informal essay about distance learning

Distance Learning: Advantages and Disadvantages

Introduction, the essence of distance learning, advantages and disadvantages of distance learning, works cited.

Computer and information technologies have significantly affected all spheres of human life. These technologies have also changed the field of education, since the improvement and development of this direction is one of the main mechanisms that make up the public life of the United States. Thus, a new form of distance learning has appeared in modern human life, which, along with the traditional form, has taken an important place in our society. This kind of training allows not only to study but also to improve the qualification level of its users.

The research paper offered to the reader is devoted to the concept of distance learning, as well as its advantages and disadvantages. The question of the advantages and disadvantages of distance learning has been in the focus of research attention especially against the background of a general quarantine, which justifies the actuality of this topic. To facilitate the preparation of this final project, the author formulates the problem in several forms of proposals, namely:

• Analysis of the phenomenon of distance learning.
• Analysis of the pros and cons of distance learning.

This study focuses on analyzing the pros and cons of distance learning, as well as predicting its further application. The results of this study are of practical use, because they will be of interest to students and teachers who are choosing whether to switch to remote learning.

Sawsan Abuhammad, the Assistant Professor in Jordan University of Science and Technology, in his article “Barriers to distance learning during the COVID-19 outbreak: A qualitative review from parents’ perspective” (2020) states the following. The author claims that many parents have faced serious problems in the process of distance learning of their children. The author believes that the barriers that arose among the parents were of a personal, financial and technical nature. The author also states that these barriers need to be eliminated with the help of some changes, including through communication with other parents and students.

The author used the social network Facebook to recognize local groups, as well as keywords including distance learning, parents and Jordan. The author used a general qualitative method and analyzed all the messages and posts of parents related to this topic. This article was written by the author in order to describe and clarify the ideas of parents about the obstacles to distance learning during the coronavirus crisis (Abuhammad). The main audience of this article is parents, as well as persons representing the government and making decisions regarding distance learning. Thus, in the process of distance learning, many parents have various barriers that need to be overcome. We intend to use this source to demonstrate the problems and difficulties of distance learning.

Živko Bojović, Petar D. Bojović, Dušan Vujošević and Jelena Šuh, in their article “Education in times of crisis: Rapid transition to distance learning” (2020), state the following. They claim that the pandemic crisis has a negative effect on the standard of living and education. The authors believe that violation can pose a serious threat, and therefore a working model is needed that will allow switching from the traditional form of training to distance learning quickly and painlessly. The authors also argue that distance learning is acceptable on a long-term basis, if it is implemented correctly.

The authors of this article used a modeling method that allowed them to determine organizational and technical solutions for maintaining the quality of teaching. In addition, the authors used the method of comparative analysis of the survey data of students and teachers. The article was written by the authors in order to facilitate the transition from traditional learning to distance learning against the background of the pandemic and quarantine (Bojović et al.). The model developed by them has many advantages and thoughtful solutions. The main audience of this article is teachers and other representatives of educational institutions who face the difficult task of implementing distance learning. We intend to use this article to better understand the essence of distance learning, as well as its advantages.

Tim Surma and Paul A. Kirschner in their article, “Technology enhanced distance learning should not forget how learning happens” (2020), state the following. They believe that the traditional type of learning is under threat due to the accelerated process of adapting the traditional learning process to a new, remote one. They argue that modern technologies are both a danger and a chance for education to reach a completely new level.

The authors of this article used the methods of surveys and interviews to find out the attitude of students and teachers to the new form of education, and to track the progress in learning. This article was written by the authors in order to provide the importance of clear guidelines and optimal use of distance learning technologies (Surma and Kirschner). Moreover, the authors identified important principles that will help students get used to a new form of education, for example, feedback and an individual approach. The main audiences of this article are students, parents and teachers who will be interested in this information for the successful implementation of distance learning. We intend to use this article to understand the possible future prospects of the distance learning method.

John Traxler, the Professor of Digital Learning in the Institute of Education at the University of Wolverhampton, in his article, “Distance Learning—Predictions and Possibilities” (2018), states the following. The author claims that the definition of distance learning is not clear, but vague and changeable. The author considers the process of distance learning in a global context and studies the issue of adaptation and implementation of distance learning. The author believes that people should be ready for global changes, be open and aware, since changes are inevitable.

The author of this article uses observation and comparison methods that allow determining the essence of distance learning, the danger of pressure on educational institutions, as well as the importance of innovations in education. This article was written by the author in order to create a complete understanding of the phenomenon of distance education in a global context (Traxler). In addition, this article demonstrates the difficulties of distance learning application in conditions of ignorance or isolation. The main audience of this article is teachers, students and parents who want to get acquainted in more detail with the concept of distance learning in a global context. We intend to use this article to learn more about what distance learning is, as well as its goals and objectives.

The main benefit of distance learning is that it allows a person to study anywhere, but requires a computer and the Internet. The material is easily accessible and easy to handle and structure, and it also has all the necessary features that students of higher educational institutions need. In addition, the student is free to build their own individual training schedule, depending on their free time and desire to study (Lassoued et al.). The difference between classical distance learning and its more advanced form is small – the lack of personal communication between students and teachers (Bojović et al.). In this paper, the pros and cons of distance learning will be considered, but first it is required to understand the very essence of distance learning.

In the process of remote learning, students and teachers are at a significant spatial and temporal distance from each other. Teachers use a variety of computer technologies to make the process of remote learning as interesting and useful for students as possible (Schneider and Council). Distance type of education has an important goal-to expand opportunities and provide new services for those people who want to acquire new skills or change their profession. There are six main forms of distance learning, which are the most common.

• external education;
• university education;
• training that involves the cooperation of several educational institutions;
• creation of specialized institutions where distance classes are held;
• autonomous learning systems;
• special multimedia courses that differ in a certain informal component.

At the same time, different technologies are combined: pedagogical, informational, and often andragogic. There is a British synchronous model of distance learning and an American asynchronous one. Distance education is a new, specific form of education, somewhat different from the usual forms of full-time or distance learning (Dietrich et al.). As for the present, the real contingent of potential students can include those who are often on business trips, military personnel, women on maternity leave, and people with physical disabilities. In addition, this category consists of those who want to get additional education with a lack of time. Distance learning has several key characteristics that are important to consider when analyzing this type of learning.

• flexible and convenient schedule of classes;
• modularity;
• mass character;
• active mutual communication and a variety of communication tools;
• the totality of knowledge and orientation to the independence of students, to the motivation of learning.

Indeed, the effectiveness of distance learning directly depends on those teachers who work with students on the Internet. Such teachers should be psychologically ready to work with students in a new educational and cognitive network environment. Another problem is the infrastructure of student information support in networks. The question of what the structure and composition of the educational material should be remains open. Also, the question is raised about the conditions of access to distance learning courses.

Analyzing the components of distance learning related to the educational institution, they can determine the structure of the network system. It should include educational material submitted in the form of programs, tasks, control and graduation papers, and scientific and practical assistance (Costa et al.). The student should be provided with fundamental printed textbooks, teaching aids, and hypertext multimedia programs (Arthur-Nyarko et al.). Additional materials may include lectures prepared by teachers on disciplines that can be transmitted via the network. In addition, distance learning provides communication in various modes, teacher advice on implementing term papers, theses, or other final work.

The essential component of distance learning is the ability to consider situations that are close to reality. In addition, important elements are creating conditions for the self-realization of students, the disclosure of their potential, the systematic learning process, the individuality of the approach (Bojović et al.). This component is the basis of academic and cognitive activity and affects the quality of distance learning.

Electronic versions of textbooks, which became the basis for the creation of distance courses and traditional books, do not solve the problems of independent activity in obtaining knowledge. These software products only create a virtual learning environment in which distance learning is carried out. Here there are psychological problems, such as inexperience, lack of self-education skills, poor volitional self-regulation, the influence of group attitudes, etc. When developing distance learning programs, it is crucial to carefully plan classes, including each of them with the setting of learning goals and objectives.

If interpersonal communication between students and the teacher is ineffective, there is a possibility of a communication barrier. If this happens, the information is delivered in a distorted form, which leads to the fact that there is a threat of the cognitive barrier growing into a relationship barrier. The barrier of relations turns into a feeling of distrust and hostility towards information and its source.

There are also many disadvantages in distance learning that should be listed and that cannot be ignored. It is worth starting with technical and methodological problems, including ignoring the psychological laws of perception and assimilation of information using multimedia tools of different modalities. There are also methodological problems, including the complexity of developing electronic versions of traditional educational materials, primarily textbooks and practical manuals.

