advantages of technology during pandemic essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Mobile apps could help to distribute reliable information

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

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

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

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• The Internet and the Pandemic
• 1. How the internet and technology shaped Americans’ personal experiences amid COVID-19

Table of Contents

• 2. Parents, their children and school during the pandemic
• 3. Navigating technological challenges
• 4. The role of technology in COVID-19 vaccine registration
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

As the pandemic unfolded in spring 2020, many Americans saw their lives swiftly reshaped by  stay-at-home orders , school closures  and the onset of  remote work . From video calls with  isolating or sick family members  to  holiday celebrations by video call  amid  canceled travel plans , social distancing recommendations altered major life events and elements of daily life alike. 

Technology bridged physical distance as restrictions continued.  Religious services ,  doctor appointments  and  essential errands  moved online. At the same time, organizations implementing remote work and Americans spending more time online worried about “ Zoom fatigue ” and tech burnout.

Relationships also evolved during this uprooting of typical routines. Pandemic “pods” helped some Americans  maintain connection , but they  complicated relationships  and family dynamics at the same time. In some cases, friendships  relied on technology  to stay afloat. And others needed to find new ways to connect amid  growing isolation . 

With this broader societal context in mind, this chapter explores the ways in which Americans’ lives changed in the pandemic – and the ways that technology was a part of several transitions. Results from the April 2021 Pew Research Center survey show that even as a majority of Americans considered the internet essential to them personally during the pandemic and four-in-ten used tech in new ways, some feel worn out or fatigued from video calls and a quarter feel less close to close family members than before the coronavirus outbreak. The following sections explore these findings. 

58% of adults say the internet has been essential during the pandemic, and for some groups, its importance grew over the past year

The share of Americans who describe the internet as essential for them during the pandemic has risen slightly over the past year. As of April 2021, 58% of U.S. adults say this,  compared with 53%  in an April 2020 Center survey. 

Americans varied in their reliance on the internet and some of the key differences relate to age, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, income and community type. For example, roughly seven-in-ten adults ages 18 to 49 (69%) say the internet has been essential to them personally, compared with half of those ages 50 to 64 and about four-in-ten Americans 65 and older. 

Additionally, about six-in-ten of those living in urban or suburban areas (61% each) say the internet has been essential to them, compared with a smaller share of those living in rural locales (48%) who say the same. While at least half of adults across major racial and ethnic groups say this connectivity has been essential, Hispanic adults (65%) are more likely to say so than White adults (54%). Some 58% of Black Americans say the internet has been essential in this way.

Several of the groups that are less likely to say the internet has been essential also have lower rates of home broadband adoption and smartphone access, according to  other Center research . For example,  digital divides have persisted  in recent years even as Americans with lower incomes have made gains in tech adoption. And as of 2021, a quarter of U.S. adults 65 and older  say they do not use the internet .

For some groups, the importance of the internet has grown over the past year – especially when it comes to age and educational attainment. The share of adults ages 18 to 29 who say it has been essential during the pandemic rose 10 percentage points between April 2020 and April 2021. Similarly, roughly four-in-ten adults 65 and older (38%) now say the internet has been essential to them, compared with about three-in-ten who said so in April 2020. 

Americans with higher levels of educational attainment are more likely today than a year ago to say the internet has been essential to them during the pandemic. For example, 71% of those with a bachelor’s or advanced degree say this, up from 65% in 2020. This uptick also appears for those with some college experience, while sentiments among those with a high school education or less have remained stable.

Looking at older Americans specifically, adults ages 65 and older with a bachelor’s degree or more education are more likely now to say the internet has been essential to them personally (50% say so) compared with a year ago (39%) – an 11 percentage point increase. By contrast, among those 65 and older who have less education, the shares saying it has been essential are similar between the two time points (27% in 2020 and 32% in 2021). 

Adults ages 50 to 64 with a bachelor’s or advanced degree are also more likely now to say the internet has been personally essential (a 7-point increase since 2020), while there has been no change for those in that age group with less formal education.

81% of Americans have used video calling and conferencing during the pandemic

As Americans increasingly lived their lives from home, video calling and conferencing platforms became a venue for everything from  celebrating holidays with family and friends  to conducting remote meetings or  visiting doctors . 

Roughly eight-in-ten Americans (81%) say they have talked with others via video calls since the beginning of the pandemic. One-in-five have done so about once a day or more often, including 12% who say they are on video calls several times a day. Another three-in-ten have done this about once a week (12%) or a few times a week (18%), and a similar share use video calls every few weeks (16%) or less often (15%).

While there are  many ways  people can spend their time on video calls, the survey finds that working from home is particularly associated with this type of screen time. 

In this survey, 17% of Americans say they were employed full or part time and working from home all or most of the time as of April. 7 Among them, 46% say they have used video calling about daily or several times a day during the pandemic. Another 12% of the full adult population was employed full or part time and working from home some of the time or rarely at the time of the survey. Among that group, 28% say they have used video calling about daily or more. And among the 28% of U.S. adults who were working but never from home, 13% say they are on daily or more frequent video calls. 

Aside from work-from-home status, how often people use video calls varies by several other demographics. Black and Hispanic adults are more likely to have used video calling than White adults. Hispanic adults are more likely than White Americans to have done so several times a day or about daily. Meanwhile, while about two-thirds of adults 65 and older have made video calls in the pandemic,  daily  use is more common among younger adults. About a quarter of those 18 to 29 (28%) and 30 to 49 (26%) say they have done this about daily or more often, compared with 16% of those 50 to 64 and 7% of adults 65 and older. 

Frequency of video calling varies by education as well. About a third of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree say they have done this at least once a day, compared with smaller shares of those with less formal education.

In their own words, Americans describe how they have used technology or the internet in new or different ways during the pandemic 

As the severity of the pandemic grew, some Americans were faced with performing everything from their social interactions to their work or schooling online. Four-in-ten Americans say they used digital technology or the internet in new or different ways compared with before the outbreak began. Still, an even larger share – 59% – say their tech use has not changed in this way.

As is the case with  digital divides in internet use  and  tech adoption  in general, those with more formal education and higher incomes are more likely to have had new or different experiences with tech in the pandemic. For example, 56% of those with at least a bachelor’s degree say they have used technology in ways new or different to them, compared with 37% of those with some college experience and 29% of those with a high school diploma or less. Similarly, 46% of those with higher household incomes say so, compared with a smaller share of those with lower (38%) or middle incomes (40%).

Women are also more likely than men to say they have used digital technology or the internet in new and different ways (43% vs. 36%), as are adults under 50 (46%) compared with those who are 50 and older (33%). 

When asked to describe what these new and different ways are, 43% mention encountering at least one form of video calls or conferences new to them in the pandemic. From weddings to funerals, church meetings to calls with family, some of these adults report their lives moved largely onto video platforms:

“We now hold bi-weekly family meetings on Zoom to make sure we are all doing okay. Before we just had individual phone calls with family members. We used Vimeo for my mother’s funeral so people could watch her funeral mass. She died of COVID-19. I used Zoom for work meetings.” – Woman, 57

“[I have had] Zoom meetings [and] Microsoft Teams meetings. [I’ve had] increased FaceTime family meetings. [I had] job interviews via the internet.” – Man, 46

“[I have been] teaching writing classes over Zoom [and I] dated someone over FaceTime for 3 months. [I] attended various online events.” – Woman, 24

While about a quarter of Americans who have used tech in new ways mention video calls generally, roughly one-in-ten (8%) referenced the remote work aspect of video conferencing specifically:

“Most of my work-related meetings are no longer in-person, but on Zoom or Teams. Instead of attending professional conferences in person, all of them are now virtual meetings. It took a bit to get comfortable with such drastic change.” – Man, 63

A similar share (8%) talk about using video calling to connect with family and friends, or attend social events or “video holidays”:

“It has opened me up to using video chat to connect with physically distanced friends. I have people that I used to only see on Facebook or in person two times a year but now we do a group video chat once a month and I am closer to them than ever.” – Woman, 39

Smaller shares discuss the move to online learning and the use of video platforms (5%) or using video calls for telehealth (4%):

“[I] had to learn how to use Google Classroom to help my son with his hybrid learning. I also did my first tele-visit with my GP doctor and I am disabled so it turns out I’ll be able to continue to use that technology once the pandemic is over to make it easier! … Not to mention, I’ve attended various social gatherings that, due to my disability, I wouldn’t have been able to attend under normal circumstances!” – Man, 28

Aside from video calls, 16% of Americans said they have used technology or the internet to obtain groceries, food or other essentials, or to perform services like banking or document signing:

“Shopping (especially groceries and home supplies) online through various different places, permanently eliminating the need to physically go to the grocery store for most shopping activities.” – Man, 42

“Ordering groceries, ordering tags for my car, doctor’s appointments, paying insurance premiums, paying bills and keeping in touch with family and friends.” – Woman, 78

In addition to those who mention remote work and online learning in the context of video calls, another 13% mention using technology in new ways for remote work and another 7% for online learning:

“Before the outbreak, I was the typical pen and paper type of middle school math teacher. After the outbreak, I have become a much more proficient virtual math teacher who has embraced many new platforms [that] have made my job easier. I have recently become fully vaccinated and returned to the brick and mortar school environment, but will maintain many of the new skills which I learned virtually.” – Man, 62

“We needed to get the internet for our granddaughter to be able to get her education while she’s home during the pandemic.” – Woman, 53

Others specifically note how they are now relying on the strength or quality of their connection in a new way:

“I upgraded my internet (was just using a hotspot previously) and for my work, I am connected all day through the workday. If the internet goes down, my ability to work at home decreases significantly. Before the work from home started, if I lost the ability to connect to the internet, it only affected me in terms of annoyance at not being able to surf the net.” – Woman, 50

Finally, other Americans have used social media and other technology for entertainment (7%), to keep up social interaction, especially on social media (5%), to find and search for information (4%), or attend online religious services or activities (3%). And their use of these digital technologies has sometimes changed over the course of the pandemic.

“I never really used Twitter before. Now I follow some important public health figures and medical doctors who are working for the CDC, etc., so I can be informed on what is going on with COVID-19 and treatment options.” – Woman, 53

“Pre-COVID-19 and even well into the pandemic, I was using the internet/my smartphone to spend countless hours on social media. Somewhere in there I deleted most of the social media apps from my phone and have been using it to read e-books and plan creative projects, mostly home improvements.” – Woman, 34

“I now attend church services online rather than in person, which I had not done before the outbreak.” – Man, 36

68% of Americans say digital interactions have been useful – but not a replacement for in-person connection

In late March 2020, as stay-at home orders upended American life, a  Center survey  asked U.S. adults to speculate on whether digital interactions – that is, everyday interactions that might have to be done online or by telephone because of recommended limits on social contact during the coronavirus outbreak – would be suitable replacement for in-person contact. At the time, about a quarter of Americans said digital encounters would be just as good (27%), and 8% believed that they wouldn’t be of much help. Some 64% said they would be useful, but not a replacement.

In this new survey, Americans were asked to assess how digital encounters used to replace social contact have actually gone. When asked to think about everyday interactions that happened online or by telephone rather than in person, 17% say that these have been just as good as in-person contact. In line with Americans’ own expectations a year ago, the majority of Americans – 68% – say that interactions that have moved online or to the phone have been useful, but not a replacement for in-person. Some 15% say these interactions haven’t been of much use. 

