contribution of technology in education during covid pandemic essay

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

14 Educational Technologies During COVID-19

Macy Brenegan

14.1 Introducti on

• COVID-19 – infectious respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus
• Pandemic – a large-spread outbreak of an infectious disease; usually affects an entire country or the whole world (global pandemic)
• Lockdown – government order for people or a community to stay at home in order to protect themselves and others from a foreseen risk
• Online/Virtual/Remote learning – no in-person instruction; all classes and assignments take place at home on a student’s computer
• Hybrid learning – some in-person instruction combined with some virtual instruction and assignments
• Traditional learning – in-person instruction with students and teachers in a classroom; typical learning environment
• Synchronous – students are learning at the same time
• Asynchronous – students are not learning at the same time or the same place
• Zoom – video communication software used for conferences, meetings, education, and personal use
• Learning management system – software application used to manage online learning

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, students should be able to:

• Describe how the COVID-19 pandemic led to the use of online learning technologies
• Describe the main online learning technologies and their features
• Understand the effects of online learning technologies on students

Have you ever woken up in the morning and wished you could do school from the comfort of your own bed? Getting to stay home from school is every kid’s dream, and it quickly became reality for billions of students in March of 2020. When the COVID-19 pandemic swept the globe, a rush of online educational technologies also came with it to accommodate students having to learn from home. Many different online platforms such as Zoom, Canvas, Google, and more, provided a space for online classrooms when traditional, in-person learning was no longer a possibility.

Whether or not students were completely virtual, using these online technologies as a method of learning was a huge adjustment for all. As many would suspect, it greatly affected students’ learning in negative ways. The educational technologies introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic were necessary for the continuation of learning, however they do not equate to in-person learning and rather hinder student success. In this chapter, we will be discussing the different online learning technologies, where they came from, their positive and negative effects, and the outlook on these technologies.

14.2 Online Learning Technologies

Key Takeaway

Online educational technologies can be used in both hybrid and virtual learning environments. In a completely virtual/online learning environment, students complete all instruction and assignments at home. Within online learning, material can be synchronous , meaning the students meet with their teacher virtually, or asynchronous , meaning students complete all work and assignments on their own. Hybrid learning allows for limited in-person instruction in combination with online instruction and assignments. Traditional learning is a normal classroom setting and does not typically see any of the technologies that will be discussed.

Created by Macy Brenegan

14.2.1 Zoom

Zoom is an online cloud meeting platform utilized by many schools. Its technology is similar to Skype, however this video conferencing website was designed for meetings, webinars, and other online events. A Zoom call displays squares with each participant’s camera and allows options for screen sharing, breakout rooms, polls, and annotations. Using Zoom as a virtual classroom allows for much more interaction than just watching pre-recorded lessons. Students are able to see their classmates with the video feature. Students can also unmute to participate in class discussions or utilize breakout rooms, private groups broken off from the main zoom meeting, which allow for small group collaborations. Teachers can share their screens to present PowerPoints, videos, and other resources to teach or to help show students how to navigate other online learning websites. Teachers can additionally use special features such as the polls and annotations to keep students engaged and interacting with the learning material. Zoom has many features to keep students and teachers connected when they are apart.

“Child Monitor Student Computer Video Conference” by Max Pixel is in the Public Domain, CC0

14.2.2 Learning Management Systems (LMS)

Learning management systems are software applications used to manage online learning. In this subsection we will be discussing the three most common learning management systems: Canvas, Blackboard Learn, and Google Classrooms.

Canvas is a very popular learning management system used by many different schools. The website layout consists of a dashboard with sections for each class a student is enrolled in. Each class has their own learning modules, where students can access material provided by their teacher. Teachers can post announcements for students to keep them up to date. There’s even a messaging feature within the website to provide students with a way to communicate directly with their teachers. Canvas allows for quizzes, tests, discussions, and other assignments directly on its platform. Students can view all of their past and upcoming assignments on a calendar. Students additionally can access their grades for each class and receive alerts to their phones or emails when grades have been updated. Blackboard Learn is another common learning management system with a similar layout to Canvas. The two websites consist of almost identical features, with Blackboard having additional links to outside tools such as Pearson, a popular textbook company.

Google Classroom is another learning platform that links all of the assignments, tests, and quizzes through Google Drive. As with Canvas, students likewise have a dashboard with all of their classes displayed. Each class has a stream, assignments, and grades section. Stream is where teachers can post announcements or links to videos or documents that are useful to students. The assignments tab allows students to work and submit directly in google drive. Tests and quizzes are given through the assignments tab as well. Students also have the ability to access their grades in the grades section. There are overall less features directly in Google Classroom, however, since it is linked to a google account, Google Classroom works with Gmail, Google Drive, and other Google applications.

“Girl Laptop “  by  Pixabay is in under a Pixabay license

14.3 History of Online Learning Technologies

Learning management systems were introduced in the early 20th century as a means to enhance in-person learning. As they developed, this allowed some schools to offer classes that would not typically be available through these online platforms. Though they were used, it was not very common to see these systems implemented in a classroom (Setiawan et al., 2021). Zoom was released around the same time; however, it mostly had been used by companies for video conferencing pre-COVID. Once the pandemic hit, Zoom became the most popular method of conducting virtual classrooms.

COVID-19 is an infectious disease that exhibits flu-like symptoms. It is highly contagious and can cause death in high-risk patients. For this reason, when the pandemic hit the US, a nation-wide lockdown , a stay-at-home order, began. Schools, stores, restaurants, banks, and so much more were forced to close. The only businesses that remained open at the time were considered “essential businesses” such as hospitals and fire departments. People were mandated to wear masks and encouraged to stay isolated from everyone else. There was no safe way for students to be able to come in-person in the school building during the height of the pandemic. Fort this reason, schools had no option except to transition to online learning. Most schools would use strictly online learning for the rest of the 2019-2020 school year.

When school started back up in fall of 2020, many institutions were in areas where COVID still posed a high risk, so they continued education completely virtual. In some areas where the effects of COVID were mitigated, hybrid learning was introduced, and a smaller number of students (usually around half) would go into the building on certain days of the week and then be online the rest of the week. There was no measured difference in success between hybrid and online learning (Hew et al., 2020). However, as areas would see a decline in COVID cases, schools would also switch to hybrid learning to give students and teachers a sense of normalcy during a time when all normal was lost. Private schools do not have to adhere to national lockdown policies, so some remained fully in person for this duration. Other than those private schools, however, very few schools have seen normal in-person operations since March of 2020.

“A Person Checking the Body Temperature of a Girl”  by  Pexels is under a Pexels license

14.4 Effects of Online Learning Technologies on Students

 There are both pros and cons to online learning technologies. However, the negative impacts outweigh the positive. Virtual learning does not work as well as traditional learning.

While we knew the disease had existed for months before, the onset of COVID-19 in the US was very sudden. Students who had been used to traditional learning for years and had never even seen these online learning technologies were thrown into a mess of learning. Students and teachers alike had to quickly learn and adapt to this new way of school, all while navigating the personal impacts of a global pandemic.

14.4.1 Pros of Online Learning

Given the circumstances, online learning can obviously be seen as a pro to the alternatives of no learning or limited learning. These technologies provided a way to keep students and teachers connected and learning during the pandemic. Teachers were able to provide students with extra resources and easily incorporate supplemental materials into their instruction. Students were given more flexibility as to when they could get their work done. Furthermore, most students felt that they were able to still learn and effectively complete assignments online, showing that online learning can work (Smoyer et al. 2020). For many students, their success depended on the teacher’s engagement, innovation, and performance (Wang et al., 2021).

14.4.2 Cons of Online Learning

While some students saw success with online learning, many struggled as well. Multiple studies have found that more students are behind grade levels than compared to years prior because of online learning (Curriculum Associates, 2021; Dorn et al., 2021; US Department of Education, 2021). This can be explained by various factors of online learning. Being online, there are many different distractions for students on the internet without any supervision. There are a multitude of distractions that come with trying to do schoolwork in your own home. For example, pets, siblings, video games, toys, and even food easily steal the attention of students learning from home. Likewise, it can be hard to be motivated to complete schoolwork while in the comfort of your home. Some students may have little access to the internet, some may have none at all, greatly impacting their success. Looking more at the technologies, students may have a hard time navigating the learning management systems as there is so much information in one space. On the flip side, teachers may have poor communication or organization skills when it comes to online teaching, causing students to miss assignments. Many students also feel that online learning is just not the same as learning in a classroom and would prefer to go back in-person (Smoyer et al. 2020).

14.5 Future Outlook

The prevalence of online learning technologies is so strong now that it would be nearly impossible for them to go away. As we continue to return to normalcy after the pandemic, it seems that many schools will continue to use Zoom and learning management systems whenever necessary. Will future generations no longer have “snow days?” Will there be schools without physical teachers anymore? Is there a future where schools no longer even exist and virtual becomes the new normal? These questions and more will be discussed in the next chapter on “Educational Technologies Moving Forward.”

“Online Education”  by  Pixabay is under a Pixabay license

Case Study: Education Interrupted

The Education Interrupted documentary follows different families from California at various education levels in order to illustrate the struggles that many students and families have faced amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. These stories and many others highlight the crisis and effects of the pandemic on learning across the US.

In Lake County, California a mom to six young kids has now had to take on the role as teacher as well. Their days are filled with zoom call after zoom call. Two of the six children are autistic, and their behavioral therapy has even gone online. The mom says she feels defeated with their current situation. Her children love school and will listen to their teachers with no problem, but they do not want to do any work when they are at home. The mom is desperate for schools to open back up to take some of the stress off her, and to get her kids back to learning.

Another mom in Porterville, California shares her story about her teenage son’s experience with online learning. The mom says that ever since they’ve gone virtual, she’s been getting calls about her son missing school. The son says he’s not learning anything and that most other kids aren’t even paying attention. Everyone has their phones or video games to distract them. He also says that online school stresses him out and he misses being able to go out and do things and see his friends to calm his anxiety. The mom feels helpless in this situation because she cannot force her son to do his schoolwork and knows he is unhappy (Molina, 2020).

Chapter Summary

COVID-19 changed how students will learn forever. Now, hybrid and virtual classrooms are more common than traditional classrooms. These new ways of learning brought about new educational technologies such as Zoom, Canvas, Google Classrooms, and Blackboard Learn. Online learning technologies have their benefits, but the limitations and lingering negative effects on student success are far too prevalent to deny. As these technologies likely aren’t going anywhere for a long time, improvements need to be made to ensure the quality of our learning system.

Review Questions

1. Which of the following learning methods is a combination of two other methods?

A. Online learning

B. Hybrid learning

C. Remote learning

D. Traditional learning

2. Which of the following features is not incorporated into learning management systems?

A. Student calendar

B. Text/email alerts for grading updates

C. Video calls/virtual classroom

D. Announcement posts or streams

3. Which of the following describes the level of familiarity that students and teachers had with online learning technologies prior to COVID-19?

A. Student and teachers had little to no knowledge on how to use the online learning technologies

B. Students and teachers had been taught how to use these technologies in school, but they were not implemented in the classroom yet

C. Students and teachers already used online learning technologies regularly in their classrooms

D. Students and teachers never used the internet in the classroom prior to COVID-19

4. Which of the following was listed as an effect of online learning technologies?

A. More students are behind grade levels than before

B. Students are more distracted

C. Students were able to stay connected to fellow classmates and teachers

D. All of the above

Food for Thought

• Reflect on the effects of COVID-19 on your own learning experiences. How successful did you feel with the different learning styles? Did you dedicate more or less time to school during the pandemic?
• Predict if online learning will remain popular post-COVID, or if we will return to traditional learning styles.

Curriculum Associates. (2021). Academic Achievement at the End of the 2020–2021 School Year: Insights after More Than a Year of Disrupted Teaching and Learning.   https://www.curriculumassociates.com/-/media/mainsite/files/i-ready/iready-understanding-student-needs-paper-spring-results-2021.pdf

Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2021). COVID-19 and education: The lingering effects of unfinished learning. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/covid-19-and-education-the-lingering-effects-of-unfinished-learning

Education Interrupted. Molina, J. (Director). (2020).[Video/DVD]

Hew, K. F., Jia, C., Gonda, D. E., & Bai, S. (2020). 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, 17 (1), 1-22. https://10.1186/s41239-020-00234-x

Setiawan, A. M., Munzil, & Fitriyah, I. J. (2021). Trend of learning management system (LMS) platforms for science education before-after covid-19 pandemic. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2330 (1) doi:10.1063/5.0043196

Smoyer, A. B., O’Brien, K., & Rodriguez-Keyes, E. (2020). Lessons learned from COVID-19: Being known in online social work classrooms. International Social Work, 63 (5), 651-654. https://10.1177/0020872820940021

Szente, Judit. (2020). Live Virtual Sessions with Toddlers and Preschoolers Amid COVID-19: Implications for Early Childhood Teacher Education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28 (2), 373.  https://search.proquest.com/docview/2410496757

U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. (2021). Education in a Pandemic: The Disparate Impacts of COVID-19 on America’s Students.   https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf

Wang, R., Han, J., Liu, C., & Xu, H. (2021). How Do University Students’ Perceptions of the Instructor’s Role Influence Their Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction in Cloud-Based Virtual Classrooms During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 627443. https://10.3389/fpsyg.2021.627443

No in-person instruction; all classes and assignments take place at home on a student’s computer.

Students are learning at the same time.

Students are not learning at the same time or the same place.

Some in-person instruction combined with some virtual instruction and assignments.

A method of instructional interaction that occurs in person and in real time between teachers and their students.

A video platform that allows up to 100 people to be on video at the same time.

Software application used to manage online learning.

Infectious respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Government order for people or a community to stay at home in order to protect themselves and others from a foreseen risk.

Technology: Where it Started and Where it’s Going Copyright © by Macy Brenegan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Lessons from Teaching and Learning at Stanford During the COVID-19 Pandemic

A Review, 2020–21

We seek to help Stanford collectively learn the lessons of COVID-19 pandemic remote teaching

The disruption to teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, as devastating as it was, also contains germs of opportunity. The Stanford community responded resourcefully, and innovations arose that could enhance education in years to come.

For this review, Stanford Digital Education gathered stories about how the campus supported academic continuity during the period of emergency remote instruction. The people we interviewed — Stanford leaders, faculty, staff, and students — provided diverse perspectives on the challenges they faced and the impact of pandemic measures. 

We hope our review leads to reflection on our shared pandemic experience, struggles, and progress. We believe this effort will serve as the foundation on which Stanford can design its future digital education strategy.

View or download the full report

“As we emerge from the pandemic, the skills and confidence that instructors developed for emergency remote teaching can be translated to more intentionally designed learning experiences.”

Vice Provost for Digital Education Matthew Rascoff

“The pre-pandemic campus experience had leveled the playing field in many ways: students ... had the same access to the internet, libraries, and study spaces. Pandemic learning removed this shared experience and brought once-hidden differences into the light.”

Excerpt from the introduction to the report

5 takeaways from our pandemic research

• Emergency remote instruction marks a shift in Stanford’s identity.
• Staff have a new and vital role in shaping instructional innovation and in building new collaborative networks.
• The move to remote education worsened access for many students, though some saw an improvement.
• The faculty-student relationship changed.
• A culture of empathy grew.

Read more about our five learnings.

Months of research  View the Stanford work we build upon.

Learn about our purpose and methods.  

Stanford stakeholders interviewed See the list of interviewees.

Explore the Stanford pandemic education report

Innovative Pedagogy

Pandemic emergency teaching presented substantial challenges to instructors, but it also generated opportunities for significant transformation of students’ remote learning experiences. Many curricular practices at Stanford were reshaped to promote active, interactive, and experiential education — including more flexible classroom assessments and opportunities for flipped learning.

Support Structures

Many new programs to support student learning have emerged as a result of the shift to emergency remote pandemic teaching, including expanded roles for graduate and undergraduate teaching assistants. Relationships between faculty and technology support staff have been largely strengthened, and there is new awareness of teaching support structures at Stanford overall.

