Who Needs Academic Campuses? Are There Advantages to Studying on an Academic Campus Considering the Experience of Online Teaching Five Years after COVID-19?

Abstract

This study explores students’ perceptions of the advantages of academic campuses as the location of studies that involve social interaction, with a focus on the role of social interaction in the learning experience. The study examines students’ perspectives approximately five years after the time of COVID-19, when online studies have become more prevalent. Participants were 1048 students from several departments at two academic institutions, a university and a college, of whom 39.1% (407) were male and 60.9% (633) female. The age of the respondents ranged from 18–23 (30.4%), 24–30 (60.3%), and 31–63 (9.3%). Among all respondents, 64.2% were studying social sciences and 35.8% engineering. A mixed methods research design was employed, combining qualitative and quantitative analysis. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to test the goodness-of-fit of the presented model. The research findings showed that measures of comprehensibility, concentration, and contact with the lecturer enhance learning in a physical classroom more than learning via online teaching. However, interaction with peers does not improve one’s studies at all and is not a sufficient reason to attend classes. These findings are based on analysis of survey responses, after applying SEM to test the goodness-of-fit of the presented model. The final model showed a good fit: CMIN/DF = 1.26, CFI = 0.999, NFI = 0.996, TLI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.02. The findings of this study may hold importance for leaders of higher education when endeavoring to plan teaching, learning, and evaluation at academic institutions and for shaping the academic campus as a significant educational space in the future. Moreover, the findings may have important implications for education management strategies towards sustainable development. Higher education institutions need to re-evaluate the role of the physical campus and social interaction within it in the era of remote learning.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered an abrupt and unprecedented shift in educational models across the globe. Virtually overnight, academic institutions had to transition from traditional in-person classroom instruction to remote online learning environments [1]. This large-scale disruption, driven by public health imperatives, challenged long-held assumptions about the role and importance of physical university campuses in facilitating effective learning experiences [2]. In the years following the pandemic, online education has become an integral part of higher education delivery, prompting debates on the relative advantages of virtual versus in-person modes [3].

This study seeks to explore students’ perspectives on the potential pedagogical benefits of academic campuses as learning spaces that enable social interaction, several years removed from the emergency online transition catalyzed by COVID-19 [1]. Specifically, we investigate whether factors like comprehensibility, concentration, rapport with instructors, and peer engagement are perceived by students as enhancing learning outcomes to a greater degree when experienced through in-person classroom settings compared to online platforms [4]. Moreover, we examine the broader role that university campuses may play in cultivating critical social-emotional skills among students.

Prior research has highlighted the importance of fostering social-emotional competencies like emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills, and self-regulation for achieving academic success [1]. However, it remains unclear whether students perceive the physical campus environment and its enabling of interpersonal interactions as a valuable facilitator of such skills [3]. By surveying students’ viewpoints several years into the normalization of online learning models, this study provides timely insights to inform strategic decisions on the future positioning and investment in academic campuses [4].

The relationship between student engagement and learning environments has been a focal point of educational research. Engagement, often characterized by students’ cognitive investment, active participation, and emotional involvement in learning activities, is influenced significantly by the physical setting in which learning occurs [5]. Research by Kuh [6] underscores that environments which foster interaction, provide support, and facilitate active learning contribute to higher levels of student engagement and academic success.

Moreover, physical presence on campus provides unique opportunities for collaborative learning, which is a key component in developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills. According to Johnson et al. [7], cooperative learning environments where students work together to achieve shared goals enhance learning outcomes more effectively than individualist or competitive settings. The presence of peers and the immediate availability of feedback from instructors in a face-to-face setting also play a crucial role in sustaining motivation and deepening understanding of the subject matter.

These insights into the dynamics of learning environments emphasize the enduring value of physical academic campuses in fostering an engaging and supportive educational experience. As institutions continue to adapt to the evolving educational landscape post-pandemic, maintaining a balance between online and in-person learning modalities will be essential to maximize student engagement and learning outcomes.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Social Interaction and Learning Skills, and Emotional Learning (SEL)

Studies support the conception whereby students’ success within educational settings and outside them is strongly associated with social interaction. Students with a sense of belonging and purpose, who work well with their classmates to solve problems and are capable of planning and achieving aims and persevering with challenges, have a higher likelihood of maximizing their potential [8]. The academic campus is a critical space for social interaction. At present, academic institutions also recognize the high priority of social learning, where research supports this course of action and the opportunities it offers [9].

Decades of research on human development—cognition, behavior, brain research, educational policy, as well as other research fields—have generated the insight that significant areas of human development, emotional, social, cognitive, linguistic, and scholastic, are deeply embedded in one’s brain and behavior and are central for learning. Strengths and weaknesses in one area foster or hinder the development of another [10]. Social-emotional development includes social, emotional, and cognitive capabilities, skills, and processes. Hence, not only do these important skills promote cognitive learning, the quality and depth of students’ learning also improve when they have opportunities to interact with others [11].

Social-emotional development is multifaceted and integral to learning and to how it occurs. It encompasses specific capabilities and skills that the learner needs for the purpose of setting aims, managing behavior, building relationships, and processing and remembering information. Moreover, it is possible to intentionally structure contexts that will make it possible to foster these capabilities and skills. These skills can be grouped into three areas that are interrelated in general and are also associated specifically with learning [12].