Considering the more recent findings about people’s experiences, relatively small shares across demographic groups say these types of digital interactions have been just as good as in-person contact. Still, there are some small differences by race and ethnicity, age and formal educational attainment in this respect. Adults ages 18 to 29 were more skeptical than older adults in March 2020 – 21% said these interactions would be just as good as in-person contact, compared with a somewhat larger share (29%) of Americans 65 and older. In the new survey, some 23% of adults ages 18 to 29 say these interactions have been just as good as in-person contact, while a  smaller  share (12%) of those 65 and older who feel this way about the utility of their digital interactions. 

In March 2020, Black adults were more likely than White adults to think digital interactions would be just as good as in-person contact. Black and Hispanic adults are also more likely than White adults to say these interactions have been just as good in the new survey. At the same time, about another quarter of Black adults say that these digital interactions have not been of much use. Smaller shares of White and Hispanic adults say the same.

Both then and now, how useful Americans say these interactions have been also varies by educational attainment.

A quarter of Americans feel less close to close family members than before pandemic; about four-in-ten say the same about friends they know well

Some accounts of the pandemic  have lamented the potential loss of casual friendships and acquaintances as COVID-19 narrowed people’s social circles and family structures into smaller  bubbles . At the same time, some  living with friends or family members  may have faced increased time spent together as stay-at-home orders were imposed to combat COVID-19. Others  living alone  faced possible challenges of staying in touch with those close to them.

The new survey reveals that some people feel their social relationships and their connections to those in their personal networks have been in flux during the pandemic. About half of Americans (53%) say they feel less close to casual acquaintances compared with before the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak in February 2020. Some 38% say the same about friends they know well. And a quarter of Americans say they now feel less close to close family members.

At the same time, about one fifth of adults (22%) say they feel  more close  to close family members than they did before the pandemic. Smaller shares say this about friends they know well and casual acquaintances. 

And despite the pandemic upheaval, about half say their relationships with close family members (53%) and friends they know well (47%) have stayed about as close as before, while roughly four-in-ten (41%) say this about casual acquaintances. 

Some groups are more likely to report change in the closeness of their relationships than others. Hispanic and Black adults are less likely than White adults to say the closeness of their relationships with close family and friends has stayed about the same compared with before the beginning of the pandemic. 

When it comes to close family members, similar shares of Hispanic adults say these relationships feel closer than before (30%) and less close than before (31%). Compared with White adults, they are also more likely to say they feel closer to close family, and friends they know well.

Americans with lower incomes are also more likely than others to say they feel less close to close family members compared with before the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak. About three-in-ten of those with lower incomes say so. At the same time, a fifth of Americans with lower incomes say they feel more close to close family, and 48% say they feel about as close to these family members as before the pandemic.

There is little difference in how Americans in various age groups describe the pandemic’s impact on closeness of their family relationships. But when it comes to friends they know well, young adults ages 18 to 29 are more likely to say they now feel closer to these friends than those in any other age group. Still, only about a fifth (22%) of young adults say so.

Finally, small shares of adults across gender, racial and ethnic, age and income groups say they feel closer to casual acquaintances than they did before – no more than about one-in-ten across any of these groups. In each case, far larger shares say they feel less close now.

Women are slightly more likely than men to say they feel less close to acquaintances, as are Americans with lower incomes compared with those in the upper-income tier. Those who live in urban (57%) or suburban (54%) areas are more likely to say their relationships with casual acquaintances are less close now, compared with those who live in rural areas (46%).

Majorities say texts or group messaging apps, voice and video calls have helped them at least a little to stay connected to family and friends

For some, technology became a way to stay in touch with others whom they could not visit in person since the pandemic began. About seven-in-ten Americans say text messages or group messaging apps have helped them personally to stay connected with their family and friends at least a little. Roughly six-in-ten or more say the same about voice (65%) and video calls (59%). Smaller shares say this about social media sites or email.

Americans’ reliance on technology early in the pandemic was apparent in several ways, from  using technology to communicate with others  to  hosting virtual gatherings . Over a year into the pandemic, results from the new survey show that key communications platforms have been more likely to be helpful for some groups than others. 

For each of the five technologies asked about in the survey, Black and Hispanic adults are more likely than White adults to say these technologies have helped them a lot to stay connected. For example, 58% of Hispanic adults say that text messages or group messaging apps have helped them a lot, personally, to stay connected with their family and friends. Some 49% of Black adults and a smaller share (39%) of White adults say the same. Voice calls have helped about half of Black and Hispanic adults a lot to stay in touch, compared with a third of White adults. Similar patterns hold for video calls, social media sites and email.

There are also differences by gender, with women being more likely than men to say that each of these technologies have helped them a lot to stay connected to friends and family.

Adults ages 18 to 29 are more likely than those 65 and older to say video calls and social media sites have helped a lot in staying connected with family and friends.

The reverse is true for email: Some 28% of Americans 65 and older say that this has helped them a lot to stay in touch, compared with smaller shares of younger Americans. Those 65 and older are also more likely than those 30 to 64 to say voice calls have helped a lot. 

Other technologies – for example, text messages or group messaging apps – have been similarly helpful for Americans across age groups. Across age groups, four-in-ten or more Americans say these have helped a lot with staying in touch. 

36% of Americans say their personal lives changed in a major way

As context for this exploration of how people’s technology use and experiences were affected by the pandemic, the survey also asked Americans about the overall impact of the pandemic on their personal lives.

Some 36% of Americans say their own personal life has changed in a major way as a result of the coronavirus outbreak. Another 47% say their personal life has changed, but only a little bit. And 16% say that it has stayed about the same as it was before the outbreak. 

Women are somewhat more likely than men to say life has changed in a major way (39% vs. 33%), as are those with a bachelor’s or advanced degree (40%) compared with those with some college (35%) or a high school diploma or less formal education (34%). And Americans living in urban (41%) and suburban areas (37%) are more likely to say this than those living in rural areas (30%).

About half of those who say their personal lives have changed in a major way (52%) say they have used technology in new ways during the pandemic, compared with 38% of those who say their personal lives have changed a little bit and 19% of those who say life stayed about the same. At the same time, roughly seven-in-ten Americans reporting major changes in life (73%) or with more modest levels of change (69%) say digital interactions have been useful, but not a replacement for in-person interactions, compared with a smaller share among those who say their personal lives stayed about the same (52%). 

Those who say their lives stayed about the same are also more likely than others to say interactions they have had online or by phone instead of in person haven’t been of much use: 26% of these adults think these virtual interactions haven’t been useful, compared with smaller shares of those who say their personal lives changed a little bit (14%) or in a major way (11%).

At the same time, those who say their lives have changed in a major way are more likely to say each of the five technologies asked about in the survey helped a lot to keep them connected, compared with those who say their lives have changed a little or stayed about the same.

Among those who said their personal lives have changed in a major way, the shares who say text messages or group messaging apps, video calls or voice calls have helped a lot are roughly 20 points higher compared with those who say their lives stayed about the same. About half or more of those who say their personal lives have changed in a major way say text messages or group messaging apps (55%) or voice calls (49%) helped them a lot to stay connected with family and friends, and 40% say the same about video calls. 

Those who say their lives have changed in a major way are also more likely to say they now feel less close to close family members (35%) than those whose lives changed only a little (22%) or stayed about the same (9%). And about half (53%) of those with major change in this aspect of their life say their relationships with friends they know well are now less close.

The diminishing closeness of casual relationships is especially prominent for those whose personal lives COVID-19 changed profoundly – roughly seven-in-ten (69%) of adults with major change say that they now generally feel less close to casual acquaintances. By comparison, about a quarter (26%) of those whose personal lives stayed about the same say they feel less close to these acquaintances now.

40% of those who have used video calling during the pandemic feel worn out from such calls at least sometimes

As some Americans intensified their tech use and tried new online activities, there was a possibility that some might become “worn out” by this screen time – leading to a phenomenon commonly known as “Zoom fatigue” in the context of  personal  and  work-related  video calls. Some  accounts of the pandemic  also raised the question of whether Americans would try to purposefully “unplug” or otherwise manage their screen time, as many children and adults alike spent more time on their devices. 

Overall, among those who have used video calling during the pandemic, four-in-ten say they have often (13%) or sometimes (27%) felt worn out or fatigued from spending time on these calls. Looking at the population overall, one-third of all adults say that they feel worn out or fatigued from video calls often (11%) or sometimes (22%).

Reported fatigue increases with greater time spent on video calls. Fully 74% of those who have used video calling several times a day during the pandemic say this is the case at least sometimes, including 36% who say they feel worn out or fatigued often. About half or more of those who are on calls less often than this, but at least a few times a week, say the same. 

But even a portion of those who rarely use video calling report fatigue. About a quarter of those who have talked with others via video calls only every few weeks during the pandemic say they feel worn out at least sometimes.

The new survey shows that among those who’ve made video calls in the pandemic, there are differences in reported video call fatigue by age, formal educational attainment, and work-from-home status.

Among those who have made video calls, about six-in-ten of those ages 18 to 29 say they feel worn out or fatigued from these calls at least sometimes. By comparison, 21% of those 65 and older say so. And about half of those with a bachelor’s or advanced degree report feeling this way at least sometimes, compared with 31% of those with a high school diploma or less.

Among pandemic video call users who work from home all or most of the time, some 65% say they feel worn out or fatigued at least sometimes from the time they spend on video calls. (A  separate Center study  conducted in October 2020 that used a different definition of remote work and call fatigue found that about four-in-ten teleworkers who used video conferencing often were worn out by the time spent on them, compared with 63% of that group who said they were generally fine with the amount of time spent on video calls.)

As many daily activities moved online, Americans’ reactions to increased screen time were not just limited to issues related to video calling. A third of adults also say in this survey that they have tried to cut back on the amount of time they were spending with screens – specifically on the internet or their smartphone – since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak. 

Fully 49% of adults ages 18 to 29 have tried to cut back on their screen time, compared with roughly four-in-ten of those ages 30 to 49. Smaller but notable shares of those 50 to 64 (27%) and 65 and older (19%) say they’ve tried cutting down. 

And Americans who use social media are more likely to say they’ve tried to cut back on screen time than those who don’t – an 8 percentage point gap.

Screen time issues also became  paramount for families and children  during the pandemic. The  next chapter  of this report discusses parents’ views on their children’s screen time, alongside other findings on the experiences of parents and children during the pandemic.

• In October 2020, a  separate Center study  also asked about work and video calling. The estimates in this report should not be interpreted as changing over time due to the different sets of individuals asked the question in the two surveys and because the questions in each survey had different wording. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Business & Workplace
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• COVID-19 & Technology
• Digital Divide
• Education & Learning Online

A look at small businesses in the U.S.

Majorities of adults see decline of union membership as bad for the u.s. and working people, a look at black-owned businesses in the u.s., from businesses and banks to colleges and churches: americans’ views of u.s. institutions, 2023 saw some of the biggest, hardest-fought labor disputes in recent decades, most popular, report materials.

• American Trends Panel Wave 88

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Teaching and learning in times of covid-19: uses of digital technologies during school lockdowns.