Professional Communities

The pandemic fostered significant growth among professional and online learning communities both within and outside of Stanford. Stanford’s impact on these communities has been far-flung, informing pandemic teaching and learning practices at institutions both nationally and globally.

Supporting the Whole Student

The impact of COVID-19 highlighted inequities among students in higher education. The digital divide contributed to socioemotional distress among vulnerable student populations. A new focus on empathy, support, and student well-being lessened some aspects of these negative impacts.

Future considerations

• How can Stanford continue the culture of academic ingenuity and innovation that shone during the pandemic?
• How do we provide digital education opportunities that enhance equity and access for students?
• Under what circumstances should faculty and academic instructors be able to teach with flexibility, using such instructional modalities as fully online, hybrid, or flipped instruction?
• Should students be afforded alternatives to attending classes in-person and having more options of alternative forms of assessment?
• What should be students’ role in course design?
• Is there a need to maintain and grow professional knowledge-sharing networks and online teaching resources such as the Teaching Commons, the Teach Symposium,  and the Digital Ambassadors program?

First-generation/low-income students reporting that they didn't have a quiet place to study at home

Students reporting feeling overwhelmed often or very often in spring 2020

Students who were very concerned about maintaining friendships and social connections when classes went online

Explore the spring 2020 survey from Stanford's Institutional Research and Decision Support office.

Digital Learning Innovations in Education in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Loading... Editorial 16 March 2023 Editorial: Digital learning innovations in education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic Lucas Kohnke , Mark Bedoya Ulla  and  Haoran Xie 1,189 views 0 citations

Original Research 29 September 2022 Augmented reality applications as a digital learning innovation in response to the pandemic Hira Batool 2,339 views 3 citations

Original Research 28 September 2022 Students’ perceptions of emergency remote teaching in a writing course during COVID-19 Agata Guskaroska ,  2 more  and  Şebnem Kurt 2,235 views 2 citations

Mini Review 15 August 2022 English language learning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Hong Kong English as a Second Language students’ perceptions of Badaboom! Frankie Har 3,992 views 1 citations

Loading... Original Research 12 August 2022 History education done different: A collaborative interactive digital storytelling approach for remote learners Dimitra Petousi ,  3 more  and  Yannis Ioannidis 5,114 views 10 citations

Original Research 29 July 2022 Tracing writing progression in English for academic purposes: A data-driven possibility in the post-COVID era in Hong Kong Dennis Foung  and  Julia Chen 1,912 views 1 citations

Loading... Original Research 05 July 2022 Students’ Perception and Performance Regarding Structured Query Language Through Online and Face-to-Face Learning Amir Elalouf ,  5 more  and  Yulia Shayhet 5,380 views 4 citations

Review 28 June 2022 Teaching of Human Parasitology During the COVID-19 Pandemic in China Sheng-Qun Deng ,  6 more  and  Miao Liu 1,549 views 0 citations

Original Research 28 June 2022 Professional Sports Trainers' Burnout in Fully Online and Blended Classes: Innovative Approaches in Physical Education and Sports Training Hoàng Minh Thuận Nguyễn ,  1 more  and  Nhật Quang Nguyễn 1,941 views 5 citations

Loading... Mini Review 22 June 2022 Hybrid Teaching: Conceptualization Through Practice for the Post COVID19 Pandemic Education Mark Bedoya Ulla  and  William Franco Perales 8,334 views 13 citations

Original Research 10 June 2022 Optimizing Education Processes During the COVID-19 Pandemic Using the Technology Acceptance Model Martinus Tukiran ,  2 more  and  Herfina 2,429 views 4 citations

Original Research 09 June 2022 Factors Contributing to English as a Foreign Language Learners’ Academic Burnout: An Investigation Through the Lens of Cultural Historical Activity Theory Quyen Thi Thuc Bui ,  1 more  and  Quang Nhat Nguyen 4,028 views 1 citations

Original Research 12 May 2022 Educational Reforms Amid COVID-19 in Thailand Wachiraporn Poungjinda  and  Shubham Pathak 3,579 views 1 citations

Loading... Original Research 09 May 2022 Relationships Between Undergraduate Student Performance, Engagement, and Attendance in an Online Environment Thomas J. Jones 4,038 views 7 citations

Original Research 06 April 2022 Testing and Validating a Faculty Blended Learning Adoption Model Ahmed Antwi-Boampong 1,945 views 0 citations

Loading... Original Research 30 March 2022 Impact on Medical Education and the Medical Student’s Attitude, Practice, Mental Health, After One Year of the Covid-19 Pandemic in Indonesia Yuda Turana ,  55 more  and  Felicia Kurniawan 8,415 views 15 citations

Original Research 03 March 2022 An Analysis of the Impact and Efficacy of Online Emotional Intelligence Coaching as a Support Mechanism for University Students Aiden Carthy ,  2 more  and  Philip Owende 3,555 views 1 citations

Remote Learning During COVID-19: Lessons from Today, Principles for Tomorrow

"Remote Learning During the Global School Lockdown: Multi-Country Lessons” and “Remote Learning During COVID-19: Lessons from Today, Principles for Tomorrow"

WHY A TWIN REPORT ON THE IMPACT OF COVID IN EDUCATION?

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted education in over 150 countries and affected 1.6 billion students. In response, many countries implemented some form of remote learning. The education response during the early phase of COVID-19 focused on implementing remote learning modalities as an emergency response. These were intended to reach all students but were not always successful. As the pandemic has evolved, so too have education responses. Schools are now partially or fully open in many jurisdictions.

A complete understanding of the short-, medium- and long-term implications of this crisis is still forming. The twin reports analyze how this crisis has amplified inequalities and also document a unique opportunity to reimagine the traditional model of school-based learning.

The reports were developed at different times during the pandemic and are complementary:

The first one follows a qualitative research approach to document the opinions of education experts regarding the effectiveness of remote and remedial learning programs implemented across 17 countries. DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT

WHAT ARE THE LESSONS LEARNED OF THE TWIN REPORTS?

• Availability of technology is a necessary but not sufficient condition for effective remote learning: EdTech has been key to keep learning despite the school lockdown, opening new opportunities for delivering education at a scale. However, the impact of technology on education remains a challenge.
• Teachers are more critical than ever: Regardless of the learning modality and available technology, teachers play a critical role. Regular and effective pre-service and on-going teacher professional development is key. Support to develop digital and pedagogical tools to teach effectively both in remote and in-person settings.
• Education is an intense human interaction endeavor: For remote learning to be successful it needs to allow for meaningful two-way interaction between students and their teachers; such interactions can be enabled by using the most appropriate technology for the local context.
• Parents as key partners of teachers: Parent’s involvement has played an equalizing role mitigating some of the limitations of remote learning. As countries transition to a more consistently blended learning model, it is necessary to prioritize strategies that provide guidance to parents and equip them with the tools required to help them support students.
• Leverage on a dynamic ecosystem of collaboration: Ministries of Education need to work in close coordination with other entities working in education (multi-lateral, public, private, academic) to effectively orchestrate different players and to secure the quality of the overall learning experience.
• FULL REPORT
• Interactive document
• Understanding the Effectiveness of Remote and Remedial Learning Programs: Two New Reports
• Understanding the Perceived Effectiveness of Remote Learning Solutions: Lessons from 18 Countries
• Five lessons from remote learning during COVID-19
• Launch of the Twin Reports on Remote Learning during COVID-19: Lessons for today, principles for tomorrow

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

New global data reveal education technology’s impact on learning

The promise of technology in the classroom is great: enabling personalized, mastery-based learning; saving teacher time; and equipping students with the digital skills they will need  for 21st-century careers. Indeed, controlled pilot studies have shown meaningful improvements in student outcomes through personalized blended learning. 1 John F. Pane et al., “How does personalized learning affect student achievement?,” RAND Corporation, 2017, rand.org. During this time of school shutdowns and remote learning , education technology has become a lifeline for the continuation of learning.

As school systems begin to prepare for a return to the classroom , many are asking whether education technology should play a greater role in student learning beyond the immediate crisis and what that might look like. To help inform the answer to that question, this article analyzes one important data set: the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), published in December 2019 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Every three years, the OECD uses PISA to test 15-year-olds around the world on math, reading, and science. What makes these tests so powerful is that they go beyond the numbers, asking students, principals, teachers, and parents a series of questions about their attitudes, behaviors, and resources. An optional student survey on information and communications technology (ICT) asks specifically about technology use—in the classroom, for homework, and more broadly.

In 2018, more than 340,000 students in 51 countries took the ICT survey, providing a rich data set for analyzing key questions about technology use in schools. How much is technology being used in schools? Which technologies are having a positive impact on student outcomes? What is the optimal amount of time to spend using devices in the classroom and for homework? How does this vary across different countries and regions?

From other studies we know that how education technology is used, and how it is embedded in the learning experience, is critical to its effectiveness. This data is focused on extent and intensity of use, not the pedagogical context of each classroom. It cannot therefore answer questions on the eventual potential of education technology—but it can powerfully tell us the extent to which that potential is being realized today in classrooms around the world.

Five key findings from the latest results help answer these questions and suggest potential links between technology and student outcomes:

• The type of device matters—some are associated with worse student outcomes.
• Geography matters—technology is associated with higher student outcomes in the United States than in other regions.
• Who is using the technology matters—technology in the hands of teachers is associated with higher scores than technology in the hands of students.
• Intensity matters—students who use technology intensely or not at all perform better than those with moderate use.
• A school system’s current performance level matters—in lower-performing school systems, technology is associated with worse results.

This analysis covers only one source of data, and it should be interpreted with care alongside other relevant studies. Nonetheless, the 2018 PISA results suggest that systems aiming to improve student outcomes should take a more nuanced and cautious approach to deploying technology once students return to the classroom. It is not enough add devices to the classroom, check the box, and hope for the best.

What can we learn from the latest PISA results?

How will the use, and effectiveness, of technology change post-covid-19.

The PISA assessment was carried out in 2018 and published in December 2019. Since its publication, schools and students globally have been quite suddenly thrust into far greater reliance on technology. Use of online-learning websites and adaptive software has expanded dramatically. Khan Academy has experienced a 250 percent surge in traffic; smaller sites have seen traffic grow fivefold or more. Hundreds of thousands of teachers have been thrown into the deep end, learning to use new platforms, software, and systems. No one is arguing that the rapid cobbling together of remote learning under extreme time pressure represents best-practice use of education technology. Nonetheless, a vast experiment is underway, and innovations often emerge in times of crisis. At this point, it is unclear whether this represents the beginning of a new wave of more widespread and more effective technology use in the classroom or a temporary blip that will fade once students and teachers return to in-person instruction. It is possible that a combination of software improvements, teacher capability building, and student familiarity will fundamentally change the effectiveness of education technology in improving student outcomes. It is also possible that our findings will continue to hold true and technology in the classroom will continue to be a mixed blessing. It is therefore critical that ongoing research efforts track what is working and for whom and, just as important, what is not. These answers will inform the project of reimagining a better education for all students in the aftermath of COVID-19.

PISA data have their limitations. First, these data relate to high-school students, and findings may not be applicable in elementary schools or postsecondary institutions. Second, these are single-point observational data, not longitudinal experimental data, which means that any links between technology and results should be interpreted as correlation rather than causation. Third, the outcomes measured are math, science, and reading test results, so our analysis cannot assess important soft skills and nonacademic outcomes.

It is also worth noting that technology for learning has implications beyond direct student outcomes, both positive and negative. PISA cannot address these broader issues, and neither does this paper.

But PISA results, which we’ve broken down into five key findings, can still provide powerful insights. The assessment strives to measure the understanding and application of ideas, rather than the retention of facts derived from rote memorization, and the broad geographic coverage and sample size help elucidate the reality of what is happening on the ground.

Finding 1: The type of device matters

The evidence suggests that some devices have more impact than others on outcomes (Exhibit 1). Controlling for student socioeconomic status, school type, and location, 2 Specifically, we control for a composite indicator for economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) derived from questions about general wealth, home possessions, parental education, and parental occupation; for school type “Is your school a public or a private school” (SC013); and for school location (SC001) where the options are a village, hamlet or rural area (fewer than 3,000 people), a small town (3,000 to about 15,000 people), a town (15,000 to about 100,000 people), a city (100,000 to about 1,000,000 people), and a large city (with more than 1,000,000 people). the use of data projectors 3 A projector is any device that projects computer output, slides, or other information onto a screen in the classroom. and internet-connected computers in the classroom is correlated with nearly a grade-level-better performance on the PISA assessment (assuming approximately 40 PISA points to every grade level). 4 Students were specifically asked (IC009), “Are any of these devices available for you to use at school?,” with the choices being “Yes, and I use it,” “Yes, but I don’t use it,” and “No.” We compared the results for students who have access to and use each device with those who do not have access. The full text for each device in our chart was as follows: Data projector, eg, for slide presentations; Internet-connected school computers; Desktop computer; Interactive whiteboard, eg, SmartBoard; Portable laptop or notebook; and Tablet computer, eg, iPad, BlackBerry PlayBook.

On the other hand, students who use laptops and tablets in the classroom have worse results than those who do not. For laptops, the impact of technology varies by subject; students who use laptops score five points lower on the PISA math assessment, but the impact on science and reading scores is not statistically significant. For tablets, the picture is clearer—in every subject, students who use tablets in the classroom perform a half-grade level worse than those who do not.

Some technologies are more neutral. At the global level, there is no statistically significant difference between students who use desktop computers and interactive whiteboards in the classroom and those who do not.

Finding 2: Geography matters

Looking more closely at the reading results, which were the focus of the 2018 assessment, 5 PISA rotates between focusing on reading, science, and math. The 2018 assessment focused on reading. This means that the total testing time was two hours for each student, of which one hour was reading focused. we can see that the relationship between technology and outcomes varies widely by country and region (Exhibit 2). For example, in all regions except the United States (representing North America), 6 The United States is the only country that took the ICT Familiarity Questionnaire survey in North America; thus, we are comparing it as a country with the other regions. students who use laptops in the classroom score between five and 12 PISA points lower than students who do not use laptops. In the United States, students who use laptops score 17 PISA points higher than those who do not. It seems that US students and teachers are doing something different with their laptops than those in other regions. Perhaps this difference is related to learning curves that develop as teachers and students learn how to get the most out of devices. A proxy to assess this learning curve could be penetration—71 percent of US students claim to be using laptops in the classroom, compared with an average of 37 percent globally. 7 The rate of use excludes nulls. The United States measures higher than any other region in laptop use by students in the classroom. US = 71 percent, Asia = 40 percent, EU = 35 percent, Latin America = 31 percent, MENA = 21 percent, Non-EU Europe = 41 percent. We observe a similar pattern with interactive whiteboards in non-EU Europe. In every other region, interactive whiteboards seem to be hurting results, but in non-EU Europe they are associated with a lift of 21 PISA points, a total that represents a half-year of learning. In this case, however, penetration is not significantly higher than in other developed regions.

Finding 3: It matters whether technology is in the hands of teachers or students

The survey asks students whether the teacher, student, or both were using technology. Globally, the best results in reading occur when only the teacher is using the device, with some benefit in science when both teacher and students use digital devices (Exhibit 3). Exclusive use of the device by students is associated with significantly lower outcomes everywhere. The pattern is similar for science and math.

Again, the regional differences are instructive. Looking again at reading, we note that US students are getting significant lift (three-quarters of a year of learning) from either just teachers or teachers and students using devices, while students alone using a device score significantly lower (half a year of learning) than students who do not use devices at all. Exclusive use of devices by the teacher is associated with better outcomes in Europe too, though the size of the effect is smaller.

Finding 4: Intensity of use matters

PISA also asked students about intensity of use—how much time they spend on devices, 8 PISA rotates between focusing on reading, science, and math. The 2018 assessment focused on reading. This means that the total testing time was two hours for each student, of which one hour was reading focused. both in the classroom and for homework. The results are stark: students who either shun technology altogether or use it intensely are doing better, with those in the middle flailing (Exhibit 4).

