Next Article in Journal
Statistical Analysis of Absenteeism in a University Hospital Center between 2007 and 2019
Previous Article in Journal
The Digital Divide Is Aging: An Intergenerational Investigation of Social Media Engagement in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 19
10.3390/ijerph191912967
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Attitude and Performance for Online Learning during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Meta-Analytic Evidence

by
Xuerong Liu
1,2,†,
Zheng Gong
1,
Kuan Miao
1,2,†,
Peiyi Yang
1,
Hongli Liu
1,
Zhengzhi Feng
1,2,* and
Zhiyi Chen
1,2,*
1
School of Psychology, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400038, China
2
Experimental Research Center for Medical and Psychological Science (ERC-MPS), Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400038, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(19), 12967; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912967
Submission received: 7 September 2022 / Revised: 26 September 2022 / Accepted: 27 September 2022 / Published: 10 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Health-Related Quality of Life and Well-Being)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The COVID-19 pandemic prominently hit almost all the aspects of our life, especially in routine education. For public health security, online learning has to be enforced to replace classroom learning. Thus, it is a priority to clarify how these changes impacted students. We built a random-effect model of a meta-analysis to pool individual effect sizes for published articles concerning the attitudes and performance towards online learning. Databases included Google Scholar, PubMed and (Chinese) CNKI repository. Further, a moderated analysis and meta-regression were further used to clarify potential heterogenous factors impacting this pooled effect. Forty published papers (n = 98,558) were screened that were eligible for formal analysis. Meta-analytic results demonstrated that 13.3% (95% CI: 10.0–17.5) of students possessed negative attitudes towards online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 12.7% (95% CI: 9.6–16.8) students were found to report poor performance in online learning. Moderated analysis revealed poor performance in online learning in the early pandemic (p = 0.006). Results for the meta-regression analysis showed that negative attitudes could predict poor learning performance significantly (p = 0.026). In conclusion, online learning that is caused by COVID-19 pandemic may have brought about negative learning attitudes and poorer learning performance compared to classroom learning, especially in the early pandemic.

1. Introduction

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic that is caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, has brought about unprecedented losses in the global sphere. The World Health Organization (WHO) officially recommended the lockdown policy to disrupt virus transmission and slow the development of COVID-19 pandemic [1]. It prominently hit almost all the aspects of our life, especially in routine education. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2022) provided influential reports that the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the schooling of more than 1.6 billion students. To make matter worse, school closes led to 91.3% of total enrolled learners in 188 countries at all levels of learning losing social-interactive education [2]. To control social distance, policymakers strongly recommended to cease face-to-face classroom lessons for all the educational institutes [3]. On the other hand, as one of the most common compensatory measures, cyber (online) teaching has been utilized to substitute for the traditional teaching model. Though a timely and potential replacement, we are still unclear as to whether such changes bring about an unexpected impact on educational outcome.
Online learning (i.e., cyber learning, e-learning, digital learning, or computer-based learning) refers to a form of remote-teaching by using a digital device and electric teaching materials [4]. Compared to face-to-face classroom learning, online learning was found to have higher flexibility and availability [5,6,7]. Thus, online learning has proliferated in the COVID-19 pandemic, which is found to have several prominent strengths, such as high learning satisfaction and substantial educational resources. On the other hand, concerns for online learning are continuing, especially concerning poor real-time feedback, less social interaction and uncontrolled situations [8,9]. Supporting this, existing studies have demonstrated the close association of online learning with poor learning performance during the lockdown period [10,11,12]. Thus far, debates for the advantages (and also disadvantages) of online learning are ongoing [7,13,14]. Almost all education has been converted into an online learning form in the world currently. Thus, what the influences of such large-scale online learning are on educational outcomes should be clarified.
A major concern for online learning is the negative attitude towards such learning techniques [15,16,17]. Though having potential, huge fruits from online learning are reaped for not all the students given the technical gap [18,19,20,21]. In other word, enforcing students into online learning, caused by COVID-19, may aggravate rich–poor polarities, so as to disrupt educational equities [22,23,24,25]. There were considerable findings for the close association between learning attitude and learning performance [26,27,28]. Iqra and colleague (2021) demonstrated that negative attitudes for online learning technology, study environment and teaching interaction prospectively predicted poor performance [29]. Thus, probing the influence of online learning attitudes on performance could be beneficial for policymakers to rethink educational measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To clarify students’ attitudes towards online learning and corresponding learning performance, we performed a meta-analysis to investigate the rate of negative attitudes for online learning. Further, the same pipeline was used to examine the rate of learning performance for online learning. Targeted literature have been retrieved in databases including Google Scholar, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Web of Science and CNKI (Chinese database) on 20 June 2022. Moreover, to gain further information, we capitalized on a moderation analysis for the hierarchical effect of educational phases and lockdown period on the meta-analytical effect. Finally, we have conducted meta-regression to examine the potential association between negative attitudes towards online learning and learning performance.

2. Materials and Methods

To improve reproducibility, all the pipelines and protocols were followed by the Cochran Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [30] statement (see Figure 1). All the raw data, scripts and materials have been submitted into the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository.

2.1. Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

Literature searching was conducted for studies concerning attitudes and performance towards online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (February 2020–June 2022). Retrieval databases included Google Scholar, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Web of Science and CNKI. We capitalized on Boolean logic for literature searching in databases as aforementioned: (e-learning OR online learning) AND (COVID-19) AND (attitude OR satisfaction) AND (learning effect OR learning performance) NOT (review OR meta analysis). Inclusion criteria are as follows: (1) quantifiable measures for attitudes or performance towards online learning; (2) sampling duration should be limited to the COVID-19 pandemic; (3) fundamental metainformation should be given, such as sample size and sample population. Studies were excluded by the following criteria: (1) review, perspective, opinion or meta-analytic results; (2) no quantifiable investigation or data. For moderation analysis, the sample population has been partitioned into two groups based on educational level: primary–secondary school students and college students. Further, we coded the pandemic period into two phases, with February 2020–December 2020 being the early stage in COVID-19 pandemic and with January 2021–June, 2022 being the later stage in the pandemic.