• Department of Basic Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

The closure of schools as a result of COVID-19 has been a critical global incident from which to rethink how education works in all our countries. Among the many changes generated by this crisis, all teaching became mediated by digital technologies. This paper intends to analyze the activities carried out during this time through digital technologies and the conceptions of teaching and learning that they reflect. We designed a Likert-type online questionnaire to measure the frequency of teaching activities. It was answered by 1,403 teachers from Spain (734 primary and 669 secondary education teachers). The proposed activities varied depending on the learning promoted (reproductive or constructive), the learning outcomes (verbal, procedural, or attitudinal), the type of assessment to which the activities were directed, and the presence of cooperative activities. The major result of this study was that teachers used reproductive activities more frequently than constructive ones. We also found that most activities were those favoring verbal and attitudinal learning. The cooperative activities were the least frequent. Finally, through a cluster analysis, we identified four teaching profiles depending on the frequency and type of digital technologies use: Passive, Active, Reproductive, and Interpretative. The variable that produced the most consistent differences was previous digital technologies use These results show that Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) uses are reproductive rather than constructive, which impedes effective digital technologies integration into the curriculum so that students gain 21st-century competencies.

Introduction

When schools were closed in most countries in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers had no other option but to change their classrooms into online learning spaces. It was a critical global incident. In research on identity and teacher training ( Tripp, 1993 ; Butterfield et al., 2005 ; Monereo, 2010 ), a critical incident is an unexpected situation that hinders the development of the planned activity and that, by exceeding a certain emotional threshold, puts the identity in crisis and obliges that teachers review their concepts, strategies, and feelings. Thus, these incidents can become meaningful resources for training and changing teaching and learning practices because they allow us to review our deep beliefs ( Monereo et al., 2015 ).

The critical global incident generated by the pandemic forced most teachers to assume virtual teaching where they had to use digital technologies, sometimes for the first time, to facilitate their students’ learning. The closure of schools as a consequence of COVID-19 led to substantial changes in education with profound consequences. Today we know that educational inequalities have widened ( Dorn et al., 2020 ), while students have suffered greater social and emotional imbalances ( Colao et al., 2020 ). In this context, families have also been more involved in the school education of their children ( Bubb and Jones, 2020 ). Moreover, concerning the objectives of this study, it has been necessary to rethink the teaching strategies in the new virtual classrooms. In fact, this research focuses precisely on analyzing the uses that teachers made of the digital technologies or Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) (from now on, we will use this acronym) during the confinement to become familiar with their practices and use them to review their conceptions of teaching and learning.

For several decades, many authors have argued that ICT as educational devices facilitate the adaptation of teaching to each student. Some argue this is because they can promote collaboration, interactivity, the use of multimedia codes, and greater control of learning by the learner (e.g., Jaffee, 1997 ; Collins and Halverson, 2009 ). In this way, their integration in the curriculum would contribute to the acquisition of 21st-century competencies (autonomy, collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving) that the OECD ( Ananiadou and Claro, 2009 ) links to the so-called “global competence” that should define the current education ( Ertmer et al., 2015 ).

However, after decades of use of ICT in classrooms, they have not fully achieved their promise to transform teaching and learning processes. The results of a lot of international studies are, in fact, quite discouraging, like those claimed by the PISA studies ( OECD, 2015 ). In its report, the OECD(2015 , p. 3) concludes that “the results also show no appreciable improvements in student achievement in reading, mathematics or science in the countries that had invested heavily in ICT for education.” Thus, Biagi and Loi (2013) found that the more education ICT uses reported, the less learning in reading, mathematics, and science achieved. These data caused even Andreas Schleicher, head and coordinator of PISA studies, to claim that “the reality is that technology is doing more harm than good in our schools today” ( Bagshaw, 2016 ).

These conclusions contrast with the results obtained in most of the experimental research on the effects of ICT on learning. A decade ago, after conducting a second-order meta-analysis of 25 meta-analyses, Tamim et al.(2011 , p. 14) found “a significant positive small to moderate effect size favoring the utilization of technology in the experimental condition over more traditional instruction (i.e., technology-free) in the control group,” a conclusion that is still valid today. Various studies and meta-analyses reflect moderate but positive effects on learning, whether for example from the use of touch screens in preschools ( Xie et al., 2018 ), from cell phones ( Alrasheedi et al., 2015 ; Sung et al., 2015 ) or video games ( Clark et al., 2016 ; Mayer, 2019 ). It has also been found that they favor collaboration in secondary education ( Corcelles Seuba and Castelló, 2015 ) or learning mathematics ( Li and Ma, 2010 ; Genlott and Grönlund, 2016 ), science ( Hennessy et al., 2007 ) or second languages ( Farías et al., 2010 ).

What is the reason for this disagreement between research conducted in experimental laboratories and large-scale studies? Many factors could explain this distance ( de Aldama, 2020 ). But one difference is that the experimental studies have been carefully designed and controlled to promote these forms of learning mentioned above, while the usual work in the classroom is mediated by the activity of teachers who, in most cases, have little training using ICT ( Sigalés et al., 2008 ). Several authors ( Gorder, 2008 ; Comi et al., 2017 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ) conclude that it is not the ICT themselves that can transform the classroom and learning, but rather the use that teachers make of them. While the experimental studies mostly promote activities that encourage autonomous learning ( Collins and Halverson, 2009 ), the most widespread uses of ICT, as reflected in these international studies with more diverse samples, report other kinds of use whose benefits are more doubtful.

Different classifications of teachers’ use of ICT in the classroom have been proposed in recent years (e.g., Gorder, 2008 ; Mama and Hennessy, 2013 ; Comi et al., 2017 ). Tondeur et al. (2008a) differentiate three types of educational computer use: (a) basic computer skills; (b) use of computers as an information tool, and (c) use of them as a learning tool. Laying aside the acquisition of basic skills related to digital devices, learning is promoted by the last two uses that lead to second-order digital skills related to information management and its conversion into knowledge ( Fulton, 1997 ; Gorder, 2008 ). Thus, the distinction is usually made between two types of use. The first use is aimed at traditional teaching, focused on the transmission and access to information, and usually called teacher-centered use (although perhaps it should be called content-centered use). The second one, called student-centered use, promotes diverse competencies (autonomy, collaboration, critical thinking, argumentation, and problem-solving) and is part of the Global Competence characteristic of 21st-century education ( Ananiadou and Claro, 2009 ; OECD, 2019 , 2020 ). According to Tondeur et al. (2017) , integration of ICT in education requires assuming a constructivist conception of learning and adopting a student-centered approach in which the students manage the information through the ICT instead of, as in the more traditional approach (content-centered), it being the teacher who uses the ICT.

The experimental studies mentioned above show that student-centered approaches improve verbal earning, producing a better understanding of the subjects studied, promoting self-regulation of the learning processes themselves, and generating critical and collaborative attitudes toward knowledge. Thus, Comi et al.(2017 , pp 36–37), after analyzing data from different standardized assessments, conclude: “computer-based teaching practices increase student performance if they are aimed at increasing students’ awareness of ICT use and at improving their navigation critical skills, developing students’ ability to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant material and to access, locate, extract, evaluate, and organize digital information.” Besides, they also found a slight negative correlation between using ICT to convey information and academic performance.

In spite of these better results of adopting student-centered uses, the studies support that the most frequent uses in classrooms are still centered on the teachers, who indeed use ICT as a substitute for other more traditional resources to transmit information ( Loveless and Dore, 2002 ; Sigalés et al., 2008 ; de Aldama and Pozo, 2016 ). Even if what Ertmer (1999) called type I barriers are overcome, related to the availability of these technological resources and the working conditions in the centers, several studies show that there are other types II barriers that limit the use of ICT ( Ertmer et al., 2015 ); in particular, the conceptions about learning and teaching to the extent that they mediate the use of ICT ( Hermans et al., 2008 ).

Different studies have shown that these teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching are the best predictor of the use made of ICT in the classroom ( Ertmer, 2005 ; Ertmer et al., 2015 ). Most of the work on these beliefs ( Hofer and Pintrich, 1997 , 2002 ; Pozo et al., 2006 ; Fives and Gill, 2015 ) identifies two types of conceptions: some closer to a reproductive vision of learning, which would be related to the teacher or content-centered teaching uses, and others nearer to constructivist perspectives, which promote student-centered teaching uses. Studies show teachers who have constructivist beliefs tend to use more ICT than those with more traditional beliefs ( Judson, 2006 ; Law and Chow, 2008 ; Ertmer et al., 2015 ). They also employ them in a more student-centered way, and their uses are oriented toward the development of problem-solving skills ( Tondeur et al., 2017 ). On the other hand, teachers with more traditional beliefs use them primarily to present information ( Ertmer et al., 2012 ).

However, the relationship between conceptions and educational practices is not so clear and linear ( Liu, 2011 ; Fives and Buehl, 2012 ; Tsai and Chai, 2012 ; Mama and Hennessy, 2013 ; Ertmer et al., 2015 ; de Aldama and Pozo, 2016 ; de Aldama, 2020 ). Many studies show a mismatch between beliefs and practices, above all, when we refer to beliefs closer to constructivism that do not always correspond to constructive or student-centered practices. We can distinguish three types of arguments that explain the mismatches. First, the beliefs seem to be more complex and less dichotomous than what is assumed ( Ertmer et al., 2015 ). The studies comparing beliefs and practices tend to focus on the more extreme positions of the spectrum -reproductive vs. constructive beliefs-, despite research showing they are part of a continuum of intermediate beliefs between both aspects ( Hofer and Pintrich, 1997 , 2002 ; Pérez Echeverría et al., 2006 ). Thus, for example, the so-called interpretive beliefs maintain traditional reproductive epistemological positions. People who have these conceptions think that learning is an exact reflection of reality or the content which should be learned, whereas they also think teaching is mediated by cognitive processes of the learner which are based on his or her activity ( Pozo et al., 2006 ; López-Íñiguez and Pozo, 2014 ; Martín et al., 2014 ; Pérez Echeverría, in press ). Other examples of this belief can be found in the technological-reproductive conception described by Strauss and Shilony (1994) , which is close to a naïve information processing theory.

Second, we must acknowledge that neither teachers’ beliefs nor their educational practices remain stable but vary according to the teaching contexts. As Ertmer et al. (2015) claim, beliefs are not unidimensional, but teachers assume them in varying degrees and with different types of relationships. The teacher’s beliefs seem to be organized in profiles that gather aspects of the different theories about teaching and whose activation depends on the contextual demands ( Tondeur et al., 2008a ; Bautista et al., 2010 ; López-Íñiguez et al., 2014 ; Ertmer et al., 2015 ).

Third, we consider that this multidimensionality of beliefs makes them very difficult to measure or evaluate ( Pajares, 1992 ( Schraw and Olafson, 2015 ; see also Ertmer et al., 2015 ; Pérez Echeverría and Pozo, in press ), so perhaps different studies are measuring different components. For example, many studies focus on explicit beliefs, or “what teachers believe to be true” for learning, and therefore evaluate more the general ideas about what ICT-based education should be. Usually, these statements tend to be relatively more favorable to the advantages mentioned above. In this paper, we have chosen to analyze teachers’ stated practices as a means of addressing specific beliefs about teaching.

In addition to beliefs, other variables have been identified that influence the use of ICTs such as gender, age, educational level, or subject curriculum, with results that are usually inconclusive. Thus, while Mathews and Guarino (2000) found that men were more inclined toward the use of ICTs than women, in other studies no differences were found ( Gorder, 2008 ; Law and Chow, 2008 ). Similarly, other studies ( van Braak et al., 2004 ; Suárez et al., 2012 ) concluded that there was an inverse relationship between the age of the teachers and their interest in ICT, but other studies did not confirm this conclusion ( Gorder, 2008 ; Law and Chow, 2008 ; Inan and Lowther, 2010 ). Finally, the teaching experience gives equally ambiguous results; some papers report a negative relationship ( Mathews and Guarino, 2000 ; Baek et al., 2008 ; Inan and Lowther, 2010 ) while others find no relationship ( Gorder, 2008 ).