The regional data show a dramatic picture. In the classroom, the optimal amount of time to spend on devices is either “none at all” or “greater than 60 minutes” per subject per week in every region and every subject (this is the amount of time associated with the highest student outcomes, controlling for student socioeconomic status, school type, and location). In no region is a moderate amount of time (1–30 minutes or 31–60 minutes) associated with higher student outcomes. There are important differences across subjects and regions. In math, the optimal amount of time is “none at all” in every region. 9 The United States is the only country that took the ICT Familiarity Questionnaire survey in North America; thus, we are comparing it as a country with the other regions. In reading and science, however, the optimal amount of time is greater than 60 minutes for some regions: Asia and the United States for reading, and the United States and non-EU Europe for science.

The pattern for using devices for homework is slightly less clear cut. Students in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and non-EU Europe score highest when they spend “no time at all” on devices for their homework, while students spending a moderate amount of time (1–60 minutes) score best in Latin America and the European Union. Finally, students in the United States who spend greater than 60 minutes are getting the best outcomes.

One interpretation of these data is that students need to get a certain familiarity with technology before they can really start using it to learn. Think of typing an essay, for example. When students who mostly write by hand set out to type an essay, their attention will be focused on the typing rather than the essay content. A competent touch typist, however, will get significant productivity gains by typing rather than handwriting.

Would you like to learn more about our Social Sector Practice ?

Finding 5: the school systems’ overall performance level matters.

Diving deeper into the reading outcomes, which were the focus of the 2018 assessment, we can see the magnitude of the impact of device use in the classroom. In Asia, Latin America, and Europe, students who spend any time on devices in their literacy and language arts classrooms perform about a half-grade level below those who spend none at all. In MENA, they perform more than a full grade level lower. In the United States, by contrast, more than an hour of device use in the classroom is associated with a lift of 17 PISA points, almost a half-year of learning improvement (Exhibit 5).

At the country level, we see that those who are on what we would call the “poor-to-fair” stage of the school-system journey 10 Michael Barber, Chinezi Chijoke, and Mona Mourshed, “ How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better ,” November 2010. have the worst relationships between technology use and outcomes. For every poor-to-fair system taking the survey, the amount of time on devices in the classroom associated with the highest student scores is zero minutes. Good and great systems are much more mixed. Students in some very highly performing systems (for example, Estonia and Chinese Taipei) perform highest with no device use, but students in other systems (for example, Japan, the United States, and Australia) are getting the best scores with over an hour of use per week in their literacy and language arts classrooms (Exhibit 6). These data suggest that multiple approaches are effective for good-to-great systems, but poor-to-fair systems—which are not well equipped to use devices in the classroom—may need to rethink whether technology is the best use of their resources.

What are the implications for students, teachers, and systems?

Looking across all these results, we can say that the relationship between technology and outcomes in classrooms today is mixed, with variation by device, how that device is used, and geography. Our data do not permit us to draw strong causal conclusions, but this section offers a few hypotheses, informed by existing literature and our own work with school systems, that could explain these results.

First, technology must be used correctly to be effective. Our experience in the field has taught us that it is not enough to “add technology” as if it were the missing, magic ingredient. The use of tech must start with learning goals, and software selection must be based on and integrated with the curriculum. Teachers need support to adapt lesson plans to optimize the use of technology, and teachers should be using the technology themselves or in partnership with students, rather than leaving students alone with devices. These lessons hold true regardless of geography. Another ICT survey question asked principals about schools’ capacity using digital devices. Globally, students performed better in schools where there were sufficient numbers of devices connected to fast internet service; where they had adequate software and online support platforms; and where teachers had the skills, professional development, and time to integrate digital devices in instruction. This was true even accounting for student socioeconomic status, school type, and location.

COVID-19 and student learning in the United States: The hurt could last a lifetime

Second, technology must be matched to the instructional environment and context. One of the most striking findings in the latest PISA assessment is the extent to which technology has had a different impact on student outcomes in different geographies. This corroborates the findings of our 2010 report, How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better . Those findings demonstrated that different sets of interventions were needed at different stages of the school-system reform journey, from poor-to-fair to good-to-great to excellent. In poor-to-fair systems, limited resources and teacher capabilities as well as poor infrastructure and internet bandwidth are likely to limit the benefits of student-based technology. Our previous work suggests that more prescriptive, teacher-based approaches and technologies (notably data projectors) are more likely to be effective in this context. For example, social enterprise Bridge International Academies equips teachers across several African countries with scripted lesson plans using e-readers. In general, these systems would likely be better off investing in teacher coaching than in a laptop per child. For administrators in good-to-great systems, the decision is harder, as technology has quite different impacts across different high-performing systems.

Third, technology involves a learning curve at both the system and student levels. It is no accident that the systems in which the use of education technology is more mature are getting more positive impact from tech in the classroom. The United States stands out as the country with the most mature set of education-technology products, and its scale enables companies to create software that is integrated with curricula. 11 Common Core State Standards sought to establish consistent educational standards across the United States. While these have not been adopted in all states, they cover enough states to provide continuity and consistency for software and curriculum developers. A similar effect also appears to operate at the student level; those who dabble in tech may be spending their time learning the tech rather than using the tech to learn. This learning curve needs to be built into technology-reform programs.

Taken together, these results suggest that systems that take a comprehensive, data-informed approach may achieve learning gains from thoughtful use of technology in the classroom. The best results come when significant effort is put into ensuring that devices and infrastructure are fit for purpose (fast enough internet service, for example), that software is effective and integrated with curricula, that teachers are trained and given time to rethink lesson plans integrating technology, that students have enough interaction with tech to use it effectively, and that technology strategy is cognizant of the system’s position on the school-system reform journey. Online learning and education technology are currently providing an invaluable service by enabling continued learning over the course of the pandemic; this does not mean that they should be accepted uncritically as students return to the classroom.

Jake Bryant is an associate partner in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office; Felipe Child is a partner in the Bogotá office; Emma Dorn is the global Education Practice manager in the Silicon Valley office; and Stephen Hall is an associate partner in the Dubai office.

The authors wish to thank Fernanda Alcala, Sujatha Duraikkannan, and Samuel Huang for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Safely back to school after coronavirus closures

How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better

HOW TECHNOLOGY IMPACTS STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN THE CLASSROOM

The integration of technology in classrooms has become increasingly prevalent, presenting both opportunities and challenges for educators. This study examines the impact of technology on student performance and behavior, particularly in seventh and eighth-grade classrooms. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the shift to online learning, raising concerns about learning loss and disparities in access to technology. Using a needs-based assessment survey, this research investigates teachers' perceptions of technology's effects on student engagement, academic achievement, and retention of curriculum content. The study explores the positive and negative implications of technology use, as well as non-technological strategies employed by teachers to support student learning. Findings reveal that while technology offers benefits such as student-centered education and immediate feedback, it also poses challenges such as distractions and decreased engagement. The study underscores the importance of understanding how technology impacts student learning and behavior and provides insights for developing effective intervention strategies. By considering the perspectives of educators, this research contributes to the ongoing dialogue on technology integration in education and informs evidence-based practices for promoting student success in technology-rich classrooms.

Degree Type

• Master of Science
• Educational Studies

Campus location

Advisor/supervisor/committee chair, advisor/supervisor/committee co-chair, additional committee member 2, usage metrics.

• Secondary education

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how 

With schools shut across the world, millions of children have had to adapt to new types of learning. Image:  REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Cathy Li

Farah lalani.

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Education, Gender and Work is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, education, gender and work.

• The COVID-19 has resulted in schools shut all across the world. Globally, over 1.2 billion children are out of the classroom.
• As a result, education has changed dramatically, with the distinctive rise of e-learning, whereby teaching is undertaken remotely and on digital platforms.
• Research suggests that online learning has been shown to increase retention of information, and take less time, meaning the changes coronavirus have caused might be here to stay.

While countries are at different points in their COVID-19 infection rates, worldwide there are currently more than 1.2 billion children in 186 countries affected by school closures due to the pandemic. In Denmark, children up to the age of 11 are returning to nurseries and schools after initially closing on 12 March , but in South Korea students are responding to roll calls from their teachers online .

With this sudden shift away from the classroom in many parts of the globe, some are wondering whether the adoption of online learning will continue to persist post-pandemic, and how such a shift would impact the worldwide education market.

Even before COVID-19, there was already high growth and adoption in education technology, with global edtech investments reaching US$18.66 billion in 2019 and the overall market for online education projected to reach $350 Billion by 2025 . Whether it is language apps , virtual tutoring , video conferencing tools, or online learning software , there has been a significant surge in usage since COVID-19.

How is the education sector responding to COVID-19?

In response to significant demand, many online learning platforms are offering free access to their services, including platforms like BYJU’S , a Bangalore-based educational technology and online tutoring firm founded in 2011, which is now the world’s most highly valued edtech company . Since announcing free live classes on its Think and Learn app, BYJU’s has seen a 200% increase in the number of new students using its product, according to Mrinal Mohit, the company's Chief Operating Officer.

Tencent classroom, meanwhile, has been used extensively since mid-February after the Chinese government instructed a quarter of a billion full-time students to resume their studies through online platforms. This resulted in the largest “online movement” in the history of education with approximately 730,000 , or 81% of K-12 students, attending classes via the Tencent K-12 Online School in Wuhan.

Have you read?

The future of jobs report 2023, how to follow the growth summit 2023.

Other companies are bolstering capabilities to provide a one-stop shop for teachers and students. For example, Lark, a Singapore-based collaboration suite initially developed by ByteDance as an internal tool to meet its own exponential growth, began offering teachers and students unlimited video conferencing time, auto-translation capabilities, real-time co-editing of project work, and smart calendar scheduling, amongst other features. To do so quickly and in a time of crisis, Lark ramped up its global server infrastructure and engineering capabilities to ensure reliable connectivity.

Alibaba’s distance learning solution, DingTalk, had to prepare for a similar influx: “To support large-scale remote work, the platform tapped Alibaba Cloud to deploy more than 100,000 new cloud servers in just two hours last month – setting a new record for rapid capacity expansion,” according to DingTalk CEO, Chen Hang.

Some school districts are forming unique partnerships, like the one between The Los Angeles Unified School District and PBS SoCal/KCET to offer local educational broadcasts, with separate channels focused on different ages, and a range of digital options. Media organizations such as the BBC are also powering virtual learning; Bitesize Daily , launched on 20 April, is offering 14 weeks of curriculum-based learning for kids across the UK with celebrities like Manchester City footballer Sergio Aguero teaching some of the content.

What does this mean for the future of learning?

While some believe that the unplanned and rapid move to online learning – with no training, insufficient bandwidth, and little preparation – will result in a poor user experience that is unconducive to sustained growth, others believe that a new hybrid model of education will emerge, with significant benefits. “I believe that the integration of information technology in education will be further accelerated and that online education will eventually become an integral component of school education,“ says Wang Tao, Vice President of Tencent Cloud and Vice President of Tencent Education.

There have already been successful transitions amongst many universities. For example, Zhejiang University managed to get more than 5,000 courses online just two weeks into the transition using “DingTalk ZJU”. The Imperial College London started offering a course on the science of coronavirus, which is now the most enrolled class launched in 2020 on Coursera .

Many are already touting the benefits: Dr Amjad, a Professor at The University of Jordan who has been using Lark to teach his students says, “It has changed the way of teaching. It enables me to reach out to my students more efficiently and effectively through chat groups, video meetings, voting and also document sharing, especially during this pandemic. My students also find it is easier to communicate on Lark. I will stick to Lark even after coronavirus, I believe traditional offline learning and e-learning can go hand by hand."

These 3 charts show the global growth in online learning

The challenges of online learning.

There are, however, challenges to overcome. Some students without reliable internet access and/or technology struggle to participate in digital learning; this gap is seen across countries and between income brackets within countries. For example, whilst 95% of students in Switzerland, Norway, and Austria have a computer to use for their schoolwork, only 34% in Indonesia do, according to OECD data .

In the US, there is a significant gap between those from privileged and disadvantaged backgrounds: whilst virtually all 15-year-olds from a privileged background said they had a computer to work on, nearly 25% of those from disadvantaged backgrounds did not. While some schools and governments have been providing digital equipment to students in need, such as in New South Wales , Australia, many are still concerned that the pandemic will widenthe digital divide .

Is learning online as effective?

For those who do have access to the right technology, there is evidence that learning online can be more effective in a number of ways. Some research shows that on average, students retain 25-60% more material when learning online compared to only 8-10% in a classroom. This is mostly due to the students being able to learn faster online; e-learning requires 40-60% less time to learn than in a traditional classroom setting because students can learn at their own pace, going back and re-reading, skipping, or accelerating through concepts as they choose.

Nevertheless, the effectiveness of online learning varies amongst age groups. The general consensus on children, especially younger ones, is that a structured environment is required , because kids are more easily distracted. To get the full benefit of online learning, there needs to be a concerted effort to provide this structure and go beyond replicating a physical class/lecture through video capabilities, instead, using a range of collaboration tools and engagement methods that promote “inclusion, personalization and intelligence”, according to Dowson Tong, Senior Executive Vice President of Tencent and President of its Cloud and Smart Industries Group.

Since studies have shown that children extensively use their senses to learn, making learning fun and effective through use of technology is crucial, according to BYJU's Mrinal Mohit. “Over a period, we have observed that clever integration of games has demonstrated higher engagement and increased motivation towards learning especially among younger students, making them truly fall in love with learning”, he says.

A changing education imperative

It is clear that this pandemic has utterly disrupted an education system that many assert was already losing its relevance . In his book, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century , scholar Yuval Noah Harari outlines how schools continue to focus on traditional academic skills and rote learning , rather than on skills such as critical thinking and adaptability, which will be more important for success in the future. Could the move to online learning be the catalyst to create a new, more effective method of educating students? While some worry that the hasty nature of the transition online may have hindered this goal, others plan to make e-learning part of their ‘new normal’ after experiencing the benefits first-hand.

The importance of disseminating knowledge is highlighted through COVID-19

Major world events are often an inflection point for rapid innovation – a clear example is the rise of e-commerce post-SARS . While we have yet to see whether this will apply to e-learning post-COVID-19, it is one of the few sectors where investment has not dried up . What has been made clear through this pandemic is the importance of disseminating knowledge across borders, companies, and all parts of society. If online learning technology can play a role here, it is incumbent upon all of us to explore its full potential.

Our education system is losing relevance. Here's how to unleash its potential

3 ways the coronavirus pandemic could reshape education, celebrities are helping the uk's schoolchildren learn during lockdown, don't miss any update on this topic.

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Health and Healthcare Systems .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Bird flu spread a ‘great concern’, plus other top health stories

Shyam Bishen

April 24, 2024

This Earth Day we consider the impact of climate change on human health

Shyam Bishen and Annika Green

April 22, 2024

Scientists have invented a method to break down 'forever chemicals' in our drinking water. Here’s how

Johnny Wood

April 17, 2024

Young people are becoming unhappier, a new report finds

Promoting healthy habit formation is key to improving public health. Here's why

Adrian Gore

April 15, 2024

What's 'biophilic design' and how can it benefit neurodivergent people?

Fatemeh Aminpour, Ilan Katz and Jennifer Skattebol

• News: IITE and partners in action

Modern technologies in inclusive education during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequities in access to educational opportunities of marginalized populations, especially people with disabilities. While many countries in the world have taken a number of measures to address these inequities through a range of open and distance learning (ODL) solutions, emerging evidence indicates that these solutions have rarely been inclusive of students with disabilities.

To support countries and other global initiatives to incorporate a strong disability inclusive perspective to COVID-19 response and recovery, the United Nations Partnership on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNPRPD) launched the Global Programme Supporting Disability Inclusive COVID-19 Response and Recovery at National Level. This global programme, entitled ‘Building Back Better for All’ , has enabled research investigations that leverage the experience of UN agencies, organizations of persons with disabilities and broader civil society. In 2021, IITE, the UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) and UNESCO Headquarters (HQs) joined forces to contribute to the successful implementation of this programme.