2.2. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Data were extracted from eligible articles by two extractors independently, including sample size, sampling population, demographic information, educational level, pandemic period, sampling time, the percentage of expressing negative evaluation for online learning, and the percentage of reporting poor learning performance in online learning. All the data have undergone cross-validation between two independent extractors. For quality control, two additional assessors independently evaluated the evidence (study) quality by using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (mNOS) [31,32]. Potential disagreements were resolved by a third assessor author. Specifically, the quality assessment evaluation criteria of mNOS were as follows: sample misrepresentations and size; comparability between respondents and non-respondents; ascertainment of online learning attitude and study performance; sufficient adequacy of the descriptive statistics. The total quality scores ranged from 0 to 5; the low risk of bias as expressed by the mNOS was ≥3 points, whilst the high risk of bias was ranked based on low mNOS scores (<3 points) (Tables S1 and S2).

2.3. Encoding and Statistical Analysis

Meta-analyses were implemented by using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software (V3, Biostat Inc., Englewood, CO, USA). To estimate within-study and between-study heterogeneity in meta-analytic models, the I2 test and Cochran’s Q test were used. As indicated in previous studies, meta-analysis with a fixed-effect model was suitable for estimating the meta-analytic effect with no heterogeneity (I2 < 50%, p-value ≥ 0.1) [33], while a random-effects model should be used to adjust high data within-study and between-study heterogeneity (I2 > 50%, p-value < 0.1). In the current study, the random-effect meta-analytic models were built to examine the attitudes and performance towards online learning during COVID-19 pandemic due to high heterogeneity (see Results section). In addition, to validate whether these meta-analytic effects are moderated by potential factors (i.e., educational level and pandemic period), the moderated-effect models were constructed by labeling individual effect sizes into subgroups (i.e., primary–secondary school group and college group; early pandemic group (February 2020–December 2020) and late group (January 2021–June 2022)). Furthermore, for testing the potential role of attitudes on performance for online learning, we built a meta-regression model by fitting the individual effect size of attitudes to the performance for all the included studies. Finally, as quality control, funnel charts were generated for visually inspecting publication bias in the current study, with asymmetric distribution for high publication bias. In addition, the Kendall’s test and Egger’s test were also used for quantitative validation for publication bias, with p < 0.05 indicating significant publication bias.

3. Results

In the current study, 40 papers were screened from 856 papers for the final data pool in the meta-analysis (n = 98, 558). Sample populations covered China, Indonesia, American, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Canada (see Table 1).

3.1. Heterogeneity Test

Results for the heterogeneity test showed the high between-study heterogeneity (I2 > 98%, p < 0.05), which indicated that the random effect model should be used for the pooling effect size of included studies. In addition, high heterogeneity implied potential moderators.

3.2. Main Meta-Analysis

We coded attitudes for online learning from the included studies into three categories that included positive attitude, uncertain attitude and negative attitude. Further, subjective learning performance was categorized into poor, uncertain and high. Meta-analytic results showed a statistically significant negative attitude for online learning during COVID-19 (13.3%, p = 0.000, 95% CI: 10.0–17.5; N = 95,654). In addition, there was poor study performance (12.7%, p = 0.000, 95% CI: 9.6–16.8; N = 20,528). Finally, only 21% (p = 0.000, 95% CI: 12.3–34.0; N = 40,573) of students reported that online learning was better than face-to-face classroom learning (see Figure 2).

3.3. Moderation Analysis

Here, we used moderation analysis for examining the moderated role of educational levels (primary–secondary schools students and college students) and pandemic period (early stage of lockdown and later stage of lockdown) on the meta-analytic effect. Results demonstrated a null finding for the moderated effect of educational level on the negative attitude towards online learning and learning performance. In addition, there were no significant moderated effects of the pandemic period on negative attitudes towards online learning. Interestingly, we found that pandemic period significantly moderated learning performance for online learning, with poor performance for the early stage (Q-value = 7.615, p-value = 0.006).

3.4. Meta-Regression Analysis

We further conducted a meta-regression analysis to examine the association between the negative attitudes towards online learning and learning performance. Results demonstrated that the negative attitudes could predict poor learning performance significantly (β = 0.49, (95% CI: −0.006–1.127), t = 2.12, p = 0.026 (one-tailed)).

3.5. Publication Bias Assessment

Funnel plots were used for inspecting publication bias visually. The symmetrical distribution was found for z-scores of standard error among these studies. Thus, no significant publication was perceived. Further, Begg’s rank test was performed to quantitatively test the publication bias. Results showed no publication biases for both meta-analyses (negative attitudes for online learning, Kendall’s tau = −0.032, p = 0.784, continuity-corrected; learning performance for online learning, Kendall’s tau = −0.094, p = 0.576) (Figure S1).