Many students and experts believe that distance learning has many indisputable and obvious advantages.

• A student studying remotely independently plans their schedule and decides how much time to devote to studying.
• The opportunity to study anywhere. Students studying remotely are not tied to a place or time, as they only need an Internet connection.
• Study on the job from the main activity. Distance learning allows to work or study at several courses at the same time to get additional education.
• High learning outcomes. Remote students study the necessary material independently, which allows them to better memorize and assimilate knowledge.
• Distance learning is much cheaper, since it does not require expenses for accommodation and travel, as well as for a foreign passport if the university is located abroad.
• Remote education provides a calm environment, as exams and communication with teachers are held online, which allows students to avoid anxiety.
• Teachers who conduct remote classes have the opportunity to do additional things, cover a larger number of students, as well as teach while, for example, on maternity leave.
• Remote learning allows teachers to use a more individual approach to their students, as well as to devote a sufficient amount of time to all students.

Experiments have confirmed that the quality and structure of training courses, as well as the quality of teaching in distance learning is often much better than in traditional forms of education. New electronic technologies can not only ensure the active involvement of students in the educational process, but also allow them to manage this process, unlike most traditional educational environments (Arthur-Nyarko et al.). The interactive capabilities of the programs and information delivery systems used in the distance learning system make it possible to establish and even stimulate feedback. Despite the predominant number of advantages of distance education, this system is not perfect. During the implementation of e-learning programs, the following problems of distance education were identified.

• Remote learning requires strong concentration and motivation. Almost all the educational material is mastered by a remote student independently. Remote classes require students to have perseverance and developed patience.
• In the process of distance learning, it is difficult to develop interpersonal communication skills, since contact with teachers and other students is minimal.
• In the process of distance learning, it is quite difficult to acquire practical skills, thus, specialties that require practical skills suffer.
• The problem of user identification. It is difficult to track whether a student wrote their exam honestly, since the only way to check this is video surveillance, which is not always possible.
• Insufficient computer literacy. In every country there are remote areas where there is no direct access to the Internet. Moreover, often the residents of such areas do not have any desire to learn, so it is necessary to spread computer literacy.

It is required to start by creating special Internet conferences and forums in schools that would guarantee the relative “live” communication of groups of students to deal with disadvantages (Chen et al.). It is also necessary to cooperate with traditional and distance learning, cooperation between teachers and students using a broad terminological and methodological base of psychology and pedagogy (Abuhammad). Despite all these problems, distance learning is very much appreciated by psychologists and teachers (Traxler). Nevertheless, the complete replacement of traditional education systems with similar ones-distance ones still causes some caution. One thing is indisputable – remotely studying students are more adapted to external conditions, are responsible and active, and therefore more successful in the modern business world.

Speaking about the distance form of education, it is necessary to talk about the creation of a single information and educational space. When it comes to distance learning, it is necessary to understand the presence of a teacher, a textbook and a student in the system, as well as the interaction of a teacher and students. It follows from this that the main thing in the organization of distance learning is the creation of electronic courses, the development of didactic foundations of distance learning, and the training of teachers-coordinators. It is not necessary to identify the distance form with the correspondence form of education, because it provides for constant contact with the teacher and imitation of all types of full-time training.

The dynamism of economic and socio-cultural processes in society causes changes in the field of education. Since the features of distance education are simply not acceptable for many students. Based on psychology and the methodology of independent learning, distance learning has some advantages and disadvantages. Summing up, we can unequivocally answer that distance education has a future. However, much depends on how quickly the problems of eliminating information illiteracy, technical equipment and improving the quality of e-education will be resolved. These factors arise during the implementation of remote scientific programs and projects. So, the factors and examples given above show the need to create and expand distance learning in the United States.

Abuhammad, Sawsan. “ Barriers to distance learning during the COVID-19 outbreak: A qualitative review from parents’ perspective. ” Heliyon (2020): e05482. Web.

Arthur-Nyarko, Emmanuel, Douglas Darko Agyei, and Justice Kofi Armah. “Digitizing distance learning materials: Measuring students’ readiness and intended challenges.” Education and Information Technologies (2020): 1-16. Web.

Bojović, Živko, et al. “Education in times of crisis: Rapid transition to distance learning.” Computer Applications in Engineering Education 28.6 (2020): 1467-1489.

Chen, Emily, Kristie Kaczmarek, and Hiroe Ohyama. “Student perceptions of distance learning strategies during COVID‐19.” Journal of dental education (2020). Web.

Costa, Roberto D., et al. “The theory of learning styles applied to distance learning.” Cognitive Systems Research 64 (2020): 134-145. Web.

Dietrich, Nicolas, et al. “Attempts, successes, and failures of distance learning in the time of COVID-19.” Journal of Chemical Education 97.9 (2020): 2448-2457. Web.

Lassoued, Zohra, Mohammed Alhendawi, and Raed Bashitialshaaer. “ An exploratory study of the obstacles for achieving quality in distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. ” Education Sciences 10.9 (2020): 232. Web.

Schneider, Samantha L., and Martha Laurin Council. “Distance learning in the era of COVID-19.” Archives of dermatological research 313.5 (2021): 389-390. Web.

Surma, Tim, and Paul A. Kirschner. “Technology enhanced distance learning should not forget how learning happens.” Computers in human behavior 110 (2020): 106390. Web.

Traxler, John. “ Distance learning—Predictions and possibilities. ” Education Sciences 8.1 (2018): 35. Web.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, November 12). Distance Learning: Advantages and Disadvantages. https://studycorgi.com/distance-learning-advantages-and-disadvantages/

"Distance Learning: Advantages and Disadvantages." StudyCorgi , 12 Nov. 2022, studycorgi.com/distance-learning-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Distance Learning: Advantages and Disadvantages'. 12 November.

1. StudyCorgi . "Distance Learning: Advantages and Disadvantages." November 12, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/distance-learning-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Distance Learning: Advantages and Disadvantages." November 12, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/distance-learning-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Distance Learning: Advantages and Disadvantages." November 12, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/distance-learning-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

This paper, “Distance Learning: Advantages and Disadvantages”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: January 2, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

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

• Share article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coronavirus and Schools

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

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

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

About this series

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

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

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

Read the full series here .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign Up for EdWeek Tech Leader

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Jessie s. barrot.

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

Ian I. Llenares

Leo s. del rosario, associated data.

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

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

Introduction

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

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

Literature review

Education and the covid-19 pandemic.

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

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

Related studies

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

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

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

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

Conceptual framework

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

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

Material and methods

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

Participants

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

Participants’ Online Learning Platforms

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

Instrument and data collection

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

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

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

Data analysis

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

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

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

The extent of students’ online learning challenges

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

The Extent of Students’ Challenges during the Interim Online Learning

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

Impact of the pandemic on students’ online learning challenges

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

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

Students’ strategies to overcome challenges in an online learning environment

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

Students’ Strategies to Overcome Online Learning Challenges

Discussion and conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authors’ contributions

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

No funding was received in the conduct of this study.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

The study has undergone appropriate ethics protocol.

Informed consent was sought from the participants.

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

Publisher’s note

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

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

• Educational Psychology
• Non-Formal Education

Open, Distance, and Digital Non-formal Education in Developing Countries

• August 2022
• In book: Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education (pp.1-17)
• Publisher: Springer, Singapore

• National Institute for Educational Planning and Administration

• Commonwealth of Learning

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Sagar Srini

• Khasnabis, chapal
• V Balakrishna
• Hilary Perraton
• Desmond Keegan

• Colin Robert Latchem

• UK. Dept for International Development
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Distance-Learning Modalities in Education Essay

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

Introduction

Pros and cons of selected modalities.

Distance education relates to an instruction delivery modality where learning occurs between the educator and students who are geographically isolated from each other during the learning process. Distance learning modalities include off-site satellite classes, video conferencing and teleconferencing, web-based instruction, and faculty-supervised clinical experiences, including internships. This study focuses on satellite campuses and videoconferencing and teleconferencing modalities. It provides a comprehensive listing of these modalities’ benefits and drawbacks, as well as a detailed comparison between them, and describes outcomes related to distance learning’s efficacy.

Satellite Campuses

Satellite campuses relate to programs that provide the curriculum in part or whole on off-campus locations from the parent organization. Studies associate satellite campuses with several advantages; first, it promotes interpersonal communication between students and faculty and improves cultural diversity. Second, it enhances learners’ experiences and opportunities, including campus choices, small class sizes at off-site campuses, and flexibility in viewing lecturers (Keating, 2014). Third, it allows dual-degree options and the opportunity to utilize and adopt distance education technologies. Fourth, off-site campuses can help increase student enrolment in the program, especially those from underrepresented regions. Ultimately, this modality has been associated with cost-related efficiencies, including the need for fewer faculty members and resource sharing.