In January-June 2021, IITE and IIEP jointly undertook a research project aimed to increase national understanding of the range and reach of inclusive open and distance learning (ODL) solutions applied for students with disabilities in Rwanda and Mauritius and the barriers to their implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic, and inform upcoming national education COVID -19 recovery initiatives. To achieve the project’s tasks, IITE and IIEP conducted rapid assessments of the implementation of inclusive ODL solutions by inclusive, special schools, and resource centers in Rwanda and Mauritius to address the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on learning for students with disabilities, as well carried out a case study in Mauritius to collect and analyze best practices in this field.

Based on the findings of the conducted analysis, IITE and IIEP developed a Case Study ‘COVID 19, technology-based education and disability: The case of Mauritius. Emerging practices in inclusive digital learning for students with disabilities’ and the Analytical Report on ‘A rapid assessment of the development and implementation of inclusive open and distance learning solutions for students with disabilities served by inclusive, special schools and resource centres in Rwanda and Mauritius’.

On June 15 2021, IITE and IIEP organized an international webinar on ‘Technology-enabled inclusive education: Emerging practices from COVID-19 for learners with disabilities’ with the participation of 230  experts from 91 countries, represented all the continents of the world. The webinar allowed to present key research results and recommendations related to the implementation of technology-enabled ODL initiatives and to have an open discussion about lessons learned in order to explore ways to enhance future initiatives.

In June 2021, based on the gathered data from the rapid assessment and case study reports, IITE and the Division for Education 2030 Support and Coordination at UNESCO HQs prepared a Policy Brief on ‘Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on education of persons with disabilities: Challenges and opportunities of the distance education’ . The Policy Brief included conclusions and recommendations developed based on the findings of recent studies undertaken in the COVID-19 context in Africa (specifically, in Rwanda and Mauritius), Asia (Bangladesh) and South America (Colombia) regarding inclusive education for learners with disabilities.

The activities performed by IITE, IIEP and UNESCO Headquarters within the UNPRPD programme contribute to strengthening  global collaboration and creating an encouraging ecosystem for ongoing ODL and help  promoting  the idea of the development of a system–wide educational reform where multiple channels to diverse learning opportunities are recognized and learning beyond formal education is encouraged.

Webinar Report

Webinar video

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 25 January 2021

Online education in the post-COVID era

• Barbara B. Lockee 1  

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

138k Accesses

204 Citations

337 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

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

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

Looking back

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

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

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

Online learning and the pandemic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Barbara B. Lockee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara B. Lockee .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Published : 25 January 2021

Issue Date : January 2021

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

BMC Medical Education (2024)

Leveraging privacy profiles to empower users in the digital society

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

Automated Software Engineering (2024)

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

• Pamela Sheffler
• Cecilia S. Cheung

Social Psychology of Education (2024)

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

• Sunghee H. Tak

BMC Nursing (2023)

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

• Heini Utunen
• Corentin Piroux

Archives of Public Health (2023)

Quick links

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

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

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

ASEE Computers in Education Journal

ASEE's Computers in Education Journal

COVID-19 Technology Student Success Challenges : Influence of Tools and Strategies

COVID-19 brought rapid and substantial change to course formats as colleges and universities transitioned from on-campus to online instruction to mitigate the spread of the pandemic. While faculty and administrators sought solutions to maintain instructional quality and student success, students endeavored to adapt to the changes. This study investigated a) College of Technology students’ perceptions of their potential for success including initial reactions, adaptation, and perceptions of impacts to grades and learning; b) course features and tools preferred by Technology students; and c) factors that enabled Technology students’ course completion.

covid-19, technology, tools

Introduction

The declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic brought expansive changes to higher education including massive disruptions to students as they were forced to transition from on-campus to online classes ( Binkley & Amy, 2020 ; Brownlee, 2020 ). The move underscored the digital divide among students and society, especially in rural and low-wealth communities ( Brownlee, 2020 ) and worsened some of higher education’s biggest challenges, including funding, student mental health, and inclusion 3 . Faculty scrambled to deliver quality instruction, yet fewer than half had any prior experience with online course delivery 4 . This left them inadequately prepared to adjust teaching practices, transition content to the remote environment, and provide support and remediation to students 4 .

The purpose of this study was to investigate student success factors for technology students during the pandemic including, initial reactions, adaptations, and potential for learning. Course features valued by technology students were also studied with before and during pandemic opinions compared. The focus of the study was students enrolled in College of Technology courses in a large urban university. Programs for students enrolled include Biotechnology, Computer Information Systems, Digital Media, Engineering Technology (Computer, Mechanical, Power), Human Resource Development, Retailing and Consumer Science, and Supply Chain and Logistics Technology.

While numerous studies are emerging in the wake of COVID-19, a salient value of this work is its focus on technology students and the inclusion of their perceptions of impacts on grades and ability to learn content. The research questions that guided this work include:

How did technology students perceive their potential for success during COVID-19?

What course features or tools did technology students value during COVID-19?

What factors enabled technology students’ course completion?

Review of Literature and Background

Student perceptions of success potential.

In the early years of online education, Sharples, Taylor, and Vavoula (2005) and Winters (2006) expressed recognition that learning can be successfully mediated by technology. Now, years later as the pandemic forced extended use of technologies for learning, both positive and negative results ensued. While examining students’ experiences resulting from the abrupt transition to online courses in 2020, one study of 1300 students reported that more than 75 percent of students did not think they were getting a quality learning experience ( Marcus & The Hechinger Report, 2020 ). Another project stated that 67 percent of the surveyed students (14,000) said they did not find online classes as effective as in-person ones ( Marcus et al., 2020 ). Students reported being unimpressed by the caliber of education they were receiving 8 . Others, dissatisfied by their experience, sought tuition refunds ( Marcus et al., 2020 ) as classes were being taught almost entirely through recorded videos without live lectures or discussions, yielding experience that was not equivalent to what they would have received on campus 8 . While prior to the pandemic, students rated overall learning experiences as 4.47 on a five-point scale, in March 2020 at the start of campus shut-downs, student ratings dropped to 3.11 with an increase to 3.67 by May ( Wood, 2020 ).

Yet, while some students felt they were not learning nor being challenged ( West, 2020 ), student reactions were varied. At the onset of the transition to online courses, 24% reported feeling nervous. By May only 6% were nervous, and eventually 28% felt “okay” with remote instruction while 20% felt “resigned” to it ( Wood, 2020 ). These relatively low percentages for “okay” and “resigned” have implications for educators. Positive responses included that online learning provided opportunities to develop greater understanding of topics by reviewing available resources or recorded lectures, and that online learning gave students more freedom with their schedules ( Wood, 2020 ).

As part of the foundation for academic success, it is noted that students’ personal lives were in upheaval. Pandemic related influences included family responsibilities, especially balancing parental and family duties with schoolwork ( Acevedo, 2020 ; Cruse, Contreras-Mendez, & Holtzman, 2020 ; Douglas-Gabriel, 2020 ; Hirt, 2020 ; Malcom, 2020 ); financial hardships and stress due to job loss or wage reductions for self or family members ( Anderson, 2020 ; Field, 2020 ; Hirt, 2020 ; Redden, 2020 ); food insecurities ( Anderson, 2020 ; Cruse et al., 2020 ; Field, 2020 ; Hirt, 2020 ); housing concerns ( Cruse et al., 2020 ; Field, 2020 ; Haber, 2020 ; Hirt, 2020 ; Malcom, 2020 ; Redden, 2020 ); mental and physical health ( Redden, 2020 ); isolation ( Bevins, Bryant, Krishnan, & Law, 2020 ; Binkley, 2020 ; Koenig, 2020 ); and technology access ( Brownlee, 2020 ; Hirt, 2020 ).

Academic Continuity

For some students, the harsh realities related to pandemic induced changes meant reconsideration of academic goals and progression toward degrees. More than 13.3 million college students worried about factors related to their financial future including extreme economic uncertainty, rising student debt balances, and a deteriorating job market ( Dickler, 2020 ). Seventy percent of students believed the pandemic made it harder to get a job ( Dickler, 2020 ). Thus, economic instability and uncertainty forced many students to delay or discontinue their education as the only viable option in their struggle to care for families and cover costs associated with obtaining their degree ( Redden, 2020 ).

Common threads in both popular and education-focused literature about pandemic effects were the surge of interest in gap years where students engage in another activity for a year before college 23 , 24 , 25 , 10 , deferring enrollment 25 , 26 , 27 , and returning or staying at home to attend community college ( Field, 2020 ; Horn, 2020 ; Jaschik, 2020 ; Nadworny, 2020 ). While research indicated that students who delay enrollment, study part-time, or start at a community college are less likely to graduate from college than those who enroll in a four-year college immediately after high school and attend full-time 24 , necessity called for other student options. By April 2020, one in six high school senior students who planned to attend a 4-year college full-time in fall of 2020 no longer planned to do so 24 . Similarly, a National Society of High School Scholars survey, also in April 2020, reported that 32% of students said they wouldn’t go to college in fall of 2020 if classes were only online ( Roos, 2020 ), and a second April study reported that 26% of college students said they were unlikely to return to their current college or university for the fall ( Jaschik, 2020 ).

The option for students to choose community college rather than 4-year college enrollment included both high school students who decided to begin college at community college rather than a 4-year school as planned ( West, 2020 ) and college and university students opting to return home to study 25 , 24 . Surveyed parents, too, were dubious of paying full tuition rates for online-only education, with 52% wanting their high school seniors to now enroll in colleges close to home, 56% advocating with their student for a delayed start of January 2021, and 46% supporting attendance at lower cost schools, including community colleges, and then transferring later ( Jaschik, 2020 ). Indeed, 10% of seniors who planned to attend 4-year colleges made alternate plans with nearly half planning to enroll at community colleges ( West, 2020 ). Thus, COVID-19 was seen to have substantial impacts on the continuity of students’ academic progress as thousands reconsidered their college plans 24 .

Many of the results reported here were not the result of formal and rigorous clinical trials, but were results reported through mainstream media channels for established organizations. This is consistent with the nature of the sudden onset of the pandemic and subsequent reactive remediation for its impacts. Further, the survey results cited were addressed to large numbers of students enrolled in higher education, which attests to their usefulness as information sources. What is lacking is a focus on the technology education subset of higher education.

Course Features

Previous work by the research team revealed that technology students vary in their preferences and use for online instructional tools and course features ( Goodson, Miertschin, & Stewart, 2012 ; Goodson, Miertschin, & Stewart, 2015 ; Goodson, Miertschin, & Stewart, 2016 ; Miertschin, Goodson, & Stewart, 2013 ; Miertschin, Goodson, & Stewart, 2019 ; Miertschin, Stewart, & Goodson, 2017 ; Stewart, Goodson, & Miertschin, 2011 ; Stewart, Goodson, & Miertschin, 2012 ; Stewart, Goodson, Miertschin, & L, 2010 ; Stewart, Goodson, Miertschin, Norwood, & Ezell, 2013 ; Stewart, Hutchins, Ezell, Martino, & Bobba, 2010 ; Stewart, Miertschin, & Goodson, 2020 ). Other researchers also found variation in student preferences. Saeed, Yang, and Sinnappan Saeed, Yang, and Sinnappan (2009) focused their early study of student preferences for instructional strategies on students’ learning styles, especially in the use of emerging web technologies. Watson, Bishop, and Ferdinand-James 43 ranked course feature preferences as responsiveness to students, engagement with students, prompt feedback, communication among students and instructor, clear expectations, learning guidance, organized courses, meaningful coursework, offering synchronous sessions, and use various instructional methods. Mann and Henneberry Mann and Henneberry (2014) focused on student-content, student-instructor, and student-student preferences. Yu Yu (2020) found flexible schedules and instant access to be the best course features for students.

Through research during the pandemic, students expressed their reaction to the value of course features related to their transition to online instruction, and the features fell into two categories: technology-based and human-based. Students reacted strongly to the efforts of faculty to create online course delivery modes in as little as eight days ( Marcus et al., 2020 ), often with the assistance of commercial providers of education technology who offered products and services free or with steep discounts anticipating later sales ( Marcus et al., 2020 ). While most experienced the transition without advance preparation, Alqahtani and Rajkhan 46 , in research assessing critical success factors during the pandemic, reported that the readiness of faculty was highly critical. In some cases. Emergency financial aid was available from the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEEFR) of the CARES Act to enable universities to purchase new technologies including student laptops, hotspots, and other tech tools ( Brownlee, 2020 ). As a result, students said 69% of campus administrations and 78% of professors had been supportive during the pandemic ( Redden, 2020 ).

Technology-Based Course Features

On the technology side, students concluded that their forced experience with online learning meant that everyone needed to become more “tech savvy” ( Wood, 2020 ). Alqahtani and Rajkhan’s 46 study found the most influential factors for E-learning during COVID-19 to be technology management; support for technology; increased student awareness for use of E-learning systems; and demanding a high level of information technology use from instructors, students, and universities. Wood (2020) also reported that ninety-six percent of students used their desktop or laptop for coursework while only 14% worked using a mobile device. Courses relied heavily on video conferencing applications ( Wood, 2020 ). Tools noted as beneficial included Zoom for lectures and classroom interactions through breakout rooms and Google Docs & Google Slides for collaboration ( Wood, 2020 ). Students felt that video chats were, or felt like, more work than in person discussions, and that these modes of communication without the social cues available in face-to-face interactions were problematic ( Haber, 2020 ). Zoom fatigue was real ( Klein, 2020 ). Interestingly, in some cases, the use of video communications provided an unsettling glimpse of the personal lives of individuals as sessions captured home environments ( Haber, 2020 ).

Yet, course designs were also reported to mitigate some of the negative aspects of technology-based instruction and accentuate the positives. Students expressed that technology added personal touches via online chat groups and virtual office hours ( Gordon, 2020 ). Online material could be produced and delivered in shorter segments of 10 to 15 minutes to retain student attention ( Gordon, 2020 ) and online formats offered flexibility for personal time management ( Wood, 2020 ).

These experiences coincide with pre-pandemic student perceptions. Course design was previously found to be important by Reisetter and Boris Reisetter and Boris (2004) who reported that poor course design causes student frustrations that can lead to poor learning outcomes. Nath and Ralston-Berg Ralston-Berg and Nath (2008) also found that students placed high value on well-organized courses. Additionally, Young and Norgard Young and Norgard (2006) expressed that students preferred consistent design across courses. This was not possible in the quick transition of courses to online formats.

Human-Based Course Features

On the human side, students wanted to be seen as individual people and not just as those reacting to learning strategies ( Wood, 2020 ). They expressed appreciation for faculty who communicated with them, and who offered both structure and flexibility ( Wood, 2020 ). They valued faculty who provided high quality education and engaged students with the material, even if issues occurred ( Wood, 2020 ). They experienced frustration, lack of motivation due to changing academic and personal schedules, and anxiety about missing deadlines ( Wood, 2020 ). Further, they missed in-person interactions ( Wood, 2020 ).

In offering advice to professors and mentors, students mentioned multiple things they wanted known. These related to difficulty focusing, unstable mental health, lack of designated study areas and uninterrupted study time, computer exhaustion, the disruption of the move to online, stress and anxiety, family challenges, and generally how hard online learning was ( Harris, 2020 ). These desires are consistent with the research findings of Kimble-Hill et al. Kimble-Hill et al. (2020) that found students had to overcome hurdles of technology access, environmental disruptions, and cultural pressures. They wanted empathy, understanding of the abnormal situation, advice about future academic goals, less emphasis on exams and more on course material, motivation and guidance, creation of a strong and collective atmosphere of participation, patience and understanding, lighter workload, and value for the individual ( Harris, 2020 ). They recommended that peer mentors ( Field, 2020 ; Hirt, 2020 ), advisers, and professors offer emotional support and cheer for their success ( Wood, 2020 ).