4. Discussion

To investigate what the proliferation of online learning has brought about for educational outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2020–June 2022), we performed a meta-analysis concerning attitudes and learning performance for online learning. Result showed that 13.3% of students possessed statistically significant negative attitudes for online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 12.7% students were found to report a poorer learning performance in online learning when compared to face-to-face classroom learning. Moreover, we found that the pandemic period significantly moderated the meta-analytic effect of learning performance on online learning, with poorer learning performance in the early pandemic (i.e., Januray 2020–January 2021). Finally, results for meta-regression analysis showed that the negative attitudes towards online learning could predict poor learning performance significantly. In conclusion, these finding indicated that neither learning attitudes nor learning performances were poorer for large-scale online learning compared to face-to-face classroom learning. Thus, despite the replacement, the consistent online learning that is enforced by public health policy may incur poor educational quality.
Main findings in the current study revealed that 13.3% students expressed a negative attitude for online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, 12.7% students reported poor learning performance in online learning compared to face-to-face classroom learning. Although it seems to be a small portion of students, the vast majority of students still reported no significant improvement or satisfaction for online learning (e.g., “I am not certain whether I feel satisfactory for online learning”). This situation may be explained partly by two reasons: social isolation and learning resource gaps (see Table 2).
Social isolation has long been acknowledged as one of the best barriers to impede teaching performance in online learners [74,75,76]. Several lines of evidence demonstrate that the social isolation between teachers and learners could undermine learning satisfaction, and even make learners prone to experience negative emotions, such as anxiety, depression and loneliness [77,78]. Though lockdown policy obstructed virus transmission, it is of obvious consequence that the real-world social interaction between students and teachers has been curbed. Thus, increasing social interaction in online learning may be promising to control the negative impact of online learning on educational outcomes.
On the other hand, existing evidence was provided to indicate the potential impact of learning resource gaps on learning satisfaction and fairness during the COVID-19 pandemic [79,80]. Specifically, when compared to middle- and low-income countries (areas), students in high- or upper-middle-income countries (areas) rated online learning as more positive due to superior learning resources [81,82]. Supporting that, further studies revealed that students with disadvantaged positions economically would receive less high-quality learning resources, so as to incur poor academic performance [83,84,85]. Thus, this indirect evidence may provide another insight to warrant stakeholders for the potential risk of this change (i.e., enforcing online learning) in exacerbating educational inequality. In addition, it is remarkable that this conjecture should be further validated elsewhere and lacking direct evidence in the current study.
Another key finding worthy to discuss was that the pandemic period significantly moderated the meta-analytic effect of learning performance for online learning, with poorer performance in the early stage. There is a lot of evidence that the inadequate preparation and experience for online learning was partly responsible for this outcome. In the early stage of pandemic, students have been found to face a lot problems in participating in online courses, technical gaps, out-of-control class quality and social isolation [70,71,72,86]. Fortunately, with the development of user-friendly tools and increased experiences, technical issues and social interaction between teachers and students in online have been increasingly addressed [15,87]. Therefore, despite the presence of negative impacts, it had been controlling for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic.
Ultimately, by using meta-regression analysis, we found that the negative attitude towards online learning could predict poor learning performance. It had long been acknowledged that attitudes are composed of emotion, behavior and cognitive components, which could direct ones’ behavior. A robust body of studies have demonstrated the close association between learning attitudes and learning performance [27,88,89,90,91,92]. Furthermore. neuroimaging-based evidence supported this point by showing the hyper-activation of the hippocampus (i.e., the core brain region for working memory) in resolving n-back-like mathematical tasks with evoked positive emotions (L. Chen et al., 2018).
In spite of its strengths, this study still has several limitations. One shortcoming worthy to note is that these conclusions should be extended warily as we used biased sample populations. Thus, it may be worthy to extend sample representativeness in the future. Secondly, learning performance claimed in the current study referred to self-reported subjective evaluations. In other words, extending this conclusion elsewhere should cautiously used due to the gap of self-reported evaluation and actual performance. Lastly, to provide robustly statistical evidence, we had to remove a certain number of relevant studies because of lacking standardized or quantitative measures. Thus, the total sample size may be limited in the current study. The majority of the included studies examined one’s attitudes and learning performance by using signaling questions instead of standardized questionnaire or scales. Thus, future studies could provide evidence more robust by using valid and reliable measures.

5. Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic attacked almost all aspects of our life, especially in routine educational activities. To tackle this crisis well, the mainstream educational pattern has changed from face-to-face classroom learning into virtual online learning (e.g., webinar or iCloud classroom). However, this still lacks a systematic review and meta-analysis to make clear how this change impact our educational outcome. To clarify this issue, we conducted a systematic meta-analysis for literature concerning the attitudes and learning performance towards online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results showed that 13.3% of students possessed statistically significant negative attitudes towards online learning during COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, 12.7% students were found to report a poorer learning performance in online learning compared to face-to-face classroom learning. Further, this meta-analytic effect was significantly moderated by the pandemic period, with poorer learning performance in the early stage than the latter one. Lastly, by using meta-regression, we revealed that the learning performance could be predicted significantly by learning attitudes towards online learning. On the balance, these findings allow us to draw the conclusion that the online learning that has been caused by COVID-19 pandemic may have brought about negative attitudes and promoted decreased learning performance compared to face-to-face classroom learning, especially in the early stage.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph191912967/s1, Figure S1: Funnel plots for publication bias examination; Table S1: Modified Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale; Table S2: PRISMA checklist.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, software, writing—original draft and Visualization, X.L. and Z.C.; writing—review and editing, methodology, or Validation, Z.G. and K.M.; writing—revision, H.L. and P.Y.; replication analysis and Validation, Z.G. and X.L.; formal analysis and validation, Z.C.; conceptualization, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition, Z.C. and Z.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received funds from National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, 81971278), and PLA Talent Program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Third Military Medical University (TMMU20220610A).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the materials regarding this study have been deposited in Open Science Framework (OSF).

Acknowledgments

We appreciated Guo-Yu Yang (Third Military Medical University) for scientific advice on drafting and thanked to Li Ran (Third Military Medical University).