Researchers also associate this modality with several cons; first, locating qualified off-site faculty to teach a specific subject content since they should be oriented to the curricula to ensure integrity. Finding faculty with the necessary expertise is difficult; therefore, parent campuses need an additional course coordinator to ensure the course’s integrity. Second, additional resources are required to implement or develop distant satellite campuses. Third, satellite campuses frequently lose students to the parent campus (Keating, 2014). Fourth, this modality has been linked with probable incongruence between the courses’ implementation in the curriculum due to the lack of interaction amid faculty and staff within the home campus. Fifth, since it depends on part-time faculty, institutional commitment is low. Lastly, satellite campuses must limit program offerings to reduce the risks of the program’s cost becoming unsustainable.

Videoconferencing and Teleconferencing

Teleconferencing and videoconferencing demand the installation of dedicated classrooms capable of sending and receiving digital information both off-site and on-site. This modality has been linked with several benefits; first, it allows real-time interactions between faculty and students. Next, faculty members can introduce guest speakers and live events in class without taking them to those events (Keating, 2014). The curriculum can be delivered to a large audience, increasing the chances of the curriculum’s integrity is maintained. It also reduces travel expenses and the costs for program mounting and maintenance. Additionally, success rates are high for institutions with sufficient institutional capabilities and support (Keating, 2014). Lastly, partnerships are mutually beneficial for educational institutions and healthcare organizations aiming to increase professional development or continuing education.

There several drawbacks linked to videoconferencing and teleconferencing; first, it requires specialized equipment and tools for class delivery, making education expensive. Second, institutions with limited reception and connectivity may miss out on live interactions. Third, it requires close monitoring from an expert to enhance implementation and compliance to sponsoring agency’s priority rights. Ultimately, this modality requires faculty with specialized expertise in different teaching media to ensure its success as an instructional delivery methodology.

Analysis and Comparison

Satellite Campuses incorporate face-face interactions and videoconferencing, and web-based instruction to instruct students. However, videoconferencing and teleconferencing involve delivering curriculum content via classrooms that can receive and send digital data. Both modalities allow face-to-face interaction, although satellite campus interactions are physical while that videoconferencing is online. They emphasize interaction and didactic relationships between faculty and students (Keating, 2014). The parent campus plays an integral role in the seamless implementation of the program in both modalities. Moreover, in satellite campuses, part of the classes is conducted on-site at the parent campus. Similarly, videoconferencing can also be delivered in on-site classes. Both modalities’ parent campus is responsible for ensuring course integrity and that the curriculum satisfies their educational goals.

Outcome Description Related to Teaching and Learning Effectiveness and Student and Faculty Satisfaction

Distance learning (DL) is associated with positive learning outcomes and student and faculty satisfaction. Berndt et al. (2017) showed that rural health practitioners and class facilitators were highly satisfied with distance learning strategies in professional development. Al-Balas et al. (2020) also supported this notion that distance learning improves learning outcomes. The study showed the approach provides students with educational autonomy and facilitates access to a broader range of learning resources. Another survey by Tomaino et al. (2021) demonstrated that DL produced positive educational outcomes in students with severe developmental and behavioral needs. The study participants showed positive progress in achieving their academic goals when they were engaged in DL. Tomaino et al. (2021) revealed that using audio, video, computers, and the internet increased parental engagement in students’ education. The DL helped the parents assess their children’s academic ability and learn how to effectively manage their disabilities and challenging behaviors with the instructor’s help.

DL is also cost-effective and can lead to cost-savings related to travel time. Rotimi et al. (2017) report that web-based programs make learning cheaper and are viable alternatives to face-to-face classes. Berndt et al. (2017) revealed that DL reduced healthcare providers’ travel time and costs (learners). Therefore, it can be surmised that DL can reduce travel costs for learners. Another aspect that stood out in Berndt et al. (2017) study is that face-to-face learning does not result in better outcomes than DL. The study showed that distance education produces better learning outcomes irrespective of delivery modes (Berndt et al., 2018). Learning outcomes were measured using learners’ knowledge and satisfaction scores.

However, it is essential to note that distance learning does not always result in high satisfaction levels unless certain conditions are fulfilled. Al-Balas et al. (2020) showed that medical students have negative perceptions of distance learning and were unsatisfied with it. The participants’ negative perception and dissatisfaction with distance learning emanated from their past experiences with the program. The students revealed that most distance-learning faculty were uncooperative and generally preferred the traditional approach. This revelation confirms Keating’s (2017) assertion that a critical weakness of distance learning is the lack of faculty commitment. Approximately 55.2% of the students also believed that other medical students would not commit to DL programs (Al-Balas et al., 2020). Satisfaction with DL was strongly connected to student’s experiences and interactions with the program’s faculty. Therefore, institutions should implement strategies to enhance both faculty and students’ reception of the program. On a positive note, 75.5% of the study participants preferred the blended education approach (mix of distance learning and on-site classes) (Al-Balas et al., 2020). This preference should encourage the integration of distance learning modalities with the traditional learning style.

Technological advancements in the education sector allow both learners and faculty members to easily access, collect, evaluate, and disseminate knowledge and relevant data. Learning communities have currently evolved from conventional classrooms to e-learning settings. Students converge or connect in a virtual surrounding to solve issues, exchange ideas, develop new meanings, and explore alternatives. There are various distance learning modalities, including teleconferencing and videoconferencing and satellite campuses. These methodologies have been associated with significant benefits and drawbacks.

Al-Balas, M., Al-Balas, H. I., Jaber, H. M., Obeidat, K., Al-Balas, H., Aborajooh, E. A., Al-Taher, R., & Al-Balas, B. (2020). Distance learning in clinical medical education amid COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan: Current situation, challenges, and perspectives . BMC Medical Education , 20 , 1–7. Web.

Berndt, A., Murray, C. M., Kennedy, K., Stanley, M. J., & Gilbert-Hunt, S. (2017). Effectiveness of distance learning strategies for continuing professional development (CPD) for rural allied health practitioners: A systematic review. BMC Medical Education , 17 , 1–13. Web.

Keating, S. B. (2014). Curriculum development and evaluation in nursing (3 rd ed.). Springer Publishing.

Rotimi, O., Orah, N., Shaaban, A., Daramola, A. O., & Abdulkareem, F. B. (2017). Remote teaching of histopathology using scanned slides via skype between the United Kingdom and Nigeria . Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine , 141 (2), 298–300. Web.

Tomaino, M. A. E., Greenberg, A. L., Kagawa-Purohit, S. A., Doering, S. A., & Miguel, E. S. (2021). An assessment of the feasibility and effectiveness of distance learning for students with severe developmental disabilities and high behavioral needs. Behavior Analysis in Practice , 1 (1), 1–16. Web.

• Communication and Its Role in Organization
• Social Interactions Through the Virtual Video Modality
• Controlling the Offsite Storage
• Hillgrove High School Data Profile
• Collective Efficacy Action Plan at Highschool X
• Purpose of Human Resource Management in the UAE Public School
• The Plight of Mexican American Students in US Public School System
• A Comparison of Colonial and Modern Institutions of Higher Education
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, August 24). Distance-Learning Modalities in Education. https://ivypanda.com/essays/distance-learning-modalities-in-education/

"Distance-Learning Modalities in Education." IvyPanda , 24 Aug. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/distance-learning-modalities-in-education/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Distance-Learning Modalities in Education'. 24 August.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Distance-Learning Modalities in Education." August 24, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/distance-learning-modalities-in-education/.

1. IvyPanda . "Distance-Learning Modalities in Education." August 24, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/distance-learning-modalities-in-education/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Distance-Learning Modalities in Education." August 24, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/distance-learning-modalities-in-education/.

Discover more with our Mobile App!

Login to epale.

To log into your EPALE account, please choose one of the registration options below:

Epale - electronic platform for adult learning in europe.

Non-Formal and Informal Education: History, Current Issues and Questions

[Translation (French - English) : EPALE France]

Interview conducted by Thierry Ardouin

Good morning Stéphanie Gasse. At a time when we are experiencing a global crisis, formal education and training institutions are having to invent new ways of working, disseminating information and providing training. At the same time, people are helping and supporting each other. They are finding solutions among themselves in order to make up for technical, content and relational shortcomings. The issue of non-formal education and lifelong learning is all the more important.