Services and Factors Impacting Student Success

Beyond the instructional course features and tools implemented by faculty, academic institutions invested heavily in time and resources to support students. Pre-pandemic, foundation for the value of support services for student success was codified in several quality frameworks. Indicators within these frameworks for quality programs included the “student support dimension” of Jung (2012) , Quality Matters’ “learner support” ( MarylandOnline, Inc, 2008 ), and Institute for Higher Education Policy’s “student support” benchmark ( Phipps & Merisotis, 2000 ), During the pandemic, 69% of students reported that campus administrators had been supportive ( Redden, 2020 ). Programs developed, enhanced, and extended included technology support, for example laptop and Wi-Fi access ( Brownlee, 2020 ; Field, 2020 ; Horn, 2020 ; Marcus et al., 2020 ; Nadworny, 2020 ; Redden, 2020 ); financial assistance including scholarships ( Brownlee, 2020 ), grants and financial aid ( Amour, 2020 ; Douglas-Gabriel, 2020 ; Hirt, 2020 ; Redden, 2020 ), elimination of account balances ( Redden, 2020 ), free summer classes ( Field, 2020 ; Redden, 2020 ), reduced payment plans ( Redden, 2020 ), and extending job resources to family members ( Anderson, 2020 ); food assistance including food banks and pantries ( Douglas-Gabriel, 2020 ; Field, 2020 ), gift cards for groceries 18 , and food delivery services ( Anderson, 2020 ); housing and study space programs ( Field, 2020 ; Sperance, 2020 ); and counseling and advising services including social services advising and referrals ( Douglas-Gabriel, 2020 ), mental health counseling ( Anderson, 2020 ; Kyaw, 2020 ), mentoring programs ( Field, 2020 ; Hirt, 2020 ; Lauterborn, 2020 ), academic advising ( Whitmire, 2020 ), telehealth ( Anderson, 2020 ), and increased communications ( Field, 2020 ; Whitmire, 2020 ).

Methodology

The research questions that guided this work about COVID-19 impacts on learning for technology students include:

Survey methodology was selected for this study. Questionnaires were distributed to 925 technology students enrolled in a Carnegie-designated research university in the United States. The doctoral-granting university, located in a large urban setting, serves 47,000 undergraduate and graduate students, and has one of the most diverse student populations in the U.S. Students enrolled in classes in the College of Technology were selected for this study and almost all were majors in a technology degree program. The survey feature of the Blackboard educational platform was used for students to access and respond to the survey. Blackboard was the platform used by the university and, by the time the survey was administered, all courses had transitioned to online formats.

The questionnaire was designed by the research team and included some items that were adapted from previous research instruments developed and used by the team to investigate student perceptions of course tools and features. (See Appendix A for the full survey.) Items 1 through 12 related to student background included classification, number of previously completed online courses, normal course format, age, GPA, employment status, gender, major, video conferencing tool used in courses, video conferencing tool preferred, number of courses enrolled in spring 2020, and number of classes originally in face-to-face or hybrid formats for spring 2020.

Specific to this investigation, students were then asked in items 13 through 16 to rate the following:

First reactions to the decision to complete the semester with all online classes

How well they were able to adapt to a semester in a total online format

How they believed the change to a total online format affected their overall semester grades

How they believed the change to a total online format affected their overall learning of content.

Then followed items 17 through 27 asking students to indicate their preference for the use of specific course features. A scale of 1 (no use) to 9 (high use) was used for responses. For items 29 and 30 which were questions asking students to indicate how important a course feature was to their success in a class, a scale of 1 (not important) to 9 (very important) was used.

The questionnaire’s item 31 recorded impacts of the pandemic students had experienced including job loss, income decrease, anxiety, difficulty studying at home, contraction of COVID-19, increased job workload, and other or none. The concluding item 32 was an open-ended question asking for comments on factors that enabled successful course completion after the transition to an online format.

For analysis, the survey data from 511 technology student participants were extracted from Blackboard. To complete the survey, students logged into the online learning management system that housed course materials and other course elements for their enrolled courses. Completion of the survey was voluntary, and all responses were anonymous. Using this system, responses were downloaded for analysis into a spreadsheet, with each response record identified by a number assigned to the response record by the learning management system’s assessment module. Survey response rate was 55%. Descriptive measures were computed and tables and graphs were created to present the data. These were used to examine and analyze the data for meaning. The open-ended responses were coded and analyzed using the standard text analysis method of keyword extraction followed by tabulation.

Demographics

As background to interpretation of the findings of this study, Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the survey participants.

Student participants were predominately under 30 years of age (93%), Just over half (56%) were male and just under half (44%) were female. More students worked part-time (44%) than full-time (24%); 57% reported a GPA of 3.0 or higher; and 73% were junior or higher classification.

Research Question 1

Data related to research question #1 “How did technology students perceive their potential for success during COVID-19?” included attributes related to initial reaction, adaptation, expected impact on semester grades, and anticipation of content learning. Extended investigation of relationships between demographic variables (classification, normal course format, age, and GPA) and expected grades and learning is also reported to enhance understanding.

Reaction to Class Format Change

While many students (41%) were indifferent to the change, 25% showed varying levels of concern and 33% showed levels of relief. From this data it is not possible to infer the reasons for student concern nor relief, but the data does show that 74% of students were either indifferent or relieved by the move to totally online course formats. It is possible that the technology base of the students may have been an influence on their reaction to class format change. In contrast, the 25% of students who expressed concerns provides reason for educators to take notice (see Figure 1 ).

Adaptation to Change to Total Online

Student perceptions of adaptation to the change to online course formats indicated both agility in adapting and concerns with 41% of students reporting that they were adapting well, 20% not adapting well, and 39% noting no difference (see Figure 2 ). Again, while 80% of students were either adapting well or noting no difference, the 20% of students who were not adapting well is of concern.

Grade Impact

In addition to overall adaptation, technology student responses showed that while a range of perceptions existed, a substantial 60% of students who rated the effect of the change on their semester grades indicated they were not overly concerned about the effect the change had on their grades (see Figure 3 ). Of particular interest is the finding that 23% of the students expressed their perception that the change to online formats would result in higher semester grades.

Learning Impact

Additionally, students were given the opportunity to record how they felt the change to a total online format affected their overall learning of course content. While 56% of technology students selected a score between “learned much less” and “learned much more”, 30% of the technology students indicated varying levels of less learning (see Figure 4 ). Since the goal of courses and instruction is to facilitate student learning, the 30% of students whose responses indicated that they learned less is noteworthy. Another factor to consider is how well the applied content and hands-on learning and laboratory activities of technology courses transferred to the online environment.

To further understand technology student perceptions of impacts on grades and learning, analysis was extended to investigation of relationships between demographic variables (classification, normal course format, age, and GPA) and expected grades and learning (see Table 2 ).

Extended Analysis: Variable Effects on Semester Grades

Students’ classification, normal course format, age, and GPA were considered in relation to students’ grade impact responses. In general, class standing, or classification did not seem to show any strong relationship to students’ perception of effect on semester grades. For normal course format, it was not surprising that students who had historically taken most of their courses online expected no change in grades. Yet, 31% of students who usually took about half of their courses online anticipated higher grades. This was higher than the 20% of students who anticipated higher grades, but had taken most of their courses in either format. GPA showed an interesting result in that students at the opposite ends of the GPA continuum (less than 2.0 and 3.5 to 4.0) both had higher levels of expectation of “no change” in semester grades (78% and 73% respectively). Additionally, age did not appear to be highly influential in grade perception, with the exception that students aged 30-32 years appeared less inclined to expect higher grades as a result of the pandemic changes than their peers. The results are shown in Table 2 .

Extended Analysis: Variable Effects on Learning

Similarly, deeper understanding was sought by analyzing students’ perceptions of the influence of the transition to online course formats on their learning of course content in relation to classification, normal course format, GPA, age, and number of hybrids. While it is good to note that about 55% of the students expected “no change” in their learning of course content, it is also alarming that about 30% anticipated lower levels of learning. This split was fairly consistent across classifications. Not surprising is the finding that the percentage of students expecting to learn less is highest for students who typically enroll in traditional face-to-face classes (35% compared to 26% for mixed and 12% for online formats). Most notable of the age-related findings with regard to learning is that students aged 30-32 years showed more concern that they would learn less in the new online formats than other age groups. It is interesting that students with less than a 2.0 GPA were more likely to think they would learn more in online courses than their peers. The results are in Table 3 .

Research Question 2

Findings related to research question #2 “What course features or tools did technology students value during COVID-19?” were designed to provide input for course improvement. Student success during the pandemic-driven transition to online courses was possibly related to the course tools applied. Data was collected to ascertain which tools and course features students valued. Calculated mean scores for 11 course tools or features indicated that most students preferred course materials (e.g. slides, examples, etc.) that were developed by the instructor. The least valued tools were student online presentations and lectures with clickers. Table 4 shows the technology students’ summary response values (mean and standard deviation) for eleven course tools or features derived from individual responses about each tool ranging from “No Use”, which corresponded to a score of 1, to “High Use”, which corresponding to a score of 9. The eleven course tools or features were instructor course materials, asynchronous instructor videos, e-text content, asynchronous discussion boards, non instructor created videos, computer simulations, online collaborative assignments, online synchronous discussions, computer games, student online presentations, and lectures with clickers. Results are in Table 4 , presented in order from the highest mean score to lowest.

Student Perception of Learning and Value for Course Tools and Features

To further investigate possible interplay between students’ anticipated learning and value for course tools and features, cross-tabulations were conducted with results for course tools shown in Table 5 .

To understand what the cross tabulated data shows, compare the following summary statements about the course element perceived overall to be most useful (instructor-authored content) versus the course element perceived overall to be the least useful (lectures with clickers).

Of the students who found instructor-authored content not useful, 73% of them expected to learn about the same (64%) or more (9%). 27% of them expected to learn less.

Of the students who found instructor-authored content somewhat useful, 69% of them expected to learn about the same (55%) or more (14%). 31% of them expected to learn less.

Of the students who found instructor-authored content very useful, 70% of them expected to learn about the same (56%) or more (14%). 29% of them expected to learn less.

Of the students who found lectures with clickers not useful, 63% of them expected to learn about the same (53%) or more (10%). 36% of them expected to learn less.

Of the students who found lectures with clickers somewhat useful, 76% of them expected to learn about the same (62%) or more (14%). 25% of them expected to learn less.

Of the students who found lectures with clickers very useful, 74% of them expected to learn about the same (50%) or more (24%). 26% of them expected to learn less.

Thus, when focusing on the tool, not much impact on the tendency to believe learning will increase, decrease, or stay the same is perceptible. However, if focus is placed on the rightmost column, representing students who believe they will learn more, the percent who believe they will learn more increases as the perception of the usefulness of the tool increases. It appears to the authors that students who tend to believe they will learn more, more readily see the usefulness of tools, in general, to aid them.

Results for course features (which were relationship or human interaction based) cross-tabulated with learning perception are presented in Table 6 .

From these results, it is interesting to note that those students who less preferred prompt e-mail responses also perceived learning less (67%). Another category, assignment grades returned within one week, also experienced a similar type of result. It is possible that those students who used the feature less also expected to learn less (see Table 6 ).

Research Question 3

For analysis of research question 3, “What factors enabled technology students’ course completion?”, it is first useful to consider the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on student’s lives. Figure 5 shows the percent of students who experienced each of multiple impacts they were asked about by the survey. Table 7 shows summary statistics for the number of impacts suffered by individual students. Noteworthy is the critical nature of the impacts and the number of impacts affecting students’ lives. More than 40% of students experienced household income decreases, anxiety, or increased difficulty in study from home Fewer than 40% of students experienced increased job workload or hours, job loss, or other. Substantially fewer experienced no impacts or a household member having contracted COVID-19. The summary statistics for number of impacts indicate that, on average, students experienced multiple impacts, with the median number of impacts being 3.

Factors to Enable Success

Finally, to illuminate opportunities for faculty and administrators to create improved learning environments for students, they were asked, in an open ended inquiry, to comment briefly on factors that enabled them to successfully complete courses after the transition to online formats. These comments were in addition to the data gathered about course tools and features and already discussed. Most commonly mentioned items were communication and understanding from the instructor, flexible due dates, and support from a partner or advisor (see Table 8 ). Recommendations from the students for improvements included increased training for faculty in online delivery and more online resources.

Discussion and Conclusions

The massive transition from on-campus to online course formats, forced by mandated school facility closures, radically changed educational practice both in the short-term during spring of 2020 and, likely, more permanently. Short-term, the exodus from physical campuses meant that both students and faculties accelerated their experiences with online instruction. While some faculty members and students were well-versed and experienced with online learning, others had to rapidly adapt. Long-term, the expectation was that as campuses re-opened, in-class instruction would again be available. Yet, both students and instructors learned to use new computer-based learning tools. Their skills and capabilities grew. Many tried online formats and liked them. This leaves a legacy where both technology students and instructors of technology can build upon newly acquired computer-centric skills and tools to engender continued student learning. While eventually a productive balance will ensue between courses taught on-campus and online, it is likely that even on-campus courses will apply increased levels of computer-based techniques to enhance face-to-face instruction. The application of computer grounded tools and techniques learned during COVID-19 will have lasting impacts on technology education.

This study explored students’ perceptions of their potential for success during COVID-19 (research question #1) and provided evidence that initial reaction, adaptation, impact on semester grades, and anticipation of content learning were factors. In general, students showed indifference to the change (41%), concern (25%), and relief (33%); adaptability (41%); and little effect on grades (60%) and learning (56%). While these findings are worthwhile, more important are applications for future online course development to address student concerns that they would learn less with online instruction (30%). This critical study finding has implications for course design as well as computer-based tool selection and use.

Regarding the course features and tools valued by students during COVID-19 (research question #2), greatest value was expressed for instructor created course materials, asynchronous lectures captured as videos, and e-text content. Least value was shown for student online presentations, synchronous online discussions, and online collaboration. This appreciation for instructor-created course materials, including asynchronous video lectures, as well as e-texts indicates that students seek solid content sources and instructor input in their learning tools.

From analysis related to inquiry of question #3 “What factors enabled technology students’ course completion?”, this research revealed that students had multiple (mean 2.7) personal impacts from COVID-19 including increased difficulty studying from home, anxiety, decreased income, job loss, increased workload, and contraction of COVID-19. Even while attempting to master new technologies themselves, instructors were dealing with students experiencing multiple personal challenges. This finding has substantial implications for recognition that technology faculty have added responsibility to recognize the personal needs of students as they impact learning capabilities. This can be assisted by incorporating the factors given by students to enable course completion including instructor communication and understanding, flexible due dates, and support from others. Hence, these finding can inform faculty approaches to effective course delivery and student interactions.

In summary, the findings of this study both collaborate and provides contrast to the existing literature on student adaptation. In contrast, Marcus et al. (2020) reported that students did not find online classes as effective as in-person ones and Binkley 8 found students to be unimpressed by the caliber of education they were receiving. Yet, in this study, students (70%) reported moderate and even higher levels of learning online. In collaboration, this study mirrors concerns for the upheaval caused by COVID-19 to students’ personal lives. Acevedo (2020) , Anderson (2020) , Bevins et al. (2020) , 8 , Brownlee (2020) , Cruse et al. (2020) , Douglas-Gabriel (2020) , 18 , Haber (2020) , Hirt (2020) , Koenig (2020) , Malcom (2020) , Redden (2020) , and this study all reported on pandemic related influences that created challenges and turmoil for students. Additionally, the findings of this study offer solution input to concerns for academic persistence expressed by 24 , Roos (2020) , and 27 .

Importantly, this study also offers student reactions to course features, both technology-based and human-based, extending the research work of Alqahtani and Rajkhan (2020) ; Jeffery and Bauer (2020) ; Kimble-Hill et al. (2020) , Ralston-Berg et al. (2008) , Reisetter et al. (2004) , and Young et al. (2006) . These perceived impacts of transition to online instruction collaborate and respond to the opinions of Field (2020) ; Gordon (2020) , Haber (2020) , Harris (2020) , Hirt (2020) Klein (2020) , and Wood (2020) . Finally, the results shared herein reinforce and offer avenues for extended investigation for multiple types of support ( Amour, 2020 ; Brownlee, 2020 ; Douglas-Gabriel, 2020 ; Field, 2020 ; Hirt, 2020 ; Horn, 2020 ; Lauterborn, 2020 ; Marcus et al., 2020 ; Nadworny, 2020 ; Redden, 2020 ; Sperance, 2020 ; Whitmire, 2020 ).