Conflicts of Interest

All the authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic. Available online: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019 (accessed on 23 December 2020).
  2. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. The Impact of COVID-19 on Student Voice. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/impact-covid-19-student-voice-testimonies-students-and-teachers (accessed on 7 July 2022).
  3. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Distance Learning Solutions: More on UNESCO’s COVID-19 Education Response. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/solutions (accessed on 30 March 2021).
  4. Clark, R.; Mayer, R. e-Learning and the Science of Instruction, 4th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mukhtar, K.; Javed, K.; Arooj, M.; Sethi, A. Advantages, Limitations and Recommendations for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic era. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2020, 36, S27–S31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Mayer, R.E. Thirty years of research on online learning. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2019, 33, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Simamora, R. The Challenges of Online Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Essay Analysis of Performing Arts Education Students. Stud. Learn. Teach. 2020, 1, 86–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nambiar, D. The impact of online learning during COVID-19: Students’ and teachers’ perspective. Int. J. Indian Psychol. 2020, 8, 783–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Patricia Aguilera-Hermida, A. College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 2020, 1, 100011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chang, T.Y.; Hsu, M.L.; Kwon, J.S.; Kusdhany, M.L.S.; Hong, G. Effect of online learning for dental education in asia during the pandemic of COVID-19. J. Dent. Sci. 2021, 16, 1095–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, J.; Che, W. Challenges and coping strategies of online learning for college students in the context of COVID-19: A survey of Chinese universities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 83, 103958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Oducado, R.M.; Estoque, H. Online learning in nursing education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stress, satisfaction, and academic performance. J. Nurs. Pract. 2021, 4, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Adedoyin, O.; Soykan, E. COVID-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Simamora, R.M.; De Fretes, D.; Purba, E.D.; Pasaribu, D. Practices, challenges, and prospects of online learning during COVID-19 pandemic in higher education: Lecturer perspectives. Stud. Learn. Teach. 2020, 1, 185–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bączek, M.; Zagańczyk-Bączek, M.; Szpringer, M.; Jaroszyński, A.; Wożakowska-Kapłon, B. Students’ perception of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey study of Polish medical students. Medicine 2021, 100, e24821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Alchamdani, A.; Fatmasari, F.; Anugrah, E.; Sari, N.; Putri, F.; Astina, A. The Impact of Covid19 Pandemic on Online Learning Process in the College at Southeast Sulawesi. J. Kesehat. Lingkung. 2020, 12, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Maqableh, M.; Alia, M. Evaluation online learning of undergraduate students under lockdown amidst COVID-19 Pandemic: The online learning experience and students’ satisfaction. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021, 128, 106160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Adnan, M.; Anwar, K. Online Learning amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Students’ Perspectives. Online Submiss. 2020, 2, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ferri, F.; Grifoni, P.; Guzzo, T. Online Learning and Emergency Remote Teaching: Opportunities and Challenges in Emergency Situations. Societies 2020, 10, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bonal, X.; González, S. The impact of lockdown on the learning gap: Family and school divisions in times of crisis. Int. Rev. Educ. Int. Z. Fur Erziehungswissenschaft. Rev. Int. De Pedagog. 2020, 66, 635–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bacher-Hicks, A.; Goodman, J.; Mulhern, C. Inequality in household adaptation to schooling shocks: COVID-induced online learning engagement in real time. J. Public Econ. 2021, 193, 104345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ezra, O.; Cohen, A.; Bronshtein, A.; Gabbay, H.; Baruth, O. Equity factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: Difficulties in emergency remote teaching (ert) through online learning. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 7657–7681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Frei-Landau, R.; Avidov-Ungar, O. Educational equity amidst COVID-19: Exploring the online learning challenges of Bedouin and Jewish Female Preservice Teachers in Israel. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2022, 111, 103623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Severino, L.; Pittman, J.; Tecce DeCarlo, M.J.; Kiosoglous, C. An action research case study: Digital equity and educational inclusion during an emergent COVID-19 divide. J. Multicult. Educ. 2021. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hammond, T.A.; Watson, K.; Brumbelow, K.; Fields, S.A.; Shryock, K.J.; Chamberland, J.-F.; Barroso, L.R.; Miranda, M.A.D.; Johnson, M.J.J.; Alexander, G.M.; et al. A Survey to Measure the Effects of Forced Transition to 100% Online Learning on Community Sharing, Feelings of Social Isolation, Equity, Resilience, and Learning Content during the COVID-19 Pandemic. 2020. Available online: https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/187835 (accessed on 3 April 2020).