We are going to continue our focus on non-formal and informal education carried out for EPALE in June and July 2019. You coordinated an issue of the journal Education Permanente on "Non-formal education and lifelong learning" (issue No. 199/2014). I would like to know more and hear about your views, because these issues are essential to adult education in general, and are important subjects on the EPALE platform.

- To begin with, can you tell us a little more about yourself, and what made you study non-formal education?

I took graduate studies in foreign languages before turning to Education Sciences. I undertook a Master's degree in Engineering and Training Consultancy with a view to equipping myself and carrying out field actions within the framework of educational projects conducted under the aegis of UNESCO (Burkina Faso, Mali, Paris), and educational NGOs between 1999 and 2003. I received a Doctorate in Education Sciences in 2008, before joining an Institute of Social Development as a trainer in the midst of the reform of social work diplomas, with a view to re-engineering, enhancing and developing training within the National Directory of Professional Certifications. 

Since 2010, I have been a lecturer in the Department of Education Sciences at the University of Rouen in Normandy, and am in charge of a Master's programme in Distance Education Sciences. During my research work and in connection with my experience, I came to focus on educational policies, and in particular countries that were strongly engaged in decentralising education. My doctoral thesis in Education Sciences dealt with non-formal education in the context of the decentralisation policies adopted in West Africa in the fight against illiteracy. My field of observation and experimentation was educational NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), CSOs (Civil Society Organizations) and experts in decentralised cooperation. 

As a  member of the CIRNEF laboratory (Normandy interdisciplinary centre for research on education and training),  I carried out my research alongside researchers working in the field of adult education. I worked to define what characterises non-formal education, its specificity and implementation, I studied alternative systems, the foundations of adult education, andragogy in its varied forms, while contributing to research on the right to education (accessibility, effectiveness via distance learning systems) and the subjects of law, comparative approaches and organisational development. 

My areas of research were Sub-Saharan Africa and "programmes to combat illiteracy in a decentralised context"; Brazil with the “Forums on Youth and Adult Education", Europe in its plural approaches to education and training (Adult training - Lifelong learning - Right to education - Recognition of non-formal education achievements). 

In 2015 and 2016 I was the winner of a Chair in Human and Social Sciences at the International Scientific Cooperation. I then moved to Brazil where I was hosted at the  Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro , the first public university with affirmative policies for the development of access to higher education. This experience has allowed me to collaborate with Brazilian researchers in research groups in literacy and youth and adult education, training curriculum, lifelong learning through audiences, educational policies and processes. 

- The term “non-formal education” is difficult to define, how does it relate to formal and informal education? To your knowledge, when did this term appear, and in what context? What characteristics or elements are important to bear in mind?

Non-formal education  is indeed difficult to define because of its apparent negation of form and the vagueness surrounding it. On the one hand, it appears as a highly obscure concept, and on the other hand as a sort of appeal marked by perspectives of social justice and humanist ideology. 

Non-formal education takes place outside the main education and training structures and does not necessarily lead to recognised qualifications or identified diplomas. It can be acquired in a professional context or through the activities of civil society organisations and can be offered as a complement to the formal institutionalised system. Coombs, an educational planner, was the first to attempt a definition in the context of the global educational crisis:  “any organised educational activity outside the established formal system that is intended to serve identifiable learning clientele and learning objectives” (Coombs, 1973). The notion of clientelism is associated with the "beneficiaries" of literacy programmes. In the seventies, the Third World ideology was strong and was marked by: “One country helps another", the golden age of non-governmental organisations and international programmes aimed at helping those excluded from formal education, moving towards universal primary education. 

The specific nature of the activities, the characteristics of the target audience, the innovative nature of the approach, the specificities of the strategies, the multiplicity of actors and the flexibility of its intervention framework have long contributed to the fact that non-formal education is seen as the "poor relation" of adult education and training. This effectively accentuates its marginalisation, lack of status and lack of recognition. 

However, while one of the main tasks of formal education is to prepare young people for an independent life, socially and economically, and to prevent exclusion, to the extent that the education system and the labour market develop separately, schools are losing their monopoly on teaching and learning. This suggests non-formal education as one of the forces challenging this monopoly, offering new opportunities, alternatives and places of learning. As a reference system for innovative practices, with transversal competences within an immediate educational environment, the proposed offer is as varied as the beneficiaries for whom it is intended. It thus facilitates the learning of knowledge or skills that can be recognised or are in the process of being recognised. Indeed, non-formal education is now recognised at the European level, following the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (2000), and is part of lively discussions on educational issues. 

Talking about informal education implies that there is learning . The institutional structure does not justify the term, but there is indeed learning outside of any institution, or even any intention. We will use the terminology from the European education and training policy for 2012:  “Informal learning arises from the activities of daily life related to work, family or leisure. It is neither organised nor structured (in terms of objectives, time or resources).  Informal learning is mostly unintentional on the part of the learner".  This terminology is meant to be clear, but is cumbersome. The concept is used within the triptych of formal, non-formal and informal for understanding education, training and lifelong learning, but its outline remains blurred when it comes to dissociating the different parts. 

Informal education  is something of an extension of acquired knowledge.  The multiple uses of the notion of "informal" in the field of education contribute to the opacity of what this term actually designates or qualifies, with its various connotations, whether valued or otherwise.

The main characteristics of non-formal education  can be summarized as activities that are: 

• organised according to the target audience and its constraints;
• structured, otherwise they would belong to informal education, which is non-systematised or even unintentional;
• intended for an identifiable target audience (matching needs and expectations); 
• aimed at a specific set of educational objectives (input-output ); 
• non-institutionalised because they take place outside the established education system and are aimed at learners who are not formally enrolled.

- In your work and research, particularly in French-speaking Africa and Brazil, is the issue of non-formal and informal education particularly important?

In French-speaking Africa, non-formal education very quickly became a defence against the malfunctioning of the dominant formal system. Indeed, the current system excludes a large part of the school-age population and does not guarantee equal access. The recognition of a multilingual environment is, for example, one of the achievements of non-formal education.  This has resulted in the implementation of language policies that emphasise the learner's language in the early years of schooling or adult literacy programmes. Some countries such as Mali and Burkina Faso have even gone so far as to institutionalise non-formal education by creating dedicated ministries. 

Traditional societies have formal education systems that should be questioned without taking the risk of a comparative approach but with the aim of solving issues in the relationship between culture and cognition. 

Brazil is putting up strong resistance, for its government to guarantee its role as "educator", especially since the current political changes are hindering social progress and pushing inclusive approaches or the consideration of minorities and their cultural traditions into the background. Researchers and practitioners in this field prefer to use the term  "social spaces of human training"  to describe alternative educational measures to the dominant, formal education system. These 'spaces' taken over by a community of educators cover the need for a second chance for those who have not completed secondary education or for low-skilled youth and adults. 

In line with the legacy of Paulo Freire, initiatives are being developed from the perspective that "human activity  is intentional and is not separate from a project. To know is not simply to adapt to the world. It is a condition for the survival of human beings and the species". In troubled times, these measures contribute to the exercise of citizenship as an “ awareness of rights and duties and the exercise of democracy”. In Brazil, alongside schools, there are also non-governmental organizations, churches, trade unions, political parties, the media, neighbourhood associations, etc. In non-formal education, the category of ‘space’ is as important as the category of ‘time’, as researcher Gadotti points out. Indeed, the time required for learning in non-formal education is flexible, respecting the differences and capacities of each individual.

- Finally, from your point of view, what does the issue of non-formal and informal education have to do with adult learning in general?

As an autonomous and alternative system, non-formal education is, alongside informal education, at the heart of the international community’s ambition to achieve universal schooling and lifelong education and training. 

In 1926, Lindeman described adult education for the first time in an article as “a cooperative venture in non-authoritarian, informal learning, the chief purpose of which is to discover the meaning of experience” . In other words, the specificity of adult education is intertwined with life, in which learning is nourished by experience. Thus, informal education combined with a participatory approach maximizes the formative dimension of the activity. The boundaries of informal education are permeable: social intervention, extracurricular activities, family and community education, ICT, etc.

Experience is recognised as a formative resource in the context of daily life, work and leisure, with the following characteristics: the absence of educational intentions and social institutionalisation; confrontation with the experience of others and the constraint of reality; initiatory paths, voluntary participation without constraint or expectation of recognition and validation of prior learning. Nevertheless, on this last point, progress is being made towards having these achievements recognised. Despite the Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning outcomes, the initial outcomes of this implementation and ownership appear to be mixed. France is a pioneer in the matter, and has extended the legal provisions related to the validation of prior learning, but the results do not guarantee real and rapid progress in the recognition of informal and non-formal learning.