The influence of factors like educational level or curriculum subjects has also been analyzed. The data seem to be more conclusive regarding educational level: teachers in secondary education have more favorable attitudes toward ICT than teachers of earlier levels ( Gorder, 2008 ; Vanderlinde et al., 2010 ). However, the data are not so conclusive regarding the influence of curriculum subjects ( Williams et al., 2000 ; Gorder, 2008 ; Vanderlinde et al., 2010 ).

Although it will take time to understand what has happened in teaching during these months, many studies and proposals have analyzed the use of ICT in distance education. We can classify them into three types of research. The first type of analyses has measured the impact of classroom closures on the education of students, many of them focusing on their effects on inequality or the way different countries have dealt with this crisis ( Crawford et al., 2020 ; Reimers and Schleicher, 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2020 ). Second, studies have aimed at proposing principles that should guide the use of ICT in the classroom ( Ferdig et al., 2020 ; Rapanta et al., 2020 ; Sangrà et al., 2020 ). The last ones, which are close to the aims of this study, are focused on how teachers have used ICT for the COVID-19 crisis. Some of these studies have carried out qualitative case analyses in different contexts, institutions ( Koçoğlu and Tekdal, 2020 ; Rasmitadila et al., 2020 ), and even countries ( Hall et al., 2020 ; Iivari et al., 2020 ). However, others have resorted to the use of questionnaires applied to larger samples to inquire about the teaching experience for confined education ( Devitt et al., 2020 ; Luengo and Manso, 2020 ; Tartavulea et al., 2020 ; Trujillo-Sáez et al., 2020 ). These studies have concluded the most common use by teachers was to upload materials to a platform ( Tartavulea et al., 2020 ); the most activities were teacher-centered ( Koçoğlu and Tekdal, 2020 ); or the more constructivist the teachers are, the more ICT use is reported for confined education ( Luengo and Manso, 2020 ).

However, despite these indications, there has been no study that analyzes the activities and uses of ICT in school during confinement. What learning have teachers prioritized in this period? Has it been more oriented toward verbal, procedural, or attitudinal learning? ( Pozo, in press ). Through what activities, either more constructive or reproductive, have these learnings been promoted? Have the ICT been used to assess the accumulation of information or the global competencies in its management? What variables prompt carrying out one type of activity or another? These are some questions that have guided our research and are reflected in the following specific objectives.

1. Identifying the frequency with which Spanish teachers of primary, and compulsory and non-compulsory secondary education carried out activities using ICT during the pandemic, and how some variables influence this frequency (gender, teaching experience, previous ICT use, educational level, and curriculum subjects).

2. Analyzing the type of learning (reproductive or teacher-centered vs. constructive or student-centered) promoted most frequently by these teachers, as well as the influence of the variables mentioned.

3. Analyzing the types of outcomes (verbal learning, procedural learning, or attitudinal learning), assessment, and social organization promoted by the ICT and the possible influence of the mentioned variables.

4. Investigating if different teaching profiles can be identified in the use of ICT, as well as their relationship with the variables studied.

Regarding objective 1, as the contradictory results reviewed in the Introduction showed, it is difficult to sustain a concrete hypothesis. However, in the case of objective 2, as argued in the Introduction, we expect to find a higher frequency of reproductive activities (or teacher-centered) than constructive (student-centered). Along the same lines, concerning the third objective, we hope to find more activities oriented to verbal learning, reproductive assessment, and individual organization of tasks, with few activities based on cooperation between students. Finally, about objective 4, we hope to identify teacher profiles that differ in the frequency and type of activities proposed to their students and that these profiles are related to some of the demographic variables analyzed in the study.

Materials and Methods

Task and procedure.

To achieve these objectives, we designed a questionnaire on ICT through the Qualtrics software and sent telematically to various networks of teachers and primary and secondary education centers in Spain. For the construction of the questionnaire, we consulted different blogs where teachers shared the activities they were applying during the pandemic. The questionnaire was composed of two parts. In the first one, after participants gave informed consent, they were requested to provide personal and professional information (see Table 2 ). The second part comprised 36 items that described different types of teaching activities. Participants were asked to rate how often they carried them out on a Likert scale (1, Never; 2 Some days per month; 3, Some days per week; and 4, Every day). After the analysis of the methodologies carried out in the Introduction, we considered asking teachers what they were doing in their classrooms was the most accurate procedure to know the true practices they were carrying out. On the one hand, we wanted to avoid the bias of classic questionaries on conceptions that require teachers to express their agreement with some beliefs. On the other hand, the analysis of teachers’ actual practices in their classrooms would require a different, more qualitative work, with a smaller sample size.

As we show in Table 1 , these activities were directed toward reproductive and constructive learning and different types of learning outcomes (verbal, procedural, and attitudinal), assessment (usually called summative and formative assessment), and cooperative activities.

Table 1. Structure and examples of questionnaire items.

Table 2. Characteristics of the sample and variables.

Participants

The participants were primary and secondary education teachers who were working in Spain when they completed the questionnaire. In Spain, compulsory education is from 6 to 16 years. In primary education (6–12 years), a single generalist teacher imparts most of the subjects, while specialist teachers (music, physical education, foreign language, etc.) only attend class during the hours of their subjects. After compulsory secondary education, there is a non-compulsory secondary education (16–18 years old) that is taught in the same centers as compulsory secondary education and by the same teachers.

We used directories of emails from public, private schools, and high schools of Spain to get in contact with the participants. Besides, to encourage participation, we raffled 75 euros for the purchase of teaching materials among all participants. We collected 1,541 answers. We eliminated 52 of them because they belonged to people who were not teachers of primary or secondary education in Spain. Then, we removed 45 participants who completed the questionnaire in less than 5 min, insufficient time to read and complete it, and we excluded 41 participants who indicated the 3rd (“Some days per week”) or 4th option (“Every day”) in over 80% of the items. We argue this exclusion as it is unlikely that a teacher could carry out such a quantity of activities in the span of a week. The questionnaire has 36 activities, so doing over 80% of items with a frequency of a minimum some days per week implies carrying out almost 29 activities per week. We consider this is not possible in the pertaining virtual class context and noted several contradictions in the answers. Therefore, the final sample had 1,403 teachers (see Table 2 ). Note that the sum of all variables does not reach this total because some values were so unusual that they were not considered in the statistical analyses.

Data Analysis

To ensure the consistency of the questionnaire and the dimensions, a reliability analysis was carried out using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. The reliability of the scale was 0.90, the reproductive and constructive scales obtained alphas above 0.75, and the verbal, procedural, attitudinal, assessment, and cooperation dimensions got alphas above 0.65.

The 1, 2, and 3 objectives were analyzed with one and two-factor ANOVA. These factors can be both repeated measures and completely randomized, according to the characteristics of the variable. Besides, we carried out post hoc analysis in which the Tukey or Bonferroni correction was applied depending on whether the ANOVA was 1 or 2 factors, to see the differences between categories in the ANOVA analyses. However, post hoc analyses were only performed on the ANOVA of the two factors when the interaction effects were significant.

Finally, a cluster analysis was implemented to identify different teaching profiles (objective 4). Once identified, we created contingency tables and their corresponding Corrected Typified Residuals (CTR) to know which variables were related to each profile. Finally, we carried out ANOVA to analyze the differences between profiles according to each of the designed dimensions. All the statistical analyses were carried out using SPPS version 26.

The results are written referring to what the teachers were doing to facilitate reading. However, in all cases, we refer to declared activities.

Frequency of Activities Carried Out

Regarding the first objective, teachers performed the activities between Some days per week and Some days per month on average ( M = 2.44, SD = 0.50). However, this frequency varied according to teaching experience, educational level, curriculum subject, and previous ICT use. Gender did not produce differences (see Table 3 ). In the case of teaching experience, according to the post hoc tests, teachers with intermediate experience (from 16 to 25 years) carried out a lower number of activities than novice teachers (5 years or fewer) ( p < 0.05). In turn, teachers who taught children between 6 and 9 years old were also less active than the rest ( p < 0.01). Within primary education, the generalists, who spend more time with the same students, proposed more activities than the specialists ( p < 0.01). In secondary education, the teachers of Spanish language were more active than those of mathematics and physical education ( p < 0.01). Finally, there seems to be a positive linear relationship between previous ICT use and the amount of activity for confined education ( F = 61.66, p < 0.001).

Table 3. Influence of personal and professional variables on the frequency of activities.

Teaching Activities: Reproductive or Constructive?

Nevertheless, we were not so much interested in the total amount of activities carried out as in the type of learning they promoted (reproductive or constructive). For this, we proposed objective 2. The data was overwhelming. They showed much greater use of reproductive ( M = 2.79, SD = 0.50) than constructive ( M = 2.16, SD = 0.60) learning activities ( F = 2,217.91, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.61). This is the largest and most robust effect size in this study; it occurs in all groups and for all variables ( p < 0.001), although to a different degree, as shown in Table 4 .

Table 4. Influence of the different variables on the type of activity.

Post hoc results reveal that novice teachers (5 years or fewer), the most active group according to the previous analysis, performed more reproductive activities than teachers with experience from 16 to 25 years ( p < 0.01), the least active one. However, the most experienced teachers (more than 25 years) executed more constructive activities than those with intermediate experience (from 16 to 25 years) ( p < 0.05). The teachers of children between 6 and 9 years old did less reproductive and constructive activities ( p < 0.05) than the rest of the groups, with significant differences in all cases except in the case of the teachers of non-compulsory secondary education, who stated less reproductive activities than they did.

In secondary education, the mathematics teachers did less constructive activities than those of Spanish language and social sciences ( p < 0.05). In turn, physical education teachers performed less reproductive activities than the rest of their classmates ( p < 0.01).

Finally, the higher the previous ICT the teachers used, the higher the frequencies indicated by them in both reproductive ( F = 33.57, p < 0.001) and constructive activities ( F = 61.61, p < 0.001). Notwithstanding, the size of the observed effect shows greater differences in the case of constructive activities (reproductive, F = 13.94, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.29, vs. constructive, F = 25.60, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.95).

Learning Outcomes, Assessment, and Cooperation Dimensions

The third objective was to determine what kind of learning outcomes resulted from the activities. As we show in Figure 1 , the teachers focused more on verbal and attitudinal learning than on procedural ( F = 100.11, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.07). On the other hand, the mean responses of the assessment tasks were similar to those of verbal learning and attitudinal learning, but the cooperative activities were less frequent than the remainder ( p < 0.001), performed between never and some days per month ( M = 1.78; SD = 0.74). However, as we see in Table 5 , these results are mediated by the effect of some variables.

Figure 1. Average of the frequencies of each type of activity.

Table 5. Influence of different variables on the frequency of activities for each dimension.

Post hoc analyses show that men carried out more activities focused on procedural learning than women ( p < 0.05), who in turn promoted more activities related to attitudinal learning ( p < 0.001). Men also carried out more cooperation activities than women ( p < 0.01), but there were no differences among them in the Assessment activities. However, the only effect related to teaching experience shows that less experienced teachers (5 years or fewer) carried out more assessment activities than teachers with intermediate experience (from 16 to 25 years) ( p < 0.05).

The teachers of the youngest children (6–9 years old) carried out more activities aimed at attitudinal learning ( p < 0.05) and fewer at procedural learning ( p < 0.01) than the rest of the teachers. Interestingly, the activities aimed at attitudinal learning decreased progressively when the educational level increased, with differences between the upper level of primary education (9–12 years) and secondary education ( p < 0.001). At the same time, the older the students were, the more verbal learning activities they performed, with differences between the first years of primary education (6–9 years) and secondary education (12–18) ( p < 0.05). Besides, the assessment and cooperation activities became more frequent as the educational levels advanced, with differences in both cases between the teachers of the first years of primary education ( p < 0.01) and the last years of primary education and non-compulsory secondary education ( p < 0.05).