While this study offered student perceptions of tools and course features that can now be applied to the enhancement of both on-campus and online course design and delivery in the wake of the pandemic, the authors recognize study limitations that should be noted. First, the survey population included only students enrolled in College of Technology courses and, thereby, has limited generalizability to a broader student audience. Similarly, the non-random sampling techniques, self-selection of students who responded, general response rate (55%), and single study institution, while within respected parameters of acceptance, present limitations to generalization and require readers to evaluate, as with any study, the merits of the results for their own use.

In sum, COVID-19 forced rapid expansion of online learning formats. Faculty and students exhibited agility and flexibility in coping. This study offers insight into technology students’ perceptions of their potential for success, including reactions to class format change, adaptation to totally online instruction, and impact on grades and learning. It highlights student values for specific course features and tools, and shares factors that enabled students’ course completion. These are offered as background and reference to aid in the perpetual drive of ASEE members and others to create effective learning environments for students.

Impact of COVID-19 on Education: Virtual Class Experience

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Apply  to be a D-Lab Data Science Fellow!  Applications are due May 5.

The Surprising Role of Digital Technology During the Covid-19 Pandemic

Many of us were already using our phones for the majority of our waking hours, but during the current shelter-in-place-measures, digital technology has become more important than ever.

Now that we are unable to engage in face-to-face contact, remote communication through our personal digital devices, such as our smartphones, is essential for staying connected with friends, family and co-workers.

I would like to highlight three other ways that our digital devices could have a tremendous influence during this pandemic, but also discuss the challenges and the important role of data science herein.

1. Mental health apps might help to decrease anxiety and stress

The widespread media coverage on COVID-19, combined with social distancing measures, can make us feel anxious and stressed. There are smartphone apps backed up by research that can help people to cope with this difficult time. Therefore, it is critical that we take advantage of the digital tools at our disposal.

Multiple meditation and wellness apps designed by the private sector have now opened up free memberships to aid in easing anxiety. One example is Headspace, which has recently provided a collection of meditation and mindfulness content, specifically for COVID-19. You can find some more examples here

One caveat of these health and wellness apps is that many people download them, but most use them only for a short period of time. This may be because many apps are not personalized and engaging enough, leading to their users quickly losing interest. We may be able to use data science to improve these apps. For example, machine learning algorithms can deploy user data to create recommendation engines that predict user behavior and optimize the content of these apps. This is a great challenge in mobile health that needs significant work, but has tremendous potential. 

2. Apps can allow us to track COVID-19 symptoms and other measures of health

Multiple governments, universities and companies have ferociously been working on apps that allow people to track their COVID-19 symptoms and other health information, and receive updates on who in their surroundings has contracted the virus. For example a COVID symptom tracker has already been downloaded by 75,000 people in the UK, and was made available in the US recently. This will eventually give researchers a gigantic dataset, to assess why COVID-19 symptoms vary so widely across people, and potentially identify where outbreaks are starting. Further, scientists at the University of Oxford have rolled out an app that allows people to trace who they have been in contact with, and warns people if any of their contacts has been tested positive for the corona virus so that they can decide to self-isolate.

Because smartphones save information about a user's location through their GPS history, many have argued that the widespread use of smartphones provides a unique opportunity for more effective contact tracing. In the U.S., the government is discussing the possibility of using GPS and movement data from Americans’ smartphones with the help of big tech companies to combat the coronavirus. 

However, the use of these apps is not without significant risks: critics say that this could lead to increased government surveillance even after the pandemic is over, at the cost of the public’s privacy. Ideally, this data should be encrypted and not be shared with third parties, but questions have been raised by privacy experts on how governments save and use this data. Thus, there is an important need for dialogue about the ethics of contact tracing by smartphones, and there is a crucial role for cybersecurity experts to weigh-in during this pandemic. Finally, for these apps to be effective in the first place, enough people need to use them. 

3. Mobile apps could help to distribute reliable information

Recently, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS; the publicly funded healthcare system) started  working with tech companies to provide the public with accurate information about COVID-19. Further, Singapore has been utilizing websites and social messaging platforms on a daily basis to keep the population informed and advised about what to do to reduce the risk of infection. Similarly, doctors and health institutions could make use of social media and text-messaging to provide accurate information to their patients and the public.

However, social media platforms are notorious for spreading misinformation and ‘fake news’. Large social media platforms are reportedly taking steps to remove false content or conspiracy theories about the pandemic using artificial intelligence, and distribute reliable information, such as developed by the World Health Organization. However, because of the overload of information on social media, that misinformation might spread too fast for these algorithms. After all, false news may spread more rapidly than factual information on social media platforms. 

In conclusion, our personal digital devices, combined with rigorous data science, are of crucial importance during this COVID-19 pandemic. Though potentially revolutionary, the way that digital technology can be used during this pandemic also comes with many challenges and risks. Thus, we must be critical and think about how we can ensure that this technology will truly benefit our society in this time of crisis.

Digital inequality in education: Features of manifestation and types of discrimination during COVID-19 pandemic

• Published: 19 April 2024

Cite this article

• Adrian Mikhailov 1 ,
• Alexey Tikhonov 1 &
• Vladimir Fedulov 1  

84 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The article is devoted to the analysis of the features of the manifestation of digital inequality in education during COVID-19 pandemic. It analyzes the definitions, levels and criteria for assessing the digital divide. We consider current examples of digital divide in education at the following levels: divide in access to information technology (IT), divide in the degree of IT possession, divide in the ability to refuse the use of IT. According to these levels, possible types of discrimination against students and teachers are presented. These types include established features and new features resulting from the pandemic, in particular, discrimination based on the possession of a certificate of vaccination against a new coronavirus infection. In addition, the identified signs of discrimination are widely manifested even after the normalization of the epidemiological situation in the world. It is noted that the lack of proper anti-discrimination impact in education can lead to global negative consequences, including a decrease in the competitiveness of national economies, as well as a decline in the overall level of culture and morality.

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

Access this article

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

The Challenge of Digital Education and Equality in Taiwan

The Impact of Digital Divide on Education in USA Amid COVID-19 Pandemic

Social Inequality, Technological Inequality and Educational Heterogeneity in the Light of the Conectar Igualdad OLPC Programme (Salta, Argentina, 2015–2017)

Data availability.

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Andersen, N. (1989). Media Works . Oxford University Press.

Bachmair, B. (1997). Cosa Fa TV ai bambini? Edutrice Elle Di Ci . Leumann.

Barron, B., Martin, C., & Takeuchi, L. (2009). Parents as learning partners in the development of technological fluency. International Journal of Learning and Media , 1 (2), 55–77.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bradaric, B. D., & Tresselt, D. B. (2023). Factors influencing undergraduate education in an expanding virtual world during COVID-19. Education and Information Technologies , 27 (9), 11991–12002.

Cheshmehzangi, A., Zou, T., Su, Z., & Tang, T. (2023). The growing digital divide in education among primary and secondary children during the COVID-19 pandemic: An overview of social exclusion and education equality issues. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment , 33 (3), 434–449.

Chomsky, N. (2014). Sistemy vlasti (Power systems, in Russian). Moscow: Azbuka-Attikus.

Correa, T. (2010). The participation divide among ‘online experts’: Experience, skills and psychological factors as predictors of college students’ web content creation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 3 , 71–92.

DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’to ‘digital inequality’: Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Princeton: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, 4 (1), 4 – 2. Retrieved from https://culturalpolicy.princeton.edu/sites/culturalpolicy/files/wp15_dimaggio_hargittai.pdf .

Duncan, B., D’Ippolito, J., MacPhereson, C., & Wilson, C. (1996). Mass Media and Popular Culture, Version 2 . Harcourt Brace.

Golden, A. R., Srisarajivakul, E. N., Hasselle, A. J., Pfund, R. A., & Knox, J. (2023). What was a gap is now a chasm: Remote schooling, the digital divide, and educational inequities resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Opinion in Psychology , 52 .

Gonzales, A. L., Calarco, J. M., & Lynch, T. (2020). Technology problems and student achievement gaps: A validation and extension of the technology maintenance construct. Communication Research , 47 (5), 750–770.

Guillén, M. F., & Suárez, S. L. (2005). Explaining the global digital divide: Economic, political and sociological drivers of cross-national internet use. Social Forces , 84 (2), 681–708.

Hilbert, M. (2016). The bad news is that the digital access divide is here to stay: Domestically installed bandwidths among 172 countries for 1986–2014. Telecommunications Policy , 40 (6), 567–581.

Hindman, D. B. (2000). The rural-urban digital divide. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 77 (3), 549–560.

Hovhannisyan, H. (2015). Meta-argumentation as an Argumentation Metatheory. Metaphilosophy , 46 (3), 479–487.

Hsieh, J. P. A., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2008). Understanding digital inequality: Comparing continued use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Quarterly , 3 , 97–126.

Katz, V. S., Jordan, A. B., & Ognyanova, K. (2021). Digital inequality, faculty communication, and remote learning experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of US undergraduates. Plos one, 16 (2), e0246641. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246641#pone.0246641.ref005 .

Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Holme, J. J., & Nao, K. (2017). Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing . MIT Press.

Masterman, L. A. (1997). Rational for Media Education. Media literacy in the information age: Current perspectives . Transaction.

Mikhailov, A., Tikhonov, A., & Margarov, G. (2022). The value potential of an engineer in a hightech environment and digitalization of the economy. Wisdom , 1 (21).

Niesyto, H., Rath, M., & Sowa, H. (2006). Medienkritik heute. Grundlagen, Beispiele Und Praxisfelder . Kopaed-.

OECD (2020). Learning remotely when schools close: How well are students and schools prepared? Insights from PISA . Retrieved from https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=127_127063-iiwm328658&title=Learning-remotely-when-schools-close

Platon (2021). Gosudarstvo (Republic, in Russian). Moscow: AST.

Robinson, J. P., DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2003). New social survey perspectives on the digital divide. It & Society , 1 (5), 1–22.

Google Scholar  

Rousseau, J. J. (1969). Rassuzhdeniye o proiskhozhdenii i osnovaniyakh neravenstva mezhdu lyud’mi (Reasoning about the origin and basis of inequality between people, in Russian). Moscow: Science.

Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society , 6 (3), 341–362.

Teachertaskforce.org (2020). International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030, COVID-19: A global Crisis for Teaching and Learning . Retrieved from https://teachertaskforce.org/knowledge-hub/COVID-19-global-crisis-teaching-and-learning .

UNESCO (2020). Education Sector Issue Note 2.2 . Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373338/PDF/373338eng.pdf.multi .

Van De Werfhorst, H. G., Kessenich, E., & Geven, S. (2022). The digital divide in online education: Inequality in digital readiness of students and schools. Computers and Education Open , 3 , 100100.

Van Deursen, A. J., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society , 16 (3), 507–526.

Vygotsky, L. S. (2023). Questions of child psychology . Yurayt.

Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education , 34 (1), 179–225.

Yu, R. P., Ellison, N. B., McCammon, R. J., & Langa, K. M. (2016). Mapping the two levels of digital divide: Internet access and social network site adoption among older adults in the USA. Information Communication & Society , 19 (10), 1445–1464.

Yuen, A. H., Park, J., Chen, L., & Cheng, M. (2018). The significance of cultural capital and parental mediation for digital inequity. New Media & Society , 20 (2), 599–617.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power: B. Obama’s books of 2019. Profile books . Public Affairs.

Download references

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University, 125993 Volokolamskoe Highway 4, Moscow, Russian Federation

Adrian Mikhailov, Alexey Tikhonov & Vladimir Fedulov

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to the manuscript and read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexey Tikhonov .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mikhailov, A., Tikhonov, A. & Fedulov, V. Digital inequality in education: Features of manifestation and types of discrimination during COVID-19 pandemic. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12640-z

Download citation

Received : 05 July 2023

Accepted : 21 March 2024

Published : 19 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12640-z

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

• Digital divide
• Discrimination
• Information and communication technologies
• COVID-19 pandemic
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Role of technology in COVID-19 pandemic

Novel Corona Virus is the most recent pandemic, which has struck more than 210 countries and territories all over the world placing states in a perilous position. Enormous research are being done on the virus detection, providing treatments to relief symptoms and developing its vaccine, which, according to an estimate, might take one to two more years. Therefore, WHO has laid stress upon the governments worldwide to guarantee competent surveillance and identification of infected individuals to control severity of COVID-19 pandemic effects. Latest technologies, such as IoMT, drones, robots, UVs, GPS, and Bluetooth, can play a primary role in such circumstances to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, our study highlights numerous technological solutions, which are of great help in controlling disease spread and facing challenges caused by it.

5.1. Introduction

Pandemics leave a tremendous effect in our lives both socially and economically. Over the past hundred years, world has seen quite some deadly pandemics. Although, COVID-19 is the newest of its kind but relating to the past pandemics and how people benefited at that time by technology can be a great guide in current scenario. A few successful solutions deployed in past pandemics are discussed in this chapter.

Examining the technology and related systems that are helpful in the disease identification, limiting disease spread, and disease prevention is of paramount importance. Different new age technologies can be adopted by the government as an initial response strategy. This chapter mainly focuses on the use of the Internet of Things (IoT), Internet of Medical Things (IoMT), and other smart emerging technologies like drones, robots, autonomous vehicles (AVs), Bluetooth, and global positioning system (GPS), which can be helpful in handling this pandemic.

IoT is a promising technology of interconnected computing devices, transmitting data over the network without any human intervention. In the recent times, IoMT has captivated major attention from the field of healthcare. It is a blend of medical devices and software applications connected to healthcare IT systems.

In the current critical scenario of nCOVID-19, the most significant issue after the development of vaccine is an efficient way of reachability to the patients. This can be best done by using the concept of IoT.

Drones, robots, and AVs technology not only ensure minimum human interaction but also can be beneficial to access contagious COVID-19 patients. Wearables, making use of the Bluetooth and GPS technology, is another efficient way to monitor individual’s health and their day-to-day stress levels in isolation. Altogether, these technologies can add a consequential share in the new paradigm of Tele Medicine, either for prevention of disease or identification and monitoring of the masses, paramedical staff, symptomatic, and asymptomatic COVID positives during the pandemic.

5.2. Technology and medical science

Medical science and technological innovation go together for a healthier future. Technology has made substantial and revolutionary contributions to the field of medical care, which has eventually helped in extending the life span of people throughout the world. Besides, it has also improved the quality of life by an efficient way of disease diagnosis and treatment. Thermometer, microscope, ophthalmoscope, stethoscope, laryngoscope, and X-ray are among the initial inventions in medical technology. Fig. 5.1 shows how the modernization in medical industry has been grouped [1] .

Modernization of medical industry.

As this chapter mainly focuses on the impact of technology in medical science, the below section describes the evolution of technology in healthcare.

5.2.1. Electrocardiography (EKG)

This technology benefits from the fact that an electric current exists in the heart, which allows it to be monitored with the help of an external device by the physicians. In electrocardiography (EKG), electrodes are attached on the skin externally, which monitors the electrical activity across the thorax. The result is known as an electrocardiogram [2] .

5.2.2. X-ray

A German professor of Physics, Wilhelm Roentgen discovered a radiation, which could penetrate solid objects with a low density, and the resulting process could be seen on a fluorescent screen and recorded on a photographic film. This discovery aided the physicians to see the inside of human body and facilitate the process of disease diagnosis [3] .

5.2.3. Ultrasound

An ultrasound yields the pictures of the inside body. It makes use of high-frequency sound waves. As ultrasound images are taken in real time, they can show the structure and movement of the organs.

