., O’Connor, R. C., & COVID-19 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration. (2020). Suicide risk and prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet Psychiatry , 7 (6), 468–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30171-1 .

Guoyan, S., Khaskheli, A., Raza, S. A., Khan, K. A., & Hakim, F. (2021). Teachers’ self-efficacy, mental well-being and continuance commitment of using learning management system during COVID-19 pandemic: a comparative study of Pakistan and Malaysia. Interactive Learning Environments , in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1978503

Kopta, S. M., & Lowry, J. L. (2002). Psychometric evaluation of the behavioral health Questionnaire-20: A brief instrument for assessing global mental health and the three phases of psychotherapy outcome. Psychotherapy Research , 12 (4), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptr/12.4.413 .

Kopta, M., Owen, J., & Budge, S. (2015). Measuring psychotherapy outcomes with the behavioral health Measure–20: Efficient and comprehensive. Psychotherapy , 52 (4), 442–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000035 .

Lyubetsky, N., Bendersky, N., Verina, T., Demyanova, L., & Arkhipova, D. (2021). IMPACT of distance learning on student mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 273, p. 10036). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202127310036

Moroń, M., Yildirim, M., Jach, Ł., Nowakowska, J., & Atlas, K. (2021). Exhausted due to the pandemic: Validation of Coronavirus Stress Measure and COVID-19 Burnout Scale in a Polish sample. Current Psychology , in press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02543-4

Nogueira, J., Gerardo, B., Silva, A. R., Pinto, P., Barbosa, R., Soares, S., Baptista, B., Paquete, C., Cabral-Pinto, M., Vilar, M. M., Simões, M. R., & Freitas, S. (2022). Effects of restraining measures due to COVID-19: Pre-and post-lockdown cognitive status and mental health. Current Psychology , 41 , 7393–7392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01747-y .

Poalses, J., & Bezuidenhout, A. (2018). Mental health in higher education: A comparative stress risk assessment at an Open Distance Learning University in South Africa. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , 19 (2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i2.3391 .

Schindler, A. K., Polujanski, S., & Rotthoff, T. (2021). A longitudinal investigation of mental health, perceived learning environment and burdens in a cohort of first-year german medical students’ before and during the COVID-19 ‘new normal’. BMC Medical Education , 21 (1), 413. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02798-2 .

Serdakova, A., Shustikova, N., Kishkin, N., Asafaylo, M., & Kravtsov, N. (2023). The study of personal factors of adolescents affecting their attitudes towards the success and failure of the other. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education , 12 (1), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i1.23867 .

Torres, A., Palomin, A., Morales, F., Sevilla-Matos, M., Colunga-Rodríguez, C., Ángel-González, M., Sarabia-López, L. E., Dávalos-Picazo, G., Delgado-García, D., Duclos-Bastías, D., Vazquez-Colunga, J. C., Vazquez-Juarez, C. L., Egea-Romero, M. P., & Mercado, A. (2022). A cross-sectional study of the mental health symptoms of Latin American, US Hispanic, and Spanish College Students amid the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction , in press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00827-9

Wang, X., Hegde, S., Son, C., Keller, B., Smith, A., & Sasangohar, F. (2020). Investigating mental health of US college students during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 22 (9), e22817. https://doi.org/10.2196/22817 .

Wang, Y., Ariyo, T., Liu, H., & Ma, C. (2022). Does psychosocial support buffer the effect of COVID-19 related stressors on mental health among chinese during quarantine? Current Psychology , 41 (10), 7459–7469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01663-1 .

Zhang, N. (2022). Risk perception, mental health distress, and flourishing during the COVID-19 pandemic in China: The role of positive and negative affect. Current Psychology , in press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02624-4

Download references

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Basic Science, Zhengzhou University of Technology, Zhengzhou, China

Yinghua Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yinghua Wang .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There are no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics approval

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles approved by the Ethics Committee of Zhengzhou University of Technology.

Patient consent

All participants gave their written informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wang, Y. The research on the impact of distance learning on students’ mental health. Educ Inf Technol 28 , 12527–12539 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11693-w

Download citation

Received : 04 November 2022

Accepted : 23 February 2023

Published : 11 March 2023

Issue Date : October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11693-w

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 learning
• Mental health
• Psychological well-being
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Child Care and Early Education Research Connections

Design of distance learning.