In secondary education, verbal learning predominates in almost every subject. However, the Spanish language and foreign language teachers also carried out many activities aimed at attitudinal learning. Only in technology were more activities aimed at procedural learning executed compared to the others ( p < 0.05). At the same time, the mathematics teachers stand out for their little use of cooperation activities. To sum up, the activities aimed at verbal learning increase their frequency when the educational level increases, while attitudinal learning decreases. Nevertheless, the characteristics of each subject have some influence on the increases among educational levels. The cooperation activities also increase, although their frequency is still small. Finally, again, the higher the previous ICT use, the higher the frequency of all activities during the pandemic ( p < 0.001).

But all these differences become more meaningful when we look at the type of learning (reproductive or constructive) that is promoted by these activities. Again, as we see in Figure 2 , there is a considerable difference between the reproductive and constructive activities regardless of the dimension involved (see Table 6 ), a trend also confirmed by the low frequency of cooperation activities that, by their nature, promote constructive learning. It is remarkable that the highest differences between both scales happen in attitudinal learning. In fact, the most frequent activities in the questionnaire involved attitudinal reproductive learning.

Figure 2. Average of the reproductive and constructive activities in each dimension.

Table 6. Differences between reproductive and constructive activities in the dimensions.

Profiles of Teachers in the Use of ICT

Our final objective was to identify possible profiles in the use of ICT during confined education. For this purpose, we proceeded with a cluster analysis that allowed us to identify different teaching profiles as we showed in Figure 3 . After testing clusters of three centers in which the groups only differed in the number of activities, we executed a four centers cluster, which showed differences in the amount of activity ( F = 2,220.33, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.83) and the mean differences between reproductive and constructive activities ( F = 310.39, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.40).

Figure 3. Frequency of use of reproductive and constructive activities for each teachers’ profile.

• The first profile (“Passive”) was composed of 327 teachers who were characterized by a very low activity (MD = 0.63, SD = 0.02, p < 0.001), essentially reproductive ( M = 2.15, SD = 0.35) and scarcely constructive ( M = 1.52, SD = 0.29).

• The second profile (“Active”) was composed of 424 teachers, was the most numerous. It had a very similar pattern to the previous one, focused mainly on reproductive activities ( M = 2.82, SD = 0.33) rather than constructive ( M = 2.41, SD = 0.21) but with a higher level of activity ( MD = 0.41, SD = 0.02, p < 0.001).

• The third profile (“Reproductive”) was composed of 263 teachers with a similar level of activity to the previous one. However, they have a relatively higher frequency of reproductive activities ( M = 2.93, SD = 0.29) with hardly any constructive activities ( M = 1.82, SD = 0.24).

• The fourth profile (“Interpretative”) which was composed of 389 teachers, was corresponded to the most active teachers. This profile had the smallest differences between reproductive ( M = 3.32, SD = 0.29) and constructive activities ( M = 3.04, SD = 0.31), ( MD = 0.29, SD = 0.02, p < 0.001). According to the terminology used in the introduction, we have called it Interpretative because it integrated both types of activities.

Among the different profiles, we found systematic differences in the dimensions and types of learning. In fact, all differences among profiles were significant ( p < 0.01) except between the Active and Reproductive profiles in verbal, procedural, and attitudinal reproductive learning. There were also no differences between the Passive and Reproductive profiles in cooperative activities because of their low frequency in both groups. On the other hand, teachers in the Interpretive profile carried out more activities in all dimensions than the rest of the groups; the teachers of the Passive profile did fewer tasks than the others (except in the cases already indicated) and finally, the other two profiles maintained an intermediate level of activity, with the difference that the teachers of the Reproductive profile focused almost exclusively on reproductive activities as we see in Figure 4 .

Figure 4. Use of each dimension for each teachers’ profile.

The distribution of teachers in each of the four profiles varied depending on educational level (χ 2 = 29.57, p < 0.001), primary curriculum subjects (χ 2 = 60.97, p < 0.001), secondary curriculum subjects (χ 2 = 60.97, p < 0.001), and previous ICT use (χ 2 = 77.46, p < 0.001). We did not find any relationship with gender or teaching experience, the variables with the least influence in the study.

As we see in Table 7 , the first profile or Passive was over-represented by teachers of children aged 6–9, and teachers of non-compulsory secondary education were under-represented. Between the primary education teachers, specialists predominated, and there were practically no generalist teachers. The only secondary education teachers that appeared in this profile were physical education ones. Finally, there is a significant number of teachers who had not used ICT with their students before the confinement, and there was hardly any representation of those who had most used them.

Table 7. Variables related to each of the profiles.

The second or Active profile is distributed homogeneously way among the different educational levels. It is predominantly formed by secondary education teachers of Spanish language and social sciences. In the third or Reproductive profile, secondary education teachers who taught mathematics, and those who had never used ITC in the classroom were over-represented.

The fourth or Interpretative profile, characterized by integrating reproductive and constructive activities, had hardly any teachers of children from 6 to 9 years old nor specialist teachers of primary education, unlike the first profile. However, this profile included a high number of generalist teachers of primary education and Spanish language teachers of secondary education. On the other hand, it had a few mathematics teachers from secondary education who were over-represented in the Reproductive profile. Finally, the teachers who used ICT more before confinement were also over-represented, and there were hardly any teachers who had not used them.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this study, taking advantage of the critical incident caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, we analyzed the type of activities with ICT that primary and secondary education teachers proposed to their students. Our purpose was to check if, in this context, ICT contributed to promoting more constructive ways of teaching. The most dominant effect of the results, related to the second aim of the study, showed that teachers carried out significantly more activities oriented to reproductive learning than constructive ones. In other words, they preferred teacher-centered activities to student-centered ones. This effect was very robust ( F = 2,217.91, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.61), and it was manifested in all dimensions of the questionnaire, was maintained when we introduced any of the variables studied and was presented in all profiles.

On the other hand, our work has revealed other variables that influence the frequency of ICT use. Thus, we have found that teachers who attend to young children use them less than teachers of older students. These data coincide with those found in other works ( Gorder, 2008 ; Vanderlinde et al., 2010 ) and are probably related to the characteristics of the teaching activity itself. It is undoubtedly more arduous to use ICT in class with young children than with adolescents or adults. We have also found a greater frequency of use by generalists than specialists because the former teach more hours in the same class and consequently have more responsibilities with their students. Both the specialists and the teachers of the youngest children were overrepresented in the Passive profile. Nevertheless, the influence of the subjects taught in compulsory and non-compulsory secondary education is not so clear. We found there was hardly any influence of gender on different results. Data from other studies show that the influence of this variable is quite unstable and varies among studies ( Mathews and Guarino, 2000 ; Gorder, 2008 ; Law and Chow, 2008 ). However, teaching experience seems to influence in another way: whereas less experienced teachers are more reproductive, the more experienced teachers present fewer differences between reproductive and constructive activities. It should be noted that in other studies this variable has also shown ambiguous results ( Mathews and Guarino, 2000 ; Baek et al., 2008 ; Gorder, 2008 ; Inan and Lowther, 2010 ).

The third objective analyzed the learning outcomes that the activities provided, the type of assessment used, and the cooperation that activities promoted. In general, we have seen that teachers performed more verbal and attitudinal learning than procedural. However, in these cases (as well as in the assessment), activities were aimed at reproductive instead of constructive learning. The least frequent activities were cooperative (between never and some days per month), which is consistent with the importance given to reproduction. The salience of verbal learning increased as the higher the educational level was and, in the same way, the attitudinal activities decreased, with hardly any change in the procedural ones.

Considering that these data were collected in Spain when there were strict confinement and social isolation, we would emphasize that the activities related to attitudes were directed at maintaining classroom control in all groups and profiles (but outside the classroom) whereas there was much less frequency of activities focused on getting the ability to managing student attitudes, behavior or self-control during that situation of confinement. This difference suggests that teachers were more concerned about controlling their students’ study habits.

Regarding our fourth objective, we find four profiles of teachers (Passive, Active, Reproductive, and Interpretative). The first two differed only in the amount of total activity performed, while the Reproductive one was characterized by almost exclusively executing reproductive learning activities. Although, as in the previous groups, the Interpretative teachers carried out many reproductive activities, they also carried out constructive activities with considerable frequency. Teachers of children from 3 to 6 years, for whom engaging in the virtual activity is more complicated, abounded in the Passive profile. However, in the Reproductive profile, teachers of mathematics of secondary education predominated. In contrast, in the Interpretative profile, in which there were fewer differences between reproductive and constructive activities, generalists of primary education and teachers of social and natural sciences and Spanish language of secondary education were over-represented. But principally, this profile was over-represented by teachers who had previously used ICT.

In conclusion, it seems the teachers in this study use ICT essentially for presenting different kinds of information ( Tondeur et al., 2008b ) and do not use them as learning tools that help students to build, manage, and develop their knowledge. On the other hand, this study seems to show that teachers’ beliefs are much closer to the reproductive pole than to the constructive one. In this study, beliefs have been inferred through the frequency with which the teachers stated they carried out predetermined activities. In our view, the description of the activities was much closer to the actual practices and theories of the teachers than the results that questionnaires on beliefs could provide us with. For this reason, we expect the mismatch between theories and practices ( Liu, 2011 ; Fives and Buehl, 2012 ; Tsai and Chai, 2012 ; Mama and Hennessy, 2013 ; Ertmer et al., 2015 ; de Aldama and Pozo, 2016 ) was smaller and helped us to discover the true beliefs of teachers when they teach.

We could therefore conclude that, despite all the educational possibilities and all the promises of change in teaching that ICT raise ( Jaffee, 1997 ; Collins and Halverson, 2009 ), teachers have only perceived these tools as informative support. It seems the critical incident caused by the pandemic has not been resolved in the short-term with a change in favor of student-centered activities and content-centered ones continue predominating. Therefore, our data are more consistent with the results of some international mass studies ( Biagi and Loi, 2013 ; OECD, 2015 ) than with the experimental works that analyze how teachers who are previously chosen use ICT ( Tamim et al., 2011 ; Alrasheedi et al., 2015 ; Sung et al., 2015 ; Clark et al., 2016 ; Xie et al., 2018 ; Mayer, 2019 ). However, there is no doubt that the pandemic has contributed to familiarizing teachers with ICT. In our results, previous use of ICT was the variable that produced the most systematic differences in both the frequency of proposed reproductive and constructive activities. In this sense, perhaps the pandemic may have contributed to an increase in teachers’ experience in two of the three educational computer uses described by Tondeur et al. (2008a) : basic computer skills and use of computers as an information tool. Maybe, this fact could contribute in the future to using the third one, the use of ICT as learning tools. However, there are undoubtedly other variables related to first-order and second-order barriers (beliefs) or teacher training with ICT that influence this possibility of change.

In summary, our work shows that activities carried out through ICT during confined schooling were more teacher-centered than student-centered and hardly promoted the 21st-century skills, that digital technologies should facilitate ( Ertmer et al., 2015 ). However, the data also show that the greater the stated previous use of ICT, the greater and more constructive its use was reported for the pandemic. Previous use of ICTs is related not only to beliefs about their usefulness but also to specific training to master these tools and to use them in a versatile manner, adapted to different purposes or objectives. It seems clear that teacher training should be promoted not only to encourage more frequent use of ICT but also to change conceptions toward them to promote constructive learning. In this sense, the forced use of ICT because of COVID-19 will only encourage this change if we support teachers with adequate resources and activities which facilitate reflection on their use.