This technology uses magnetic field and radio waves to picturize organs inside the body ensuring minimum damage. It is being used extensively for the detection of neurologic and musculoskeletal disorders and for the examination of cancer patients. MRI is superior to other imaging techniques as it can show problems that could not be seen otherwise [2] .

In the recent times, technological and digital transformations have joined hands together for a healthier future. Some of the latest developments are remote consultations, telemedicine, targeted treatments, and healthcare mobile apps.

5.3. Past pandemics and technology

No doubt, current pandemic has changed the world totally. But unfortunately, a plethora of disease outbreaks and epidemics are observed in the last century. While corona viruses such as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV have been responsible for a majority of these outbreaks, different types of influenza viruses, such as H1N1, H2N2, and H3N2, have been at the helm of all the four pandemics in the past years. The H1N1 further caused outbreak of two pandemics:

• 1. Spanish Flu of 1918–19
• 2. Swine Flu in 2009–10

While the H2N2 and H3N2 influenza viruses have been responsible for the Asian Flu of 1957–58, and the Hong Kong Flu of 1968–69, respectively [4] ( Fig. 5.2 )

A view of past pandemics.

Pandemics can cause serious threats locally and globally if not handled in time and wisely. Intensity of hazardous effects by pandemics varies among regions, proportional to the factor of population density. Disease outbreaks of avian flu, Asian flu, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) were raised from densely populated Asian-Pacific region. According to data collected from 2003 outbreak, SARS affected 29 countries, resulting in 8096 infections and 774 deaths [5] .

5.3.1. Simulation models

Then the mobilization among people who are with close contact to each other is next factor that can result in uncontrolled diseases spread. Various simulation models were designed after 2003 SARS pandemic to closely predict different scenarios and disease spread among urban areas. Kwok-Leung Tsui and Zoie Shui-Yee Wong, with their coworkers, developed a simulation model that can evaluate an epidemic scenario influenced by intervention techniques and disease parameters [6] .

5.3.2. Electronic surveillance system

During 1920s, a lot of work was done for the implementation of surveillance system for early detection of disease spread. Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Community-Based Epidemics (ESSENCE) is one such example. This surveillance system provides very early warning of unusual health conditions among entries using clinical and nonclinical data or more precisely any syndrome or untraditional health information [7] .

5.3.3. Monitoring online search engines

The seasonal influenza disease’s spread is of major concern in health sector. A new strain of influenza virus for which no immunity among people exists may result in pandemic with millions of fatalities [8] . This is why new versions of the vaccines are developed twice a year, as the influenza virus rapidly changes [9] . A way to do early detection of virus spread was proposed in 2009 by Jeremy Ginsberg and their colleagues. According to their work, early spread detection is possible by monitoring health-seeking behavior in the form of online search engine queries. These queries can reach huge number by millions of users around the world each day. The gathered data are then analyzed to track influenza-like illness in a population with large number of relevant Google search queries. But this approach can be applied in the areas where the population of web searchers is large.

5.4. Use of technology during COVID-19

5.4.1. internet of things (iot) and internet of medical things (iomt).

IoT is also known as the Internet of Everything or the Industrial Internet. It is a new technology paradigm, which comprises a network with machines and devices that can efficiently interact with each other. IoT has gathered major attention from many industries all over the world and is expected to be an integral part of future technology [10] .

IoT is becoming popular for many reasons. The most important reasons being the wide availability of broadband Internet, the reduced cost of hardware, and an enormous amount of people using smartphones, wearables capable of collecting data, and other “smart” products ( Fig. 5.3 ).

IoT in current era.

IoT can possibly affect every single sector of our life. However, the fields that will be significantly affected by this technology include:

• • Manufacturing and production.
• • Health and medicine.
• • Transportation.

This chapter highlights the use IoT in healthcare.

IoMT combines medical devices and applications to connect the information technology systems of healthcare by using various networking technologies. IoMT is making its place in society at a fast pace with a big percentage of global healthcare organizations already making use of it.

IoMT is a smart platform, which makes use of smart sensors, smart devices, and innovative communication protocols in order to examine the biomedical signals and subsequently diagnosing the disease of patients without much human involvement. Figure 5.4 shows a brief architecture of IoMT [11] .

Architecture of IoMT.

IoMT applications

IoMT may find its applications in the following:

• • Remote monitoring of patients.
• • Order tracking for medications.
• • Transmitting the medical information monitored by the wearables to the concerned healthcare professionals [10] .

5.4.1.1. IoMT device classification

IoMT devices can be classified as below:

5.4.1.1.1. Wearables

Wearables are further classified in to two categories:

Fitness wearables.

Clinical grade wearables.

5.4.1.1.2 Remote patient monitoring devices

Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has enabled the physicians to monitor and manage patients in a nontraditional manner. RPM collects the health data from individuals in one location, which can be a patient’s home and then transmits this information electronically to healthcare providers who might be in a different location so that they can make their assessments and provide recommendations [12] .

This approach saves time and provides services while ensuring patient’s comfort. It can be used to send reminders and revised medical plans to patients based on their physical activities. According to IHS (Information Handling Services), more than four million patients will monitor their health conditions remotely by 2020. Some famous examples include remote blood sampling devices, continuous glucose monitoring device, and affordable surgical robots ( Fig. 5.7 ).

Remote patient monitoring architecture.

Smart pills are also known as digital pills, which are equipped with ingestible electronic sensors in order to track patient’s compliance with medication. They contain drug sensors that get activated on coming in contact with stomach acids and then send wireless message to devices like tablets, smartphones, or patches outside the body. Abilify MyCite is a popular example of a smart pill ( Fig. 5.8 ).

Deployment of smart pills [14] .

5.4.1.1.3 Point-of-care devices

Point-of-care devices are diagnostic devices that can be found in doctors’ offices, hospitals, and mostly in patients’ home. They are used to acquire diagnostic results while they are with the patient or close to the patient. Common examples are devices used to test glucose and cholesterol levels, pregnancy testing, oximeter, tests for drugs of abuse, etc. The most prominent advantages of these devices include portability, convenience, and speed ( Fig. 5.9 ).

Point-of-care devices.

5.4.1.2 Internet of Medical Things in COVID-19

The unprecedented outbreak of the novel coronavirus also known as COVID-19 poses a major global challenge. As the treatment of the disease is still under way, an optimal approach will be to find an efficient mechanism of disease diagnosis and management. A healthcare system capitalizing on the IoT can help achieve the utmost goal ( Fig. 5.10 ).

A step-up process chart for using IoT during COVID-19 pandemic.

5.4.1.2.1. Disease diagnosis

The standard testing method being used currently for COVID-19 screening is the reverse real-time PCR assay (rRT-PCR). It is a time-consuming, molecular-based test, which on the average needs 4–6 h to deliver the results. It also requires trained specialists and a well-resourced laboratory. This eventually puts a limit on the number of tests that can be conducted, which is not satisfactory in such critical circumstances. Hence, alternative rapid diagnostic tools are urgently needed.

In such a situation, a promising technique can be the point-of-care (POC) devices that employ lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) technology to detect COVID-19 in human serum. This technology relies on the fact that after the COVID-19 infection, IgG and IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in human blood and their levels in the blood can offer an insight into the disease stage and its growth. With an increase in the number of cases worldwide, numerous POC LFIA devices have come to the front as rapid diagnostic tools [15] .

5.4.1.2.2. Disease monitoring

In the current pandemic situation, the number of COVID-19 patients is increasing at an alarming rate, which calls for an efficient monitoring and surveillance system for impactful patient tracing.

IoT can play a vital role during this pandemic in context to contact tracing, cluster identification, and compliance of quarantine.

It is critically important to identify infected individuals in crowded places, which is being done mostly by using infrared thermometers. However, it does not seem to be much efficient as first, thermometer might not cover all the people in crowd and second, it might lead to the spread of virus as it has to be done by a health officer, who is examining many people standing in a queue and anyone among them can be infected. Hence, an alternative technology is required and IoT seems to be promising in this regard [16] .

Following are some useful IoT technologies adapted for effective identification of patients:

• 1. Smart thermometers: Smart thermometers are medical thermometers that can transmit their readings to be collected, stored, and analyzed.These thermometers can be deployed in public areas to screen people with high fevers. As these are mostly linked to some mobile application, it allows them to be immediately transmitted their analysis to concerned establishments. Upon receiving, the establishment assimilates the data and produces maps on daily basis presenting regions facing an upsurge in high fevers in order to allow the authorities to locate potential hotspots.

These battery-operated buttons can be rapidly deployed in facilities of any size. They function to signal quick alerts to the supervisors so that they can be warned of any issues related to cleaning and maintenance as they can be a risk for public safety [17] .

5.4.1.2.3. Disease management

With the rapid spread of COVID-19, the whole world has implemented strict lockdown measures to reduce the spread of disease. According to an estimate, approximately 10 billion people have been self-quarantined at home. On the other hand, essential medical supplies and equipment have been on high demand. In order to seek medical help, the citizens, some of whom can be potential patients, must leave their homes, which contradicts the efforts being done for isolation and quarantine. Also, due to the lack of proper isolation wards, the health community has prompted the patients with minor or suspected symptoms to stay in their homes.

Additionally, the lack of isolation wards and proper medical devices has prompted the medical community to encourage those with mild or suspected symptoms to remain at home. In such critical situation, IoMT can be used as a medical podium not only to aid the affected individuals to get the suitable healthcare facilities at home but also to create an extensive disease management database for governments and healthcare organizations.

Fig. 5.11 shows such a platform where the process of disease management will follow the following sequence of steps:

• • Individuals who are experiencing insignificant symptoms do not have to be in the hospital. Instead, they can acquire the diagnostic and healthcare requirements such as thermometers, masks, gloves, sanitizers, and POC kits used for detecting and monitoring COVID-19 and medications at their homes.
• • Patients can then use the Internet in order to upload their regular health status to the IoMT platform from where their details will be broadcasted to the closest hospitals, Centre for disease control (CDC), and local health agencies.
• • Hospitals can then provide consultations online depending on the health condition of every patient. Subsequently, the CDC and health agencies could assign equipment and places of quarantine, if needed.

Use of IoMT for disease management.

IoMT platform has many advantages. It allows the disease status to be dynamically monitored by the patients and receive their medical requirements without transmitting the disease to others. Such a platform will also be less expensive and will offer more systematic database for efficient monitoring of virus spread [15] .

5.4.2. Drone technology

A drone is an aircraft without a human pilot on board and a type of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). It has a ground-based controller, and a system of communications between the two. There are different ways to operate UAV flights:

• 1. Remote control by a human operator
• 2. Autonomously by onboard computers [18]
• 3. Piloted by an autonomous robot

UAVs in general and drones specifically were originally used for targeted missions that could be dangerous, risky, or trivial for humans. Sometimes, people misunderstand the terms UAV and autonomous drone and wrongfully use them for each other. Yes, many UAVs are automated as clear from its title, that is, they can achieve independent goals but still rely on human operators or some control. However, an autonomous drone itself is a UAV, but can operate without human intervention [19] . To make it clearer, these drones can take off, fly, complete the assigned target, and land completely at their own (autonomously). Hence, we can derive a statement from this discussion that UAV is not always an autonomous drone, but an autonomous drone is a category of UAVs.

So, in autonomous drones, any ground control system or communications management software plays an important role to carry out operations; thus, such drones are also considered part of UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System). To deploy such control, drones also employ host of advanced technologies such as cloud computing, computer vision, artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, and thermal sensors [20] .

The drones are mostly used in military applications, commercial purpose, scientific researches, agricultural field, medical (in current COVID-19 pandemic, which we will discuss in next section), and other applications [21] such as policing and surveillance usually in masses, aerial photography and drone racing as hobby, infrastructure inspections, and smuggling of prohibited goods and drugs ( Fig. 5.12 ).

A modern drone.

5.4.2.1 Versatility in drones

There is further classification of drones depending upon multiple factors; they are as follows:

In this category, the classification of drones is done by the type of wings deployed or how the drone takeoffs, flies, or lands. The main classes differentiated by structural build are multirotor systems and fixed wings system. The third type is hybrid systems, which combine features of both multi-rotor and fizzed systems.

Because of the absence of a pilot, drones always have a certain level of autonomy. An important distinction within the concept of autonomy is the difference between automatic and autonomous systems. In this category, we have different levels of autonomy by which drone is achieving its goals.

This category will differentiate drones from the range or altitude they can cover without any accident or defect.

Other important characteristics of a drone are its size and weight. They can be categorized as nano, micro, mini, small, and tactical drones [22] . Clarke distinguishes large drones and small drones and divides the small drones in multiple subcategories [23] . The lower weight limit of large drones is 150 kg for fixed-wing drones and 100 kg for multirotor drones.Mini drones can vary in weight from several grams up to several kilograms. These mini drones are mainly suitable for indoor applications and recreational applications.

Such type of drones is just for hobby purpose and used at homes. These drones do not require any license to operate and are usually controlled by controller and fly with less precision.

The payload is extra function or feature added with drone to achieve the required goal. Sensors and cameras are most common payloads attached to any drone nowadays. Some drones can be used to transport parcels, drugs, goods, or any information between two destinations. All such loads can differentiate drones from each other.

Drones run from energy source and serve different targets. The energy source selected to run any drone relies on difficulty level in achieving the required target. Also, the type of drone defined by characteristics discussed above can decide fuel type. The main energy sources that differentiate the drones are:

• a. traditional airplane fuel,
• b. battery cells,
• c. fuel cells, and
• d. solar cells.

5.4.2.2 Usability of drones during COVID-19 pandemic

The involvement of drones in military operations has increased since late 1990s. But civilian drones with commercial-grade low-cost technology are also getting popular and are already been used for various rescue tasks and natural disasters around the world. In this section, we will present the possible ways that can be helpful in fighting and disaster or disease spread specifically during COVID-19.The first country to face the wrath of COVID-19 has made great use of drone technology to counter its spread. Taking that as an inspiration, countries around the world have joined forces with numerous researchers and innovators in an attempt to find ingenious ways of using drones to fight any future or current pandemic at the best.

5.4.2.2.1 Drones as telemedicine and transfer units

Drones can be used to facilitate access to medical care in demoted communities. Demoted communities lack infrastructure and proper transportation. Therefore, drones are particularly helpful in such communities to help in the delivery of necessary health services and supplies in a time-effective manner. Drones travel faster than any manned vehicle and hence can overcome topographic challenges that would be very challenging to overcome by other forms of transportation.

As the person with COVID-19 is contagious, medicines and food can be transferred to the person in isolation. An example of autonomous drone is Beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) [24] . These drones can fly far beyond visual line of sight while maximizing production, reducing costs and risks, and ensuring site safety and security, hence protecting the human workforce in times of a pandemic [25] . They can also be used for consumer-related missions like package delivery, as demonstrated by Amazon Prime Air, and critical deliveries of health supplies.

5.4.2.2.2 Drones for surveillance and screening

Drones with camera as payload are being used mainly for surveillance other than hobbyist photography. They can be ideal for crowd surveillance due to their feature to provide current location bird eye or aerial view in no time. That is why many countries around the world are deploying drones for crowd surveillance especially during COVID-19 pandemic.

Surveillance drones added with temperature sensor can updated about body temperature of peoples in any community area. Countries including China and India have also adopted the drone technology for crowd surveillance. The drones deployed are equipped with surveillance cameras that can effectively monitor sensitive areas in the city and allow the police to handle any unwarranted situation promptly.

5.4.2.2.3 Drones for public announcements

In addition to crowd surveillance, drones can prove to be highly useful for broadcasting important information, particularly in areas that lack open channels for communication. In California, Florida, and New Jersey, officials have used drones to get messages to homeless communities or notify and warn people about social distancing. The police authority in Madrid, Spain, used a drone equipped with a loudspeaker to inform people of the guidelines put in place regarding the state of emergency that was imposed [26] .

European countries are also getting benefit from drones; many countries have deployed drones for making public announcements for public awareness during pandemics to stop spread of diseases [27] or disasters.