Description: This brief summarizes what learning management systems (LMS) are, tips for choosing a LMS, and typical distance learning (DL) technology requirements. (author abstract) Resource Type: Fact Sheets & Briefs Author(s): National Center on Child Care Professional Development Systems and Workforce Initiatives Publisher(s): National Center on Child Care Professional Development Systems and Workforce Initiatives Country: United States

- You May Also Like

These resources share similarities with the current selection.

About distance learning

Aligning distance learning criteria, standards and criteria for distance learning.

Jump to navigation

Search form

NIH PAR-22-000: 2025 Team-Based Design in Biomedical Engineering Education (R25 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

Research category, funding type, internal deadline.

Limit:1 // SF- Wung (College of Nursing)

One application per institution (normally identified by having a unique DUNS number or NIH IPF number) is allowed. This FOA seeks to support programs that include innovative approaches to enhance biomedical engineering (BME) designeducation to ensure a future workforce that can meet the nation’s needs in biomedical research and healthcare technologies.

Applications are encouraged from institutions that propose to establish new or to enhance existing team-based design courses orprograms in undergraduate biomedical engineering departments or other degree-granting programs with biomedical engineeringtracks/minors. This FOA targets the education of undergraduate biomedical engineering/bioengineering students in a team-basedenvironment. Health equity and universal design topics must be integrated throughout the educational activities. While current bestpractices such as multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary education, introduction to the regulatory pathway and other issues related tothe commercialization of medical devices, and clinical immersion remain encouraged components of a strong BME program, thisFOA also challenges institutions to propose other novel, innovative and/or ground-breaking activities that can form the basis of thenext generation of biomedical engineering design education.

Program URL

External deadline, solicitation type.

Subscribe to the UArizona Impact in Action newsletter to receive featured stories and event info to connect you with UArizona's research, innovation, entrepreneurial ventures, and societal impacts.

Subscribe now

Department of Civil, Environmental, & Construction Engineering

• Whitacre College of Engineering
• Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering

Centers & Research

National wind institute .

Three Pillars of NWI   The National Wind Institute (NWI) has evolved from its traditional singular focus on wind hazards to three main research pillars of Energy Systems, Atmospheric Measurement & Simulation, and Wind Engineering. Though all three of these pillars focus on distinct issues, they also maintain common ground via cross cutting themes. All research seeks to benefit communities at micro and macro scales.

Energy Systems: Smart Grid, Microgrid, Cybersecurity, Energy Storage, Grid Integration, Transmission & Distribution, and Grid Resiliency & Recovery

Atmospheric Measurement & Simulation: Wind Science, Atmospheric Electricity, Data Assimilation & Predictability, Instrument System & Sensor Design, Multi-scale Measurements & Simulations

Wind Engineering:  Wind Field Characterization, Bluff Body Aerodynamics, Performance, Based Design, Wind-Included Vibration, Fatigue and Extreme Loading, Multi-Hazard Resilience

Latest Stories (link)

Leadership (link): 

Schroeder, John

Thomas, Anna E.

Bayne, Stephen

Zuo, Delong

Swift, Andy

Faculty Affiliate Directory (link)

  Center for Multidisciplinary Research in Transportation (TechMRT)

Overview:  Welcome to the Center for Multidisciplinary Research in Transportation (TechMRT) at Texas Tech University. TechMRT was established in 1997 to serve as the focal point for communication between TTU and various transportation research funding organizations and programs. From crisis aversion and management such the rapid replacement of damaged bridges, to the protection of taxpayer investment through the study of maximizing and preserving existing roadways, to environmental concerns such as the research of alternative water sources in construction applications, TechMRT is committed to all facets of transportation research. We invite you to review this information about TechMRT's research activity, facilities, faculty and staff.

About TechMRT  The Texas Tech Center for Multidisciplinary Research in Transportation (TechMRT) was established in 1997 to serve as the focal point for communication between TTU researchers and transportation research needs. TTU researchers, faculty members, and students work together to promote cutting-edge developments in materials research, infrastructure resilience, and transportation technology.