However, we should consider that one limitation of this study is that the practices analyzed were those declared by the teachers. It would be necessary to complete this study with an analysis of the practices that the teachers really applied and to analyze their relationship with their conceptions of learning and teaching. In fact, we are currently analyzing the actual practices of a sub-sample of the teachers who filled out the questionnaire, taking the profiles found in this work as the independent variable. In future research, it would be necessary to analyze the relationship between student learning and these different teaching practices.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Autonomous University of Madrid. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

J-IP: funding acquisition, project administration, conceptualiza-tion, methodology, supervision, writing – original draft, and writing – review and editing. M-PE: funding acquisition, conceptualization, methodology, validation, writing – original draft, and writing – review and editing. BC: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, software, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, and visualization. DLS: conceptualization, methodology, and writing – review and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This work was supported by the Ministry of Innovation and Science of Spain (EDU2017-82243-C2-1-R).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our colleagues from SEIACE for their participation in the item dimension task. We would also like to thank Ricardo Olmos for sharing his statistical knowledge with us. Finally, we would like to appreciate Krystyna Sleziaka her support with the translation of this paper.

Alrasheedi, M., Capretz, L. F., and Raza, A. (2015). A systematic review of the critical factors for success of mobile learning in higher education (University Students’ Perspective). J. Educ. Comput. Res. 52, 257–276. doi: 10.1177/0735633115571928

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ananiadou, K., and Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries. OECD Education Working Papers, 41. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/218525261154

Bagshaw, E. (2016). The Reality is that Technology is Doing More Harm than Good in our Schools’ says Education Chief. North Sydney, NSW: Sydney Morning Herald.

Google Scholar

Baek, Y., Jung, J., and Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Comput. Educ. 50, 224–234. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.05.002

Biagi, F., and Loi, M. (2013). Measuring ICT use and learning outcomes: evidence from recent econometric studies. Eur. J. Educ. 48, 28–42. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12016

Bautista, A., Pérez Echeverría, M. P., and Pozo, J. I. (2010). Music performance teachers’ conceptions about learning and instruction: a descriptive study of Spanish piano teachers. Psychol. Music 38, 85–106. doi: 10.1177/0305735609336059

Bubb, S., and Jones, M. A. (2020). Learning from the COVID-19 home-schooling experience: listening to pupils, parents/carers and teachers. Improv. Sch. 23, 209–222. doi: 10.1177/1365480220958797

Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., and Maglio, A.-S. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qual. Res. 5, 475–497. doi: 10.1177/1468794105056924

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., and Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 79–122. doi: 10.3102/0034654315582065

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Colao, A., Piscitelli, P., Pulimeno, M., Colazzo, S., Miani, A., and Giannini, S. (2020). Rethinking the role of the school after COVID-19. Lancet Public Health 5:e370. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30124-9

Collins, A., and Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking Education in the Age of Digital Technology. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

Comi, S. L., Argentin, G., Gui, M., Origo, F., and Pagani, L. (2017). Is it the way they use it? Teachers, ICT and student achievement. Econ. Educ. Rev. 56, 24–39. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.11.007

Corcelles Seuba, M., and Castelló, M. (2015). Learning philosophical thinking through collaborative writing in secondary education. J. Writing Res. 7, 157–200. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2015.07.01.07

Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., et al. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. J. Appl. Learn. Teach. 3, 9–28. doi: 10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7

de Aldama, C. (2020). Cognitive enhancement or cognitive diminishing? Digital technologies and challenges for education from a situated perspective. Límite Interdiscip. J. Philos. Psychol. 15:21.

de Aldama, C., and Pozo, J. I. (2016). How are ICT use in the classroom? A study of teachers’ beliefs and uses. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol. 14, 253–286. doi: 10.14204/ejrep.39.15062

Devitt, A., Bray, A., Banks, J., and Ní Chorcora, E. (2020). Teaching and Learning During School Closures: Lessons Learned. Irish Second-Level Teacher Perspectives. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin

Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., and Viruleg, E. (2020). COVID-19 and Learning Loss—Disparities Grow and Students Need Help. Chicago, IL: McKinsey & Company.

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 47, 47–61. doi: 10.1007/BF02299597

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 53, 25–39. doi: 10.1007/BF02504683

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., and Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: a critical relationship. Comput. Educ. 59, 423–435. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., and Tondeur, J. (2015). “Teachers’ beliefs and uses of technology to support 21st-century teaching and learning,” in International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs , eds H. Fives and M. G. Gill (New York, NY: Routledge), 403–418.

Farías, M., Obilinovic, K., and Orrego, R. (2010). Modelos de aprendizaje multimodal y enseñanza-aprendizaj e de lenguas extranjeras [Models of multimodal learning and foreign language teaching-learning]. Univ. Tarraconensis 1, 55–74. doi: 10.17345/ute.2010.2.631

Ferdig, R. E., Baumgartner, E., Hartshorne, R., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., and Mouza, C. (2020). Teaching, Technology, and Teacher Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stories from the Field. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Fives, H., and Buehl, M. M. (2012). “Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us?,” in APA Educational Psychology handbook: Individual Differences and Cultural and Contextual Factors , Vol. 2, eds K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, and M. Zeidner (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 471–499. doi: 10.1037/13274-019

Fives H. and (Eds.) Gill M. G. (2015). International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs. New York, NY: Routledge.

Fulton, K. (1997). The Skills Students Need for Technological Fluency. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

Genlott, A. A., and Grönlund, Å (2016). Closing the gaps - Improving literacy and mathematics by ICT-enhanced collaboration. Comput. Educ. 99, 68–80. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.004

Gorder, L. M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in the classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon J. 50, 63–76.

Hall, T., Connolly, C., Ó Grádaigh, S., Burden, K., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., et al. (2020). Education in precarious times: a comparative study across six countries to identify design priorities for mobile learning in a pandemic. Inform. Learn. Sci. 121, 433–442. doi: 10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0089

Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., and Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learn. Media Technol. 32, 283–301. doi: 10.1080/17439880701511131

Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., and Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Comput. Educ. 51, 1499–1509. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.001

Hofer, B. K., and Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 67, 88–140. doi: 10.3102/00346543067001088

Hofer, B. K., and Pintrich, P. R. (eds) (2002). Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Iivari, N., Sharma, S., and Ventä-Olkkonen, L. (2020). Digital transformation of everyday life – How COVID-19 pandemic transformed the basic education of the young generation and why information management research should care? Int. J. Inform. Manag. 55:102183. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102183

Inan, F. A., and Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path model. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 58, 137–154. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y

Jaffee, D. (1997). Asynchronous learning: technology and pedagogical strategy in a distance learning course. Teach. Sociol. 25, 262–277. doi: 10.2307/1319295

Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: is there a connection? J. Technol. Teacher Educ. 14, 581–597.

Koçoğlu, E., and Tekdal, D. (2020). Analysis of distance education activities conducted during COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. Res. Rev. 15, 536–543. doi: 10.5897/ERR2020.4033

Law, N., and Chow, A. (2008). “Teacher characteristics, contextual factors, and how these affect the pedagogical use of ICT,” in Pedagogy and ICT use in Schools Around the World. Findings From the IEA SITES 2006 Study , eds N. Law, W. J. Pelgrum, and T. Plomp (Hong Kong: Springer).

Li, Q., and Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 215–243. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8

Liu, S.-H. (2011). Factors related to pedagogical beliefs of teachers and technology integration. Comput. Educ. 56, 1012–1022. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.001

López-Íñiguez, G., Pozo, J. I., and de Dios, M. J. (2014). The older, the wiser? Profiles of string instrument teachers with different experience according to their conceptions of teaching, learning, and evaluation. Psychol. Music 42, 157–176. doi: 10.1177/0305735612463772

López-Íñiguez, G., and Pozo, J. I. (2014). Like teacher, like student? Conceptions of children from traditional and constructive teaching models regarding the teaching and learning of string instruments. Cogn. Inst. 32, 219–252. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2014.918132

Loveless, A., and Dore, B. (2002). ICT in the Primary School. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Luengo, F., and Manso, J. (eds) (2020). Informe de Investigación COVID19. Voces de docentes y familias. [Report on COVID19 Investigation. Voices from Teachers and Families]. Madrid: Proyecto Atlántida.

Mama, M., and Hennessy, S. (2013). Developing a typology of teacher beliefs and practices concerning classroom use of ICT. Comput. Educ. 68, 380–387. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.022

Martín, E., Pozo, J. I., Mateos, M., Martín, A., and Pérez Echeverría, M. P. (2014). Infant, primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of learning and teaching and their relation to educational variables. Rev. Latinoameric. Psicol. 46, 211–221. doi: 10.1016/S0120-0534(14)70024-X

Mathews, J. G., and Guarino, A. J. (2000). Predicting teacher computer use: a path analysis. Int. J. Inst. Media 27, 385–392.

Mayer, R. E. (2019). Computer games in education. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70, 531–549. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102744

Monereo, C. (2010). La formación del profesorado: una pauta para el análisis e intervención a través de incidentes críticos. [Teacher education: a standard for analysis and intervention through critical incidents]. Rev. Iberoameric. Educ. 52, 149–178. doi: 10.35362/rie520615

Monereo, C., Monte, M., and Andreucci, P. (2015). La Gestión de Incidentes Críticos en la Universidad . [Management of critical incidents in university]. Madrid: Narcea.

OECD (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264239555-en

OECD (2019). PISA 2018 results: What Students Know and Can do , Vol. I, Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/5f07c754-en

OECD (2020). How Prepared are Teachers and Schools to Face the Changes to Learning Caused by the Coronavirus Pandemic? Teaching in Focus 32 , Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/2fe27ad7-en

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Rev. Educ. Res. 62, 307–332. doi: 10.3102/00346543062003307

Pérez Echeverría, M. P. (in press). “How teachers and students conceive music education: towards changing mentalities,” in Learning and Teaching Music: A Student-Centered Approach , eds J. I. Pozo, M. P. Pérez-Echeverría, G. Torrado, and J. A. López-Íñiguez (Berlin: Springer).

Pérez Echeverría, M. P., Mateos, M., Scheuer, N., and Martín, E. (2006). “Enfoques en el estudio de las concepciones sobre el aprendizaje y la enseñanza. [Approaches for studying conceptions on learning and teaching],” in Nuevas formas de pensar la enseñanza y el aprendizaje: Las concepciones de profesores y alumnos , eds J. I. Pozo, N. Scheuer, M. P. Pérez Echeverría, M. Mateos, E. Martín, and M. de la Cruz (Barcelona: Graó), 55–94.

Pérez Echeverría, M. P., and Pozo, J. I. (in press). “How to know and analyse conceptions on learning and teaching,” in Learning and Teaching Music: A Student-Centered Approach , eds J. I. Pozo, M. P. Pérez Echeverría, G. López-Íñiguez, and J. A. Torrado (Berlin: Springer).

Pozo, J. I. (in press). “The psychology of music learning,” in Learning and Teaching Music: A Student-Centered Approach , eds J. I. Pozo, M. P. Pérez Echeverría, G. López-Íñiguez, and J. A. Torrado (Berlin: Springer).