Thank you for this discussion and your contribution.

Gasse, S. (2017). Education informelle. In A. Barthes, J.-M. Lange & N. Tutiaux-Guillon (Dir.). “Dictionnaire critique des enjeux et concepts des “Educations à”. Paris: L’Harmattan. p.385.

Gasse, S. (2017). Education Non formelle. In A. Barthes, J.-M. Lange & N. Tutiaux-Guillon (Dir.) “Dictionnaire critique des enjeux et concepts des “Educations à”. Paris  L’Harmattan. p.392.

Gasse S. (June, 2014). “Education non formelle : contexte d’émergence, caractéristiques et territoires” Journal:  Education Permanente . n°199-2014.

Education formelle, non formelle, informelle

• Log in or register to post comments

est-il-possible

From non-formal to formal education, from your experience, sobre a coabitação de 3 sistemas.

Login or Sign up to join the conversation.

Want another language?

Want to write a blog post .

Don't hesitate to do so! Click the link below and start posting a new article!

Latest Discussions

"Creative Drama Workshops with Intellectually Disabled Adults in Adult Education"

FORIGN LANGUAGE ACQUISITION IN ADULTS

HOW CAN WE ENCOURAGE ADULTS ABOUT TAKING RISK IN CLASSSES

The main aspects of adult vocational education

Related articles, self-support groups for displaced people, innovative approaches for migrant inclusion: how the multi-schools and schoolinhub projects can support the educational system, recult a project about visual education for cultural identities of people with migrant and minority backgrounds, empowering migrant care workers in europe: the vet care project, participatory mapping and experience of displacement, latest news.

Enhancing Media Literacy Among University Students

What is collective care.

An exciting journey to collective care

Using Theatre Methods to Build Group Coherence: The Bodywise – Wise Bodies Methods in Action

How theatre methods can contribute to bonding, group building and developing emotional safety in...

Upcoming Events

Six day summer course (july 2024): caring for our well-being - for teachers and education staff (cork, ireland) in-person,, sow: seeds of volunteering actions.

Advertisement

Interaction in distance education and online learning: using evidence and theory to improve practice

• Published: 02 March 2011
• Volume 23 , pages 82–103, ( 2011 )

Cite this article

• Philip C. Abrami 1 ,
• Robert M. Bernard 1 ,
• Eva M. Bures 2 ,
• Eugene Borokhovski 1 &
• Rana M. Tamim 3  

10k Accesses

Explore all metrics

In a recent meta-analysis of distance and online learning, Bernard et al. ( 2009 ) quantitatively verified the importance of three types of interaction: among students, between the instructor and students, and between students and course content. In this paper we explore these findings further, discuss methodological issues in research and suggest how these results may foster instructional improvement. We highlight several evidence-based approaches that may be useful in the next generation of distance and online learning. These include principles and applications stemming from the theories of self-regulation and multimedia learning, research-based motivational principles and collaborative learning principles. We also discuss the pedagogical challenges inherent in distance and online learning that need to be considered in instructional design and software development.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

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

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice

Re-thinking and Re-defining the Learning Process? Students’ Feedback on Online Distance Instruction

Students’ reflection on online distance learning: advantages, disadvantages, recommendations.

Abrami, P. C. (2010). On the nature of support in computer supported collaborative learning using gstudy. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (5), 835–839. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.007 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrami, P. C., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., De Simone, C., d’Apollonia, S., & Howden, J. (1995). Classroom connections: Understanding and using cooperative learning . Toronto, ON: Harcourt Brace.

Google Scholar  

Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., Pillay, V., Aslan, O., Bures, E., & Bentley, C. (2008). Encouraging self-regulated learning through electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal on Learning and Technology, 34 (3), 93–117.

Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Mabry, E., Burrell, N., & Mattrey, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16 (2), 83–97.

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4 (2), 9–14.

Bates, A. (1990). Interactivity as a criterion for media selection in distance education. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Asian association of open universities, Jakarta, Indonesia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED329245)

Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27 (2), 139–153. doi: 10.1080/01587910600789498 .

Beldarrain, Y. (2008). Integrating interaction in distance learning: A comparative analysis of five design frameworks. In C. Bonk et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on e - learning in corporate, government, healthcare and higher education 2008 (pp. 1471–1477). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/29841 .

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Tamim, R., Surkes, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79 (3), 1243–1289. doi: 10.3102/0034654309333844v1 .

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., & Borokhovski, E. (2004a). A methodological morass? How we can improve the quality of quantitative research in distance education. Distance Education, 25 (2), 175–198. doi: 10.1080/0158791042000262094 .

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004b). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 3 (74), 379–439. doi: 10.3102/00346543074003379 .

Brookfield, S. (1995). Developing critical thinkers . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burns, T. C., & Ungerleider, C. S. (2003). Information and communication technologies in elementary and secondary education: State of the art review. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 3 (4), 27–54.

Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis . Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39 (7), 3–6.

Clark, R. E. (2000). Evaluating distance education: Strategies and cautions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1 (1), 3–16.

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom . New York: Teachers College Press.

Cook, D. A. (2009). The failure of e-learning research to inform educational practice and what we can do about it. Medical Teacher, 31 (2), 158–162. doi: 10.1080/01421590802691393 .

Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., Garside, S., Dupras, D., Erwin, P. J., & Montori, V. M. (2008). Internet-based learning in the health professions: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300 (10), 1181–1196. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.10.1181 .

Daniel, J., & Marquis, C. (1979). Interaction and independence: Getting the mixture right. Teaching at a Distance, 15 , 25–44.

Daniel, J., & Marquis, C. (1988). Interaction and independence: Getting the mix right. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 339–359). London: Routledge.

Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumfield, P., Krajick, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 , 43–76. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_3 .

Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7 (3), 8–21. doi: 10.1080/08923649309526830 .

Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1990). A new framework and perspective. In D. R. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: From issues to practice (pp. 123–133). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Hickey, D., & McCaslin, M. (2001). A Comparative, socio-cultural analysis of context and motivation. In S. Volet & S. Järvalä (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advancements and methodological implications (pp. 33–55). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Jahng, N., Krug, D., & Zhang, Z. (2007). Student achievement in online education compared to face-to-face education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E - Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2007/Jahng_Krug_Zhang.htm .

Jaspers, F. (1991). Interactivity or instruction? A reaction to Merrill. Educational Technology, 31 (3), 21–24.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 368 (5), 365–379. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09339057 .

Juler, P. (1990). Promoting interaction, maintaining independence: Swallowing the mixture. Open Learning, 5 (2), 24–33. doi: 10.1080/0268051900050205 .

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall/Cambridge.

Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (6), 823–832.

Laurillard, D. (1997). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology . London: Routledge.

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71 (3), 449–521. doi: 10.3102/00346543071003449 .

Lou, Y., Bernard, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate distance education: A theory-based meta-analysis of empirical literature. Educational Technology Research and Development, 5 (2), 141–176. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-8252-x .

Machtmes, K., & Asher, J. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 14 (1), 27–46. doi: 10.1080/08923640009527043 .

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Book   Google Scholar  

Meyer, E., Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., Aslan, O., & Deault, L. (2010). Improving literacy and metacognition with electronic portfolios: Teaching and learning with ePEARL. Computers & Education, 55 (1), 84–91. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.005 .

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2), 1–6.

Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79 (2), 576–600. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326083 .

Muirhead, B. (2001a). Enhancing social interaction in computer-mediated distance education. USDLA Journal, 15 (4). Retrieved from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/APR01_Issue/article02.html .

Muirhead, B. (2001b). Interactivity research studies. Educational Technology & Society, 4 (3). Retrieved from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2001/muirhead.html .

Nipper, S. (1989). Third generation distance learning and computer conferencing. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education (pp. 63–73). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Paivio, A. (1969). Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review, 76 (3), 241–263. doi: 10.1037/h0027272 .

Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach . Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Perry, N. E. (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 , 715–729.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (4), 667–686.

Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., et al. (2009). Technology’s effect on achievement in higher education: A stage I meta-analysis of classroom applications. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21 , 95–109. doi: 10.1007/s12528-009-9021-8 .

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death . San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

Sims, R. (1999). Interactivity on stage: Strategies for learner-designer communication. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15 (3), 257–272. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet15/sims.html .

Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59 (3), 623–664. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x .

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity . Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7 (3), 223–242. Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/dl/files/IJET/IJET73223.pdf .

U.S Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies . D.C: Washington.