Expertise and funded projects include topics such as Construction and Maintenance Resilience, Data Simulation and Automation, Environmental and Hydrology, Geotechnical Engineering and Pavement Systems, Mobility and Safety, and Structural Systems Engineering.

Tomorrow's Transportation Workforce: At TechMRT, students are integral to everything we do. Students work side-by-side in the lab and in the field, gaining real-world experience to address tomorrow's transportation challenges.

Partners  ·         Fiber and Biopolymer Research Institute (FBRI)

·         NCHRP

·         National Wind Institute (NWI)

·         Ports-to-Plains Alliance

·         SPTC

·         TTU Climate Science Center

·         TxDOT

·         USGS

Center Director:

Moon Won, Ph.D., P.E.

Researchers:

Sang-Wook Bae, Ph.D.

Theodore Cleveland, Ph.D., P.E.

Tewodros Ghebrab, Ph.D., P.E.

Hongchao Liu, Ph.D., P.E.

Ali Nejat, Ph.D., P.E., PMP

Hoyoung Seo, Ph.D., P.E.

Venky Shankar, Ph.D., P.E.

Delong Zuo, Ph.D.

Narayan Venkataraman, Ph.D.

Nischal Bhattaria

Niwesh Koirala

Rohan Shrestha

Lan Ventura

Manil Hettiwatte (2014-2019)

Fei Yu (2015-2019)

Suraj Khadka (2015-2019)

Tharanga Dissanayaka (2013-2019)

Bo (Jason) Pang (2012-2017)

Wesley Kumfer (2012-2017)

Suranga Gunerathne (2013-2017)

Dali Wei (2014-2015)

Rozbeh B. Moghaddam (2012-2016)

Timothy A. Wood (2006-2007)

Murdough Center

The purpose of the Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism is to provide engineering ethics and professionalism education, research, and communications to students, faculty, staff, and engineers in industry, government and private practice, other professionals, and citizens in the community, state, and nation. The goal of the center is to increase the awareness of the professional and ethical obligations and responsibilities entrusted to individuals who practice engineering, and to encourage cooperation among individuals, universities, professional and technical societies, and business organizations with regard to engineering ethics and professionalism issues.

Services Provided

Engineering Ethics Podcasts

·         Teaching Ethics

Distance Learning by Correspondence

·        Engineering Ethics Professional Development Hour (PDH) Courses: 30 PDH (BASIC), 60 PDH (INTERMEDIATE) and 90 PDH (ADVANCED)

o   PDH Course Information

o     Enrollment Form

·        Land Surveying Ethics Professional Development Hour (PDH) Courses: 30 PDH (BASIC), 60 PDH (INTERMEDIATE) and 90 PDH (ADVANCED)

o   Land Surveyor Course Information

o   Enrollment Form

·  Continuing Professional Competency (CPC) Courses: 2-, 3-, 5-, 7- and 10-PDH

o   CPC Course Information

o   CPC Enrollment Form

·         Engineering Ethics Cases

Radon In Texas 

Texas Radon Information

What is Radon?

Radon is an odorless, colorless, radioactive gas that develops with the natural breakdown of uranium in soil and rock. Radon can enter a home by migrating through permeable rocks and soils and eventually seeping into buildings or releasing into the atmosphere. Radon is measured in units of picocuries per liter (pCi/L) in either air or water.

What are the Health Risks Associated with Radon?

The primary health risk associated with radon is the potential to develop lung cancer . In addition, smoking combined with radon exposure greatly increases the risk for developing lung cancer. Read more about radon levels and concerns in Texas to understand potential risk.

Radon Public Service Announcement with Chester Pitts (00:48) ( link )

How Are You Exposed To Radon?

Radon that seeps into homes may accumulate there and decay into radioactive, chemically reactive particles that attach themselves to dust in the home environment. If inhaled over a long period of time, these radioactive particles may cause damage to the lung tissues and increase the risk of developing lung cancer.

Testing Recommendations  

The only way to know your radon level is by testing your home or work environment for radon . If you have an elevated radon measurement, it may be wise to retest or seek action for radon reduction .

There are no radon certification requirements for the State of Texas at this time, but the National Radon Proficiency Program lists radon testers and mitigators within Texas that have passed a rigorous national certification program. A list of these individuals can be found at NRPP. Local home inspectors in your area may also perform radon testing.

 Read More