Pozo, J. I., Scheuer, N., Pérez Echeverría, M. P., Mateos, M., Martín, E., and de la Cruz, M. (2006). Nuevas Formas de Pensar la Enseñanza y el Aprendizaje. Las Concepciones de Profesores y Alumnos. [New ways of Thinking about Teaching and Learning. Teachers’ and Student’s Conceptions]. Barcelona: Graó.

Rasmitadila, R., Aliyyah, R. R., Rachmadtullah, R., Samsudin, A., Syaodih, E., Nurtanto, M., et al. (2020). The perceptions of primary school teachers of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic period: a case study in Indonesia. J. Ethnic Cult. Stud. 7, 90–109. doi: 10.29333/ejecs/388

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., and Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Sci. Educ. 2, 923–945. doi: 10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y

Reimers, F. M., and Schleicher, A. (2020). A Framework to Guide an Education Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Sangrà A. (ed.), Badia, A., Cabrera, N., Espasa, A., Fernández-Ferrer, M., Guàrdia, L., et al. (2020). Decálogo Para la Mejora de la Docencia Online. Propuestas Para Educar en Contextos Presenciales Discontinuos. [Decalogue for the Improvement of Online Teaching. Suggestions for Teaching in Intermittent Face-to-Face Contexts]. Barcelona: Editorial UOC.

Schraw, G., and Olafson, L. (2015). “Assessing teachers’ beliefs,” in International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs , eds H. Fives and M. G. Gill (New York, NY: Routledge), 87–105.

Sigalés, C., Monimó, J. M., Meneses, J., and Badia, A. (2008). La Integración de Internet en la educación Escolar Española: Situación Actual y Perspectivas de Futuro. [Internet inclusion in Spanish School Education: Present Condition and Future perspectives]. Madrid: Fundación Telefónica.

Strauss, S., and Shilony, T. (1994). “Teachers’ models of children’s minds and learning,” in Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture , eds L. A. Hirschfeld and S. A. Gelman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 455–473.

Suárez, J. M., Almerich, G., Orellana, N., and Belloch, C. (2012). El uso de las TIC por el profesorado no universitario. Modelo básico e influencia de factores personales y contextuales. [ICT use by non-university teachers. Basic model and the influence of personal and contextual factors]. Rev. Iberoameric. Eval. Educ. 5, 249–265.

Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., and Liu, T.-C. (2015). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: a meta-analysis and research synthesis. Comput. Educ. 94, 252–275. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008

Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., and Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: a second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Rev. Educ. Res. 81, 4–28. doi: 10.3102/0034654310393361

Tartavulea, C. V., Albu, C. N., Albu, N., Dieaconescu, R. I., and Petre, S. (2020). Online teaching practices and the effectiveness of the educational process in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Amfiteatru Econ. 22, 920–936. doi: 10.24818/EA/2020/55/920

Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., van Braak, J., and Valcke, M. (2008a). Exploring the link between teachers’ educational belief profiles and different types of computer use in the classroom. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 2541–2553. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.020

Tondeur, J., Valcke, M., and van Braak, J. (2008b). A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer use in primary education: teacher and school characteristics. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 24, 494–506. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00285.x

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 65, 555–575. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2

Tripp, D. (1993). Critical Incidents in Teaching: Developing Professional Judgement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Trujillo-Sáez, F., Fernández-Navas, M., Montes-Rodríguez, M., Segura-Robles, A., Alaminos-Romero, F. J., and Postigo-Fuentes, A. Y. (2020). Panorama de la Educación en España tras la pandemia de COVID-19: La Opinión de la Comunidad Educativa. [Outlook on Spanish Education After COVID-19 pandemic: The Opinion of the Educational Community]. Madrid: Fundación de Ayuda contra la Drogadicción (FAD). doi: 10.5281/zenodo-3878844

Tsai, C.-C., and Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: implications for teacher education. Aust. J. Educ. Technol. 28, 1057–1060. doi: 10.14742/ajet.810

van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., and Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 19:407. doi: 10.1007/BF03173218

Vanderlinde, R., van Braak, J., and Tondeur, J. (2010). Using an online tool to support school-based ICT policy planning in primary education. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 26, 434–447. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00358.x

Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A., and Tuson, J. (2000). Teachers and ICT: Current use and future needs. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 31, 307–320. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00164

Xie, H., Peng, J., Qin, M., Huang, X., Tian, F., and Zhou, Z. (2018). Can touchscreen devices be used to facilitate young children’s learning? A meta-analysis of touchscreen learning effect. Front. Psychol. 9:2580. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02580

Zhang, W., Wang, Y., Yang, L., and Wang, C. (2020). Suspending classes without stopping learning: China’s education emergency management policy in the COVID-19 outbreak. J. Risk Finan. Manag. 13:55. doi: 10.3390/jrfm13030055

Keywords : digital technologies uses, constructive learning, reproductive learning, learning and teaching conceptions, learning outcomes, COVID-19

Citation: Pozo J-I, Pérez Echeverría M-P, Cabellos B and Sánchez DL (2021) Teaching and Learning in Times of COVID-19: Uses of Digital Technologies During School Lockdowns. Front. Psychol. 12:656776. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.656776

Received: 21 January 2021; Accepted: 07 April 2021; Published: 29 April 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Pozo, Pérez Echeverría, Cabellos and Sánchez. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Juan-Ignacio Pozo, [email protected]

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

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

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

Online education in the post-COVID era

• Barbara B. Lockee 1  

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

138k Accesses

205 Citations

337 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

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

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

Looking back

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

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

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

Online learning and the pandemic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Barbara B. Lockee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara B. Lockee .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Published : 25 January 2021

Issue Date : January 2021

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

BMC Medical Education (2024)

Leveraging privacy profiles to empower users in the digital society

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

Automated Software Engineering (2024)

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

• Pamela Sheffler
• Cecilia S. Cheung

Social Psychology of Education (2024)

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

• Sunghee H. Tak

BMC Nursing (2023)

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

• Heini Utunen
• Corentin Piroux

Archives of Public Health (2023)

Quick links

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

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

Technology that helps us get through COVID-19

How the world has adapted to covid-19.

Introduction

COVID-19 has the changed way we live. Frontline workers are the most significant contributors for fighting COVID-19 and ensuring our safety during this difficult time. Technology is also playing a crucial role in keeping our society functionable. Here is some technology that is helping us get through the pandemic, some of which might stick around if the pandemic is over. 

Covid-19 Alert App 

The Covid-19 Alert app uses Bluetooth exchange technology to share random codes with nearby phones. The app will use the code to identify whether the user is exposed to the coronavirus. The code changes every 5 minutes, so it cannot be used to identify you. No one has the access to your name, address, contacts, location, or your health information. The Government of Canada is strongly encouraging people to install this app to help stop the spread of the virus. 

The Covid-19 Alert app is currently available for download in all provinces and territories in Canada. You can download it on Google Play store or Apple App Store. However not all provinces and territories are able to report a diagnosis. 

Online Grocery and Contactless Payment 

Even though the pandemic forces us to stay home, our need for groceries will not be affected. Grocery shopping might be a task some people tend to avoid, even if most grocery stores ensure proper safety protocols. As a result, online grocery shopping has become more popular. Instacart is a grocery shopping app where customers can order groceries online from participating retailers such as Walmart and Sobeys and have them delivered to their home. Instacart also offers same-day delivery in many cities across Canada including Waterloo! 

Remote Learning and Working 

 Remote learning and working allows us to stay connected safely in this pandemic. The federal government is conducting a connectivity strategy that ensures everyone in Canada has stable, high quality internet connection across the country. The University of Waterloo is partnering with Rogers to advance the research on 5G technology, making UWaterloo one of the first smart campuses in Canada. The University of Waterloo provides support to these three virtual meeting apps: Microsoft Teams, Skype for Business, and Cisco Webex Meeting. The University also provides free Cisco VPN and Alibaba VPN to ensure the UWaterloo community can access the campuses digital resources anytime, anywhere. 

3D Printing Applications for Covid-19 

The 3D printing community is coming together to help fight Covid-19. Some big problems our healthcare system is facing are the lack of tests and medical supply’s such as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Company’s such as NASCAR is giving its 3D printing equipment and technology to Ford and Toyota to tackle the medical supply shortage. Formlabs, a company in Massachusetts is using its 250 3D printers to produce 100,000 nasal swabs for Covid-19 testing every day. 3D printing is also contributing to manufacturing of medical equipment such as ventilator valves and emergency respiration device, and PPE such as masks and mask fitters. However, there are certain technical challenges associated with 3D printing, such as producing PPE that comply with the safety standard. 3D-printed face masks may provide a physical barrier but are unlikely to provide a barrier that prevents the virus from entering our body. The 3D printing technology is still improving and perhaps this pandemic can help discover more possibilities of 3D printing. 

Many would wonder how big data helps us go through this pandemic. It is true that big data provides the opportunity for businesses to analyze their customers’ consuming behaviour so that they can personalize products for the customers. With 189,387 confirmed cases in Canada, and 38.7 million confirmed cases worldwide, using big data allows rapid information collection of a large population and gathers real-time information about COVID-19. For example, people finally realize that loss of taste or smell is an early predictor of being infected. It is because the big data shows that there is a significant number of patients that share this symptom. Medical institutions across Canada can share this big data, this can help better distribute the resources. 

As you can see, these technologies not only directly benefit us right now, but also let us appreciate them more. This technology could be beneficial in the case of a future crisis. 

  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-020-00234-3  

  https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/big-data-and-collaboration-seek-to-fight-covid-19-67759  

  https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medical-devices/covid-19-unconventional-manufacturing-personal-protective-equipment.html  

  https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2020/04/13/covid-19-and-3d-printing/#3a2cc4d73f7a  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic  

  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/10-technology-trends-coronavirus-covid19-pandemic-robotics-telehealth/  

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

14 Educational Technologies During COVID-19

Macy Brenegan

14.1 Introducti on

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

Learning Objectives

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

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

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

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

14.2 Online Learning Technologies

Key Takeaway

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

Created by Macy Brenegan

14.2.1 Zoom

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

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

14.2.2 Learning Management Systems (LMS)

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

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

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

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

14.3 History of Online Learning Technologies

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

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

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

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

14.4 Effects of Online Learning Technologies on Students

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

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

14.4.1 Pros of Online Learning

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

14.4.2 Cons of Online Learning

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

14.5 Future Outlook

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

“Online Education”  by  Pixabay is under a Pixabay license

Case Study: Education Interrupted

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

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

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

Chapter Summary

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

Review Questions

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

A. Online learning

B. Hybrid learning

C. Remote learning

D. Traditional learning

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

A. Student calendar

B. Text/email alerts for grading updates

C. Video calls/virtual classroom

D. Announcement posts or streams

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. More students are behind grade levels than before

B. Students are more distracted

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

D. All of the above

Food for Thought

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

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

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

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

Hew, K. F., Jia, C., Gonda, D. E., & Bai, S. (2020). Transitioning to the “new normal” of learning in unpredictable times: pedagogical practices and learning performance in fully online flipped classrooms. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17 (1), 1-22. https://10.1186/s41239-020-00234-x

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

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

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

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

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

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

Students are learning at the same time.

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

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

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

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

Software application used to manage online learning.

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

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

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

Share This Book

How creative use of technology may have helped save schooling during the pandemic

Distinguished Research Professor, Monash University

Disclosure statement

Neil Selwyn receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Monash University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

It is estimated around half the world’s students’ schools remain shut down. All told, this has been a potentially damaging disruption to the education of a generation.

But one of the few positive outcomes from this experience is an opportunity to rethink how digital technologies can be used to support teaching and learning in schools.

Our collective experiences of remote schooling offer a fleeting opportunity for schools to think more imaginatively about what “digital education” might look like in the future.

This is not to echo the hype (currently being pushed by many education reformers and IT industry actors) that COVID will prove a tipping-point after which schools will be pushed fully into digital education.

On the contrary, the past six months of hastily implemented emergency remote schooling tell us little about how school systems might go fully virtual, or operate on a “blended” (part online, part face-to-face) basis. Any expectations of profiting from the complete digital reform of education is well wide of the mark.

Instead, the most compelling technology-related lessons to take from the pandemic involve the informal, improvised, scrappy digital practices that have helped teachers, students and parents get through school at home.

Technology during the pandemic

All over the world, school shutdowns have seen teachers, students and families get together to achieve great things with relatively simple technologies. This includes the surprising rise of TikTok as a source of informal learning content . Previously the domain of young content creators, remote schooling saw teachers of all ages turn to the video platform to share bite-size (up to one minute) chunks of teaching, give inspirational feedback, set learning challenges or simply show students and parents how they were coping.

TikTok also been used as a place for educational organisations, public figures and celebrity scientists to produce bespoke learning content , as well as allowing teachers to put together materials for a wider audience.

Even principals have used it to keep in contact with their school — making 60-second video addresses, motivational speeches and other alternatives to the traditional school assembly speech.

Classes in some countries have been run through WhatsApp , primarily because this was one platform most students and families had access to, and were used to using in their everyday lives.

Elsewhere, teachers have set up virtual BitMoji classrooms featuring colourful backdrops and cartoon avatars of themselves. These spaces act as a friendly online version of their familiar classroom space for students to check in and find out what they should be learning, access resources and temporarily feel they were back at school.

Read more: TikTok can be good for your kids if you follow a few tips to stay safe

Some teachers have worked out creative ways of Zoom-based teaching . These stretch beyond the streamed lecture format and include live demonstrations, experiments, and live music and pottery workshops.

Social media, apps and games have proven convenient places for teachers to share insights into their classroom practice, while students can quickly show teachers and classmates what they have been working on.

These informal uses of digital media have played an important role in boosting students, teachers and parents with a bit of human contact, and additional motivation to connect and learn.

So, what now?

All this will come as little surprise to long-term advocates of popular forms of digital media in education. There is a sound evidence base for the educational benefits of such technology.

For example, a decade’s worth of studies has developed a robust framework (and many examples) of how students and educators can make the most of personal digital media inside and outside the classroom. These include allowing students to participate in online fan-fiction writing communities, digital journalism, music production and podcasting.

The past ten years has also seen a rise in e-sports — where teams of young people compete in video games.

This stresses the interplay between digital media, learning driven by students’ interests and passions, and online communities of peers. Informal digital media can be a boon for otherwise marginalised and disadvantaged youth and allowing students to find supportive communities of like-minded peers regardless of their local circumstances.

Australia continues to be one of the few countries in the world where classroom use of smartphones is banned by some governments. Some of the most popular social media platforms, content creation apps, and open sites such as YouTube remain filtered and blocked in many schools too.

Read more: Banning mobile phones in schools: beneficial or risky? Here's what the evidence says

At the same time, official forms of school technology are increasingly criticised for being boring, overly-standardised, and largely serving institutional imperatives, rather than pitched toward the interests of students and teachers.

Concerns are growing over the limited educational benefits of personalised learning systems, as well as the data and privacy implications of school platforms and systems such as Google Classroom.

The past six months have seen many schools forced to make the best of whatever technologies were immediately to hand. Previously reticent teachers now have first-hand experience of making use of unfamiliar technologies. Many parents are now on board with the educational potential of social media and games. Most importantly, students have been given a taste of what they can achieve with “their” own technology.

With US schools now exploring the benefits of establishing official TikTok creation clubs to enhance their video-making skills, it might be time for Australian educators to follow suit. Let’s take the opportunity to re-establish schools as places where teachers, students and families can work together to creatively learn with the devices and apps most familiar to their everyday lives.

• Mobile phones
• technology in schools
• School closures
• Coronavirus and education
• Remote learning

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Nutrition Research Coordinator – Bone Health Program

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

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

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

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

Farah lalani.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is the education sector responding to COVID-19?

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

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

Have you read?

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

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

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

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

What does this mean for the future of learning?

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

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

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

These 3 charts show the global growth in online learning

The challenges of online learning.

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

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

Is learning online as effective?

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

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

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

A changing education imperative

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

The importance of disseminating knowledge is highlighted through COVID-19

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

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

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

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

License and Republishing

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

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

Related topics:

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

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

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

How communities can step up to provide long-term care for the world’s ageing population

Prakash Tyagi

May 1, 2024

Market failures cause antibiotic resistance. Here's how to address them

Katherine Klemperer and Anthony McDonnell

April 25, 2024

Equitable healthcare is the industry's north star. Here's how AI can get us there

Vincenzo Ventricelli

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

Shyam Bishen

April 24, 2024

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

Shyam Bishen and Annika Green

April 22, 2024

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

Johnny Wood

April 17, 2024

• IEEE CS Standards
• Career Center
• Subscribe to Newsletter
• IEEE Standards

• For Industry Professionals
• For Students
• Launch a New Career
• Membership FAQ
• Membership FAQs
• Membership Grades
• Special Circumstances
• Discounts & Payments
• Distinguished Contributor Recognition
• Grant Programs
• Find a Local Chapter
• Find a Distinguished Visitor
• Find a Speaker on Early Career Topics
• Technical Communities
• Collabratec (Discussion Forum)
• Start a Chapter
• My Subscriptions
• My Referrals
• Computer Magazine
• ComputingEdge Magazine
• Let us help make your event a success. EXPLORE PLANNING SERVICES
• Events Calendar
• Calls for Papers
• Conference Proceedings
• Conference Highlights
• Top 2024 Conferences
• Conference Sponsorship Options
• Conference Planning Services
• Conference Organizer Resources
• Virtual Conference Guide
• Get a Quote
• CPS Dashboard
• CPS Author FAQ
• CPS Organizer FAQ
• Find the latest in advanced computing research. VISIT THE DIGITAL LIBRARY
• Open Access
• Tech News Blog
• Author Guidelines
• Reviewer Information
• Guest Editor Information
• Editor Information
• Editor-in-Chief Information
• Volunteer Opportunities
• Video Library
• Member Benefits
• Institutional Library Subscriptions
• Advertising and Sponsorship
• Code of Ethics
• Educational Webinars
• Online Education
• Certifications
• Industry Webinars & Whitepapers
• Research Reports
• Bodies of Knowledge
• CS for Industry Professionals
• Resource Library
• Newsletters
• Women in Computing
• Digital Library Access
• Organize a Conference
• Run a Publication
• Become a Distinguished Speaker
• Participate in Standards Activities
• Peer Review Content
• Author Resources
• Publish Open Access
• Society Leadership
• Boards & Committees
• Local Chapters
• Governance Resources
• Conference Publishing Services
• Chapter Resources
• About the Board of Governors
• Board of Governors Members
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Open Volunteer Opportunities
• Award Recipients
• Student Scholarships & Awards
• Nominate an Election Candidate
• Nominate a Colleague
• Corporate Partnerships
• Conference Sponsorships & Exhibits
• Advertising
• Recruitment
• Publications
• Education & Career

4 Reasons to Be Thankful for Technology During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Technology has been making travel easier for decades. For example, can you imagine airlines having to sell, cancel, and track flights manually? It seems like an impossible task. Without technology, airlines wouldn’t be able to offer near-instant seats on cancelled flights or offer self-booking through a website.

Without technology, you wouldn’t get up-to-the-minute price change email notifications for hotel rooms and car rentals, either.

Under normal circumstances, technology is a blessing to travelers. Here are several reasons to appreciate technology even more during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Software programs can sift through medical studies

There are currently more than 45,000 medical studies available as part of the White House’s COVID-19 data hub known as CORD-19. This data hub is considered “the most extensive collection of machine readable coronavirus literature to date.”

There is an open invitation for AI researchers to sift through the data to gain unique insights about the incubation, treatment, symptoms, and prevention of the disease.

The sheer volume of data available is too much for humans to sort through page-by-page. Using AI and machine learning algorithms to identify key pieces of data will bring faster understanding to the whole situation.

Technology makes traveling safer by limiting personal contact

Despite worldwide bans on non-essential travel, many people need to travel internationally to get home, tend to a family emergency, or access essential medical care. For those who have a legitimate reason to travel, technology creates a safer experience by limiting points of personal contact.

Electronic documentation reduces personal contact

Traditionally, international travelers have been required to carry a physical passport that gets stamped at each destination. When all the pages are filled, the traveler must obtain a new passport.

Although the technology isn’t new, some travelers qualify for electronic passports and electronic visas . An electronic passport is purely digital, while an electronic visa allows travelers to bypass sending a photo copy of their passport to obtain a visa.

Just like electronic passports, there are electronic visa substitutes for certain countries. For example, say a British business traveler obtains an eTA to enter Canada . Applying for an eTA can be done entirely online without requiring any in-person appointments. The lack of in-person appointments eliminates a potential point of contact that could spread the virus.

Likewise, when the business traveler enters Canada, their eTA will contain most of their information in an electronic record. They may be required to show their passport and/or other identifying documents, but interactions with customs and border officials will be brief.

Airport and other travel technology is being pushed to the limit.

At first glance, this might sound like a bad thing. Why would anyone be thankful that travel technology is being pushed to the limit?

The benefit to having our electronic travel systems pushed to the limit is that if something is going to break, it will break much sooner when the system is under stress. If there are problems in the system, we’ll become aware of these issues quickly.

Since we’re in a time when our travel systems can’t afford to be down for long, it’s almost guaranteed that issues will be swiftly dealt with whether it’s a software issue or a coordination problem. When issues arise outside of an urgent situation, they often go unresolved and cause even more problems.

The need to manage travel safely and efficiently in a post-pandemic world will ensure that all issues will be handled promptly.

Technology can predict infection

Although the data is currently limited, researchers from Stanford Medicine want to use wearable tech devices to predict viral infection through data sent to the cloud.

In a new partnership with Fitbit and Scripps Research, researchers want to use smartwatch data to measure heartrate and skin temperature to identify when someone might be fighting off a virus. Their ultimate goal is to curb the spread of viral infections like COVID-19.

In 2017, an algorithm was created to detect infection using data from a change in heart rate from a smartwatch. One study in particular showed that heart rate variation patterns can indicate illness even when the individual is asymptomatic.

The Stanford researchers are currently looking for study participants. Researchers acknowledge that an elevated heart rate isn’t always a sign of infection, but want to investigate to see if they can sort out the different causes.

The sky is the limit

With technology, the sky really is the limit. Every new technological advance has the potential to improve the way we respond to and fight this coronavirus outbreak.

About the Author

Larry Alton is a professional blogger, writer, and researcher who contributes to a number of reputable online media outlets and news sources. A graduate of Iowa State University, I’m now a full-time freelance writer and business consultant.

Recommended by IEEE Computer Society

EDR vs. MDR: Key Differences and How to Choose

From Data to Discovery: AI’s Revolutionary Impact on Upstream Oil and Gas Transformation

How to Implement Sustainable Innovation in Your Business

Understanding Cloud Native Security

The Role of a Green Data Center for a Sustainable IT Infrastructure

7 Tips for Implementing an Effective Cyber GRC Program

Continuous Deployment: Trends and Predictions for 2024

5 Ways to Save on Database Costs in AWS