First, cognitive skills that include functions of learning management such as memory, flexibility, and planning, as well as beliefs and attributions that guide one’s sense of self and attitudes regarding learning and growth [13]. Second, emotional capabilities that allow one to deal with frustration, identify and manage feelings, and understand the other’s feelings and perspectives in the learning process [14]. Third, social and interpersonal capabilities that make it possible to understand social cues, navigate social situations, resolve interpersonal conflicts, collaborate with others, work efficiently in a team, and display compassion and empathy towards others in the learning process [15].

Research shows that students learn better when they have the capabilities and skills to manage feelings, focus attention, navigate successfully in relationships with their same-age peers and with adults, persevere in the face of difficulty, learn and apply academic content, and solve problems. In addition, the educational setting and the educational space play a role in improving learners’ social-emotional skills and these skills may affect perceived self-efficacy, the ability to persevere, and social behaviors, as well as improving grades and achievements in exams [16].

2.2. What about Higher Education and Academic Studies?

It is clear from the research that children with stronger social-emotional capabilities have a higher likelihood of becoming integrated in institutions of higher education and developing a successful career, as well as maintaining more positive relationships in the family and in the workplace, better mental and physical health, less involvement in delinquent behavior, and being more engaged citizens [17]. Social-emotional-cognitive capabilities are fundamentally interwoven—they are interdependent with regard to development, experiencing, and how they are used. They are an integral part of learning and of success in one’s studies. Moreover, classroom teaching and educational activities that link cognitive challenges with social interaction or with the student’s emotional world have been found to result in deeper and more long-term learning [8]. In addition to students’ individual outcomes, focusing on social-emotional development leads to the construction of safe, better-functioning educational settings and to study groups characterized by a supportive culture and climate, positive relationships, effective teaching, and deeper learning.

Nevertheless, the question is whether it is the responsibility of academia to foster students’ social-emotional-cognitive capabilities on a daily level. The consensus surrounding this issue allows lecturers and policymakers in higher education to support social-emotional development as part of teaching in the 21st century [18]. Social-emotional-cognitive skills are not predetermined by a master plan. The experience of social interaction affects skills that emerge, grow, and change over time: from one’s first years of life, through childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. The research indicates that social-emotional skills can change throughout a lengthy period of development, while some cognitive core competencies change less as children mature. Two important principles are evident from the research [17].

First, some emotional skills operate as foundational building blocks for more complex skills that appear further on in life. For example, emotional regulation and management are foundational for resolving complex social conflicts. Second, the research indicates that in specific developmental periods some skills are more conspicuous and important than others. This means that it is necessary to cultivate social-emotional-cognitive skills in accordance with age. Social-emotional skills can be purposefully cultivated via quality practices, interventions, and study programs. For example, Durlak et al. [19], who conducted a meta-analysis of more than 200 social-emotional programs, found that these are more effective when they foster practices of training social-emotional skills. Specifically, the programs were found to provide a response to a series of actions that are compatible and cultivate social-emotional skills rather than to a single action.

Schools, colleges, and universities have a key role in educational, social, and emotional development. These are critical settings for developing, building, and nurturing social-emotional and academic skills. At the same time, families and other community institutions also have an essential role in building and supporting these capabilities [20]. Social-emotional and academic development are also an essential part of higher education in settings that nurture academic excellence, cooperation and communication, creativity and innovation, empathy and respect, civic engagement, and other skills and attitudes necessary for attaining success in the 21st century.

2.3. Interpersonal Interaction and Social-Academic Climate

A finding that emerges consistently indicates that nurturing social-emotional capabilities leads to a shift in class culture and climate. Namely, interventions not only shape outcomes among individuals but also relate to wider outcomes on the institutional level [20]. Students with stronger social-emotional skills have a higher likelihood of initiating and preserving positive relationships with their peers and with adults, participating in class activities, and engaging in learning. In addition, their classes are characterized by more caring and involved teacher-student relationships. As a result, when students feel comfortable with their teachers and with their age group they are more ready to deal with challenging study material and persevere in tough school assignments [21].

The research indicates the importance of effective assimilation of social-emotional learning and related intervention strategies [12]. Studies show that high quality assimilation is associated with better outcomes among learners. In educational settings that have no organized strategy for assimilating social and emotional learning, students attain lower outcomes regarding developing these skills and their positive impact. Monitoring assimilation is essential for examining the effect of the interventions and for providing valuable teaching. The conditions for effective assimilation of social and emotional learning are well-known: social and emotional learning must be compatible with the learner’s needs from a developmental and cultural perspective; students benefit more when social and emotional learning is interwoven in everyday interactions within the different types of educational settings and their culture [18].

Hence, for social-emotional and academic development to thrive in academia as well, lecturers need professional development and support to understand and model these skills, behaviors, knowledge, and beliefs. In many places, lecturers receive very little training on how to develop social-emotional skills. As a result, they report a low sense of self-efficacy regarding their ability to support students’ social-emotional development. When teachers receive training in the form of a program or as part of assimilating a strategy, this also affects teaching and learning in class, and they feel a higher sense of self-efficacy to assimilate positive, active class management strategies that reduce students’ aggressive behavior and promote a more positive class climate [8].