  26. Mazana, M.; Suero Montero, C.; Casmir, R. Investigating Students’ Attitude towards Learning Mathematics. Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 2018, 14, 207–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Elfaki, N.K.; Abdulraheem, I.; Abdulrahim, R. Impact of e-learning vs traditional learning on student’s performance and attitude. Int. J. Med. Res. Health Sci. 2019, 8, 76–82. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ngah, A.H.; Rashid, R.A.; Ariffin, N.A.; Ibrahim, F.; Abu Osman, N.A.; Kamalrulzaman, N.I.; Mohamad, M.F.H.; Harun, N.O. Fostering Students’ Attitude Towards Online Learning: The Mediation Effect of Satisfaction and Perceived Performance. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Intelligent Systems, Al Buraimi, Oman, 25–26 June 2021; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 290–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mushtaque, I.; Rizwan, M.; Dasti, R.; Ahmad, R.; Mushtaq, M. Students’ Attitude and Impact of Online Learning; Role of Teachers and Classmate Support during the COVID-19 Crisis. Perform. Improv. 2021, 60, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lo, C.K.; Mertz, D.; Loeb, M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: Comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Liu, X.; Zhu, M.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, C.; Liu, P.; Feng, Z.; Chen, Z. Public mental health problems during COVID-19 pandemic: A large-scale meta-analysis of the evidence. Transl. Psychiatry 2021, 11, 384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hedges, L.V.; Vevea, J.L. Fixed- and Random-Effects Models in Meta-Analysis. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 486–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Xiong, Y.; Wu, Q. A survey on secondary school students’ satisfaction with online learning in the context of “stopping classes and not stopping learning”-an analysis based on a survey of 27,199 secondary school students. Chin. J. Vocat. Tech. Educ. 2020, 29, 40–48. [Google Scholar]
  35. Shi, C.; Zhang, Y.; Wei, M.; Wu, Y. Survey on the current situation of online learning and deep learning behavior of nursing students during the period of “no classes, no school”. Med. J. Mod. Nurs. High. Vocat. Educ. 2022, 5, 67–72. [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhang, L.; Ni, M.; Zeng, S.; Zhu, Y. A Study of College Students’ Acceptance and Readiness for Online Learning. Foreign Lang. Transl. 2020, 27, 2095–9648. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jin, Y.; Chang, W.; Chang, X.; Zhu, L.; Fang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Yao, Y. Analysis of mental health and factors affecting college students during online study of the new crown pneumonia epidemic. Chin. J. Sch. Health 2021, 42, 574–578. [Google Scholar]
  38. Chen, J.; Cui, R. Survey Analysis of Online Learning Effectiveness of College Students. J. Yancheng Teach. Coll. 2020, 40, 1003–6873. [Google Scholar]
  39. Guo, L.; Wen, X. A study on online learning of students in local undergraduate institutions. J. Sci. Advice 2021, 10, 199–200. [Google Scholar]
  40. Liu, Y.; Zhang, H. Research on online teaching in colleges and universities. Chongqing High. Educ. Res. 2020, 8, 66–78. [Google Scholar]
  41. Yang, H.; Li, Y. Investigation and reflection on online learning in universities in the context of the epidemic. J. Nongken Med. 2021, 43, 462–467. [Google Scholar]
  42. Cao, L. Survey on Online Teaching Satisfaction in Higher Education Institutions and Suggestions for Countermeasures. China Educ. Sci. Forum 2021, 12, 70–73. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ministry Of Education. The Chinese Physical Society, A survey report on online teaching of physics courses during the New Crown Pneumonia outbreak prevention and control. Phys. Eng. 2020, 30, 14–24. [Google Scholar]
  44. Qin, L.; Zhang, Y.; Xue, M.; Xu, B.; Wang, L.; Zhang, J. Survey analysis of nursing undergraduates’ home online learning status. Health Vocat. Educ. 2020, 38, 134–136. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhang, H.; Zhang, B.; Xu, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y. A mediating model analysis of factors influencing nursing students’ MOOC learning performance. J. Qiqihar Med. Univ. 2022, 43, 188–194. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mi, J.; Meng, X.; Xie, Y.; Sun, J. A survey and analysis of online learning adaptability of web-based students. Comput. Inf. Technol. 2021, 29, 80–84. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wei, Y.; Wang, S.; Tai, L.; Jiang, Y.; Ruan, M.; Chai, Y. Evaluation of online learning effectiveness of medical students during the new crown pneumonia epidemic at a university in Kunming. J. Kunming Med. Univ. 2022, 43, 154–159. [Google Scholar]
  48. Li, J.; Xian, S.; Li, P.; Peng, L.; Li, Y.; Xiao, Q.; Huang, M. Research on the difference of online learning effect of urban and rural students from the perspective of cultural capital. J. Guangdong Univ. Educ. 2022, 41, 92–103. [Google Scholar]
  49. Xia, X. Analysis of online learning effect and countermeasure research—Taking a higher vocational college in Guangzhou as an example. J. Sichuan Vocat. Tech. Coll. 2020, 30, 138–142. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sun, S.; Wu, S. Research on the evaluation of online learning effect of college students under the new crown epidemic. Netw. Secur. Technol. Appl. 2021, 8, 101–103. [Google Scholar]