5.4.2.2.4. Drones for disinfecting places

Drone technology is benefiting people where there is need to avoid direct contact with viruses and bacteria. Using drones, disinfectants can be sprayed in contaminated areas. Increase of demand has been observed for spraying drones in agricultural lands during last decade. The Spanish military has recently adopted the use of agricultural drones made by DJI, a leading Chinese drone manufacturer, to spray disinfecting chemicals over public spaces [28] . On average, these spraying drones have a load capacity of 16 L and can disinfect one-tenth of a kilometer in an hour [27] .

5.4.3 Robots

5.4.3.1 usability in covid-19 pandemic.

Robots are smart machines and remained helpful during current COVID-19 pandemic. Robots can easily be deployed as frontline warrior in medical units due to less risk of contagious disease spread from the patients who are suffering.

Additionally, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection method (method to disinfect the areas from contagious diseases) is easily achieved with robots through preprogrammed procedures; hence, limiting the transfer of the disease via contaminated surfaces in hospitals or isolation centers. The autonomous disinfecting robots with very little or no human contact are recommended as compared to the manual decontamination, which involves the cleaning staff and may risk their lives [29] .

Many countries all over the world took advantage from robot technology for not only mitigating the spread of COVID-19 disease but also for the sake of monitoring social and emotional health of patients and people in isolation. Other than the above-mentioned services, a few more helpful features of robots during the disaster are concluded below;

• • Delivery : Robots are deployed during COVID-19 pandemic to deliver medicines, medical equipment, and serving food in medical units to avoid contact with patients directly, hence giving relief to medical staff. A Kerala-based Indian startup named Asimov Robotics has developed a three-wheeled robot that can be used to perform all these tasks while assisting patients in isolation wards [4] .
• • Social distancing : Robots with cameras are helpful to keep check in public, if social distancing is being followed or not. In addition, guiding public about preventive measures should be observed in public especially in affected areas.
• • Disinfecting : As discussed earlier, robots are safer for disinfecting equipment and places of concern. A Danish robotics company has developed multiple disinfection robots, which disinfect effected area or equipment by UV light radiation. The UV rays tear apart strands of virus’ DNA, hence making it harmless. The company named UVD has delivered its robots in China, healthcare markets in Europe, and United States. Their claim is that the robots can operate for about 2.5 h and disinfect about nine or ten rooms on a single charge [30] .
• • Emotional support : Many countries during pandemic underwent into strict lockdowns for months. Prolonged isolation affects mental health of people in negative way. Special robots are developed to share the emotions of people in isolation. These robots are virtually controlled by doctors to keep check of patient’s health condition.
• • Medical procedures and surgeries : The contagious nature of COVID-19 put many medical experts at added risk while performing regular procedures and surgeries. As the virus easily spreads through mouth and droplets, the dentist, oncologist, and ENT surgeons [31] stand at front of the danger zone. Although, general-purpose procedures were postponed during the pandemic by almost every country effected but still emergencies need special attention. Robotic surgeries are already being successfully done in different medical fields far before the pandemic crisis. Even with personal protective equipments (PPEs), physical distancing is the key to avoid virus spread. Consequently, during pandemic nonautonomous robots can prove to be safer alternative where close contact through patient’s mouth and nasal cavity become necessity.

5.4.3.2. Robots replacing humans

Before we take a dive into the robot’s history and their present-day prominence, it is significant to mention here a few statements defining robots.

Robot in Czech is a word for worker or servant. According to Robot Institute of America, a robot is, “A reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools, or specialized devices through various programmed motions for the performance of variety of tasks.’. Similarly, by Merriam Webster Dictionary, robot is, “A machine that resembles a living creature in being capable of moving independently (as by walking or rolling on wheels) and performing complex actions (such as grasping and moving objects)” [32] . According to Greg Freiherr, while science fiction robots have been capable of independent thought, emotions, even a little cooking and sewing, scientists are finding that endowing a mechanical being with even the most basic human functions is a monumental challenge.

In the mid-1900s, robots break into three categories, namely industrial, research, and educational. The first industrial robot, “Unimate” was developed in United States in 1954. George Devol, who coins the term Universal Automation, designed the very first programmable robot. He later shortens this to Unimation, which becomes the name of the first robot company in 1962 ( Fig. 5.13 ).

Devol, Engelberger, and their colleagues working on the development of the unimate.

Robot technology is maturing with time and in developed countries, large academic medical centers and health systems are the early adopters of robots. However, the increasing demand of robots indicates soon they will be found everywhere in abundance. Robots are designed to perform assigned tasks with high precision. They have extraordinary operational efficiency and are cost-effective. Normally, humans do work for their employers around 8–10 h at average. Robot has the ability to perform with efficiency rate almost three times greater (excluding one to two hours’ time of charging) effectively than the capability of any human.

It is true; today, robots have replaced humans by way of performing precarious, detailed, and recurring tasks in various industries including agriculture, automobile, construction, entertainment, healthcare, laboratories, manufacturing, military, mining, transportation, warehouses, and law enforcement. The overview of different tasks done by them in industries is compiled below ( Fig. 5.14 ).

Visual chart for robots in different fields and application.

5.4.3.3 Unmanned vehicles

Unmanned vehicles are without involvement of any human driver aboard. They can cover far-flung and difficult areas, impossible by any human driven vehicle. As compared to traditional vehicles, they have additional features of high safety, reliability, intelligence, and efficiency because of small size.

These vehicles can either be remote-controlled, remote-guided vehicles or autonomous, which are capable of sensing and navigating on their own. These autonomous driverless vehicles work according to the paths defined by installed sensors to sense surrounding environment or obstacles on the way with the help of intelligent software. The destination is fed by the software installed in these vehicles or at control station.

The vehicle and equipment that operate with little or no operator intervention are always an attraction because they save the labor cost in commercial areas and remove the direct involvement of operator specifically during dangerous applications. During the disaster or any global health crisis like COVID-19 pandemic, AVs can be of great help. They can ease the stress on existing delivery mechanisms while mitigating the spread of virus spread [33] . During 2016, a company JD.com, an e-commerce company, began testing the country’s first developed self-driving vehicle for domestic usage. The other companies in market soon joined this race to compete each other. During the pandemic, China led the charge in the use of AVs. Beijing-headquartered White Rhino Auto Company, in alliance with UNIDO’s Investment and Technology Promotion Office (ITPO), dispatched two autonomous delivery vehicles from Beijing to the Guanggu Field Hospital in the Hubei Province of China [34] .

These UVs proved to be very useful during pandemic; hence, they can serve in various ways. These tasks may include delivering medical supplies within hospitals, distributing meals and medicines in isolation centers, on demand groceries delivery home-to-home during lockdowns, decontaminate infected surroundings, awareness announcements in large gatherings, and much more ( Fig. 5.15 ).

Unmanned Vehicle for delivery medicines and grocery, in China.

5.4.4 Bluetooth and GPS technology

Bluetooth technology is a short-range technology that operates in UHF radio waves spectrum (ultra high frequency 300 MHz–3 GHz). Mainly, it is used to deploy low-cost, low-power, and short-time wireless connections between desktops, laptops, and Bluetooth devices like mobile phones, printers, digital cameras, headsets, keyboards, and even a computer mouse. This cutting-edge technology uses globally available radio frequency band between 2.402 and 2.480 GHz, which is dedicated for industrial, scientific, and medical use. In a nutshell, Bluetooth technology unplugs your digital peripherals and makes cable clutter a thing of the past [35] .

The Bluetooth technology is very helpful for proximity calculation and preferred over other technologies because of its least invasive nature. With this technology, it is easy to monitor relative distance between two nodes without getting actual location of devices.

GPS is a navigation system that uses satellites to provide positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) services to its users [36] .

During COVID-19, governments can make use of the GPS technology for tracking the current and the historical location of positive patients. This will eventually help in backtracking other potential COVID-19 patients.

5.4.4.1. Applications of GPS

Some common uses of GPS during COVID-19 pandemic are:

During this deadly pandemic, many countries have released different versions of mobile applications leveraging GPS in order to identify the COVID-19 patients and help control the spread of virus. Most of these applications are downloadable for free using individuals’ mobile numbers. Once launched, it will categorize the users as safe or unsafe using different criterions such as existence of virus symptoms, or international travel history. The GPS location of the suspected cell phone users will be stored in the database. This information can be later used for various purposes such as (1) to alert a safe user if he meets a suspected virus victim and (2) to send the GPS location of the victim to the healthcare officials if any emergency help is needed [4] .

Many countries are making use of smart helmets equipped with built-in GPS modules, optical camera, and infrared thermal camera for screening the suspected COVID-19 carriers. The infrared camera scans the given area for any high temperature. Once an individual with a high temperature is detected, the optical camera captures the face of the suspected individual. The GPS module then determines the position coordinates and after tagging it, a notification is sent to assigned smart mobile through a GSM, which will be subsequently used for various purposes mentioned above [16] .

Another efficient approach to combat the effects of COVID-19 can be the use of Smart Ambulance System, which is an integration of GPS and GSM. The GPS component is used to identify the location of the patient and the ambulance, whereas the GSM is used for data transmission. This system consists of an end-to-end smart health application. Once an emergency request is generated by a registered GSM mobile user facing extreme virus symptoms, such a system can track the location of the patient using the GPS embedded in the mobile, identify the nearest hospital with available beds, and urgently send them smart ambulances equipped with major requirements of a critical COVID-19 patient such as oxygen cylinder, oximeters, and other instruments for measuring the vitals. The timely delivery of patient to the hospital is extremely important. The ambulance is also equipped with (1) GPS module to determine updated ambulance location so that the paramedics can select the ambulances, which are already in the same route as the patient and for calculating the shortest/fastest possible route to the selected hospital; (2) GSM module in order to transmit any essential information to the paramedics’ database or the hospital. It will be even better if the time for patient’s transportation can be utilized to gather major medical information about him/her and transmit it to the hospital using GSM in order to enable them to make prior emergency arrangements [37] , [38] .

5.4.4.2. Asymptomatic and suspected patients tracking

Controlling the coronavirus spread is the key factor to mitigate COVID-19 disease. So far, many advancements and inventions in the technology have been done, in order to reduce direct virus exposure in societies, decontamination of suspected places, and effected surveillance of masses. Before looking further at possibilities to control virus spread, it is important to dig down to the level of coronavirus transmission biological details. The virus may enter the body through mouth, nose, and eyes, if a person with prior COVID-negative exposes to exhaled droplets of an infected person, touched the contaminated surface, aerosol, and possibly through fecal–oral contamination [39] .

Here, we discuss all the possible transmission routes that may be cause of catching virus for a healthy person. Later on, these can be helpful in prevention of disease spread.

• 1. Symptomatic transmission : It is transmission of virus by getting in direct contact of a person having known symptoms of COVID-19.
• 2. Presymptomatic transmission : This is transmission by a person who is going to develop COVID-19 disease obvious symptoms. But at time of contact, both people are unaware of it.
• 3. Asymptomatic transmission : Some COVID positive patients develop delayed symptoms or none at all. Indication of being virus carrier is indicated by routine or follow-up checkups.
• 4. Environmental transmission : The transmission of disease can also occur via contaminated surfaces, and specifically in hidden way which in general could be unknown and typically not to be attributable to contact with the source.

5.4.4.2.1. Contact tracing

In all such cases, discussed before, prompt contact tracing can assuredly reduce the disease spread. By informing concerned authorities, which formerly contact without any hassle targeted people in need of quarantine or isolation.

Contact tracing mechanism is done on one suspected individual by strenuously tracing the infected person’s footsteps, and later following up anyone with whom they may have crossed the paths. Many countries, badly affected by current pandemic, are spending millions of US dollars for deploying contact tracing network. Massachusetts recently allocated US$ 44 million to hire 1000, New York State announced it will hire 17,000, and California plans to hire as many as 20,000 contact tracers [39] . A few apps are developed while many are in testing phase, which could be helpful in tracing either asymptomatic or presymptomatic COVID positive patients.

Digital apps for contact tracing mostly use GPS and Bluetooth technology to trace contacts. GPS technology can give information of exact location for the concerned contact with correct time stamp, that is, what time person A was at location X. An example of such app deployed in Utah uses GPS [40] . If any person using that app is diagnosed with COVID-19, the concerned person guides them and asks to share the history of their locations during past days; it is usually the period of 14 days. After collection and compilation of location data, all the relevant people were informed to go in isolation in case of close contact. The app’s cofounder and chief strategy officer, Jared Allgood made sure that the identity of patient remains hidden in all process.

Whereas, some apps which trace the contact with Bluetooth technology in smart phones collect data of close contacts that have been around near proximity during last 14 days (in case a person is tested COVID positive). Bluetooth technology is more reliable in contact tracing, as it will directly list down all those who got near to asymptotic or presymptomatic patient because of it short-range nature. But still one needs to keep on Bluetooth all time and only pairing is possible to those who also have Bluetooth in their smart phone turned on. Moreover, even if Bluetooth is on for both parties, it will not pair with the second party until both have close contact for few seconds. Hence, no data will be recorded of a COVID positive passer-by even with obvious symptoms ( Fig. 5.16 ).

Concept of contact tracing using Bluetooth technology.

5.4.5. Telemedicine: a new era

A very recent development that is ushering in the field of medical science is telemedicine. Telemedicine refers to the practice of remote patient care when the healthcare provider and patient are not physically present with each other. It offers the following advantages:

• 1. With telemedicine, a patient can consult a specialist anywhere on the globe.
• 2. It reduces the workload of overburdened hospital staff.
• 3. In case of disease outbreaks, it lessens the chances of disease speed from the patient to the healthcare personnel.
• 4. It can prove to be a lifesaver in emergency situations requiring immediate critical care.
• 5. From the perspective of patients, it means a shorter waiting time and hence a faster recovery.
• 6. It also enables people in rural parts of a country with unsatisfactory medical services have a quicker and easier access to healthcare.

Fig. 5.17 shows the basic idea of telemedicine. It is an integration of various technologies discussed above in order to make the healthcare facilities available at patient’s doorstep.

Telemedicine, an integration of technologies.

5.5. Case study

Although many case studies can be quoted in the context of technology’s use to combat COVID-19. The one mentioned below is a contact tracing mobile application using GPS in order to track the positive COVID-19 patients.

5.5.1. AAROGYA SETU app

As an attempt to minimize the spread of COVID-19, this contact tracing application has been developed by National Informatics Centre, which is a part of Ministry of Electronics and IT, India. The application can be downloaded by any Indian citizen for free and is available for both iOS and Android users. When launched, the application will enquire the users if they had a recent international travel history or if they are experiencing some symptoms of the disease. If none of these holds true, then the patient is said to be in green zone. A database will contain the list of all positive COVID-19 patients who are marked to be in the red zone.

This application integrates GPS location of the cell phone user with the Bluetooth technology to check if he has been exposed to a COVID-19 patient existing in the database.

If the individual in the green zone comes in close contact with another individual in the red zone, then the former will be alerted. In addition, he/she will also receive the guidelines to be followed and required relevant information. The application became extremely popular among the citizens and within first 5 days of its launch, 10 million downloads were recorded [4] .

5.6 Conclusion

The current pandemic has drastically affected every aspect of our life. It has changed peoples’ way of viewing different things. The whole world is on the lookout for best alternates of the available technological solutions. All the technologies discussed in this chapter are for prevention, mitigation, and restoration from aftermath of the disease spread.

IoMT has made a sizeable contribution in current pandemic. It is a promising technology that has shown potential in the collection, analysis, and effective transmission of health data to the concerned departments. Therefore, it is a choice of preference to be deployed for disease monitoring and management during this deadly pandemic. Drones have changed the entire concept of how things are delivered. Similarly, robots are replacing humans. UMVs are approaching to places where traditional man driven vehicles are unable to reach. Bluetooth and GPS are being deployed to look out for disease carriers in the surroundings.

IoMT, drones, and robots have joined hands together for the advancement of telemedicine field, which can be used for spreading limited clinical resources across a wide geographic area. It improves quality of care and access during the ongoing pandemic. All these technologies are on the way of maturing to help us fight against the deadliest pandemics.