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2), 6–29. doi: 10.1080/08923649409526852 .

Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13 , 21–40. doi: 10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1 .

Webb, N. M. (2008). Learning in small groups. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st Century education: A reference handbook (pp. 203–211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2006). The development of students’ helping behavior and learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21 (4), 361–428. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2104_2 .

Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.

Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation . New York: Holt-Rinehart, & Winston.

Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14 (1), 173–207.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). New York: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45 (1), 166–183. doi: 10.3102/0002831207312909 .

Zimmerman, B. J., & Tsikalas, K. E. (2005). Can computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) be used as self-regulatory tools to enhance learning? Educational Psychologist, 40 (4), 267–271. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4004_8 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W., Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada

Philip C. Abrami, Robert M. Bernard & Eugene Borokhovski

Bishop’s University, Lennoxville, QC, Canada

Eva M. Bures

Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-University, Dubai, UAE

Rana M. Tamim

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip C. Abrami .

Additional information

The preparation of this article was facilitated by grants to Abrami and Bernard from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Government of Canada and the Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Société et la Culture, Province of Québéc. An earlier version of this paper was presented at “The Evolution from Distance Education to Distributed Learning” 2010 AECT Research Sympoium, Bloomington, Indiana, July, 2010.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Abrami, P.C., Bernard, R.M., Bures, E.M. et al. Interaction in distance education and online learning: using evidence and theory to improve practice. J Comput High Educ 23 , 82–103 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x

Download citation

Published : 02 March 2011

Issue Date : December 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Distance education
• Online learning
• Self-regulation
• Multimedia learning
• Collaboration
• Instructional design
• Cooperative learning
• Metacognition
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Navigating the new normal: adapting online and distance learning in the post-pandemic era.

1. Introduction

1.1. background, 1.2. purpose of the review.

• Highlighting the multifaceted impact of the pandemic on education, including the disruptions caused by school closures and the subsequent shift to remote learning [ 1 ].
• Exploring innovative approaches and strategies employed by educators to ensure effective online teaching and learning experiences [ 2 , 4 ].
• Examining the role of technological solutions and platforms in facilitating remote education and their effectiveness in supporting teaching and learning processes [ 4 ].
• Investigating strategies for promoting student engagement and participation in virtual classrooms, considering the unique challenges and opportunities presented by online and distance learning [ 2 , 3 ].
• Evaluating the various assessment and evaluation methods employed in online education, considering their validity, reliability, and alignment with learning outcomes [ 4 ].
• Discussing the importance of supporting student well-being and academic success in the digital environment, addressing the social and emotional aspects of remote learning [ 3 ].
• Examining the professional development opportunities and resources available for educators to enhance their skills in online teaching and adapt to the changing educational landscape [ 4 ].
• Addressing equity and accessibility considerations in online and distance learning, developing strategies to ensure equitable opportunities for all learners and mitigate the digital divide [ 1 , 2 ].
• Identifying key lessons learned and best practices from the experiences of educators and students during the pandemic, providing insights for future educational practices [ 1 , 4 ].
• Discussing the potential for educational innovation and transformations in teaching and learning practices in the post-pandemic era, considering the lessons learned from the rapid transition to online and distance learning [ 4 ].

1.3. Significance of the Study

• To provide a comprehensive understanding of the impact of the pandemic on education. UNESCO (2020) reported that the widespread school closures caused by the pandemic disrupted traditional education practices and posed significant challenges for students, educators, and families [ 1 ]. As such, understanding the multifaceted impact of the pandemic is crucial for effective decision making and policy development.
• To highlight innovative approaches to online teaching and learning. Hodges et al. [ 4 ] emphasized the importance of instructional design principles and the use of educational technology tools in facilitating effective online education [ 4 ] by examining strategies employed by educators during the pandemic. This review paper aims to identify successful practices that can be applied in future online and blended learning environments.
• To explore the role of technology in supporting remote education. The rapid transition to online and distance learning has required the use of various technological solutions and platforms. With reference to this subject, Hodges et al. (2020) discussed the difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning, highlighting the importance of leveraging technology to create engaging and interactive virtual classrooms [ 4 ].
• To address equity and accessibility considerations. The pandemic has exacerbated existing inequities in access to education and technology. On this line, UNESCO (2020) emphasized the need to address equity issues and bridge the digital divide to ensure equitable opportunities for all learners. This review paper examines strategies and interventions aimed at promoting equitable access to online and distance learning.
• To provide insights for future educational practices by analyzing experiences, challenges, and successes encountered during the transition to online and distance learning. This review paper aims to provide valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and researchers. So, lessons learned from the pandemic can inform the development of effective educational policies, teacher training programs, and support systems for students.

1.4. Methodology of Search

2. impact of the covid-19 pandemic on education, 3. transitioning from traditional classrooms to online and distance learning, 4. challenges faced by educators during the lockdown period, 5. strategies for effective online teaching and learning, 6. technological solutions and platforms for remote education, 7. promoting student engagement and participation in the virtual classroom, 8. assessments and evaluation methods in online education, 9. supporting student well-being and academic success in the digital environment, 10. professional development for educators in online teaching, 11. addressing equity and accessibility in online and distance learning, 12. lessons learned and best practices for future educational practices, 13. innovations and transformations in education post-pandemic, 14. policy implications and recommendations for effective online education, 15. ethical considerations in online and distance learning, 16. innovations and practical applications in post-pandemic educational strategies.

• Impact Analysis Tools: Develop analytical tools to quantify the educational disruptions caused by the pandemic, focusing on metrics like attendance, engagement, and performance shifts due to remote learning.
• Online Pedagogy Workshops: Create workshops for educators to share and learn innovative online teaching strategies, focusing on interactivity, student-centered learning, and curriculum adaptation for virtual environments.
• Tech-Integration Frameworks: Develop frameworks for integrating and evaluating the effectiveness of various technological solutions in remote education, including LMS, interactive tools, and AI-based learning supports.
• Engagement-Boosting Platforms: Create platforms or tools that specifically target student engagement in virtual classrooms, incorporating gamification, interactive content, and real-time feedback mechanisms.
• Assessment Methodology Guides: Develop guidelines or toolkits for educators to design and implement valid and reliable online assessments aligned with learning outcomes.
• Well-being Monitoring Systems: Implement systems to monitor and support student well-being in digital learning environments, incorporating mental health resources and social-emotional learning components.
• Professional Development Portals: Develop online portals offering continuous professional development opportunities for educators, focusing on upskilling in digital pedagogy, content creation, and adaptive learning technologies.
• Equity and Accessibility Strategies: Formulate and implement strategies to ensure equitable access to online and distance learning, addressing the digital divide through resource distribution, adaptive technologies, and inclusive curriculum design.
• Best Practices Repository: Create a repository of best practices and lessons learned from the pandemic’s educational challenges, serving as a resource for future educational planning and crisis management.
• Post-Pandemic Educational Innovation Labs: Establish innovation labs to explore and pilot new teaching and learning practices in the post-pandemic era, emphasizing the integration of traditional and digital pedagogies.