  51. Meng, A.; Li, X.; Wu, S. Investigation and Analysis of College Students’ Psychological Status in Online Learning during Epidemic Situation of 2019-nCov. J. Dezhou Univ. 2020, 36, 1–4+12. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kan, D.; Jin, Z.; Yang, H.; Liu, X.; Gao, X. Research and analysis of online learning of clinical theory courses for undergraduate medical students. China Med. Educ. Technol. 2020, 34, 267–270. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sun, X.; Xu, Y.; Chen, J.; Zhang, T. The current situation and insights of online teaching of public courses in mathematics in universities in the context of epidemic prevention and control. J. Cap. Norm. Univ. 2021, 42, 62–69. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhou, H. Research on the Effect of Hybrid Teaching Practice of “Online Learning + Offline Practice” in Higher Vocational Colleges During the Period of Epidemic Prevention and Control -Taking Mental Health Education as an Example. Comp. Study Cult. Innov. 2021, 5, 93–96. [Google Scholar]
  55. Jin, Z.; Li, Y.; Zhu, H.; Liu, Y.; Tao, Q. Analysis on the current situation and influencing factors of medical students’ online learning during the epidemic closure period. J. Shenyang Med. Coll. 2022, 24, 242–246. [Google Scholar]
  56. He, H.; Wang, Z.; Wu, C. Assessment of On-line Learning Effect during COVID-19 Pandemics. Chin. J. ICT Educ. 2022, 28, 87–92. [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhang, Y.; Jin, F.; Liu, J. Investigation on Online Teaching in Universities in the Context of COVID-19 Epidemic: A Case Study of Liaoning Province. J. Ningbo Inst. Educ. 2022, 24, 95–98. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wang, B.; Chen, C.; Wang, X.; Wang, T. Survey and Research on English Majors’ Online Learning Status. J. Tast. Class. 2021, 20, 141–145. [Google Scholar]
  59. Yang, Y. Survey on online learning status of vocational college student. Nurs. Pract. Res. 2022, 19, 1630–1634. [Google Scholar]
  60. Yang, M.; Qiu, G. Investigation and Countermeasure Research of Online Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools. Guide Sci. Educ. 2021, 10, 189–192. [Google Scholar]
  61. Wang, Y. Investigation and Research on the Learning Effect of Physics Online Teaching in Junior Middle School. Master’s Thesis, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  62. Jiang, W. Research on the Construction and Application of Online Teaching Evaluation Index System for High School Mathematics. Master’s Thesis, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhang, X. A Study on Online Teaching of Primary School Chinese in the Context of New Crown Pneumonia Epidemic—Take Year 5 Class S of South West University Primary School as An Example. Master’s Thesis, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zou, Y. Investigation and Countermeasures of the Current Situation of Online Teaching in Public Physical Education Courses in Some Universities in Shanghai during the Epidemic. Master’s Thesis, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  65. Bao, J. Investigation and Enlightenment of Online Learning in Primary and Secondary Schools in Yangzhou during the Epidemic Period. Master’s Thesis, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sim, S.P.-L.; Sim, H.P.-K.; Quah, C.-S. Online learning: A post COVID-19 alternative pedagogy for university students. Asian J. Univ. Educ. 2021, 16, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Syam, R.Z.A.; Achmad, W.J.J.M. Online Learning in Higher Education: Analysis during the Pandemic COVID-19. J. Mantik 2022, 5, 2256–2261. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sharma, K.; Deo, G.; Timalsina, S.; Joshi, A.; Shrestha, N.; Neupane, H.C. Online Learning in the Face of COVID-19 Pandemic: Assessment of Students’ Satisfaction at Chitwan Medical College of Nepal. Kathmandu Univ. Med. J. 2020, 18, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Akuratiya, A.; Meddage, N. Students’ Perception of Online Learning during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey Study of IT Students. Int. J. Res. Innov. Soc. Sci. 2020, 4, 755–758. [Google Scholar]
  70. Alawamleh, M.; Al-Twait, L.; Al-Saht, G. The effect of online learning on communication between instructors and students during COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Educ. Dev. Stud. 2020. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hamid, R.; Sentryo, I.; Hasan, S. Online learning and its problems in the COVID-19 emergency period. J. Prima Edukasia 2020, 8, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lemay, D.J.; Bazelais, P.; Doleck, T. Transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 2021, 4, 100130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Agustina, P.Z.R.; Cheng, T.H. How students’ perspectives about online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic? Stud. Learn. Teach. 2020, 1, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pavin Ivanec, T. The Lack of Academic Social Interactions and Students’ Learning Difficulties during COVID-19 Faculty Lockdowns in Croatia: The Mediating Role of the Perceived Sense of Life Disruption Caused by the Pandemic and the Adjustment to Online Studying. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Saxena, C.; Baber, H.; Kumar, P. Examining the Moderating Effect of Perceived Benefits of Maintaining Social Distance on E-learning Quality During COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2020, 49, 532–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Đinh Phương, L.; Nguyen, T. Pandemic, social distancing, and social work education: Students’ satisfaction with online education in Vietnam. Soc. Work Educ. 2020, 39, 1074–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Baber, H. Social interaction and effectiveness of the online learning—A moderating role of maintaining social distance during the pandemic COVID-19. Asian Educ. Dev. Stud. 2021. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bolatov, A.K.; Seisembekov, T.Z.; Askarova, A.Z.; Baikanova, R.K.; Smailova, D.S.; Fabbro, E. Online-Learning due to COVID-19 Improved Mental Health Among Medical Students. Med. Sci. Educ. 2021, 31, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pather, S.; Booi, E. An assessment of student resource readiness for online learning during COVID-19: A South African case study. In Proceedings of the ICERI2020 Conference, Valencia, Spain, 9–10 November 2020; Volume 9. [Google Scholar]
