Remote learning slightly decreased student performance in an introductory undergraduate course on climate change

Public understanding of climate change relies heavily on online resources, making the role of online instruction in higher education crucial. However, the effectiveness of online versus face-to-face learning remains debated. This study aimed to compare student performance in an introductory undergraduate climate change course offered in both online and face-to-face formats, taught by the same instructor to minimize bias. The study's context is particularly relevant given the increased reliance on online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic and historical concerns about equity in access to higher education. The importance of this research lies in providing evidence-based insights into the trade-offs between online learning's convenience and potential impacts on student outcomes. The debate about online learning's efficacy has existed since the 1858 introduction of correspondence courses. While online learning has expanded significantly, concerns persist about attrition rates, quality of experience, and the disproportionate enrollment of underserved students. Previous studies comparing online and face-to-face learning have limitations, including variations in course content, instructors, and student numbers, making it difficult to isolate the effects of the learning format itself. This study addresses these limitations by using a consistent course taught by the same instructor in both formats.

The efficacy of online versus in-person learning has been a subject of ongoing debate. A 2010 U.S. Department of Education meta-analysis concluded that online learning was as effective as traditional instruction but not more so. However, a re-evaluation revealed only four studies with appropriate experimental design, showing mixed results. More recent large-scale studies often found poorer outcomes for online courses, but these studies frequently lacked control for factors like course content, instructors, and student demographics, hindering definitive conclusions. A key missing element in prior research was the analysis of the trade-off between educational outcomes and increased accessibility offered by online courses, a concern heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study analyzed data from 1790 undergraduates at the University of California, Davis, enrolled in an introductory climate change course offered in both online and face-to-face formats. The course materials, including a multimedia textbook, were freely available online. Data were collected from eight winter quarters and six spring quarters between 2013 and 2021. The same instructor taught both formats (except one quarter), minimizing instructor bias. In winter quarters before the pandemic, students chose their learning format, while spring quarters primarily offered online learning. In 2021, due to the pandemic, only the online version was offered. Student performance was assessed using various methods: weekly quizzes (online, based on the textbook), weekly writing assignments, midterm and final exams, and discussion section participation. Regression analyses were employed to control for student demographics (gender, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language spoken at home, first-generation college status, major) and academic characteristics (GPA) while comparing online and face-to-face performance. Several models were used to disentangle the effects of student choice and course format. One model compared students who chose face-to-face versus those who only had the online option. Another compared performance on different assessment types (quizzes versus writing assignments/exams) to see if the format affected different assessment types differently.

Overall, students in the online version performed 2% lower (on a 0-100 scale) than those in the face-to-face version after controlling for other factors. Humanities majors, underrepresented minorities, and senior students consistently received lower grades in both formats. Student GPA was the most significant predictor of overall course performance. Interestingly, performance on quizzes (based solely on online materials) did not differ significantly between formats, but performance on other assessments (writing assignments, exams) was poorer in the online version. This suggests that the format's effect was primarily on aspects of the course that relied on in-person interaction (lectures, discussions). Lower participation in online discussion sections correlated with poorer performance on the writing assignments and exams. The COVID-19 pandemic itself did not significantly impact online student performance compared to pre-pandemic online performance.

The findings suggest that while a small performance penalty is associated with online learning in this specific course, the convenience and accessibility it offers might outweigh this penalty for many students. The lack of significant difference in quiz scores highlights that the online format's effectiveness depends on the type of assessment. The lower participation in online discussion sections points to a potential area for improvement in online course design, possibly through strategies to foster more active engagement and collaboration. The consistent impact of student GPA underscores the importance of prior academic preparedness in overall course success, regardless of the learning format. The lack of a significant pandemic effect on online performance suggests that, with careful consideration, online learning can be a viable alternative.

This study demonstrates that while online learning resulted in a small (2%) decrease in performance compared to face-to-face instruction in an introductory undergraduate climate change course, this penalty may be acceptable considering the increased accessibility. The differences observed in assessment performance suggest areas for improving online course design. Future research should explore strategies to enhance engagement in online discussion sections and further investigate the generalizability of these findings to other courses and student populations.

The findings might not generalize to more advanced courses, courses with lab work or group projects, or courses requiring specialized skills not tested in this particular course. The study's reliance on regression analysis to account for student choice limits the ability to fully control for selection bias. The study focused on a single university and a specific course; therefore, generalizability to other institutions and subject matters needs further investigation.