In summary, social skills have an impact not only on the individual level but rather also on society. In the 21st century, global and Israeli society in general and the occupational world in particular have become heterogeneous, due to the significant social changes in recent years. For this reason, a high level of social skills among individuals is not enough to ensure an intact society or proper functioning in the world of employment.

To successfully contend with these changes, it is necessary to make sure that the social relations cross boundaries of homogeneous groups and that students and adults are willing to create social and professional ties with people from different backgrounds and other cultures and do so in practice. This is the focus of global literacy. However, global literacy goes beyond collaborations and ties between cultures; it is important on the social level, as local and global processes in economic, social, and environmental spheres are interrelated. Thus, to protect the close and more distant environment, students must develop an awareness of global issues and assume personal responsibility [21].

2.4. Social Skills in the Time of COVID-19 and Online Learning

While this study focuses on Israel, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social skills development is a global phenomenon, as evidenced by studies referring to developed countries [22]. COVID-19 negatively affected the sustainable development of countries, but developed countries showed better performance than developing countries [23]. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic severely harmed developed countries and was a major threat to low- and middle-income countries, particularly in Africa [24]. However, in education, similar to non-developed countries, the pandemic led to the conversion of face-to-face teaching and learning to virtual remote learning in developing countries as well [25].

In Israel and in many countries worldwide, the COVID-19 pandemic led to the greatest disruption of the education system in history. In all institutions of higher education and education systems, many restrictions were put in place, preventing students and lecturers, schoolchildren and teachers, from physically attending academic campuses and schools. Consequently, a decision was made to transition to online learning in all study subjects. This emergency transition to online learning required prompt steps that instantaneously changed the manner of teaching and learning among faculty and students [26]. Studies that examined the views of lecturers on the benefits and shortcomings of online teaching from different perspectives, from a systemic perspective and in an array of institutions of higher education, found that most lecturers noted the lack of personal social and emotional interactions with students and lecturers as one of its main shortcomings. Moreover, most lecturers did not ascribe to online learning benefits concerning the quality of teaching and learning per se.

Research findings indicate the role of the lecturer in the digital era as a teacher [26]. The findings show that successful online learning is predicated on adaptation to digital pedagogical-educational approaches rather than using traditional-frontal teaching patterns. They indicate the need to train lecturers in the proper use of technology and of suitable digital pedagogy, so that they can re-examine teaching and learning processes and adapt them to the new opportunities offered and facilitated by the technological tools and learning environments.

It is clear from the research findings that policymakers in higher education and academic institutions must thoroughly discuss the new effective designation of the academic campus after the COVID-19 crisis, adapt it to the new reality, contend with the transition from place-dependent learning and teaching on campus to learning that is independent of location, from time-dependent learning to learning at any time, and from studying in a class to studying on the web. They must also examine the challenges and ways of dealing with pedagogical-educational approaches suitable for remote teaching and learning [26].

Contemporary universities and colleges are increasingly seeing online learning as an attractive way of leveraging teaching and learning processes, which allows a focus on both didactic pedagogic aspects and social-emotional aspects [27]. Online learning is characterized mainly by learning at any time and place. The face-to-face study encounter in the traditional educational space is being replaced by technological means—smartphones, computers, software and websites, online lessons, recorded lessons and presentations. The COVID-19 pandemic intensified the use of online learning in its various forms as well as attempts at suitable and efficient pedagogic use of all these for the benefit of students in academic institutions. Notably, following the pandemic, various academic institutions have become aware of the economic and marketing potential of using these advanced technologies, and this learning is clearly changing the structure of teaching in academia [9].

The research literature explains that distance learning is learning that occurs in conditions of physical distance between the teacher and the students, where technology is used to connect them. Open distance learning is defined as a process of teaching and learning that takes place at least partially online via text, audio, or video [27]. Online learning is a learning experience that utilizes computers and the internet both at the facilities of the educational organization and outside it. When teaching takes place in an online environment, the teacher and students are physically separate from each other (in place, time, or both). The virtual classroom is defined by an appropriate computer program. Usually, several features of traditional learning such as conveying information and evaluating achievements through exams are also maintained in online learning [27].

Goldschmidt [28] discerned between “one-way” technologies (written study materials, videos, television, and radio) and “two-way” technologies (telephone, e-mail, online conferencing, Zoom, etc.). As he sees it, two-way technologies allow students to interact with the teacher and with other students—they can respond to the material studied and receive answers to their comments from the teacher or from other students. This connection affects learning efficacy. Technology itself is mainly an infrastructure; its developers and users choose how to utilize it. Hence, various models of online learning have been formed, beginning from duplicating the familiar model—where the lecturer gives a frontal lecture with no aides via a face-to-face lecture accompanied by a presentation—and ending with innovative models that include an array of content sources and which attempt to suggest new cooperative and less centralized manners of learning. All these models can be implemented in digital formats available on the internet for shared viewing or learning [12].