  80. Abou Khalil, V.; Helou, S.; Khalife, E.; Chen, M.-R.; Majumdar, R.; Ogata, H. Emergency Online Learning in Low-Resource Settings: Effective Student Engagement Strategies. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Qazi, A.; Naseer, K.; Qazi, J.; AlSalman, H.; Naseem, U.; Yang, S.; Hardaker, G.; Gumaei, A. Conventional to online education during COVID-19 pandemic: Do develop and underdeveloped nations cope alike. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 2020, 119, 105582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Faize, F.; Nawaz, M. Evaluation and Improvement of students’ satisfaction in Online learning during COVID-19. Open Prax. 2020, 12, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ngwacho, A.G. COVID-19 pandemic impact on Kenyan education sector: Learner challenges and mitigations. J. Res. Innov. Implic. Educ. 2020, 4, 128–139. [Google Scholar]
  84. Alexander, N.; Gibbons, K.A.; Marshall, S.L.; Rodriguez, M.C.; Sweitzer, J.; Varma, K. Implementing Principles of Reimagine Minnesota in a Period of Remote Teaching and Learning: Education Equity in the Age of COVID-19. 2020. Available online: https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/features/research-briefs/implementing-principles-of-reimagine-minnesota-in-a-period-of-remote-teaching-and-learning-education-equity-in-the-age-of-covid-19 (accessed on 6 June 2020).
  85. Blackman, S.N.J. The impact of COVID-19 on education equity: A view from Barbados and Jamaica. Prospects 2021, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Yu, Z. The effects of gender, educational level, and personality on online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2021, 18, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Yusuf, N. The Effect of Online Tutoring Applications on Student Learning Outcomes during the COVID-19 Pandemic. ITALIENISCH 2021, 11, 81–88. [Google Scholar]
  88. Liao, C.W.; Cheng, P.W. Longitudinal Study of Economically Disadvantaged Student’s Learning Attitude and Academic Performance. J. Educ. Pract. Res. 2019, 32, 71–105. [Google Scholar]
  89. Tanghal, A.B. Students’ Attitude and Learning Satisfaction towards Science and Its Effects on Academic Performance. ASEAN J. Basic High. Educ. 2020, 3, 56–91. Available online: https://www.paressu.org/online/index.php/aseanjbh/article/view/252 (accessed on 6 June 2020).
  90. Liu, C.Y.; Chen, H.L. Effects of peer learning on learning performance, motivation, and attitude. Int. J. Educ. Econ. Dev. 2020, 11, 420–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zulfikar, T.; Dahliana, S.; Sari, R.A. An Exploration of English Students’ Attitude towards English Learning. Engl. Lang. Teach. Educ. J. 2019, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Chen, L.; Bae, S.R.; Battista, C.; Qin, S.; Chen, T.; Evans, T.M.; Menon, V. Positive Attitude Toward Math Supports Early Academic Success: Behavioral Evidence and Neurocognitive Mechanisms. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 29, 390–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 12967 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart of the study selection process in the 2020 PRISMA protocol. This flowchart coincides with the broad-certified 2020 PRISMA statement.
Figure 1. Flow chart of the study selection process in the 2020 PRISMA protocol. This flowchart coincides with the broad-certified 2020 PRISMA statement.
Ijerph 19 12967 g001
Ijerph 19 12967 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot for meta-analytic results. (a) The negative attitude for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]; (b) The poor study performance of online learning [37,38,39,42,44,45,47,48,50,51,52,54,63,64,66,67,68,69,70,71]; (c) Online learning was better than face-to-face classroom learning [34,35,36,40,46,51,52,55,56,59,62,67,73]. The circle colored by orange represents the point estimation for effect towards corresponding study, with the large circle size representing a high effect size.
Figure 2. Forest plot for meta-analytic results. (a) The negative attitude for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]; (b) The poor study performance of online learning [37,38,39,42,44,45,47,48,50,51,52,54,63,64,66,67,68,69,70,71]; (c) Online learning was better than face-to-face classroom learning [34,35,36,40,46,51,52,55,56,59,62,67,73]. The circle colored by orange represents the point estimation for effect towards corresponding study, with the large circle size representing a high effect size.
Ijerph 19 12967 g002
Table
Table 1. Summary of characteristics of included studies. N.A. = not applicable.
Table 1. Summary of characteristics of included studies. N.A. = not applicable.
AuthorPublication TimeData Collection TimeRegionSample SizeGenderEducation PhaseNegative Attitude of Online LearningPoor Learning PerformanceOnline Learning Better than Face-To-Face Classroom Learning
MaleFemaleNumberRateNumberRateNumberRate
(Xiong and Wu, 2020) [34]2020.08.17NACN27,19913,69113,508primary and secondary school9903.64%NANA18,566 68.26%
(Shi et al., 2022) [35]2022.12020.3CN16231541469college116 7.15%NANA129 7.95%
(L. Zhang et al., 2020) [36]2020.3NACN782NANAcollege119 15.22%NANA262 33.50%
(Y. Jin et al., 2021) [37]2021.42020CN378119501831college531 14.04%689 18.22%NANA
(J. Chen and Cui, 2020) [38]2020.112020.5CN351012672243college95727.26%337 9.60%NANA
(Guo and Wen, 2021) [39]20222020.3CN1329761253collegeNANA135 10.16%NANA
(Y. Liu and Zhang, 2020) [40]2020.9NACN21037021404college66 3.12%NANA1145.40%
(H. Yang and Li, 2021) [41]2022.4NACN18336681165college271.46%NANANANA
(Cao, 2021) [42]2021.42020.6CN600228372primary and secondary school7212.00%90 15.00%NANA
(Ministry Of Education and The Chinese Physical Society, 2020) [43]2020.3.25NACN30,279NANAcollege26928.89%NANANANA
(Qin et al., 2020) [44]2020NACN30041259college49 16.48%4113.78%NANA
(H. Zhang et al., 2022) [45]20222020.10–2021.4CN28756231college4716.38%5920.56%NANA
