American Journal of Educational Research, 2021, Vol. 9, No. 5, 272-277 Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/education/9/5/4 Published by Science and Education Publishing DOI:10.12691/education-9-5-4

COVID-19 and Online Learning: A Student Perception Survey

Vashisth Manoj Kumar1, Zhang Limei1, Tian Xianzhang2, Zhang Bensi1,*

1Department of Human Anatomy, Dali University, Dali, , 2Students Affairs Office, School of Basic Medicine, Dali University, Dali, Yunnan, China *Corresponding author: Received April 02, 2021; Revised May 03, 2021; Accepted May 12, 2021 Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic only provided a short window of time to prepare and maintain the learning environment. In multiple countries, governments instructed various education facilities to halt their routines, and switch from traditional education of classroom teaching to online teaching. The present study aimed to determine the effectiveness of this switch to online teaching and learning in a university in China. A survey was conducted among 269 international clinical medicine students at the School of Basic Medicine, Dali University to analyze the effectiveness of online learning during the spread of COVID-19 using seven variables of investigation (1) is responsive to individual learning requirements, (2) efficient communication as in real class, (3) enhance the participant’s communication skills with instructor and other students, (4) fosters the participant’s involvement and interaction, (5) instructor’s effectively handled the class time and pace, (6) organization and preparation of the class, and (7) the course delivery according to the outlined syllabus . A statistically significant difference was observed for all seven variables of investigation. The value of χ2 were significant (0.021, 0.005, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.005 and 0.02 respectively) at P≤0.05. However, for preference of online class in place of traditional classroom teaching, the result showed an insignificant value for χ2 of 0.140 at P≤0.05. Online learning is equally effective, and probably more effective in the current pandemic situation, when compared to traditional in class learning. Keywords: internet, online teaching, E-Learning, classroom teaching Cite This Article: Vashisth Manoj Kumar, Zhang Limei, Tian Xianzhang, and Zhang Bensi, “COVID-19 and Online Learning: A Student Perception Survey.” American Journal of Educational Research, vol. 9, no. 5 (2021): 272-277. doi: 10.12691/education-9-5-4.

Online learning has recently become one of the fast- moving trend and aims to provide a configurable 1. Introduction infrastructure that has integrated learning material, tool and services into a single solution to create and deliver In the last five decades, we have seen a huge change training including educational content quickly, effectively, and advancement in the world of education and learning. and economically [5]. There are Various comparisons that These changes and advancements have brought a huge are made to find out the difference in effectiveness with wave of growth worldwide in the provision of education at the traditional face-to-face education and distance and all levels. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) online education. Meanwhile, the internet along with the pandemic presents a huge challenge to the education development of information technologies have also system worldwide, which national education systems have revitalized the exchange of information and training never faced before. This COVID-19 pandemic has worldwide [6]. E-learning is “an approach to teaching and disturbed the lives of the students in various aspects, learning, representing all or part of the educational model depending not only on their level and course of study, but applied, that is based on the use of electronic media and also on the point they have reached in their program [1]. devices as tools for improving access to training and Various institutions, along with teachers and students, communication and interaction and that facilitates the have found new avenues to repair the damage caused and adoption of new ways of understanding and developing to continue their learning process in digital formats. learning” [7]. It is also mentioned that it does not only Online education provides one such avenue by creating differ from traditional learning in the medium by which new opportunities for students, faculty, regulators of learning is delivered, but it also effects the teaching and education, and educational institutions [2]. Since the learning approaches used [8]. emergence of the internet, it has become an important The use of interactive mobile media, such as smart-phones, medium of communication, as well as a research tool for tablets and laptops, by college students is rapidly increasing learning and information [3]. Online learning refers to the because these media are portable and instantly accessible use of internet technologies to deliver a broad array of [9]. Moreover, several education applications/software solutions that enhances knowledge and performance [4]. have recently become available [10,11]. Picciano stated

American Journal of Educational Research 273 that “learning success requires students to have the syllabus, on the basis of following 5 scales which include: opportunity to ask questions, give feedback along with Is or may be considerably more efficient, Is or may be [sharing] their personal views” [12]. Moore et al further slightly more efficient, Is also efficient, Is or somewhat state that “interaction and feedback are essential factors to less efficient, Is or a lot less efficient. predict the success of learning” [13]. This view is also Besides the 7 prime variable we also investigated the supported by Alonso and Hardless, who believe that willingness of the students for the online study through the interaction and feedback are important factors that following variable: student acceptance: Would you take the influence student’s long-term satisfaction [14]. However, online class again which was determined on the following in both developing and non-developing countries, network aspects-absolutely, as it may be, only in case necessary and no. connectivity and bandwidth availability are the key obstacles to the effective delivery of online E-Learning [6]. This study aims as to determine the effectiveness of 3. Result online learning since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in a university setting in China 3.1. The data analysis was done using SPSS software 23.0. 2. Methods 3.2. Participants Characteristics 2.1. Research Design A total of 269 students participated in the survey. Table 1 This is a survey-based study that was conducted using provides information about participant demographics. the online application Wen Juan Xing (问卷星) from September 2020 to Novemeber 2020. The participants Table 1. Participant characteristics (n=269) included a total of 269 international students (136 male Characteristic N % students and 133 female students), who were studying Class year 2018 132 49.07 clinical medicine major at the School of Basic Medicine at 2019 137 50.93 Dali University (Dali, China) from the class of 2018 and Gender 2019. Male 136 50.56 Female 133 49.44 2.1.1. Participants Age (years) The participants of the survey where the students from 18-20 81 30.11 20-22 148 55.02 School of basic medicine, at Dali University. All the 22+ 40 14.87 students were allowed to participate in the survey during Living at present the duration of study only ones. The criteria for In university campus 57 21.19 participation was based on the basic demographic In your home country 210 78.07 information which is given in the Table 1. If the Other 2 0.74 participant fulfills the requirement was allowed to Country participate. All the question in the survey was compulsory 112 41.64 63 23.42 to be filled. Incomplete data or information did not allow Tanzania 56 20.82 the survey to be submitted in the app. 31 11.52 5 1.86 2.1.2. Survey 2 0.74 A survey questionnaire as designed taking elements College level from the online student satisfaction survey (The College Undergraduate 266 98.88 Graduate 3 1.12 at Brockport, State University of New York) and Current way of learning online learning-students perception survey (Division of Online class 226 84.01 Undergraduate Education/ Office of Information Technology). Self-study at home 33 12.27 The survey comprised of two sections: (1) participant Self-study in campus 7 2.6 demographics (grade, gender, age, country, current living Other 3 1.12 place, college level, current way of learning, difficulty in Difficulty in online learning online learning, application used for online classes, academic No learning resource 35 13.01 Network 145 53.9 supplemental support); (2) prime variables of interest. Application used 20 7.43 The prime variables of interest in this study to investigate Teacher dependency 21 7.81 the effectiveness of the online compared to face-to-face Other 48 17.84 education included the following seven variables: (1) is Application used for online class responsive to individual learning requirements, (2) efficient Wechat 97 36.06 communication as in real class, (3) enhance the Dingtalk 8 2.97 participant’s communication skills with instructor and Voov Meeting 17 6.32 other students, (4) fosters the participant’s involvement and Rain class 123 45.72 Other 24 8.92 interaction, (5) instructor’s effectively handled the class Receive online supplemental academic support time and pace, (6) organization and preparation of the Yes 170 63.2 class, and (7) the course delivery according to the outlined No 99 36.8

274 American Journal of Educational Research

3.3. Prime Variables of Interest (P<0.05). In total, 42 participants from class 2018 responded that online learning for this variable was Table 2 contains the results for the prime variables of equally effective whereas for class 2019, 47 participants interest from the survey. stated that it was much more effective.

3.3.1. Is responsive to Individual Learning 3.3.5. Instructor’s Effectively Handled the Class Time Requirements and Pace The participants’ response for the variable “meets There was also a statistically significant difference for individual learning needs”, showed that for the 2018 class, responses between the two class groups for this variable 19 participants thought it to be somewhat more effective, (P<0.05). Again, 42 participants from class 2018 with a maximum of 41 reporting it to be equally effective; responded that online learning for this variable was while for the 2019 class 19 participants stated it to be equally effective whereas, and 47 participants from class somewhat more effective and 46 stated it to be much more 2019 said it was much more effective. effective. The result yielded <0.05 level of significance and is interpreted as highly significant. This implies that 3.3.6. Organization and Preparation of the Class there is a significant difference in the response between For variable the class was organized and well prepared, the class of 2018 and 2019. 59 participants from class 2018 and 41 from class 2019 both stated that the online class was equally effective. 3.3.2. Efficient Communication as in Real Class There was also a statistically significant difference for There was a <0.05 level of significance between the responses between the two class groups for this variable two grades of 2018 and 2019 for responses about this (P<0.05). variable. In total, 34 participants of class 2018 stated it to be equally effective, while 47 participants in class 3.3.7. The Course Delivery According to the Outlined 2019 said it was much more effective. This result Syllabus suggested that online communication is better than the real In total 64 participants in class 2018 and 39 participants class setting. in class 2019 both stated that the online class was equally effective for this variable. There was also a statistically 3.3.3. Enhance the Participant’s Communication Skills significant difference for responses between the two class with Instructor and Other Students groups for this variable (P<0.05). An equal number of 42 as maximum response of the participants in two grades of 2018 and 2019, but the 3.4. Students Acceptance: Would You Take answer to the response be the equal effectiveness in 2018 and much more effective for 2019 grades respectively. the Online Class Again The difference in response when talking about the students For this aspect it presents a difference in response with and instructors communication for the two class groups it a highest number of response of 55 and 68 in grades 2018 was statistically significant (P<0.05). and 2019 respectively which shows a highest number of students accept the online class only if required and not 3.3.4. Fosters the Participant’s Involvement and definitely. The result yielded is more than 0.05 level of Interaction significance and is interpreted as non-significant. This The difference in response between the two class implies that there is no significant acceptance by the groups for this variable was statistically significant students to take online classes in future.

Table 2. Seven prime variables of interest among participants and student’s acceptance (n=269) Prime variable Participants from Participants from Total participants Measure χ2* P-value* of interest 2018 class (n, (%)) 2019 class (n, (%)) (n, (%)) Is or may be considerably more efficient 22 (16.7) 46 (33.6) 68 (25.3) Is responsive to Is or may be slightly more efficient 19 (14.4) 19 (13.9) 38 (14.1) individual Is also efficient 41 (31.1) 33 (24.1) 74 (27.5) 0.021 ≤0.05 learning requirements Is or somewhat less efficient 27 (20.5) 25 (18.2) 52 (19.3) Is or a lot less efficient 23 (17.4) 14 (10.2) 37 (13.8) Is or may be considerably more efficient 22 (16.7) 47 (34.3) 69 (25.7) Efficient Is or may be slightly more efficient 22 (16.7) 21 (15.3) 43 (16) communication Is also efficient 34 (25.8) 31 (22.6) 65 (24.2) 0.005 ≤0.05 as in real class Is or somewhat less efficient 27 (20.5) 26 (19) 53 (19.7) Is or a lot less efficient 27 (20.5) 12 (8.8) 39 (14.5) Enhance the Is or may be considerably more efficient 14 (10.6) 42 (30.7) 56 (20.8) participant’s Is or may be slightly more efficient 24 (18.2) 27 (19.7) 51 (19) communication Is also efficient 42 (31.8) 35 (25.5) 77 (28.6) 0.000 ≤0.05 skills with Is or somewhat less efficient 27 (20.5) 22 (16.1) 49 (18.2) instructor and other students Is or a lot less efficient 25 (18.9) 11 (8) 36 (13.4) Is or may be considerably more efficient 17 (12.9) 47 (34.3) 64 (23.8) Fosters the Is or may be slightly more efficient 21 (15.9) 14 (10.2) 35 (13) participant’s Is also efficient 42 (31.8) 43 (31.4) 85 (31.6) 0.000 ≤0.05 involvement and interaction Is or somewhat less efficient 32 (24.2) 19 (13.9) 51 (19) Is or a lot less efficient 20 (15.2) 14 (10.2) 34 (12.6)

American Journal of Educational Research 275

Prime variable Participants from Participants from Total participants Measure χ2* P-value* of interest 2018 class (n, (%)) 2019 class (n, (%)) (n, (%)) Instructor’s Is or may be considerably more efficient 17 (12.9) 47 (34.3) 64 (23.8) effectively Is or may be slightly more efficient 21 (15.9) 14 (10.2) 35 (13) handled the Is also efficient 42 (31.8) 43 (31.4) 85 (31.6) 0.000 ≤0.05 class time and Is or somewhat less efficient 32 (24.2) 19 (13.9) 51 (19) pace Is or a lot less efficient 20 (15.2) 14 (10.2) 34 (12.6) Is or may be considerably more efficient 16 (12.1) 36 (26.3) 52 (19.3) Organization Is or may be slightly more efficient 15 (11.4) 25 (18.2) 40 (14.9) and Is also efficient 59 (44.7) 41 (29.9) 100 (37.2) 0.005 ≤0.05 preparation of the class Is or somewhat less efficient 25 (18.9) 24 (17.5) 49 (18.2) Is or a lot less efficient 17 (12.9) 11 (8) 28 (10.4) The course Is or may be considerably more efficient 14 (10.6) 36 (26.3) 50 (18.6) delivery Is or may be slightly more efficient 21 (15.9) 26 (19) 47 (17.5) according to Is also efficient 64 (48.5) 39 (28.5) 103 (38.3) the outlined Is or somewhat less efficient 20 (15.2) 24 (17.5) 44 (16.4) 0.02 ≤0.05 syllabus Is or a lot less efficient 13 (9.8) 12 (8.8) 25 (9.3) Absolutely 25 (18.9) 30 (21.9) 55 (20.4) Would you As it maybe 23 (17.4) 23 (16.8) 46 (17.1) take the online 0.140 >0.05 Only in case necessary 55 (41.7) 68 (49.6) 123 (45.7) class again No 29 (22) 16 (11.7) 45 (16.7) *Between classs of 2018 and 2019.

4. Discussion receive instruction and information on any topic, which allow them to exchange information and ask questions from other participating sites [16]. We found a significant Various universities, and schools around worldwide 2 have continued to operate through the COVID-19 result (χ = 0.000; P≤0.05) favoring that online classes do pandemic, providing students with a variety of courses, increase the sense of communication of students with their which have time and place flexibility to help the students instructor and fellow students. to continue their learning process and to keep on track. Institutions, teachers, and students will continue their 4.3. Video Conferencing as a Part of Online search for flexible ways to repair the damage caused by Teaching COVID-19 interruptions to learning. Sir John Daniel quoted “that institutions versed in distance learning often Video conferencing can be used as part of online start the process of course construction by designing the teaching through various applications and software, student assessments that will be part of it.” including Voov Tencent, Dingtalk, Rain classroom, We- Chat and many more, which improves communication 4.1. Course Delivery skills, and presentation skills among students. Instead of just reading textbooks and other printed materials, video In a study by Stern (2004), it was stated that when conferencing allows the teachers and instructors to bring comparing the same course delivered online and the outside world into the classroom in a very real way. face-to-face. There are various conclusions are for both The current study demonstrates that Rain classroom teachers and students; for students, their own learning (45.72%) and We-Chat (36.06%) are the most accepted style, desire and motivation contributes to their success, modes for online learning. whereas the instructor or teacher needs to design and There are certain studies that have also stated that monitor the course to ensure that all students participate, online education allows the students opportunity to relate keeping student time management and organization with their peers and develop social communication skills, paramount [15]. In our study the efficiency level of the which results in higher self-esteem that would have not instructor for class management and organization was been possible in a regular classroom. We found significant significant (P≤0.05), when we asked participants about the results for online learning that showed that there was student learning style and instructor’s management and effective communication and student participation and organizational skills. This showed that the instructor was interaction as in real class settings, suggesting that online able to provide similar organization and as in the offline teaching can be equally (χ2= 0.005; P≤0.05) or much more teaching which can facilitate the teaching environment. effective (χ2= 0.000; P≤0.05) from real time class settings.

4.2. Use of Various Tools in the Teaching 4.4. Platforms for Online Learning Environment Various platforms have been introduced for e-learning, In a previous study, Paderanga (2014) mentioned that including We-Chat, which offers texts, pictures, voice utilizing special cameras, viewing monitors, and message, and videos that can be shared on a public microphones at each location, means that faculty and account and open platforms. Students can access these students are able to interact with each other at distant sites resources anytime and anywhere, thereby providing as easily as those located at their home campus or students with great learning autonomy [20]. Peters [18] traditional classroom teaching environment. Students can has described the following principal considerations

276 American Journal of Educational Research to be taken into account when designing e-learning In conclusion, during special circumstances when delivery: traditional teaching has to be suspended or has to be 1. The urgency of the learning need. shifted to some other means of education, students do support 2. The need for knowledge acquisition. online mode of teaching and learning, which can be modified 3. The mobility of the learning setting. and changed for the various shortcomings, as per the needs of 4. The interactivity of the learning process. the students. But it also shows that online teaching and 5. The situatedness of the instructional activities. learning is able to meet the individual needs of students 6. The integration of instructional content. and also promotes students participation and interaction. Rain classroom is a wisdom teaching tool based on We-Chat public platform and power-point. Teachers can issue tasks, test questions and Power-point Presentation Conflicts of Interest (PPT) in Rain Classroom. Students can sign in, vote, accept tasks and give questions and feedback to The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this unintelligible PPT [14]. While a majority of students article. stated that there was no real difference in their learning when comparing a class session online vs. an in-class session, some students did acknowledge a difference in Acknowledgements terms of community and peer interaction within the two settings [19]. This survey was financially supported by the In our study, student need had high statistical Innovation Team of Neurobiology of Dali University significance (χ2= 0.021; P≤0.05), showing that online (ZKLX2019108) and from Li Yunqing expert workstation classes are very effective and meet individual student’s of Yunnan Province (No.202005AF150014). needs, making it more or equally effective related to regular class room teaching. From the above statistical analysis, we can state that References there is significant positive feedback for online teaching provided to these students during the COVID-19 outbreak, [1] Daniel, S.J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. and most students found these online classes either Prospects. [2] Mayadas, A. Frank; Bourne, John; Bacsich, Paul. (2009). Online equally effective or a more effective way of learning Education Today [J]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, compared with regular classroom teaching. As a final 13(2): 49-56. remark, all seven prime interventional variables proved to [3] Nazan Dogruer, Ramadan Eyyam, Ipek Menevis. (2011). The use be significant and are of practical importance in success of of the internet for educational purposes [J]. Procedia-Social and online teaching, but when it comes to the willingness of Behavioral Sciences, 28: 606-611. [4] Jorge G. Ruiz, Michael J. Mintzer, Rosanne M. Leipzig. (2006). students to complete an online class in comparison to The Impact of E-Learning in Medical Education [J]. Academic regular classroom teaching this is still less acceptable Medicine, 81(3): 207-212. (χ2= 0.140; P>0.05). It also suggests that the students [5] Dongsong Zhang, Lina Zhou, Robert O.Briggs, Jay F. Nunamaker accept online teaching and learning but only when Jr. (2005). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness [J]. Information and required, and not as a part of regular teaching. Management, 43: 15-27. After analyzing the questionnaire’s result, we conclude [6] Pradeep Paul George, Nikos Papachristou, Josě Marcano Belisario, that the online learning is helpful and have a positive Wei Wang, Petra A Wark, Ziva Cotic, Kristine Rasmussen, Reně feedback from students. Students are able to learn and Sluiter, Eva Riboli-Sasco, Lorainne Tudor Car, Eve Marie improve their communication skills and interaction with Musulanov, Joseph Antonio Molina, Bee Hoon Heng, Yanfeng Zhang, Erica Lynette Wheeler, Najeeb Al Shorbaji, Azeem the peers. But when it comes to have online class on Majeed, Josip Car. (2014). Online elearning for undergraduates in regular basis the students acceptance does not favor their health professions: A systematic review of the impact on response and goes with online teaching only when knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction [J]. Journal of Global required such as this special condition of COVID-19 Health, 4(1): 1-17. [7] Albert Sangrà, Dimitrios Vlachopoulos, Nati Cabrera. (2012). pandemic. Building and inclusive definition of e-learning: An approach to the conceptual framework [J]. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2):145-159. 5. Conclusion [8] Ken Masters, Rachel Ellaway. (2008). E-learning in medical education Guide 32 Part 2: Technology, management and design Using the Internet as a tool for education can improve [J]. Med Teach, 30(5): 474-89. [9] Jingting Wang, Yuanyuan Wang, Chunlan Wei, Nengliang Aaron the quality of education and also promote a student’s Yao, Avery Yuan, Yuying Shan, Changrong Yuan. (2014). critical and analytical thinking ability. It even promotes Smartphone interventions for long-term health management of cooperative work and team building and solving problems. chronic diseases: An integrative review [J]. Telemed J E Health, We describe a positive response of students when it comes 20(6): 570-583. to online teaching. From our results, we found that online [10] Dimiter V Dimitrov. (2016). Medical internet of things and big data in healthcare [J]. Healthcare Informatics research, 22(3): education not only promotes learning but also increases 156-163. the sense of communication, peer-to-peer interaction and [11] Diamond, R. (2016). There’s an app for that: Benefits and risks of collaborative work, along with enhancing the teacher’s using mobile apps for healthcare. Mich Med 115, 26-27. ability to organize and deliver the outlined syllabus, [12] Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of making the class environment as in a real face-to-face interaction, presence, and performance in an online course [J]. Journal of Asynchronous learning networks, 6(1): 21-40. teaching environment.

American Journal of Educational Research 277

[13] Moore, A., Masterson, J.T., Christophel, D. M. and Shea, K. A. [17] Zijuan Shi, Gaofeng Luo. (2016). Application of WeChat teaching (1996). College teacher immediacy and student ratings of platform in interactive translation teaching [J]. International instruction [J]. Communication Education, 45 (1): 29-39. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(09): 71-75. [14] Alonoso, F., Manrique, D. and Vines, J. M. (2009). A moderate [18] Kristine Peters. (2007). M-learning: Positioning educators for a constructivist e-learning instructional model evaluated on mobile, connected future [J]. International Review of research in computer speacilaist. Computer & education, 53(1): 57-65. open and distance learning, 8(2): 29-35. [15] Barbara Slater Stern. (2004). A comparison of online and face-to- [19] Kirtman, L. (2009). Online versus in-class courses: An face instruction in an undergraduate foundations of American examination of differences in learning outcomes [J]. Issues in education course [J]. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2): 103-116. Teacher Education, 4(2): 196-213. [16] Lydie D. Paderanga. (2014). Classroom video conferencing: its contribution to peace education [J]. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123:113-121.

© The Author(s) 2021. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).