Another benefit of online learning is that it allows students to study when they have the time and at their own pace. They can also move around while learning [27]. Students who have a family to care for and who combine work with studies are usually burdened by everyday tasks and can only study when they have free time during the day if the classes are recorded. In this way, online learning allows adaptation of the study pace to each student. Moreover, most people currently prefer to consume content via the internet over other manners such as reading the news, watching television, talking to friends, meeting in person, etc. Finally, researchers identified an alleviation of the teacher’s workload involving exercise and a rise in students’ motivation, as well as in aspects of order, organization, and self-discipline [29].

2.5. Challenges Involved in Online Teaching and Learning

Adaptation of the faculty and students: Students’ and lecturers’ adaptation processes following the shift to computerized courses and the transition to suitable digital pedagogy take time, as they require conscious transformation. The transition from studying in a traditional classroom to online learning is usually characterized by a transition from passive to active learning. It is necessary to prepare students for online learning. Preparing and training the lecturers is also important, as they are responsible for managing the course. Academic teaching centers have a very important role in this process as an instructive and supportive social-professional setting [9,27].

Learning skills: Both lecturers and students lack the necessary cognitive skills for efficient and effective use of online technologies, including reading instructions from graphic displays, building knowledge, evaluating quality, and forming significant study materials from those available online, with the aim of using these technologies judiciously for learning and teaching.

Willpower and self-demand: Self-motivation is an essential requirement for online learning. Students must overcome difficulties and mobilize their own motivation to adapt to the change for the purpose of reaping the benefits of online learning in the future.

Teamwork and individual contact with the students: It is evident from the research findings that the transition to distance teaching, particularly in the case of online teaching, has indeed given students the option of teamwork and of individual contact with lecturers, which was not possible in regular classroom teaching due to the size of the class and other reasons [27].

Lecturers noted the lack of personal social and emotional interaction with both students and lecturers as one of the main shortcomings of online learning/teaching. These findings correspond with the model devised by Salmon [11], whereby at the beginning of every online course, after overcoming the technical difficulties, it is necessary to develop camaraderie among the students, encourage them to send messages to each other, and to establish their identity on the web. This stage is essential for establishing efficient teaching/learning subsequently.

The research also illuminates the role of the lecturer in the digital era as a teacher and primarily the role of the professional elements in charge of teaching and learning in academic institutions. According to the research findings, the new pedagogic world must set itself new aims and reformulate the image of the teacher as a digital pedagogue—a professional who understands the new opportunities offered by the technological world for handling many and more diverse tasks than ever before [12,30].

2.6. Models of Optimal Teaching

The research survey was based on Ḥaṭiva’s [31] cognitive-emotional theory and model of optimal teaching. According to this theory, the teaching capability of good teachers consists of two dimensions: The first is the cognitive dimension, comprising good ability to organize the course and lesson and to utilize the time for learning, present clear explanations of the study material, and maintain the students’ concentration and engagement in the lesson. The second is the social-emotional-academic dimension, comprising the teacher’s ability to display respect for the students, empathy for their difficulties, to care for their success, and to provide the necessary assistance for this purpose. Other areas explored in the study followed the model devised by Cohen and Davidovitch [32] and included the desirability and improvement of the student’s study capabilities in online teaching, as well as students’ personal preference for online learning.

For the purpose of the study, a survey was developed presenting respondents with several statements related to the impact of online learning on the quality of learning [33], as well as the advantages and disadvantages of online teaching and learning [32]. The current study examined the dimensions of online teaching based on Ḥaṭiva’s [33] theory and model. The cognitive dimension: interest, order and organization, and clarity; the social-emotional-academic dimension: interpersonal interaction and the lecturers’ availability for the students. Two other areas explored in the study followed the model devised by Cohen and Davidovitch [32]: The desirability and improvement of the student’s study capabilities in online teaching, and enhancing students’ learning.

2.7. Online Teaching and Face-to-Face Teaching

Online teaching and face-to-face teaching are subjects of significant interest, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The transition to online teaching has been a major shift for educational institutions worldwide. Research indicates that while online teaching offers benefits such as flexibility and accessibility, there are also challenges associated with this mode of instruction. For instance, faculty members often find that it takes them twice as long to prepare and teach online courses compared to face-to-face classes [34]. Moreover, the sudden move to online instruction has disrupted traditional teaching practices and posed challenges for teaching staff [35].

In medical education, studies have shown varying perceptions among students regarding online teaching. While some students strongly favor online teaching over face-to-face instruction [36], others express concerns about the effectiveness of online teaching compared to traditional methods [37]. The shift to online teaching during the pandemic has prompted medical schools to consider a blend of teaching formats, such as team-based or problem-based learning, to enhance the efficacy of medical education in the future [38].

The debate surrounding online versus face-to-face teaching extends beyond the medical field. Educators across disciplines have had to adapt to online instruction, with some expressing mixed feelings about the transition. While online teaching is seen as convenient, less costly, and easy to access, it may not be equally effective for all students, as some who excel in traditional classrooms may struggle in online settings [39]. Additionally, concerns have been raised about the impact of online teaching on student well-being and the overall university experience [40].

In conclusion, while online teaching offers advantages in terms of flexibility and accessibility, challenges such as increased preparation time for faculty and concerns about student well-being have also been identified. Moving forward, a blended approach that combines the strengths of both online and face-to-face teaching methods may offer a more comprehensive and effective educational experience.

3. Methodology

3.1. Initial Sample

A survey was distributed to students from two institutions using Google Forms. It included one open question: “What are the advantages of resuming classroom-based studies?” and two closed-ended Likert-style questions (with responses ranging from 1—completely disagree, to 5—completely agree): “In my opinion, the transition to classroom-based teaching improves my study ability” (Improve); and “I prefer online lessons” (Prefer). The survey items were reviewed by experts in the field of education and online learning to ensure content validity.

In qualitative research aimed at deeply exploring participants’ perspectives and experiences, even a single open-ended question can provide rich data for analysis. The goal is to elicit detailed responses that capture the nuances and complexities of the phenomenon studied. While the survey contained a total of three questions, the main data came from the one overarching open-ended question. This allowed participants to provide in-depth descriptions and reflections in their own words, rather than being constrained by fixed response options. The two closed-ended questions were merely used to collect information regarding the dependent variables. The core analysis focused entirely on coding and thematically analyzing the extensive qualitative data from the open-ended responses.

Mixed methods research does not require an arbitrary minimum number of questions or equal weighting of qualitative and quantitative elements. The key lies in purposefully integrating both types of data in a way that is appropriate and valuable for addressing the research questions. In this study, the qualitative open-ended data was prioritized as the centerpiece for an inductive exploration of participants’ perspectives.

That is, the questionnaire we designed includes both an open-ended question and two closed-ended questions, which are intended to measure our dependent variables. The open-ended question allows respondents to freely express their thoughts and experiences, providing rich qualitative data that can be categorized and analyzed for emerging themes. This approach enabled us to capture a wide range of perspectives and insights that might not be fully represented through closed-ended questions alone.

For the closed-ended questions, we focused on specific dependent variables relevant to our research objectives. These questions were designed to elicit quantifiable responses that could be systematically analyzed to assess the relationships and effects of the variables under investigation. Unlike a traditional closed-ended questionnaire that relies heavily on predefined items from the prior literature, our approach emphasized the exploration of new insights through the open-ended question. This method allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the respondents’ experiences and perceptions, facilitating a more nuanced analysis.

In summary, the open-ended question in our questionnaire is a key component of our methodological approach, aimed at capturing a broad spectrum of qualitative data. The subsequent categorization and analysis of this data form the basis of our study’s insights, complemented by the quantitative data obtained from the closed-ended questions.

The results of this study provide insights into students’ perceptions of the advantages of in-person learning on academic campuses compared to online learning. Specifically, measures of comprehensibility, concentration, and contact with the lecturer enhanced learning in physical classrooms more than online formats. However, social interaction with peers is not seen as a major advantage of physical campus attendance from the students’ perspective in terms of improving learning.

After completion, 1048 fully completed questionnaires were collected from Ariel University (948) and from Tel-Hai College and Shaanan College (58), reflecting a high response rate (82%). Of all respondents, 39.1% were male (407) and 60.9% (633) female. The age of the respondents ranged from 18–23 (30.4%), 24–30 (60.3%), and 31–63 (9.3%). Of these, 64.2% were from the social sciences and 35.8% from engineering departments.

3.2. Analysis

The data were analyzed using a mixed methods research design. We used a data-driven, inductive approach to identify key themes from the qualitative data, which then informed the development of the quantitative survey items. The open-ended question was manually explored and main themes were binary tagged [41], that is, 1 = the text includes the theme, and 0 = the text does not include the theme. The qualitative analysis revealed several overarching themes, such as impact on comprehensibility, ability to concentrate, rapport with instructors, peer interaction, and social skill development. These inductively-derived themes guided the development of a data-table for quantitative measurement and comparison of student perspectives across learning environments.

Next, an empirical model was presented. Correlations were placed between the variables generated from the same open questions. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to test goodness-of-fit assessment. The fit indices used were CFI, NFI, TLI, RMSEA, and the ratio CMIN/DF. Acceptable fit is CFI, TLI, NFI > 0.9, and CMIN/DF < 5 [42], RMSEA < 0.06 [43].

4. Qualitative Analysis

We employed a thematic analysis approach [44] to systematically identify, analyze, and report patterns and themes within the interview and focus group data. Specifically:

• The qualitative data was first collected from the online forms. Two researchers then engaged in repeated readings of the data to familiarize themselves with the breadth and depth of the collected information.
• Initial codes were generated from the data. These codes identified features of the data that seemed potentially relevant to the research questions concerning perceived advantages/disadvantages of in-person versus online learning environments.
• These initial codes were then collated into potential overarching themes by combining similar codes into representative candidates for broader themes grounded in the data.
• The candidate themes were reviewed and refined through an iterative process of reading all collated extracts for each theme and considering whether they appeared to form a coherent pattern. Themes were revised or discarded based on this analysis.
• The final set of defined themes were named and scoped through ongoing analysis and discussion within the research team to capture the essence and qualitative meanings evident in the dataset.
• Compelling and representative extracts were then selected from the transcripts to provide sufficient evidence and illustration of each theme in the qualitative results section.

The researchers achieved a high level of agreement, with a Cohen’s Kappa index of 0.98.

The following are examples of the main themes. Some categories were removed during the manual classification process.

More comprehensible (Q1.1)

Respondent 1: “The explanations are more comprehensible.”

Respondent 9: “The material is conveyed in a clearer and slow manner, with no unnecessary speeding.”

Respondent 56: “Concentration, conversation with the lecturer, social contact, better understanding of the material, and less disruptions.”

Hence, the respondents clarified the importance of clearer and more comprehensible lectures.

Concentration and attention (Q1.2)

Respondent 310: “It is easier to concentrate.”

Respondent 4: “Frontal classes facilitate more concentration.”

Respondent 11: “It helps concentrate, puts you in a learning atmosphere.”

Hence, concentration and attention are a challenging area for the young generation. The respondents clarified that frontal lectures help them with attention and concentration.

Interaction with friends (Q1.4)

Respondent 10: “Face-to-face encounters with the students who study with me.”

Respondent 11: “Encounters with friends and meeting new people.”

Respondent 12: “Expanding one’s circle of friends.”

Hence, one conspicuous advantage of frontal teaching is the issue of face-to-face interaction, i.e., the social element, as portrayed here by the students.

No advantages (Q1.6)

Respondent 8: “There are no advantages.”

Respondent 13: “Aside from the social issue there are no advantages.”

Respondent 14: “I think that there are none [advantages].”

Hence, alongside all the advantages of resuming classes on campus, also notable is a large group of students who see no advantages to this resumption and prefer the convenient online method.

Familiarity or personal contact with the lecturer (Q1.9)

Respondent 3: “Personal contact with the lecturer.”

Respondent 5: “Asking questions, a more open discourse with the lecturer.”

Respondent 46: “Seeing the lecturer face-to-face.”

It is interesting to see one of the important themes that arose, whereby face-to-face interaction with the lecturer is also important.

To summarize, a major theme centered on the difficulties many students faced in transitioning to and persisting with online coursework. Challenges such as sustaining motivation and dealing with distractions made it hard for some to remain engaged, especially in formats like lengthy video lectures. However, others unexpectedly thrived in the online setting, appreciating the flexibility it afforded.

The data also revealed that the impact of online learning on social connections was nuanced. While some platforms such as discussion forums cultivated robust academic communities, participants lamented the lack of serendipitous social interactions that occur in physical spaces. For many students, building a well-rounded sense of community and camaraderie was an area that remained difficult to fully replicate online.

Overall, these qualitative findings provide an authentic window into the lived realities of online education during a challenging transition period. The nuances and variations in how students responded to and made meaning of their experiences offer insights on how institutions can better design and support quality online learning environments going forward. The wealth of perspectives underscores the need for flexibility and options for accommodating diverse learners’ needs.

5. Empirical Results

Figure 1 presents the model and the standardized coefficients. The effect of gender as a typical control variable was also examined [45].

Table 1. Effects of the variables on the closed-ended questions.

Q	Themes	N	Standardized Regression Weights
			Improve Improved study abilities	Prefer Prefer online
Q1.1	More comprehensible	66	0.23 ***	−0.22 ***
Q1.2	Concentration and attention	107	0.28 ***	−0.28 ***
Q1.4	Interaction with friends	332	−0.06 *	0.04
Q1.6	No advantages	219	−0.31 ***	0.22 ***
Lecturer Adv	Familiarity or personal contact with the lecturer	163	0.13 ***	−0.14 ***

* p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

presents the variables and the statistical significance with Improve and Prefer.

The hypothesized model showed good fit: CMIN/DF = 4.17, CFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.055. Gender had no effect on Improve and Prefer and neither did age, which was investigated next. Differences between the university and the colleges were also explored, but no statistically significant difference was found.

Then, the group of students who claimed that resuming frontal teaching has no advantages was explored by age and gender. We added age to the model as a variable in addition to gender, and while no gender-related difference was found (p > 0.05), age did have an effect (β = 0.12, p < 0.001).

The new model showed a good fit: CMIN/DF = 1.26, CFI = 0.999, NFI = 0.996, TLI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.02. Age had a positive effect on Q1.6, meaning that the higher the age, the less willingness to resume studies in a physical classroom.

From the results we observe the following: (a) Comprehensibility and Concentration: Variables related to these themes showed statistically significant positive effects on students’ preference for physical classes (Q1.1 and Q1.2). (b) Interaction with Friends: Interestingly, this variable had no significant effect on the perceived improvement of study abilities, suggesting that social interaction alone is not a sufficient reason to prefer in-person learning. (c) Age: Age was found to significantly affect preferences, with older students showing a greater inclination towards online learning (Q1.6). This may reflect their need to balance academic pursuits with other responsibilities such as work and family.

6. Discussion

The proposed model demonstrated a strong fit, with indices like CFI, NFI, TLI, and RMSEA surpassing the minimum threshold requirements. The results of this study provide insights into students’ perceptions of the advantages of in-person learning on academic campuses compared to online learning. Specifically, measures of comprehensibility, concentration, and contact with the lecturer favored learning in physical classrooms more than online formats. However, social interaction with peers is not seen as a major advantage of physical campus attendance from the students’ perspective in terms of improving learning.

This study examined students’ perceptions regarding the advantages of the academic campus as the location of studies that involve social interaction about five years after the time of COVID-19, when online learning had become customary. Informed by Ḥaṭiva’s [31] model of effective teaching, the research findings include a cognitive part that relates to measures of interest, order and organization, and lecturer clarity, and another part that relates to interaction within the educational space on campus.

It is important to note that this study does not attempt to measure the direct impact of social interactions on student performance. Rather, the focus is on understanding students’ perceptions of the advantages offered by academic campuses as physical spaces that facilitate social interaction during their studies, in contrast to the online learning environment that became prevalent after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The qualitative and quantitative results converged in highlighting several critical factors that students perceived as integral to their learning experiences and potential benefits deriving from campus life versus online modes. A key finding relates to social interaction and engagement. Both data sources emphasized the role of social interaction, whether with instructors or peers, as a key advantage of in-person campus environments. The qualitative analysis revealed multiple comments highlighting the value students place on face-to-face discussions, the ability to ask questions seamlessly, and general rapport. These perspectives resonated in the quantitative data, as presented in the model. This aligns with previous work underscoring the social aspects of learning as crucial for knowledge construction and personal development [46]. It has been argued that the spontaneity and reciprocity of in-person dialogue is best for activities such as question/answer cycles [47]. Our findings suggest that students perceive campuses as enabling these valuable social learning opportunities compared to online formats.

Although the students were asked about the advantages of learning on the academic campus, a large group of respondents said that resuming physical teaching on campus has no advantages. Furthermore, in studies conducted during the time of COVID-19 and about one year subsequently, students reported that interaction with friends is a significant component of their motivation to study and is very significant when studying in a physical academic campus. In contrast, the findings of the current study, conducted approximately five years after COVID-19, did not find that social interaction on campus, whether physical or online, has the capacity to improve study competencies. Namely, interaction with friends does not improve one’s studies and is not a sufficient reason to attend classes. The findings of this study may hold importance for leaders of higher education when endeavoring to plan teaching, learning, and evaluation at academic institutions and when shaping the academic campus as a significant study realm in the future.

Notably, although the students were asked about the advantages, a large group of respondents said that there are no advantages and they prefer online teaching. The findings show that age has a significant positive effect. Namely, the preference for online teaching over frontal teaching increases with age. When endeavoring to plan the study platform, leaders of higher education should take into account the student population and its features. Older people have jobs, some may have a family to care for, and the academic campus is not the main element in their life. They are very functionally oriented; they come to earn a degree and not for a social life and interaction [48,49].

The advantages found for teaching in a physical classroom are comprehensibility, concentration, and contact with the lecturer. These advantages are directly associated with the preference for teaching in class over online teaching. Moreover, the variable with the most respondents—interaction with friends—had a significantly negative effect on improving study capabilities and no significant effect on the preference for teaching in class versus online. Namely, interaction with friends does not improve learning at all and is not a sufficient reason to attend class.

The coronavirus crisis was an incidental event that had the potential to accelerate the process of opening real windows of opportunity to change and of transitioning from a conservative academic system to an innovative, initiating, and learning-based system. In fact, the crisis facilitated rapid assimilation of technology, innovative pedagogy, and advanced management mechanisms. It proved that the system of higher education and its leaders have the ability and the resilience to function in times of crisis. The digital learning which engulfed the academic system placed the heads of institutions, as well as the lecturers and students, in a previously unfamiliar reality. In a matter of weeks, the classroom walls were breached, digital spheres were established, contents developed, and designated teaching workshops opened. Thus, progress in the use of online platforms and technologies was rapidly achieved, and room was given for independence, creativity, and entrepreneurship, all of which have potential for further personal and institutional development. At the same time, it became clear that online learning requires suitable pedagogy—digital pedagogy; it is necessary to rethink the contents, pedagogy, teaching techniques, and evaluation methods. There is a big difference between learning skills that are acquired in a traditional classroom and those acquired in a virtual classroom and this difference must be bridged. Nevertheless, although previous research findings did not prove that there is no alternative to personal contact between the teacher and students and among the students themselves, the findings of the current study show that, as perceived by the students, interpersonal human interaction does not necessarily enhance students’ learning processes.

These findings shed light on the learning space within the academic campus, its nature, character, and uniqueness. It appears that online learning is not the only suitable method, certainly not in all disciplines and types of lessons. Combining online learning and face-to-face learning might upgrade the learning experience, as well as students’ success and achievements. Detailed programs must be designed to train lecturers and students in a gradual and structured way to carry out the challenging tasks of teaching in the future.

The finding that in-person concentration and lecturer interaction improved learning aligns with previous literature highlighting the importance of developing social-emotional-cognitive capabilities like emotional regulation, interpersonal skills, and focus/attention management in educational settings. Developing social-emotional-cognitive skills among students is a factor influencing academic success, persistence, problem solving abilities, and personal development. It is argued that learning frameworks and educational spaces can contribute to the cultivation of these skills. These points are relevant for education management strategies for sustainable development in several spheres.

First, the importance of personal and emotional development of students, alongside academic achievement, as part of holistic and sustainable development. Second, the central role of educational institutions in fostering social-emotional skills and creating a supportive learning environment for their development. Third, the need to re-examine the role of the physical campus and social interaction within it in an era of online learning, and to adapt the learning environment to changing needs.

Moreover, the study illuminates the role of the lecturer in the digital era as a teacher and particularly the role of the professional elements in charge of teaching and learning in academic institutions, primarily in pedagogic aspects. According to students’ evaluation, use of technological platforms and tools does not improve teaching, as faculty use them for technical purposes only with no appropriate pedagogy. For online learning to occur there is a need for different pedagogic educational approaches rather than emulating frontal teaching patterns on the Zoom platform.

The qualitative data revealed that for many students, the transition to online learning represents a major adjustment requiring more active engagement and self-regulation compared to traditional classroom instruction. As student responses indicated, “It is necessary to prepare students for online learning” given “the lack of personal social and emotional interaction”, which students viewed as a shortcoming. These findings suggest a need for conceptual change concerning how online pedagogy is designed and delivered. Rather than simply replicating passive, lecture-based formats, online curricula may need to be re-envisioned to foster the self-motivation, time-management, and technology skills necessary for active, self-directed online learning. In addition, effective teaching is teaching that arouses inquisitiveness, motivation, and learning experiences among students, and learning outcomes must be adapted to include essential competencies in addition to knowledge.

Those in charge of teaching and learning within academic institutions, as well as senior functionaries, must take into account the changing expectations of academic campuses. In the current conception, the campus is no longer an academic home, rather a place to register for courses and be a graduate of an institution, and interpersonal interaction has no role in the teaching and learning process. Thus, the study sheds light on a thorough debate that should and must take place among leaders of higher education and academic institutions regarding the new effective designation of the campus after the COVID-19 crisis, the distinction between the virtual and the physical in academic teaching, and challenges and ways of coping with the new reality.

The findings of our study reveal a complex and nuanced picture of student preferences regarding face-to-face and online learning environments. While students reported better concentration and comprehension in physical classrooms, they did not significantly value peer socialization as a learning advantage. This apparent contradiction may be explained by the evolving nature of student expectations and priorities in the post-pandemic era. The preference for face-to-face teaching due to improved concentration aligns with previous research highlighting the benefits of in-person instruction for student engagement, such as the study by Fredricks et al. [5] and Kuh [6]. However, the lack of emphasis on peer socialization contrasts with earlier studies that stressed the importance of social interaction in learning, like those by Johnson et al. [7] and Jones and Doolittle [8]. This shift could be attributed to students’ increased comfort with online social interactions and a greater focus on academic outcomes rather than campus social life.

The seeming preference for online teaching among some students further complicates the picture, reflecting the diverse needs and circumstances of the student population. This diversity in preferences underscores the importance of flexible learning options that can accommodate various learning styles and personal situations. Our findings suggest that a hybrid model, combining the strengths of both face-to-face and online instruction, may be the most effective approach to meet the diverse needs of students in the post-pandemic educational landscape. This aligns with the recommendations of Means and Neisler [4], who emphasized the importance of flexibility in learning modalities. Future research should explore the specific factors influencing these preferences and how institutions can best balance the advantages of both modalities to optimize student learning experiences and outcomes.

7. Limitations and Future Research

The study included respondents from a variety of academic institutions, all in Israel. Further research can validate and expand the findings of this study by examining additional cultures. In addition, since the trend indicated is that interpersonal interaction on the academic campus is less important for academic achievements, there is room to further follow developments in the coming years. For example, in an era of increasing artificial intelligence tools, which are gradually occupying a greater space as significant teaching aids, it would be worthwhile to explore whether the lecturer will still be perceived by the students on the academic campus as important or whether artificial intelligence will occupy a more central role in the learning process. Moreover, it is worth examining how the integration of innovative technologies might improve or change the social learning experience and interaction on campus.

Further studies should also focus on the practical implications of the findings for planning and managing institutions of higher education. Should changes in the design of academic campuses and in the format of teaching and learning be considered, to adapt them to students’ changing needs and expectations? How can the development of social-emotional skills among students be developed in creative and innovative ways? There is a need to continue investigating the changing role of the physical campus and social interaction in higher education, in accordance with current and future technological, social, and demographic trends.

Another key limitation is the potential lack of direct experience with campus-based learning during the initial COVID-19 disruption for some students in the sample. The study included both undergraduate and graduate students, with undergraduates potentially having enrolled after universities had already transitioned back to primarily in-person operations following the apex of the pandemic. For students who may have only experienced post-pandemic in-person learning, their evaluations and comparisons to online formats could be more indirectly shaped by factors such as word-of-mouth or institutional communications about the online transition period. To account for this potential limitation, future research could consider oversampling upper-year cohorts or supplementing survey data with more extensive qualitative reflections that probe the basis of students’ perspectives in more depth. Nonetheless, the present study offers a valuable snapshot into student voices several years removed from the height of the pandemic disruption.