(Mi et al., 2021) [46]2021.3NACN1899099college29 15.31%NANA178.99%
(Wei et al., 2022) [47]2022.1.26NACN917179738collegeNANA17519.12%NANA
(Juntang Li et al., 2022) [48]2021.62020.9CN1383NANAcollegeNANA52537.96%NANA
(Xia, 2020) [49]2020.1NACN879489390primary and secondary school829.30%NANANANA
(S. Sun and Wu, 2021) [50]2021.8NACN308416181466college111936.30%64120.80%NANA
(Meng et al., 2020) [51]2020.3.27NACN716NANAcollege395.50%709.80%12517.50%
(Kan et al., 2020) [52]2020.6NACN1076451625college413.81%132 12.27%22020.45%
(X. Sun et al., 2021) [53]2021.2NACN1121535586college948.38%NANANANA
(Zhou, 2021) [54]2021NACN1626804822college75 4.61%281.72%NANA
(Z. Jin et al., 2022) [55]2022.52022.4CN474312813462college64013.50%NANA304564.20%
(He et al., 2022) [56]2022.4NACN43NANAcollege613.64%NANA1022.70%
(Y. Zhang et al., 2022) [57]2020.11NACN1262NANAcollege22317.68%NANANANA
(B. Wang et al., 2021) [58]2021NACN121NANAcollege1512.40%NANANANA
(Y. Yang, 2022) [59]2022.62020.6CN968101867college383 39.56%NANA727.44%
(M. Yang and Qiu, 2021) [60]2021.4NACN363187176primary and secondary school283 78.02%NANANANA
(Y. Wang, 2021) [61]2021.6NACN1376869primary and secondary school9 6.57%NANANANA
(Jiang, 2021) [62]2021.62020.5CN980481499primary and secondary school118 12.00%NANA57859.00%
(X. Zhang, 2021) [63]2021.5NACN552728primary and secondary school611.00%59.00%NANA
(Zou, 2021) [64]2021.42020.7CN1098NANAcollege40637.00%555.04%NANA
(Bao, 2021) [65]2021.52020.4CN242912111218primary and secondary school1596.55%NANANANA
(Sim et al., 2021) [66]2021.1.25NAHongkong1565799college4730.13%3824.36%NANA
(Syam and Achmad, 2022) [67]2022.2.28NAIndonesia31NANAcollege2065.60%39.40%412.50%
(Sharma et al., 2020) [68]2020NANepal43497337college73 16.82%NANANANA
(Akuratiya and Meddage, 2020) [69]2020NASri Lanka1306763college118.50%64.60%NANA
(Alawamleh et al., 2020) [70]2020.8.10NAAmerican1337063college3123.30%6045.11%NANA
(Hamid et al., 2020a) [71]2020.6.182020.5Indonesia316NANAcollege19 5.90%14 4.40%NANA
(Lemay et al., 2021) [72]2021.6.29NACanada1476681college37 25.19%NANANANA
(Bestiantono et al., 2020) [73]2020.12NAIndonesia1206060primary and secondary school13 11.10%NANA12 10.30%
Table
Table 2. Summary for self-reported reasons to negatively evaluate online learning from previous studies.
Table 2. Summary for self-reported reasons to negatively evaluate online learning from previous studies.
ReasonFrequencyReference
Learning resources
(lack of learning materials, technical support, learning platform, learning equipment. limited access to the internet through a mobile phone or other deice)		28(Xiong and Wu, 2020 [34]), (Shi et al., 2022 [35]), (J. Chen and Cui, 2020 [38]), (Guo and Wen, 2021 [39]), (Y. Liu and Zhang, 2020 [40]), (H. Yang and Li, 2021 [41]), (Ministry Of Education and The Chinese Physical Society, 2020 [43]), (Qin et al., 2020 [44]), (Mi et al., 2021 [46]), (Juntang Li et al., 2022 [48]), (Xia, 2020 [49]), (X. Sun et al., 2021 [53]), (Zhou, 2021 [54]), (Y. Zhang et al., 2022 [57]), (B. Wang et al., 2021 [58]), (Y. Yang, 2022 [59]), (M. Yang and Qiu, 2021 [60]), (Y. Wang, 2021 [61]), (Jiang, 2021 [62]), (Zou, 2021 [64]), (Bao, 2021 [65]), (Sim et al., 2021 [66]), (Syam and Achmad, 2022 [67]), (Sharma et al., 2020 [68]), (Akuratiya and Meddage, 2020 [69]), (Hamid et al., 2020a [71]), (Lemay et al., 2021 [72]), (Bestiantono et al., 2020 [73])
Social isolation21(Xiong and Wu, 2020 [34]), (Shi et al., 2022 [35]), (J. Chen and Cui, 2020 [38]), (Y. Liu and Zhang, 2020 [40]), (H. Yang and Li, 2021 [41]), (Ministry Of Education and The Chinese Physical Society, 2020 [43]), (Qin et al., 2020 [44]), (Mi et al., 2021 [46]), (Xia, 2020 [49]), (Zhou, 2021 [54]), (He et al., 2022 [56]), (Y. Zhang et al., 2022 [57]), (Y. Yang, 2022 [59]), (M. Yang and Qiu, 2021 [60]), (Jiang, 2021 [62]), (Sim et al., 2021 [66]), (Syam and Achmad, 2022 [67]), (Akuratiya and Meddage, 2020 [69]), (Alawamleh et al., 2020 [70]), (Lemay et al., 2021 [72]), (Bestiantono et al., 2020 [73])
Teacher behavior
(teaching ability, preparation, supervision and teaching guide)		11(Xiong and Wu, 2020 [34]), (Shi et al., 2022 [35]), (Y. Liu and Zhang, 2020 [40]), (H. Yang and Li, 2021 [41]), (B. Wang et al., 2021 [58]), (Y. Yang, 2022 [59]), (M. Yang and Qiu, 2021 [60]), (Y. Wang, 2021 [61]), (Jiang, 2021 [62]), (Zou, 2021 [64]), (Hamid et al., 2020a [71])
Learning autonomy9(Xiong and Wu, 2020 [34]), (Xia, 2020 [49]), (S. Sun and Wu, 2021 [50]), (Zhou, 2021 [54]), (He et al., 2022 [56]), (Y. Yang, 2022 [59]), (M. Yang and Qiu, 2021 [60]), (Syam and Achmad, 2022 [67]), (Lemay et al., 2021 [72])
Teaching contents
(course arrangement, course design, course time and classroom activities)		8(Y. Liu and Zhang, 2020 [40]), (H. Yang and Li, 2021 [41]), (Zhou, 2021 [54]), (Y. Zhang et al., 2022 [57]), (Y. Yang, 2022 [59]), (M. Yang and Qiu, 2021 [60]), (Y. Wang, 2021 [61]), (Jiang, 2021 [62])
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, X.; Gong, Z.; Miao, K.; Yang, P.; Liu, H.; Feng, Z.; Chen, Z. Attitude and Performance for Online Learning during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Meta-Analytic Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912967

AMA Style

Liu X, Gong Z, Miao K, Yang P, Liu H, Feng Z, Chen Z. Attitude and Performance for Online Learning during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Meta-Analytic Evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(19):12967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912967

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Xuerong, Zheng Gong, Kuan Miao, Peiyi Yang, Hongli Liu, Zhengzhi Feng, and Zhiyi Chen. 2022. "Attitude and Performance for Online Learning during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Meta-Analytic Evidence" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 12967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912967

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop