Online learning
Did remote COVID teaching feel less engaging to students?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
After a sudden shift online, students reported poorer engagement and action/expression supports, while some representation access improved.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional — Retrospective pretest–posttest survey of spring 2020 remote instruction quality
- N
- N=1731 · 1,731 of 19,752 invited students at a U.S. R1 university
- Population
- University students experiencing the COVID shift to remote instruction
- Outcome
- Perceived UDL engagement/action/representation supports before vs after the shift
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Students reported that UDL Engagement and Action & Expression were significantly poorer after moving online. Representation showed improvement for some students, including those eligible for disability services. Instructor communication frequency and helpfulness related to perceived instructional quality.
Methodology
At a U.S. very-high-research-activity university, 1,731 of 19,752 invited students completed a voluntary survey about spring 2020 remote instruction. Retrospective pretest–posttest items compared perceived quality on Universal Design for Learning principles and instructor communication before versus after the shift.
Limitations
Self-selected survey respondents and retrospective ratings can bias estimates. The study measures perceptions of instructional quality, not objective learning gains from a controlled redesign.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Sudden shifts online can degrade some engagement and expression supports even when certain access/representation features improve.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Sudden remote shifts can worsen some engagement and expression supports even when certain representation/access features improve for some students.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
At a U.S. very-high-research-activity university, 1,731 of 19,752 invited students completed a voluntary survey with retrospective pretest–posttest items on Universal Design for Learning after the spring 2020 shift online (153 respondents were eligible for disability services). Students reported that UDL Engagement and Action & Expression were significantly poorer after moving online; Representation improved for some, including disability-eligible students. These are recalled perceptions of instructional quality, not objective learning gains.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Pre/post windows are not interchangeable designs. Peer feedback and faculty training are single-group rises. The ITS paper randomises after exclusions and adjusts for prior scores. Chatbots contrast two intact classes. Mentoring randomises classrooms and finds a null average with a subgroup gain. COVID UDL is a retrospective perception contrast, not a scored artefact. Calling all of them 'pre-test/post-test evidence that teaching improved' hides those differences.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Among 1,731 of 19,752 invited U.S. research-university students, retrospective UDL items found Engagement and Action & Expression significantly poorer after the spring 2020 remote shift (153 respondents eligible for disability services; Representation improved for some of them). Significance here flags a perception contrast, not a Cohen’s d on learning and not a controlled redesign.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Statistical significance and educational size part company. COVID UDL ratings were significantly poorer on two principles among volunteers. FLEX found significant course-level exam differences in a minority of 133 courses while the pooled effect sat at zero. 'Significant' is not a shared importance ranking.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Pre/post windows are not interchangeable designs. Peer feedback and faculty training are single-group rises. The ITS paper randomises after exclusions and adjusts for prior scores. Chatbots contrast two intact classes. Mentoring randomises classrooms and finds a null average with a subgroup gain. COVID UDL is a retrospective perception contrast, not a scored artefact. Calling all of them 'pre-test/post-test evidence that teaching improved' hides those differences.
- Supports · Online peer feedback that improves argumentative essays
- Supports · Faculty training that shifts teaching innovation attitudes
- Supports · Can a dialogue ITS fix fraction multiplication?
- Supports · Do educational chatbots raise project-course grades?
- Supports · Can showing shared interests improve student-teacher mentoring?
Statistical significance and educational size part company. COVID UDL ratings were significantly poorer on two principles among volunteers. FLEX found significant course-level exam differences in a minority of 133 courses while the pooled effect sat at zero. 'Significant' is not a shared importance ranking.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.