17. Conclusions: Navigating the Path Forward in Online Education

Author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Reuge, N.; Jenkins, R.; Brossard, M.; Soobrayan, B.; Mizunoya, S.; Ackers, J.; Jones, L.; Taulo, W.G. Education response to COVID 19 pandemic, a special issue proposed by UNICEF: Editorial review. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2021 , 87 , 102485. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, C.; Cheng, Z.; Yue, X.-G.; McAleer, M. Risk Management of COVID-19 by Universities in China. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020 , 13 , 36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bao, W. COVID-19 and Online Teaching in Higher Education: A Case Study of Peking University. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020 , 2 , 113–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hodges, C.B.; Moore, S.; Lockee, B.B.; Trust, T.; Bond, M.A. The Difference between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning ; Educause: Boulder, CO, USA, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bashir, A.; Bashir, S.; Rana, K.; Lambert, P.; Vernallis, A. Post-COVID-19 Adaptations; the Shifts towards Online Learning, Hybrid Course Delivery and the Implications for Biosciences Courses in the Higher Education Setting. Front. Educ. 2021 , 6 , 310. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akpa, V.O.; Akinosi, J.R.; Nwankwere, I.A.; Makinde, G.O.; Ajike, E.O. Strategic Innovation, Digital Dexterity and Service Quality of Selected Quoted Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria. Eur. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2022 , 10 , 15–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loades, M.E.; Chatburn, E.; Higson-Sweeney, N.; Reynolds, S.; Shafran, R.; Brigden, A.; Linney, C.; McManus, M.N.; Borwick, C.; Crawley, E. Rapid Systematic Review: The Impact of Social Isolation and Loneliness on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in the Context of COVID-19. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2020 , 59 , 1218–1239.e3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Van Lancker, W.; Parolin, Z. COVID-19, School Closures, and Child Poverty: A Social Crisis in the Making. Lancet Public Health 2020 , 5 , e243–e244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brooks, S.K.; Webster, R.K.; Smith, L.E.; Woodland, L.; Wessely, S.; Greenberg, N.; Rubin, G.J. The Psychological Impact of Quarantine and How to Reduce It: Rapid Review of the Evidence. Lancet 2020 , 395 , 912–920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Padmanabhanunni, A.; Pretorius, T.B. Teacher Burnout in the Time of COVID-19: Antecedents and Psychological Consequences. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023 , 20 , 4204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al Lily, A.E.; Ismail, A.F.; Abunasser, F.M.; Alhajhoj Alqahtani, R.H. Distance Education as a Response to Pandemics: Coronavirus and Arab Culture. Technol. Soc. 2020 , 63 , 101317. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Means, B.; Toyama, Y.; Murphy, R.; Bakia, M.; Jones, K. Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies ; Centre for Learning Technology: Hong Kong, China, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Picciano, A.G. Theories and Frameworks for Online Education: Seeking an Integrated Model. In A Guide to Administering Distance Learning ; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 79–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burgstahler, S.E.; Cory, R.C. Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice ; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicol, D.J.; Macfarlane-Dick, D. Formative Assessment and Self-regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice. Stud. High. Educ. 2006 , 31 , 199–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stodel, E.J.; Thompson, T.L.; MacDonald, C.J. Learners’ Perspectives on What Is Missing from Online Learning: Interpretations through the Community of Inquiry Framework. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2006 , 7 , 1–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Richardson, J.C.; Maeda, Y.; Lv, J.; Caskurlu, S. Social Presence in Relation to Students’ Satisfaction and Learning in the Online Environment: A Meta-Analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017 , 71 , 402–417. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mayer, R.E. Using Multimedia for E-learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2017 , 33 , 403–423. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swan, K. Building Learning Communities in Online Courses: The Importance of Interaction. Educ. Commun. Inf. 2002 , 2 , 23–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sato, S.N.; Condes Moreno, E.; Villanueva, A.R.; Orquera Miranda, P.; Chiarella, P.; Bermudez, G.; Aguilera, J.F.T.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Psychological Impacts of Teaching Models on Ibero-American Educators during COVID-19. Behav. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 957. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dennen, V.P.; Burner, K.J. The Cognitive Apprenticeship Model in Educational Practice. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology ; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2008; pp. 425–439. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alturki, U.; Aldraiweesh, A. Application of Learning Management System (LMS) during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Sustainable Acceptance Model of the Expansion Technology Approach. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 10991. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, A.; Chen, X. Online Education and Its Effective Practice: A Research Review. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. 2016 , 15 , 157–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• AIKTC; CITEL. Three Days National Conference on Innovative Teaching & Exuberant Learning (NCiTeL 2021) ; AIKTC: Navi Mumbai, India, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coggi, C. Innovare La Didattica e La Valutazione in Università: Il Progetto IRIDI per La Formazione Dei Docenti. In Innovare la Didattica e la Valutazione in Università ; Franco Angeli Edizioni: Milano, Italy, 2019; pp. 1–361. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawa, D.M.; Ghoniem, E.; Saad, A.M. Integrating Problem-Based Learning Into Blended Learning To Enhance Students’ Programming Skills. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 2022 , 6 , 4479–4497. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, E.; Hannafin, M.J. A Design Framework for Enhancing Engagement in Student-Centered Learning: Own It, Learn It, and Share It. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2016 , 64 , 707–734. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mayer, R.E. How Multimedia Can Improve Learning and Instruction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dillenbourg, P.; Järvelä, S.; Fischer, F. The Evolution of Research on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning BT-Technology-Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products ; Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Barnes, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• McNair, D.E.; Palloff, R.M.; Pratt, K. Lessons from the Virtual Classroom: The Realities of Online Teaching ; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baran, E.; Correia, A.-P. A Professional Development Framework for Online Teaching. TechTrends 2014 , 58 , 95–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gikandi, J.W.; Morrow, D.; Davis, N.E. Online Formative Assessment in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature. Comput. Educ. 2011 , 57 , 2333–2351. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Conole, G. Designing for Learning in an Open World ; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Black, P.; Wiliam, D. The Formative Purpose: Assessment Must First Promote Learning. Yearb. Natl. Soc. Study Educ. 2004 , 103 , 20–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruiz-Primo, M.A.; Briggs, D.; Iverson, H.; Talbot, R.; Shepard, L.A. Impact of Undergraduate Science Course Innovations on Learning. Science 2011 , 331 , 1269–1270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ismail, S.M.; Rahul, D.R.; Patra, I.; Rezvani, E. Formative vs. Summative Assessment: Impacts on Academic Motivation, Attitude toward Learning, Test Anxiety, and Self-Regulation Skill. Lang. Test. Asia 2022 , 12 , 40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nitko, A.J. Educational Assessment of Students ; ERIC: Washington, DC, USA, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cherner, T.; Halpin, P. Determining the Educational Value of Virtual Reality Apps Using Content Analysis. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 2021 , 32 , 245–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pirker, B.; Smolka, J. International Law and Linguistics: Pieces of an Interdisciplinary Puzzle. J. Int. Disput. Settl. 2020 , 11 , 501–521. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Panda, S. Analyzing Effectiveness of Learning Management System in Present Scenario: Conceptual Background and Practical Implementation. Int. J. Innov. Res. Adv. Stud. 2020 , 7 , 40–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coghlan, S.; Miller, T.; Paterson, J. Good Proctor or “Big Brother”? Ethics of Online Exam Supervision Technologies. Philos. Technol. 2021 , 34 , 1581–1606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shute, V.J.; Rahimi, S. Review of Computer-based Assessment for Learning in Elementary and Secondary Education. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2017 , 33 , 1–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Landers, R.N.; Callan, R.C. Casual Social Games as Serious Games: The Psychology of Gamification in Undergraduate Education and Employee Training. In Serious Games and Edutainment Applications ; Springer: London, UK, 2011; pp. 399–423. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie, J.; Timperley, H. The Power of Feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 2007 , 77 , 81–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schraw, G.; Crippen, K.J.; Hartley, K. Promoting Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition as Part of a Broader Perspective on Learning. Res. Sci. Educ. 2006 , 36 , 111–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Przybylski, A.K.; Murayama, K.; DeHaan, C.R.; Gladwell, V. Motivational, Emotional, and Behavioral Correlates of Fear of Missing Out. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013 , 29 , 1841–1848. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bereznowski, P.; Atroszko, P.A.; Konarski, R. Work Addiction, Work Engagement, Job Burnout, and Perceived Stress: A Network Analysis. Front. Psychol. 2023 , 14 , 1130069. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Brock, A. Mitigating Burnout and Promoting Professional Well-Being in Advisors. In Academic Advising Administration ; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2023; pp. 332–344. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rovai, A.P.; Barnum, K.T. On-Line Course Effectiveness: An Analysis of Student Interactions and Perceptions of Learning. Int. J. E-Learn. Distance Educ. Int. Du E-Learn. La Form. Distance 2003 , 18 , 57–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Topping, K.J. Trends in Peer Learning. Educ. Psychol. 2005 , 25 , 631–645. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shea, P.; Li, C.S.; Pickett, A. A Study of Teaching Presence and Student Sense of Learning Community in Fully Online and Web-Enhanced College Courses. Internet High. Educ. 2006 , 9 , 175–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wiggins, G. Educative Assessment. Designing Assessments To Inform and Improve Student Performance ; ERIC: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yukselturk, E.; Bulut, S. Predictors for Student Success in an Online Course. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2007 , 10 , 71–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000 , 11 , 227–268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance ; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmon, G. E-Tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning ; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koehler, M.; Mishra, P. What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. 2009 , 9 , 60–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Petretto, D.R.; Carta, S.M.; Cataudella, S.; Masala, I.; Mascia, M.L.; Penna, M.P.; Piras, P.; Pistis, I.; Masala, C. The Use of Distance Learning and E-Learning in Students with Learning Disabilities: A Review on the Effects and Some Hint of Analysis on the Use during COVID-19 Outbreak. Clin. Pract. Epidemiol. Ment. Health 2021 , 17 , 92–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lodder, J.; Heeren, B.; Jeuring, J. A Comparison of Elaborated and Restricted Feedback in LogEx, a Tool for Teaching Rewriting Logical Formulae. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2019 , 35 , 620–632. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kocdar, S.; Bozkurt, A. Supporting Learners with Special Needs in Open, Distance, and Digital Education. In Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education ; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsai, Y.-S.; Rates, D.; Moreno-Marcos, P.M.; Muñoz-Merino, P.J.; Jivet, I.; Scheffel, M.; Drachsler, H.; Kloos, C.D.; Gašević, D. Learning Analytics in European Higher Education—Trends and Barriers. Comput. Educ. 2020 , 155 , 103933. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ladson-Billings, G. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 2.0: Aka the Remix. Harv. Educ. Rev. 2014 , 84 , 74–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Means, B.; Bakia, M.; Murphy, R. Learning Online: What Research Tells Us about Whether, When and How ; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray, J.A.; DiLoreto, M. The Effects of Student Engagement, Student Satisfaction, and Perceived Learning in Online Learning Environments. Int. J. Educ. Leadersh. Prep. 2016 , 11 , n1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garrison, D.R.; Cleveland-Innes, M. Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough. Am. J. Distance Educ. 2005 , 19 , 133–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darling-Hammond, L.; Hyler, M.E.; Gardner, M. Effective Teacher Professional Development ; Learning Policy Institute: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garrison, D.R.; Vaughan, N.D. Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky, L.S.; Cole, M. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes ; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burlacu, M.; Coman, C.; Bularca, M.C. Blogged into the System: A Systematic Review of the Gamification in e-Learning before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 6476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yamani, H.A. A Conceptual Framework for Integrating Gamification in eLearning Systems Based on Instructional Design Model. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2021 , 16 , 14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Siemens, G.; Baker, R.S.J.d. Learning Analytics and Educational Data Mining: Towards Communication and Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 29 April–2 May 2012; pp. 252–254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, L. Reskilling and Upskilling the Future-Ready Workforce for Industry 4.0 and Beyond. Inf. Syst. Front. 2022 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lythreatis, S.; Singh, S.K.; El-Kassar, A.-N. The Digital Divide: A Review and Future Research Agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022 , 175 , 121359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tawfik, A.A.; Shepherd, C.E.; Gatewood, J.; Gish-Lieberman, J.J. First and Second Order Barriers to Teaching in K-12 Online Learning. TechTrends 2021 , 65 , 925–938. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muñoz, F.; Matus, O.; Pérez, C.; Fasce, E. Blended Learning y El Desarrollo de La Comunicación Científica En Un Programa de Especialización Dental. Investig. En Educ. Médica 2017 , 6 , 180–189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barbour, M.K. Introducing a Special Collection of Papers on K-12 Online Learning and Continuity of Instruction after Emergency Remote Teaching. TechTrends 2022 , 66 , 298–300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khalil, M.; Slade, S.; Prinsloo, P. Learning Analytics in Support of Inclusiveness and Disabled Students: A Systematic Review. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2023 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prinsloo, P.; Slade, S. Student Privacy Self-Management: Implications for Learning Analytics. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA, 16–20 March 2015; pp. 83–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson, G.R.; Sottile, J. Cheating in the Digital Age: Do Students Cheat More in Online Courses? Online J. Distance Learn. Adm. 2010 , 13 , 798–803. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhattacharya, S.; Murthy, V.; Bhattacharya, S. The Social and Ethical Issues of Online Learning during the Pandemic and Beyond. Asian J. Bus. Ethics 2022 , 11 , 275–293. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yadav, K.K.; Reddy, L.J. Psychological effects of technology on college students. J. Clin. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2023 , 27 , 1805–1816. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin, F.; Bolliger, D.U. Engagement Matters: Student Perceptions on the Importance of Engagement Strategies in the Online Learning Environment. Online Learn. 2018 , 22 , 205–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clemente-Suárez, V.J.; Dalamitros, A.A.; Beltran-Velasco, A.I.; Mielgo-Ayuso, J.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F. Social and psychophysiological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic: An extensive literature review. Front. Psychol. 2020 , 11 , 3077. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• 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. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic in Public Mental Health: An Extensive Narrative Review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 3221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clemente-Suárez, V.J.; Navarro-Jiménez, E.; Moreno-Luna, L.; Saavedra-Serrano, M.C.; Jimenez, M.; Simón, J.A.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Social, Health, and Economy. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 6314. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodriguez-Besteiro, S.; Beltran-Velasco, A.I.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F.; Martínez-González, M.B.; Navarro-Jiménez, E.; Yáñez-Sepúlveda, R.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Social Media, Anxiety and COVID-19 Lockdown Measurement Compliance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023 , 20 , 4416. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clemente-Suárez, V.J.; Navarro-Jiménez, E.; Simón-Sanjurjo, J.A.; Beltran-Velasco, A.I.; Laborde-Cárdenas, C.C.; Benitez-Agudelo, J.C.; Bustamante-Sánchez, Á.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F. Mis–Dis Information in COVID-19 Health Crisis: A Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 5321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clemente-Suárez, V.J.; Navarro-Jiménez, E.; Ruisoto, P.; Dalamitros, A.A.; Beltran-Velasco, A.I.; Hormeño-Holgado, A.; Laborde-Cárdenas, C.C.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F. Performance of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis of Emergency System in COVID-19 Pandemic. An Extensive Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 , 18 , 5208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sato, S.N.; Condes Moreno, E.; Rico Villanueva, A.; Orquera Miranda, P.; Chiarella, P.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Cultural Differences between University Students in Online Learning Quality and Psychological Profile during COVID-19. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2022 , 15 , 555. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nomie-Sato, S.; Condes Moreno, E.; Villanueva, A.R.; Chiarella, P.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F.; Beltrán-Velasco, A.I.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Gender Differences of University Students in the Online Teaching Quality and Psychological Profile during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 14729. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Williamson, B.; Macgilchrist, F.; Potter, J. COVID-19 controversies and critical research in digital education. Learn. Media Technol. 2021 , 46 , 117–127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brammer, S.; Clark, T. COVID-19 and management education: Reflections on challenges, opportunities, and potential futures. Br. J. Manag. 2020 , 31 , 453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peytcheva-Forsyth, R.V.; Aleksieva, L.K. The effect of the teachers’ experience in online education during the pandemic on their views of strengths and weaknesses of e-learning (SU case). In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, Ruse, Bulgaria, 18–19 June 2021; pp. 1–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen, T.; Netto, C.L.M.; Wilkins, J.F.; Bröker, P.; Vargas, E.E.; Sealfon, C.D.; Puthipiroj, P.; Li, K.S.; Bowler, J.E.; Hinson, H.R.; et al. Insights into students’ experiences and perceptions of remote learning methods: From the COVID-19 pandemic to best practice for the future. Front. Educ. 2021 , 6 , 91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goudeau, S.; Sanrey, C.; Stanczak, A.; Manstead, A.; Darnon, C. Why lockdown and distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to increase the social class achievement gap. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021 , 5 , 1273–1281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Ding, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhong, J.; Qiu, X.; Zou, Z.; Xu, Y.; Jin, X.; Wu, X.; Huang, J.; et al. COVID-19′s impacts on the scope, effectiveness, and interaction characteristics of online learning: A social network analysis. PLoS ONE 2022 , 17 , e0273016. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Munoz-Najar, A.; Gilberto, A.; Hasan, A.; Cobo, C.; Azevedo, J.P.; Akmal, M. Remote Learning during COVID-19: Lessons from Today, Principles for Tomorrow ; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]

Share and Cite

Sato, S.N.; Condes Moreno, E.; Rubio-Zarapuz, A.; Dalamitros, A.A.; Yañez-Sepulveda, R.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Navigating the New Normal: Adapting Online and Distance Learning in the Post-Pandemic Era. Educ. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010019

Sato SN, Condes Moreno E, Rubio-Zarapuz A, Dalamitros AA, Yañez-Sepulveda R, Tornero-Aguilera JF, Clemente-Suárez VJ. Navigating the New Normal: Adapting Online and Distance Learning in the Post-Pandemic Era. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(1):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010019

Sato, Simone Nomie, Emilia Condes Moreno, Alejandro Rubio-Zarapuz, Athanasios A. Dalamitros, Rodrigo Yañez-Sepulveda, Jose Francisco Tornero-Aguilera, and Vicente Javier Clemente-Suárez. 2024. "Navigating the New Normal: Adapting Online and Distance Learning in the Post-Pandemic Era" Education Sciences 14, no. 1: 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010019

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals