research proposal on covid 19 and education

COVID-19 and education: The lingering effects of unfinished learning

As this most disrupted of school years draws to a close, it is time to take stock of the impact of the pandemic on student learning and well-being. Although the 2020–21 academic year ended on a high note—with rising vaccination rates, outdoor in-person graduations, and access to at least some in-person learning for 98 percent of students—it was as a whole perhaps one of the most challenging for educators and students in our nation’s history. 1 “Burbio’s K-12 school opening tracker,” Burbio, accessed May 31, 2021, cai.burbio.com. By the end of the school year, only 2 percent of students were in virtual-only districts. Many students, however, chose to keep learning virtually in districts that were offering hybrid or fully in-person learning.

Our analysis shows that the impact of the pandemic on K–12 student learning was significant, leaving students on average five months behind in mathematics and four months behind in reading by the end of the school year. The pandemic widened preexisting opportunity and achievement gaps, hitting historically disadvantaged students hardest. In math, students in majority Black schools ended the year with six months of unfinished learning, students in low-income schools with seven. High schoolers have become more likely to drop out of school, and high school seniors, especially those from low-income families, are less likely to go on to postsecondary education. And the crisis had an impact on not just academics but also the broader health and well-being of students, with more than 35 percent of parents very or extremely concerned about their children’s mental health.

The fallout from the pandemic threatens to depress this generation’s prospects and constrict their opportunities far into adulthood. The ripple effects may undermine their chances of attending college and ultimately finding a fulfilling job that enables them to support a family. Our analysis suggests that, unless steps are taken to address unfinished learning, today’s students may earn $49,000 to $61,000 less over their lifetime owing to the impact of the pandemic on their schooling. The impact on the US economy could amount to $128 billion to $188 billion every year as this cohort enters the workforce.

Federal funds are in place to help states and districts respond, though funding is only part of the answer. The deep-rooted challenges in our school systems predate the pandemic and have resisted many reform efforts. States and districts have a critical role to play in marshaling that funding into sustainable programs that improve student outcomes. They can ensure rigorous implementation of evidence-based initiatives, while also piloting and tracking the impact of innovative new approaches. Although it is too early to fully assess the effectiveness of postpandemic solutions to unfinished learning, the scope of action is already clear. The immediate imperative is to not only reopen schools and recover unfinished learning but also reimagine education systems for the long term. Across all of these priorities it will be critical to take a holistic approach, listening to students and parents and designing programs that meet academic and nonacademic needs alike.

What have we learned about unfinished learning?

As the 2020–21 school year began, just 40 percent of K–12 students were in districts that offered any in-person instruction. By the end of the year, more than 98 percent of students had access to some form of in-person learning, from the traditional five days a week to hybrid models. In the interim, districts oscillated among virtual, hybrid, and in-person learning as they balanced the need to keep students and staff safe with the need to provide an effective learning environment. Students faced multiple schedule changes, were assigned new teachers midyear, and struggled with glitchy internet connections and Zoom fatigue. This was a uniquely challenging year for teachers and students, and it is no surprise that it has left its mark—on student learning, and on student well-being.

As we analyze the cost of the pandemic, we use the term “unfinished learning” to capture the reality that students were not given the opportunity this year to complete all the learning they would have completed in a typical year. Some students who have disengaged from school altogether may have slipped backward, losing knowledge or skills they once had. The majority simply learned less than they would have in a typical year, but this is nonetheless important. Students who move on to the next grade unprepared are missing key building blocks of knowledge that are necessary for success, while students who repeat a year are much less likely to complete high school and move on to college. And it’s not just academic knowledge these students may miss out on. They are at risk of finishing school without the skills, behaviors, and mindsets to succeed in college or in the workforce. An accurate assessment of the depth and extent of unfinished learning will best enable districts and states to support students in catching up on the learning they missed and moving past the pandemic and into a successful future.

Students testing in 2021 were about ten points behind in math and nine points behind in reading, compared with matched students in previous years.

Unfinished learning is real—and inequitable

To assess student learning through the pandemic, we analyzed Curriculum Associates’ i-Ready in-school assessment results of more than 1.6 million elementary school students across more than 40 states. 2 The Curriculum Associates in-school sample consisted of 1.6 million K–6 students in mathematics and 1.5 million in reading. The math sample came from all 50 states, but 23 states accounted for 90 percent of the sample. The reading sample came from 46 states, with 21 states accounting for 90 percent of the sample. Florida accounted for 29 percent of the math and 30 percent of the reading sample. In general, states that had reopened schools are overweighted given the in-school nature of the assessment. We compared students’ performance in the spring of 2021 with the performance of similar students prior to the pandemic. 3 Specifically, we compared spring 2021 results to those of historically matched students in the springs of 2019, 2018, and 2017. Students testing in 2021 were about ten points behind in math and nine points behind in reading, compared with matched students in previous years.

To get a sense of the magnitude of these gaps, we translated these differences in scores to a more intuitive measure—months of learning. Although there is no perfect way to make this translation, we can get a sense of how far students are behind by comparing the levels students attained this spring with the growth in learning that usually occurs from one grade level to the next. We found that this cohort of students is five months behind in math and four months behind in reading, compared with where we would expect them to be based on historical data. 4 The conversion into months of learning compares students’ achievement in the spring of one grade level with their performance in the spring of the next grade level, treating this spring-to-spring difference in historical scores as a “year” of learning. It assumes a ten-month school year with a two-month summer vacation. Actual school schedules vary significantly, and i-Ready’s typical growth numbers for a “year” of learning are based on 30 weeks of actual instruction between the fall and the spring rather than on a spring-to-spring calendar-year comparison.

Unfinished learning did not vary significantly across elementary grades. Despite reports that remote learning was more challenging for early elementary students, 5 Marva Hinton, “Why teaching kindergarten online is so very, very hard,” Edutopia, October 21, 2020, edutopia.org. our results suggest the impact was just as meaningful for older elementary students. 6 While our analysis only includes results from students who tested in-school in the spring, many of these students were learning remotely for meaningful portions of the fall and the winter. We can hypothesize that perhaps younger elementary students received more help from parents and older siblings, and that older elementary students were more likely to be struggling alone.

It is also worth remembering that our numbers capture the “average” progress by grade level. Especially in early reading, this average can conceal a wide range of outcomes. Another way of cutting the data looks instead at which students have dropped further behind grade levels. A recent report suggests that more first and second graders have ended this year two or more grade levels below expectations than in any previous year. 7 Academic achievement at the end of the 2020–2021 school year , Curriculum Associates, June 2021, curriculumassociates.com. Given the major strides children at this age typically make in mastering reading, and the critical importance of early reading for later academic success, this is of particular concern.

While all types of students experienced unfinished learning, some groups were disproportionately affected. Students of color and low-income students suffered most. Students in majority-Black schools ended the school year six months behind in both math and reading, while students in majority-white schools ended up just four months behind in math and three months behind in reading. 8 To respect students’ privacy, we cannot isolate the race or income of individual students in our sample, but we can look at school-level demographics. Students in predominantly low-income schools and in urban locations also lost more learning during the pandemic than their peers in high-income rural and suburban schools (Exhibit 1).

In fall 2020, we projected that students could lose as much as five to ten months of learning in mathematics, and about half of that in reading, by the end of the school year. Spring assessment results came in toward the lower end of these projections, suggesting that districts and states were able to improve the quality of remote and hybrid learning through the 2020–21 school year and bring more students back into classrooms.

Indeed, if we look at the data over time, some interesting patterns emerge. 9 The composition of the fall student sample was different from that of the spring sample, because more students returned to in-person assessments in the spring. Some of the increase in unfinished learning from fall to spring could be because the spring assessment included previously virtual students, who may have struggled more during the school year. Even so, the spring data are the best reflection of unfinished learning at the end of the school year. Taking math as an example, as schools closed their buildings in the spring of 2020, students fell behind rapidly, learning almost no new math content over the final few months of the 2019–20 school year. Over the summer, we assume that they experienced the typical “summer slide” in which students lose some of the academic knowledge and skills they had learned the year before. Then they resumed learning through the 2020–21 school year, but at a slower pace than usual, resulting in five months of unfinished learning by the end of the year (Exhibit 2). 10 These lines simplify the pattern of typical learning through the year. In a typical year, students learn more in the fall and less in the spring, and only learn during periods of instruction (the chart includes the well-documented learning loss that happens during the summer, but does not include shorter holidays when students are not in school receiving instruction).

In reading, however, the story is somewhat different. As schools closed their buildings in March 2020, students continued to progress in reading, albeit at a slower pace. During the summer, we assume that students’ reading level stayed roughly flat, as in previous years. The pace of learning increased slightly over the 2020–21 school year, but the difference was not as great as it was in math, resulting in four months of unfinished learning by the end of the school year (Exhibit 3). Put another way, the initial shock in reading was less severe, but the improvements to remote and hybrid learning seem to have had less impact in reading than they did in math.

Before we celebrate the improvements in student trajectories between the initial school shutdowns and the subsequent year of learning, we should remember that these are still sobering numbers. On average, students who took the spring assessments in school are half a year behind in math, and nearly that in reading. For Black and Hispanic students, the losses are not only greater but also piled on top of historical inequities in opportunity and achievement (Exhibit 4).

Furthermore, these results likely represent an optimistic scenario. They reflect outcomes for students who took interim assessments in the spring in a school building 11 Students who took the assessment out of school are not included in our sample because we could not guarantee fidelity and comparability of results, given the change in the testing environment. Out-of-school students represent about a third of the students taking i-Ready assessments in the spring, and we will not have an accurate understanding of the pandemic’s impact on their learning until they return to school buildings, likely in the fall. —and thus exclude students who remained remote throughout the entire school year, and who may have experienced the most disruption to their schooling. 12 Initial results from Texas suggest that districts with mostly virtual instruction experienced more unfinished learning than those with mostly in-person instruction. The percent of students meeting math expectations dropped 32 percent in mostly virtual districts but just 9 percent in mostly in-person ones. See Reese Oxner, “Texas students’ standardized test scores dropped dramatically during the pandemic, especially in math,” Texas Tribune , June 28, 2021, texastribune.org. The Curriculum Associates data cover a broad variety of schools and states across the country, but are not fully representative, being overweighted for rural and southeastern states that were more likely to get students back into the classrooms this year. Finally, these data cover only elementary schools. They are silent on the academic impact of the pandemic for middle and high schoolers. However, data from school districts suggest that, even for older students, the pandemic has had a significant effect on learning. 13 For example, in Salt Lake City, the percentage of middle and high school students failing a class jumped by 60 percent, from 2,500 to 4,000, during the pandemic. To learn about increased failure rates across multiple districts from the Bay Area to New Mexico, Austin, and Hawaii, see Richard Fulton, “Failing Grades,” Inside Higher Ed , March 8, 2021, insidehighered.com.

The harm inflicted by the pandemic goes beyond academics

Students didn’t just lose academic learning during the pandemic. Some lost family members; others had caregivers who lost their jobs and sources of income; and almost all experienced social isolation.

These pressures have taken a toll on students of all ages. In our recent survey of 16,370 parents across every state in America, 35 percent of parents said they were very or extremely concerned about their child’s mental health, with a similar proportion worried about their child’s social and emotional well-being. Roughly 80 percent of parents had some level of concern about their child’s mental health or social and emotional health and development since the pandemic began. Parental concerns about mental health span grade levels but are slightly lower for parents of early elementary school students. 14 While 30.7% percent of all K–2 parents were very or extremely concerned, a peak of 37.6% percent of eighth-grade parents were.

Parents also report increases in clinical mental health conditions among their children, with a five-percentage-point increase in anxiety and a six-percentage-point increase in depression. They also report increases in behaviors such as social withdrawal, self-isolation, lethargy, and irrational fears (Exhibit 5). Despite increased levels of concern among parents, the amount of mental health assessment and testing done for children is 6.1 percent lower than it was in 2019 —the steepest decline in assessment and testing rates of any age group.

Broader student well-being is not independent of academics. Parents whose children have fallen significantly behind academically are one-third more likely to say that they are very or extremely concerned about their children’s mental health. Black and Hispanic parents are seven to nine percentage points more likely than white parents to report higher levels of concern. Unaddressed mental-health challenges will likely have a knock-on effect on academics going forward as well. Research shows that trauma and other mental-health issues can influence children’s attendance, their ability to complete schoolwork in and out of class, and even the way they learn. 15 Satu Larson et al., “Chronic childhood trauma, mental health, academic achievement, and school-based health center mental health services,” Journal of School Health , 2017, 87(9), 675–86, escholarship.org.

In our recent survey of 16,370 parents across every state in America, 35 percent of parents said they were very or extremely concerned about their child’s mental health.

The impact of unfinished learning on diminished student well-being seems to be playing out in the choices that students are making. Some students have already effectively dropped out of formal education entirely. 16 To assess the impact of the pandemic on dropout rates, we have to look beyond official enrollment data, which are only published annually, and which only capture whether a child has enrolled at the beginning of the year, not whether they are engaged and attending school. Chronic absenteeism rates provide clues as to which students are likely to persist in school and which students are at risk of dropping out. Our parent survey suggests that chronic absenteeism for eighth through 12th graders has increased by 12 percentage points, and 42 percent of the students who are new to chronic absenteeism are attending no school at all, according to their parents. Scaled up to the national level, this suggests that 2.3 million to 4.6 million additional eighth- to 12th-grade students were chronically absent from school this year, in addition to the 3.1 million who are chronically absent in nonpandemic years. State and district data on chronic absenteeism are still emerging, but data released so far also suggest a sharp uptick in absenteeism rates nationwide, particularly in higher grades. 17 A review of available state and district data, including data released by 14 states and 11 districts, showed increases in chronic absenteeism of between three and 16 percentage points, with an average of seven percentage points. However, many states changed the definition of absenteeism during the pandemic, so a true like-for-like comparison is difficult to obtain. According to emerging state and district data, increases in chronic absenteeism are highest among populations with historically low rates. This is reflected also in our survey results. Black students, with the highest historical absenteeism rates, saw more modest increases during the pandemic than white or Hispanic students (Exhibit 6).

It remains unclear whether these pandemic-related chronic absentees will drop out at rates similar to those of students who were chronically absent prior to the pandemic. Some students could choose to return to school once in-person options are restored; but some portion of these newly absent students will likely drop out of school altogether. Based on historical links between chronic absenteeism and dropout rates, as well as differentials in absenteeism between fully virtual and fully in-person students, we estimate that an additional 617,000 to 1.2 million eighth–12th graders could drop out of school altogether because of the pandemic if efforts are not made to reengage them in learning next year. 18 The federal definition of chronic absenteeism is missing more than 15 days of school each year. According to the Utah Education Policy Center’s research brief on chronic absenteeism, the overall correlation between one year of chronic absence between eighth and 12th grade and dropping out of school is 0.134. For more, see Utah Education Policy Center, Research brief: Chronic absenteeism , July 2012, uepc.utah.edu. We then apply the differential in chronic absenteeism between fully virtual and fully in-person students to account for virtual students reengaging when in-person education is offered. For students who were not attending school at all, we assumed that 50 to 75 percent would not return to learning. This estimation is partly based on The on-track indicator as a predictor of high school graduation from the UChicago Consortium on School Research, which estimates that up to 75 percent of high school students who are “off track”—either failing or behind in credits—do not graduate in five years. For more, see Elaine Allensworth and John Q. Easton, The on-track indicator as a predictor of high school graduation , UChicago Consortium on School Research, 2005, consortium.uchicago.edu.

Even among students who complete high school, many may not fulfill their dreams of going on to postsecondary education. Our survey suggests that 17 percent of high school seniors who had planned to attend postsecondary education abandoned their plans—most often because they had joined or were planning to join the workforce or because the costs of college were too high. The number is much higher among low-income high school seniors, with 26 percent abandoning their plans. Low-income seniors are more likely to state cost as a reason, with high-income seniors more likely to be planning to reapply the following year or enroll in a gap-year program. This is consistent with National Student Clearinghouse reports that show overall college enrollment declines, with low-income, high-poverty, and high-minority high schools disproportionately affected. 19 Todd Sedmak, “Fall 2020 college enrollment update for the high school graduating class of 2020,” National Student Clearinghouse, March 25, 2021, studentclearinghouse.org; Todd Sedmak, “Spring 2021 college enrollment declines 603,000 to 16.9 million students,” National Student Clearinghouse, June 10, 2021, studentclearinghouse.org.

Unfinished learning has long-term consequences

The cumulative effects of the pandemic could have a long-term impact on an entire generation of students. Education achievement and attainment are linked not only to higher earnings but also to better health, reduced incarceration rates, and greater political participation. 20 See, for example, Michael Grossman, “Education and nonmarket outcomes,” in Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 1 , ed. Eric Hanushek and Finis Welch (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006), 577–633; Lance Lochner and Enrico Moretti, “The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports,” American Economic Review , 2004, Volume 94, Number 1, pp. 155–89; Kevin Milligan, Enrico Moretti, and Philip Oreopoulos, “Does education improve citizenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom,” Journal of Public Economics , August 2004, Volume 88, Number 9–10, pp. 1667–95; and Education transforms lives , UNESCO, 2013, unesdoc.unesco.org. We estimate that, without immediate and sustained interventions, pandemic-related unfinished learning could reduce lifetime earnings for K–12 students by an average of $49,000 to $61,000. These costs are significant, especially for students who have lost more learning. While white students may see lifetime earnings reduced by 1.4 percent, the reduction could be as much as 2.4 percent for Black students and 2.1 percent for Hispanic students. 21 Projected earnings across children’s lifetimes using current annual incomes for those with at least a high school diploma, discounting the earnings by a premium established in Murnane et al., 2000, which tied cognitive skills and future earnings. See Richard J. Murnane et al., “How important are the cognitive skills of teenagers in predicting subsequent earnings?,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , September 2000, Volume 19, Number 4, pp. 547–68.

Lower earnings, lower levels of education attainment, less innovation—all of these lead to decreased economic productivity. By 2040 the majority of this cohort of K–12 students will be in the workforce. We anticipate a potential annual GDP loss of $128 billion to $188 billion from pandemic-related unfinished learning. 22 Using Hanushek and Woessmann 2008 methodology to map national per capita growth associated with decrease in academic achievement, then adding additional impact of pandemic dropouts on GDP. For more, see Eric A. Hanushek and Ludger Woessmann, “The role of cognitive skills in economic development,” Journal of Economic Literature , September 2008, Volume 46, Number 3, pp. 607–68.

This increases by about one-third the existing hits to GDP from achievement gaps that predated COVID-19. Our previous research indicated that the pre-COVID-19 racial achievement gap was equivalent to $426 billion to $705 billion in lost economic potential every year (Exhibit 7). 23 This is the increase in GDP that would result if Black and Hispanic students achieved the same levels of academic performance as white students. For more information on historical opportunity and achievement gaps, please see Emma Dorn, Bryan Hancock, Jimmy Sarakatsannis, and Ellen Viruleg, “ COVID-19 and student learning in the United States: The hurt could last a lifetime ,” June 1, 2020.

What is the path forward for our nation’s students?

There is now significant funding in place to address these critical issues. Through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act); the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA); and the American Rescue Plan (ARP), the federal government has already committed more than $200 billion to K–12 education over the next three years, 24 The CARES Act provided $13 billion to ESSER and $3 billion to the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund; CRRSAA provided $54 billion to ESSER II, $4 billion to Governors (GEER II and EANS); ARP provided $123 billion to ESSER III, $3 billion to Governors (EANS II), and $10 billion to other education programs. For more, see “CCSSO fact sheet: COVID-19 relief funding for K-12 education,” Council of Chief State School Officers, 2021, https://753a0706.flowpaper.com/CCSSOCovidReliefFactSheet/#page=2. a significant increase over the approximately $750 billion spent annually on public schooling. 25 “The condition of education 2021: At a glance,” National Center for Education Statistics, accessed June 30, 2021, nces.ed.gov. The majority of these funds are routed through the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER), of which 90 percent flows to districts and 10 percent to state education agencies. These are vast sums of money, particularly in historical context. As part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the Obama administration committed more than $80 billion toward K–12 schools—at the time the biggest federal infusion of funds to public schools in the nation’s history. 26 “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Saving and Creating Jobs and Reforming Education,” US Department of Education, March 7, 2009, ed.gov. Today’s funding more than doubles that previous record and gives districts much more freedom in how they spend the money. 27 Andrew Ujifusa, “What Obama’s stimulus had for education that the coronavirus package doesn’t,” Education Week , March 31, 2020, www.edweek.org.

However, if this funding can mitigate the impact of unfinished learning, it could prevent much larger losses to the US economy. Given that this generation of students will likely spend 35 to 40 years in the workforce, the cumulative impact of COVID-19 unfinished learning over their lifetimes could far exceed the investments that are being made today.

Furthermore, much of today’s federal infusion will likely be spent not only on supporting students in catching up on the unfinished learning of the pandemic but also on tackling deeper historical opportunity and achievement gaps among students of different races and income levels.

As districts consider competing uses of funding, they are juggling multiple priorities over several time horizons. The ARP funding needs to be obligated by September 2023. This restricts how monies can be spent. Districts are balancing the desire to hire new personnel or start new programs with the risk of having to close programs because of lack of sustained funds in the future. Districts are also facing decisions about whether to run programs at the district level or to give more freedom to principals in allocating funds; about the balance between academics and broader student needs; about the extent to which funds should be targeted to students who have struggled most or spread evenly across all students; and about the balance between rolling out existing evidence-based programs and experimenting with innovative approaches.

It is too early to answer all of these questions decisively. However, as districts consider this complex set of decisions, leading practitioners and thinkers have come together to form the Coalition to Advance Future Student Success—and to outline priorities to ensure the effective and equitable use of federal funds. 28 “Framework: The Coalition to Advance Future Student Success,” Council of Chief State School Officers, accessed June 30, 2021, learning.ccsso.org.

These priorities encompass four potential actions for schools:

• Safely reopen schools for in-person learning.
• Reengage students and reenroll them into effective learning environments.
• Support students in recovering unfinished learning and broader needs.
• Recommit and reimagine our education systems for the long term.

Across all of these actions, it is important for districts to understand the changing needs of parents and students as we emerge from the pandemic, and to engage with them to support students to learn and to thrive. The remainder of this article shares insights from our parent survey of more than 16,000 parents on these changing needs and perspectives, and highlights some early actions by states and districts to adapt to meet them.

1. Safely reopen schools for in-person learning

The majority of school districts across the country are planning to offer traditional five-days-a-week in-person instruction in the fall, employing COVID-19-mitigation strategies such as staff and student vaccination drives, ongoing COVID-19 testing, mask mandates, and infrastructure updates. 29 “Map: Where Were Schools Required to Be Open for the 2020-21 School Year?,” Education Week , updated May 2021, edweek.org. The evidence suggests that schools can reopen buildings safely with the right protocols in place, 30 For a summary of the evidence on safely reopening schools, see John Bailey, Is it safe to reopen schools? , CRPE, March 2021, crpe.org. but health preparedness will likely remain critical as buildings reopen. Indeed, by the end of the school year, a significant subset of parents remain concerned about safety in schools, with nearly a third still very or extremely worried about the threat of COVID-19 to their child’s health. Parents also want districts to continue to invest in safety—39 percent say schools should invest in COVID-19 health and safety measures this fall.

2. Reengage and reenroll students in effective learning environments

Opening buildings safely is hard enough, but encouraging students to show up could be even more challenging. Some students will have dropped out of formal schooling entirely, and those who remain in school may be reluctant to return to physical classrooms. Our survey results suggest that 24 percent of parents are still not convinced they will choose in-person instruction for their children this fall. Within Black communities, that rises to 34 percent. But many of these parents are still open to persuasion. Only 4 percent of parents (and 6 percent of Black parents) say their children will definitely not return to fully in-person learning—which is not very different from the percentage of parents who choose to homeschool or pursue other alternative education options in a typical year. For students who choose to remain virtual, schools should make continual efforts to improve virtual learning models, based on lessons from the past year.

For parents who are still on the fence, school districts can work to understand their needs and provide effective learning options. Safety concerns remain the primary reason that parents remain hesitant about returning to the classroom; however, this is not the only driver. Some parents feel that remote learning has been a better learning environment for their child, while others have seen their child’s social-emotional and mental health improve at home.

Still, while remote learning may have worked well for some students, our data suggest that it failed many. In addition to understanding parent needs, districts should reach out to families and build confidence not just in their schools’ safety precautions but also in their learning environment and broader role in the community. Addressing root causes will likely be more effective than punitive measures, and a broad range of tactics may be needed, from outreach and attendance campaigns to student incentives to providing services families need, such as transportation and childcare. 31 Roshon R. Bradley, “A comprehensive approach to improving student attendance,” St. John Fisher College, August 2015, Education Doctoral, Paper 225, fisherpub.sjfc.edu; a 2011 literature review highlights how incentives can effectively be employed to increase attendance rates. Across all of these, a critical component will likely be identifying students who are at risk and ensuring targeted outreach and interventions. 32 Elaine M. Allensworth and John Q. Easton, “What matters for staying on-track and graduating in Chicago Public Schools: A close look at course grades, failures, and attendance in the freshman year,” Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago, July 2007, files.eric.ed.gov.

Chicago Public Schools, in partnership with the University of Chicago, has developed a student prioritization index (SPI) that identifies students at highest risk of unfinished learning and dropping out of school. The index is based on a combination of academic, attendance, socio-emotional, and community vulnerability inputs. The district is reaching out to all students with a back-to-school marketing campaign while targeting more vulnerable students with additional support. Schools are partnering with community-based organizations to carry out home visits, and with parents to staff phone banks. They are offering various paid summer opportunities to reduce the trade-offs students may have to make between summer school and summer jobs, recognizing that many have found paid work during the pandemic. The district will track and monitor the results to learn which tactics work. 33 “Moving Forward Together,” Chicago Public Schools, June 2021, cps.edu.

In Florida’s Miami-Dade schools, each school employee was assigned 30 households to contact personally, starting with a phone call and then showing up for a home visit. Superintendent Alberto Carvalho personally contacted 30 families and persuaded 23 to return to in-person learning. The district is starting the transition to in-person learning by hosting engaging in-person summer learning programs. 34 Hannah Natanson, “Schools use home visits, calls to convince parents to choose in-person classes in fall,” Washington Post , July 7, 2021, washingtonpost.com.

3. Support students in recovering unfinished learning and in broader needs

Even if students reenroll in effective learning environments in the fall, many will be several months behind academically and may struggle to reintegrate into a traditional learning environment. School districts are therefore creating strategies to support students  as they work to make up unfinished learning, and as they work through broader mental health issues and social reintegration. Again, getting parents and students to show up for these programs may be harder than districts expect.

Our research suggests that parents underestimate the unfinished learning caused by the pandemic. In addition, their beliefs about their children’s learning do not reflect racial disparities in unfinished learning. In our survey, 40 percent of parents said their child is on track and 16 percent said their child is progressing faster than in a usual year. Black parents are slightly more likely than white parents to think their child is on track or better, Hispanic parents less so. However, across all races, more than half of parents think their child is doing just fine. Only 14 percent of parents said their child has fallen significantly behind.

Even if programs are offered for free, many parents may not take advantage of them, especially if they are too academically oriented. Only about a quarter of parents said they are very likely to enroll their child in tutoring, after-school, or summer-school programs, for example. Nearly 40 percent said they are very likely to enroll their students in enrichment programs such as art or music. Districts therefore should consider not only offering effective evidence-based programs, such as high-dosage tutoring and vacation academies, but also ensuring that these programs are attractive to students.

In Rhode Island, for example, the state is taking a “Broccoli and Ice Cream” approach to summer school to prepare students for the new school year, combining rigorous reading and math instruction with fun activities provided by community-based partners. Enrichment activities such as sailing, Italian cooking lessons, and Olympic sports are persuading students to participate. 35 From webinar with Angélica Infante-Green, Rhode Island Department of Education, https://www.ewa.org/agenda/ewa-74th-national-seminar-agenda. The state-run summer program is open to students across the state, but the Rhode Island Department of Education has also provided guidance to district-run programs, 36 Learning, Equity & Accelerated Pathways Task Force Report , Rhode Island Department of Education, April 2021, ride.ri.gov. encouraging partnerships with community-based organizations, a dual focus on academics and enrichment, small class sizes, and a strong focus on relationships and social-emotional support.

In Louisiana, the state has provided guidance and support 37 Staffing and scheduling best practices guidance , Louisiana Department of Education, June 3, 2021, louisianabelieves.com. to districts in implementing recovery programs to ensure evidence-based approaches are rolled out state-wide. The guidance includes practical tips on ramping up staffing, and on scheduling high-dosage tutoring and other dedicated acceleration blocks. The state didn’t stop at guidance, but also flooded districts with support and two-way dialogue through webinars, conferences, monthly calls, and regional technical coaching. By scheduling acceleration blocks during the school day, rather than an add-on after school, districts are not dependent on parents signing up for programs.

For students who have experienced trauma, schools will likely need to address the broader fallout from the pandemic. In southwest Virginia, the United Way is partnering with five school systems to establish a trauma-informed schools initiative, providing teachers and staff with training and resources on trauma recovery. 38 Mike Still, “SWVA school districts partner to help students in wake of pandemic,” Kingsport Times News, June 26, 2021, timesnews.net. San Antonio is planning to hire more licensed therapists and social workers to help students and their families, leveraging partnerships with community organizations to place a licensed social worker on every campus. 39 Brooke Crum, “SAISD superintendent: ‘There are no shortcuts’ to tackling COVID-related learning gaps,” San Antonio Report, April 12, 2021, sanantonioreport.org.

4. Recommit and reimagine our education systems for the long term

Opportunity gaps have existed in our school systems for a long time. As schools build back from the pandemic, districts are also recommitting to providing an excellent education to every child. A potential starting point could be redoubling efforts to provide engaging, high-quality grade-level curriculum and instruction delivered by diverse and effective educators in every classroom, supported by effective assessments to inform instruction and support.

Beyond these foundational elements, districts may consider reimagining other aspects of the system. Parents may also be open to nontraditional models. Thirty-three percent of parents said that even when the pandemic is over, the ideal fit for their child would be something other than five days a week in a traditional brick-and-mortar school. Parents are considering hybrid models, remote learning, homeschooling, or learning hubs over the long term. Even if learning resumes mostly in the building, parents are open to the use of new technology to support teaching.

Edgecombe County Public Schools in North Carolina is planning to continue its use of learning hubs this fall to better meet student needs. In the district’s hub-and-spoke model, students will spend half of their time learning core content (the “hub”). For the other half they will engage in enrichment activities aligned to learning standards (the “spokes”). For elementary and middle school students, enrichment activities will involve interest-based projects in science and social studies; for high schoolers, activities could include exploring their passions through targeted English language arts and social studies projects or getting work experience—either paid or volunteer. The district is redeploying staff and leveraging community-based partnerships to enable these smaller-group activities with trusted adults who mirror the demographics of the students. 40 “District- and community-driven learning pods,” Center on Reinventing Public Education, crpe.org.

In Tennessee, the new Advanced Placement (AP) Access for All program will provide students across the state with access to AP courses, virtually. The goal is to eliminate financial barriers and help students take AP courses that aren’t currently offered at their home high school. 41 Amy Cockerham, “TN Department of Education announces ‘AP Access for All program,’” April 28, 2021, WJHL-TV, wjhl.com.

The Dallas Independent School District is rethinking the traditional school year, gathering input from families, teachers, and school staff to ensure that school communities are ready for the plunge. More than 40 schools have opted to add five additional intercession weeks to the year to provide targeted academics and enrichment activities. A smaller group of schools will add 23 days to the school year to increase time for student learning and teacher planning and collaboration. 42 “Time to Learn,” Dallas Independent School District, dallasisd.org.

It is unclear whether all these experiments will succeed, and school districts should monitor them closely to ensure they can scale successful programs and sunset unsuccessful ones. However, we have learned in the pandemic that some of the innovations born of necessity met some families’ needs better. Continued experimentation and fine-tuning could bring the best of traditional and new approaches together.

Thanks to concerted efforts by states and districts, the worst projections for learning outcomes this past year have not materialized for most students. However, students are still far behind where they need to be, especially those from historically marginalized groups. Left unchecked, unfinished learning could have severe consequences for students’ opportunities and prospects. In the long term, it could exact a heavy toll on the economy. It is not too late to mitigate these threats, and funding is now in place. Districts and states now have the opportunity to spend that money effectively to support our nation’s students.

Emma Dorn is a senior expert in McKinsey’s Silicon Valley office; Bryan Hancock and Jimmy Sarakatsannis are partners in the Washington, DC, office; and Ellen Viruleg is a senior adviser based in Providence, Rhode Island.

The authors wish to thank Alice Boucher, Ezra Glenn, Ben Hayes, Cheryl Healey, Chauncey Holder, and Sidney Scott for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Teacher survey: Learning loss is global—and significant

COVID-19 and learning loss—disparities grow and students need help

Reimagining a more equitable and resilient K–12 education system

Advertisement

The Impact of COVID-19 on Education: A Meta-Narrative Review

• Original Paper
• Published: 05 July 2022
• Volume 66 , pages 883–896, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Aras Bozkurt   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4520-642X 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Kadir Karakaya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3375-1532 4 ,
• Murat Turk   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5105-2578 5 ,
• Özlem Karakaya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9950-481X 6 &
• Daniela Castellanos-Reyes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0183-1549 7  

13k Accesses

31 Citations

52 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The rapid and unexpected onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic has generated a great degree of uncertainty about the future of education and has required teachers and students alike to adapt to a new normal to survive in the new educational ecology. Through this experience of the new educational ecology, educators have learned many lessons, including how to navigate through uncertainty by recognizing their strengths and vulnerabilities. In this context, the aim of this study is to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the publications covering COVID-19 and education to analyze the impact of the pandemic by applying the data mining and analytics techniques of social network analysis and text-mining. From the abstract, title, and keyword analysis of a total of 1150 publications, seven themes were identified: (1) the great reset, (2) shifting educational landscape and emerging educational roles (3) digital pedagogy, (4) emergency remote education, (5) pedagogy of care, (6) social equity, equality, and injustice, and (7) future of education. Moreover, from the citation analysis, two thematic clusters emerged: (1) educational response, emergency remote education affordances, and continuity of education, and (2) psychological impact of COVID-19. The overlap between themes and thematic clusters revealed researchers’ emphasis on guaranteeing continuity of education and supporting the socio-emotional needs of learners. From the results of the study, it is clear that there is a heightened need to develop effective strategies to ensure the continuity of education in the future, and that it is critical to proactively respond to such crises through resilience and flexibility.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Impact of COVID-19 on Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Pedagogical Approaches and Challenges

Learning from a Pandemic. The Impact of COVID-19 on Education Around the World

A multimethod synthesis of Covid-19 education research: the tightrope between covidization and meaningfulness

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has proven to be a massive challenge for the entire world, imposing a radical transformation in many areas of life, including education. It was rapid and unexpected; the world was unprepared and hit hard. The virus is highly contagious, having a pathogenic nature whose effects have not been limited to humans alone, but rather, includes every construct and domain of societies, including education. The education system, which has been affected at all levels, has been required to respond to the crisis, forced to transition into emergency modes, and adapt to the unprecedented impact of the global crisis. Although the beginning of 2021 will mark nearly a year of experience in living through the pandemic, the crisis remains a phenomenon with many unknowns. A deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the changes that have been made in response to the crisis is needed to survive in these hard times. Hence, this study aims to provide a better understanding by examining the scholarly publications on COVID-19 and education. In doing this, we can identify our weaknesses and vulnerabilities, be better prepared for the new normal, and be more fit to survive.

Related Literature

Though the COVID-19 pandemic is not the first major disruption to be experienced in the history of the world, it has been unique due to its scale and the requirements that have been imposed because of it (Guitton, 2020 ). The economies of many countries have greatly suffered from the lockdowns and other restrictive measurements, and people have had to adapt to a new lifestyle, where their primary concern is to survive by keeping themselves safe from contracting the deadly virus. The education system has not been exempt from this series of unfortunate events inflicted by COVID-19. Since brick-and-mortar schools had to be closed due to the pandemic, millions of students, from those in K-12 to those in higher education, were deprived of physical access to their classrooms, peers, and teachers (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020a , b ). This extraordinary pandemic period has posed arguably the most challenging and complex problems ever for educators, students, schools, educational institutions, parents, governments, and all other educational stakeholders. The closing of brick-and-mortar schools and campuses rendered online teaching and learning the only viable solution to the problem of access-to-education during this emergency period (Hodges et al., 2020 ). Due to the urgency of this move, teachers and instructors were rushed to shift all their face-to-face instruction and instructional materials to online spaces, such as learning management systems or electronic platforms, in order to facilitate teaching virtually at a distance. As a result of this sudden migration to learning and instruction online, the key distinctions between online education and education delivered online during such crisis and emergency circumstances have been obfuscated (Hodges et al., 2020 ).

State of the Current Relevant Literature

Although the scale of the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic on education overshadows previously experienced nationwide or global crises or disruptions, the phenomenon of schools and higher education institutions having to shift their instruction to online spaces is not totally new to the education community and academia (Johnson et al., 2020 ). Prior literature on this subject indicates that in the past, schools and institutions resorted to online or electronic delivery of instruction in times of serious crises and uncertainties, including but not limited to natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes (e.g., Ayebi-Arthur, 2017 ; Lorenzo, 2008 ; Tull et al., 2017 ), local disruptions such as civil wars and socio-economic events such as political upheavals, social turmoils or economic recessions (e.g., Czerniewicz et al., 2019 ). Nevertheless, the past attempts to move learning and teaching online do not compare to the current efforts that have been implemented during the global COVID-19 pandemic, insofar as the past crisis situations were sporadic events in specific territories, affecting a limited population for relatively short periods of time. In contrast, the COVID-19 pandemic has continued to pose a serious threat to the continuity of education around the globe (Johnson et al., 2020 ).

Considering the scale and severity of the global pandemic, the impacts it has had on education in general and higher education in particular need to be explored and studied empirically so that necessary plans and strategies aimed at reducing its devastating effects can be developed and implemented. Due to the rapid onset and spread of the global pandemic, the current literature on the impact of COVID-19 on education is still limited, including mostly non-academic editorials or non-empirical personal reflections, anecdotes, reports, and stories (e.g., Baker, 2020 ; DePietro, 2020 ). Yet, with that said, empirical research on the impact of the global pandemic on higher education is rapidly growing. For example, Johnson et al. ( 2020 ), in their empirical study, found that faculty members who were struggling with various challenges adopted new instructional methods and strategies and adjusted certain course components to foster emergency remote education (ERE). Unger and Meiran ( 2020 ) observed that the pandemic made students in the US feel anxious about completing online learning tasks. In contrast, Suleri ( 2020 ) reported that a large majority of European higher education students were satisfied with their virtual learning experiences during the pandemic, and that most were willing to continue virtual higher education even after the pandemic (Suleri, 2020 ). The limited empirical research also points to the need for systematically planning and designing online learning experiences in advance in preparation for future outbreaks of such global pandemics and other crises (e.g., Korkmaz & Toraman, 2020 ). Despite the growing literature, the studies provide only fragmentary evidence on the impact of the pandemic on online learning and teaching. For a more thorough understanding of the serious implications the pandemic has for higher education in relation to learning and teaching online, more empirical research is needed.

Unlike previously conducted bibliometric analysis studies on this subject, which have largely involved general analysis of research on health sciences and COVID-19, Aristovnik et al. ( 2020 ) performed an in-depth bibliometric analysis of various science and social science research disciplines by examining a comprehensive database of document and source information. By the final phase of their bibliometric analysis, the authors had analyzed 16,866 documents. They utilized a mix of innovative bibliometric approaches to capture the existing research and assess the state of COVID-19 research across different research landscapes (e.g., health sciences, life sciences, physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities). Their findings showed that most COVID-19 research has been performed in the field of health sciences, followed by life sciences, physical sciences, and social sciences and humanities. Results from the keyword co-occurrence analysis revealed that health sciences research on COVID-19 tended to focus on health consequences, whereas the life sciences research on the subject tended to focus on drug efficiency. Moreover, physical sciences research tended to focus on environmental consequences, and social sciences and humanities research was largely oriented towards socio-economic consequences.

Similarly, Rodrigues et al. ( 2020 ) carried out a bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 related studies from a management perspective in order to elucidate how scientific research and education arrive at solutions to the pandemic crisis and the post-COVID-19 era. In line with Aristovnik et al.’s ( 2020 ) findings, Rodrigues et al. ( 2020 ) reported that most of the published research on this subject has fallen under the field of health sciences, leaving education as an under-researched area of inquiry. The content analysis they performed in their study also found a special emphasis on qualitative research. The descriptive and content analysis yielded two major strands of studies: (1) online education and (2) COVID-19 and education, business, economics, and management. The online education strand focused on the issue of technological anxiety caused by online classes, the feeling of belonging to an academic community, and feedback.

Lastly, Bond ( 2020 ) conducted a rapid review of K-12 research undertaken in the first seven months of the COVID-19 pandemic to identify successes and challenges and to offer recommendations for the future. From a search of K-12 research on the Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCOHost, the Microsoft Academic, and the COVID-19 living systematic map, 90 studies were identified and analyzed. The findings revealed that the reviewed research has focused predominantly on the challenges to shifting to ERE, teacher digital competencies and digital infrastructure, teacher ICT skills, parent engagement in learning, and students’ health and well-being. The review highlighted the need for straightforward communication between schools and families to inform families about learning activities and to promote interactivity between students. Teachers were also encouraged to develop their professional networks to increase motivation and support amongst themselves and to include opportunities for both synchronous and asynchronous interaction for promoting student engagement when using technology. Bond ( 2020 ) reported that the reviewed studies called for providing teachers with opportunities to further develop their digital technical competencies and their distance and online learning pedagogies. In a recent study that examines the impact of COVID-19 at higher education (Bozkurt, 2022 ), three broad themes from the body of research on this subject: (1) educational crisis and higher education in the new normal: resilience, adaptability, and sustainability, (2) psychological pressures, social uncertainty, and mental well-being of learners, and (3) the rise of online distance education and blended-hybrid modes. The findings of this study are similar to Mishra et al. ( 2021 ) who examined the COVID-19 pandemic from the lens of online distance education and noted that technologies for teaching and learning and psychosocial issues were emerging issues.

The aforementioned studies indicate that a great majority of research on COVID-19 has been produced in the field of health sciences, as expected. These studies nonetheless note that there is a noticeable shortage of studies dealing with the effects of the pandemic in the fields of social sciences, humanities, and education. Given the profound impact of the pandemic on learning and teaching, as well as on the related stakeholders in education, now more than ever, a greater amount of research on COVID-19 needs to be conducted in the field of education. The bibliometric studies discussed above have analyzed COVID-19 research across various fields, yielding a comparative snapshot of the research undertaken so far in different research spheres. However, despite being comprehensive, these studies did not appear to have examined a specific discipline or area of research in depth. Therefore, this bibliometric study aims to provide a focused, in-depth analysis of the COVID-19-related research in the field of education. In this regard, the main purpose of this study is to identify research patterns and trends in the field of education by examining COVID-19-related research papers. The study sought to answer the following research questions:

What are the thematic patterns in the title, abstract, and keywords of the publications on COVID-19 and education?

What are the citation trends in the references of the sampled publications on COVID-19 and education?

Methodology

This study used data mining and analytic approaches (Fayyad et al., 2002 ) to examine bibliometric patterns and trends. More specifically, social network analysis (SNA) (Hansen et al., 2020 ) was applied to examine the keywords and references, while text-mining was applied (Aggarwal & Zhai, 2012 ) to examine the titles and abstracts of the research corpus. Keywords represent the essence of an article at a micro level and for the analysis of the keywords, SNA was used. SNA “provides powerful ways to summarize networks and identify key people, [entities], or other objects that occupy strategic locations and positions within a matrix of links” (Hansen et al., 2020 , p. 6). In this regard, the keywords were analyzed based on their co-occurrences and visualized on a network graph by identifying the significant keywords which were demonstrated as nodes and their relationships were demonstrated with ties. For text-mining of the titles and abstracts, the researchers performed a lexical analysis that employs “two stages of co-occurrence information extraction—semantic and relational—using a different algorithm for each stage” (Smith & Humphreys, 2006 , p. 262). Thus, text-mining analysis enabled researchers to identify the hidden patterns and visualize them on a thematic concept map. For the analysis of the references, the researchers further used SNA based on the arguments that “citing articles and cited articles are linked to each other through invisible ties, and they collaboratively and collectively build an intellectual community that can be referred to as a living network, structure, or an ecology” (Bozkurt, 2019 , p. 498). The analysis of the references enabled the researchers to identify pivotal scholarly contributions that guided and shaped the intellectual landscape. The use of multiple approaches enables the study to present a broader view, or a meta-narrative.

Sample and Inclusion Criteria

The publications included in this research met the following inclusion criteria: (1) indexed by the Scopus database, (2) written in English, and (3) had the search queries on their title (Table 1 ). The search query reflects the focus on the impact of COVID-19 on education by including common words in the field like learn , teach , or student . Truncation was also used in the search to capture all relevant literature. Narrowing down the search allowed us to exclude publications that were not education related. Scopus was selected because it is one of the largest scholarly databases, and only publications in English were selected to facilitate identification of meaningful lexical patterns through text-mining and provide a condensed view of the research. The search yielded a total of 1150 papers (articles = 887, editorials = 66, notes = 58, conference papers = 56, letters = 40, review studies = 30, book chapters = 9, short surveys = 3, books = 1).

Data Analysis and Research Procedures

This study has two phases of analysis. In the first phase, text mining was used to analyze titles and abstracts, and SNA was applied to analyze keywords. By using two different analytical approaches, the authors were able to triangulate the research findings (Thurmond, 2001 ). In this phase, using lexical algorithms, text mining analysis enabled visualizing the textual data on a thematic concept map according to semantic relationships and co-occurrences of the words (Fig.  1 ). Text mining generated a machine-based concept map by analyzing the co-occurrences and lexical relationships of textual data. Then, based on the co-occurrences and centrality metrics, SNA enabled visualizing keywords on a network graphic called sociogram (Fig.  2 ). SNA allowed researchers to visually identify the key terms on a connected network graph where keywords are represented as nodes and their relationships are represented as edges. In the first phase of the study, by synthesizing outputs of the data mining and analytic approaches, meaningful patterns of textual data were presented as seven main research themes.

Thematic concept mapping of COVID-19 and education-related papers

Social networks analysis of the keywords in COVID-19 and education-related papers

In the second phase of the study, through the examination of the references and citation patterns (e.g., citing and being cited) of the articles in the research corpus, the citation patterns were visualized on a network graphic by clusters (See Fig.  3 ) showing also chronical relationships which enabled to identify pivotal COVID-19 studies. In the second phase of the study, two new themes were identified which were in line with the themes that emerged in the first phase of the study.

Social networks analysis of the references in COVID-19 and education-related papers 2019–2020 (Only the first authors were labeled – See Appendix Fig. 4 for SNA of references covering pre-COVID-19 period)

Strengths and Limitations

This study is one of the first attempts to use bibliometric approaches benefiting from data mining and analysis techniques to better understand COVID-19 and its consequences on published educational research. By applying such an approach, a large volume of data is able to be visualized and reported. However, besides these strengths, the study also has certain limitations. First, the study uses the Scopus database, which, though being one of the largest databases, does not include all types of publications. Therefore, the publications selected for this study offer only a partial view, as there are many significant publications in gray literature (e.g., reports, briefs, blogs). Second, the study includes only publications written in English, however, with COVID-19 being a global crisis, publications in different languages would provide a complementary view and be helpful in understanding local reflections in the field of education.

Findings and Discussion

Sna and text-mining: thematic patterns in the title, abstract, and keywords of the publications.

This section reports the findings based on a thematic concept map and network graphic that were developed through text mining (Fig.  1 —Textual data composed of 186.234 words visualized according to lexical relationships and co-occurrences) and sociograms created using SNA (Fig.  2 —The top 200 keywords with highest betweenness centrality and 1577 connections among them mapped on a network graph) to visualize the data. Accordingly, seven major themes were identified by analyzing the data through text-mining and SNA: (1) the great reset, (2) digital pedagogy, (3) shifting educational landscape and emerging educational roles, (4) emergency remote education, (5) pedagogy of care, (6) social equity, equality, and injustice, and (7) future of education.

Theme 1: The Great Reset (See path Fig.  1 : lockdown  +  emergency  +  community  +  challenges  +  during  >  pandemic and impact  >  outbreak  >  coronavirus  >  pandemic and global  >  crisis  >  pandemic  >  world; See nodes on Fig.  2 : Covid19, pandemic, Coronavirus, lockdown, crisis ). The first theme in the thematic concept map and network graphic is the Great Reset. It has been relatively a short time since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 a pandemic. Although vaccination had already started, the pandemic continued to have an adverse impact on the world. Ever since the start of the pandemic, people were discussing when there would be a return to normal (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020a , b ; Xiao, 2021 ); however, as time goes by, this hope has faded, and returning to normal appears to be far into the future (Schwab & Malleret, 2020 ). The pandemic is seen as a major milestone, in the sense that a macro reset in economic, social, geopolitical, environmental, and technological fields will produce multi-faceted changes affecting almost all aspects of life (Schwab & Malleret, 2020 ). The cover of an issue of the international edition of Time Magazine reflected this idea of a great reset and presented the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to transform the way we live and work (Time, 2020 ). It has been argued that the pandemic will generate the emergence of a new era, and that we will have to adapt to the changes it produces (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020 ). For example, the industrial sector quickly embraced remote work despite its challenges, and it is possible that most industrial companies will not return to the on-site working model even after the pandemic ends (Hern, 2020 ). We can expect a high rate of similar responses in other fields, including education, where COVID-19 has already reshaped our educational systems, the way we deliver education, and pedagogical approaches.

Theme 2: Digital pedagogy (See path on Fig.  1 : distance learning  >  research  >  teacher  >  development  >  need  >  training  +  technology  +  virtual  >  digital  >  communication  >  support  >  process  >  teaching  >  online  >  learning  >  online learning  +  course  >  faculty  >  students  >  experience ; See nodes on Fig.  2 : online learning, distance learning, computer-based learning, elearning, online education, distance education, online teaching, multimedia-based learning, technology, blended learning, online, digital transformation, ICT, online classes, flexible learning, technology-enhanced learning, digitalization ). Owing to the rapid transition to online education as a result of COVID-19, digital pedagogy and teachers’ competencies in information and communication technology (ICT) integration have gained greater prominence with the unprecedented challenges teachers have faced to adapt to remote teaching and learning. The COVID-19 pandemic has unquestionably manifested the need to prepare teachers to teach online, as most of them have been forced to assume ERE roles with inadequate preparation. Studies involving the use of SNA indicate a correspondence between adapting to a digital pedagogy and the need to equip teachers with greater competency in technology and online teaching (e.g., Blume, 2020 ; König et al., 2020 ). König et al. ( 2020 ) conducted a survey-based study investigating how early career teachers have adapted to online teaching during COVID-19 school closures. Their study found that while all the teachers maintained communication with students and their parents, introduced new learning content, and provided feedback, they lacked the ability to respond to challenges requiring ICT integration, such as those related to providing quality online teaching and to conducting assessments. Likewise, Blume ( 2020 ) noted that most teachers need to acquire digital skills to implement digitally-mediated pedagogy and communication more effectively. Both study findings point to the need for building ICT-related teaching and learning competencies in initial teacher education and teacher professional development. The findings from the SNA conducted in the present study are in line with the aforementioned findings in terms of keyword analysis and overlapping themes and nodes.

Theme 3: Shifting educational landscape and emerging educational roles (See path on Fig.  1 : future > education > role > Covid19; See nodes on Fig.  2 : higher education, education, student, curriculum, university, teachers, learning, professional development, teacher education, knowledge, readiness ). The role of technology in education and human learning has been essential during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology has become a prerequisite for learning and teaching during the pandemic and will likely continue to be so after it. In the rapid shift to an unprecedented mode of learning and teaching, stakeholders have had to assume different roles in the educational landscape of the new normal. For example, in a comprehensive study involving the participation of over 30 K higher education students from 62 countries conducted by Aristovnik et al. ( 2020 ), it was found that students with certain socio-demographic characteristics (male, lower living standard, from Africa or Asia) were significantly less satisfied with the changes to work/life balance created by the COVID-19 pandemic, and that female students who were facing financial problems were generally more affected by COVID-19 in their emotional life and personal circumstances. Despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, there is likely to be carry over in the post-pandemic era of some of the educational changes made during the COVID-19 times. For example, traditional lecture-based teacher-centered classes may be replaced by more student-centered online collaborative classes (Zhu & Liu, 2020 ). This may require the development and proliferation of open educational platforms that allow access to high-quality educational materials (Bozkurt et al., 2020 ) and the adoption of new roles to survive in the learning ecologies informed by digital learning pedagogies. In common with the present study, the aforementioned studies (e.g., Aristovnik et al., 2020 ; König et al., 2020 ) call for more deliberate actions to improve teacher education programs by offering training on various teaching approaches, such as blended, hybrid, flexible, and online learning, to better prepare educators for emerging roles in the post-pandemic era.

Theme 4: Emergency remote education (see path Fig.  1 : higher education  >  university  >  student  >  experience  >  remote; See nodes on Fig.  2 : Covid19, pandemic, Coronavirus, higher education, education, school closure, emergency remote teaching, emergency remote learning ). Educational institutions have undergone a rapid shift to ERE in the wake of COVID-19 (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020a ; Bozkurt et al., 2020 ; Hodges et al., 2020 ). Although ERE is viewed as similar to distance education, they are essentially different. That is, ERE is a prompt response measure to an emergency situation or unusual circumstances, such as a global pandemic or a civil war, for a temporary period of time, whereas distance education is a planned and systematic approach to instructional design and development grounded in educational theory and practice (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020b ). Due to the urgent nature of situations requiring ERE, it may fall short in embracing the solid pedagogical learning and teaching principles represented by distance education (Hodges et al., 2020 ). The early implementations of ERE primarily involved synchronous video-conferencing sessions that sought to imitate in-person classroom instruction. It is worth noting that educators may have heavily relied on synchronous communication to overcome certain challenges, such as the lack of available materials and planned activities for asynchronous communication. Lockdowns and school closures, which turned homes into compulsory learning environments, have posed major challenges for families and students, including scheduling, device sharing, and learner engagement in a socially distanced home learning environment (Bond, 2020 ). For example, Shim and Lee ( 2020 ) conducted a qualitative study exploring university students’ ERE experiences and reported that students complained about network instability, unilateral interactions, and reduced levels of concentration. The SNA findings clearly highlight that there has been a focus on ERE due to the school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is key to adopt the best practices of ERE and to utilize them regularly in distance education (Bozkurt, 2022 ). Moreover, it is important to note that unless clear distinctions are drawn between these two different forms of distance education or virtual instruction, a series of unfortunate events in education during these COVID-19 times is very likely to take place and lead to fatal errors in instructional practices and to poor student learning outcomes.

Theme 5: Pedagogy of care (See path Fig.  1 : r ole  >  education  >  Covid19  >  care ; See nodes on Fig.  2 : Stress, anxiety, student wellbeing, coping, care, crisis management, depression ). The thematic concept map and network graphic show the psychological and emotional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on various stakeholders, revealing that they have experienced anxiety, expressed the need for care, and sought coping strategies. A study by Baloran ( 2020 ), conducted in the southern part of the Philippines to examine college students’ knowledge, attitudes, anxiety, and personal coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic, found that the majority of the students experienced anxiety during the lockdown and worried about food security, financial resources, social contact, and large gatherings. It was reported that the students coped with this anxiety by following protective measures, chatting with family members and friends, and motivating themselves to have a positive attitude. In a similar study, Islam et al. ( 2020 ) conducted an investigation to determine whether Bangladeshi college students experienced anxiety and depression and the factors responsible for these emotional responses. Their cross-sectional survey-based study found that a large percentage of the participants had suffered from anxiety and depression during the pandemic. Academic and professional uncertainty, as well as financial insecurity, have been documented as factors contributing to the anxiety and depression among college students. Both studies point to the need for support mechanisms to be established by higher education institutions in order to ensure student wellbeing, provide them with care, and help them to cope with stress, anxiety, and depression. Talidong and Toquero ( 2020 ) reported that, in addition to students’ well-being and care, teachers’ perceptions and experiences of stress and anxiety during the quarantine period need to be taken into account. The authors found that teachers were worried about the safety of their loved ones and were susceptible to anxiety but tended to follow the preventive policies. A pedagogy of care has been presented as an approach that would effectively allow educators to plan more supportive teaching practices during the pandemic by fostering clear and prompt communication with students and their families and taking into consideration learner needs in lesson planning (e.g., Karakaya, 2021 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ). Here it is important to stress that a pedagogy of care is a multifaceted concept, one that involves the concepts of social equity, equality, and injustice.

Theme 6: Social equity, equality, and injustice (See path on Fig.  1 : Impact  >  outbreak  >  coronavirus  >  pandemic  >  social ; See nodes on Fig.  2 : Support, equity, social justice, digital divide, inequality, social support ). One of the more significant impacts of COVID-19 has been the deepening of the existing social injustices around the world (Oldekop et al., 2020 ; Williamson et al., 2020 ). Long-term school closures have deteriorated social bonds and adversely affected health issues, poverty, economy, food insecurity, and digital divide (Van Lancker & Parolin, 2020 ). Regarding the digital divide, there has been a major disparity in access to devices and data connectivity between high-income and low-income populations increasing the digital divide, social injustice, and inequality in the world (Bozkurt et al., 2020 ). In line with the SNA findings, the digital divide, manifesting itself most visibly in the inadequacy and insufficiency of digital devices and lack of high-speed Internet, can easily result in widespread inequalities. As such, the disparities between low and high socio-economic status families and school districts in terms of digital pedagogy inequality may deepen as teachers in affluent schools are more likely to offer a wide range of online learning activities and thereby secure better student engagement, participation, and interaction (Greenhow et al., 2020 ). These findings demonstrate that social inequities have been sharpened by the unfortunate disparities imposed by the COVID-19, thus requiring us to reimagine a future that mitigates such concerns.

Theme 7: Future of education (See word path on Fig.  1 : Future  >  education  >  Covid19  >  pandemic  >  changes and pandemic  >  coronavirus, outbreak, impact  >  world ; See nodes on Fig.  2 : Sustainability, resilience, uncertainty, sdg4). Most significantly, COVID-19 the pandemic has shown the entire world that teachers and schools are invaluable resources and execute critical roles in society. Beyond that, with the compulsory changes resulting from the pandemic, it is evident that teaching and learning environments are not exclusive to brick-and-mortar classrooms. Digital technologies, being at the center of teaching and learning during the pandemic period, have been viewed as a pivotal agent in leveraging how learning takes place beyond the classroom walls (Quilter-Pinner & Ambrose, 2020 ). COVID-19 has made some concerns more visible. For example, the well-being of students, teachers, and society at large has gained more importance in these times of crisis. Furthermore, the need for educational technology and digital devices has compounded and amplified social inequities (Pelletier et al., 2021 ; West & Allen, 2020 ). Despite its global challenges, the need for technology and digital devices has highlighted some advantages that are likely to shape the future of education, particularly those related to the benefits of educational technology. For example, online learning could provide a more flexible, informal, self-paced learning environment for students (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020 ). However, it also bears the risk of minimizing social interaction, as working in shared office environments has shifted to working alone in home-office settings. In this respect, the transformation of online education must involve a particular emphasis on sustaining interactivity through technology (Dwivedi et al., 2020 ). In view of the findings of the aforementioned studies, our text-mining and SNA findings suggest that the COVID-19 impositions may strongly shape the future of education and how learning takes place.

In summary, these themes extracted from the text-mining and SNA point to a significant milestone in the history of humanity, a multi-faceted reset that will affect many fields of life, from education and economics to sociology and lifestyle. The resulting themes have revealed that our natural response to an emerging worldwide situation shifted the educational landscape. The early response of the educational system was emergency-based and emphasized the continuance of in-person instruction via synchronous learning technologies. The subsequent response foregrounded the significance of digitally mediated learning pedagogy, related teacher competencies, and professional development. As various stakeholders (e.g., students, teachers, parents) have experienced a heightened level of anxiety and stress, an emerging strand of research has highlighted the need for care-based and trauma-informed pedagogies as a response to the side effects of the pandemic. In addition, as the global pandemic has made systemic impairments, such as social injustice and inequity, more visible, an important line of research has emerged on how social justice can be ensured given the challenges caused by the pandemic. Lastly, a sizable amount of research indicates that although the COVID-19 pandemic has imposed unprecedented challenges to our personal, educational, and social lives, it has also taught us how to respond to future crises in a timely, technologically-ready, pedagogically appropriate, and inclusive manner.

SNA: Citation Trends in the References of the Sampled Publications

The trends identified through SNA in citation patterns indicate two lines of thematic clusters (see Fig.  3 -A network graph depicting the citing and being cited patterns in the research corpus. Node sizes were defined by their citation count and betweenness centrality.). These clusters align with the results of the analysis of the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the sampled publications and forge the earlier themes (Theme 4: Emergency remote education and Theme 5: Pedagogy of care).

Thematic Cluster 1: The first cluster centers on the abilities of educational response, emergency remote education affordances, and continuity of education (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020a ; Crawford et al., 2020 ; Hodges et al., 2020 ) to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on education, especially for more vulnerable and disadvantaged groups (UNESCO, 2020 ; Viner et al., 2020 ). The thematic cluster one agrees with the theme four emergency remote education . The first trend line (See red line in Fig.  3 ) shows that the education system is vulnerable to external threats. Considering that interruption of education is not exclusive to pandemics – for example, political crises have also caused disruptions (Rapp et al., 2016 ) – it is clear that coping mechanisms are needed to ensure the continuity of education under all conditions. In this case, we need to reimagine and recalibrate education to make it resilient, flexible, and adaptive, not only to ensure the continuity of education, but also to ensure social justice, equity, and equality. Given that online education has its own limitations (e.g., it is restricted to online tools and infrastructures), we need to identify alternative entry points for those who do not have digital devices or lack access to the internet.

Thematic Cluster 2: The second cluster centers on the psychological impact of COVID-19 on learners, who during these times suffered a sense of uncertainty (Bozkurt, & Sharma, 2021 ; Cao et al., 2020 ; Rose, 2020 ; Sahu, 2020 ) which suggest that learners are experiencing difficult times that can result in psychological and mental problems. The thematic cluster two agrees with theme five which is pedagogy of care . Therefore, it can be argued that learners' psychological and emotional states should be a top priority. Brooks et al. ( 2020 ) reported the potential of post-traumatic issues with long-lasting effects, on top of the trauma that has already been suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, the effects of the COVID-19 crisis may prove to extend beyond their current state and add long-term challenges. Additionally, it has further been reported that the socio-economic effects of the pandemic (Nicola et al., 2020 ) may cause inequality and inequity in educational communities (Beaunoyer et al., 2020 ). The research also shows that learners’ achievement gaps are positively associated with psychological issues, while support and care are negatively associated with their traumatic states (Cao et al., 2020 ). In this context, the second thematic cluster reveals that researchers have seriously considered the psychological and emotional needs of learners in their publications. Care (Noddings, 1984 ) and that trauma-informed pedagogy (Imad, 2020 ) can be a guideline during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. It is quite clear that learners have experienced educational loss (e.g., drop-outs, achievement gaps, academic procrastination, etc.), as well as social and emotional impairments (e.g., fear, frustration, confusion, anxiety, sense of isolation, death of loved ones, etc.). Therefore, we need to critically approach the situation, focusing first on healing our social and emotional losses, and then, on the educational losses. As Bozkurt and Sharma ( 2020a ) put it:

“What we teach in these times can have secondary importance. We have to keep in mind that students will remember not the educational content delivered, but how they felt during these hard times. With an empathetic approach, the story will not center on how to successfully deliver educational content, but it will be on how learners narrate these times” (p. iv).

Conclusion and Suggestions

The results from this study indicate that quick adaptability and flexibility have been key to surviving the substantial challenges generated by COVID-19. However, extreme demands on flexibility have taken a toll on human well-being and have exacerbated systemic issues like inequity and inequality. Using data mining that involved network analysis and text mining as analytical tools, this research provides a panoramic picture of the COVID-19-related themes educational researchers have addressed in their work. A sample of 1150 references yielded seven themes, which served to provide a comprehensive meta-narrative about COVID-19 and its impact on education.

A portion of the sampled publications focused on what we refer to as the great reset , highlighting the challenges that the emergency lockdown brought to the world. A publication pattern centered around digital pedagogy posited distance and online learning as key components and identified the need for teacher training. Given the need for adaptability, a third theme revealed the demand for professional development in higher education and a future shift in educational roles. It can be recommended that future research investigate institutional policy changes and the adaptation to these changes in renewed educational roles. The ERE theme centered on the lack of preparation in instituting the forced changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The publications related to this theme revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic uncovered silent threads in educational environments, like depression, inequality, and injustice. A pedagogy of care has been developed with the aim of reducing anxiety and providing support through coping strategies. These research patterns indicate that the future of education demands sustainability and resilience in the face of uncertainty.

Results of the thematic analysis of citation patterns (Fig.  3 ) overlapped with two of the themes found in our thematic concept map (Fig.  1 ) and network graphic (Fig.  2 ). It was shown that researchers have emphasized the continuity of education and the psychological effects of the COVID-19 crisis on learners. Creating coping strategies to deal with global crises (e.g., pandemics, political upheavals, natural disasters) has been shown to be a priority for educational researchers. The pedagogy of resilience (Purdue University Innovative learning, n.d. ) provides governments, institutions, and instructors with an alternative tool to applying to their contexts in the face of hardship. Furthermore, prioritizing the psychological long-term effects of the crisis in learners could alleviate achievement gaps. We recommend that researchers support grieving learners through care (Noddings, 1984 ) and trauma-informed pedagogy (Imad, 2020 ). Our resilience and empathy will reflect our preparedness for impending crises. The thematic analysis of citation patterns (1: educational response, emergency remote education affordances, and continuity of education; 2: psychological impact of COVID-19) further indicates suggestions for future instructional/learning designers. Freire ( 1985 ) argues that to transform the world we need to humanize it. Supporting that argument, the need for human-centered pedagogical approaches (Robinson et al., 2020 ) by considering learning a multifaceted process (Hodges et al., 2021 ) for well-designed learning experiences (Moore et al., 2021 ) is a requirement and instructional/learning designers have an important responsibility not only to design courses but an entire learning ecosystem where diversity, sensitivity, and inclusivity are prioritized.

ERE is not a representative feature in the field of online education or distance education but rather, a forced reaction to extraordinary circumstances in education. The increasing confusion between the practice of ERE and online learning could have catastrophic consequences in learners' outcomes, teachers' instructional practices, and institutional policies. Researchers, educators, and policymakers must work cooperatively and be guided by sound work in the field of distance learning to design nourishing educational environments that serve students’ best interests.

In this study, text mining and social network analysis were demonstrated to be powerful tools for exploring and visualizing patterns in COVID-19-related educational research. However, a more in-depth examination is still needed to synthesize effective strategies that can be used to support us in future crises. Systematic reviews that use classical manual coding techniques may take more time but increase our understanding of a phenomenon and help us to develop specific action plans. Future systematic reviews can use the seven themes identified in this study to analyze primary studies and find strategies that counteract the survival of the fittest mindset to ensure that no student is left behind.

Data Availability

The dataset is available from the authors upon request.

Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180

Article   Google Scholar  

Aggarwal, C. C., & Zhai, C. (Eds.). (2012). Mining text data. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3223 -4

Aristovnik, A., Keržič, D., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N., & Umek, L. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability, 12 (20), 8438. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208438

Ayebi-Arthur, K. (2017). E-learning, resilience and change in higher education: Helping a university cope after a natural disaster. E-Learning and Digital Media, 14 (5), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753017751712

Baker, V. L. (2020, March 25). How colleges can better help faculty during the pandemic . Inside Higher Ed.  https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/03/25/recommendations-how-colleges-can-better-support-their-faculty-during-covid-19 . Accessed 15 Apr 2022

Baloran, E. T. (2020). Knowledge, attitudes, anxiety, and coping strategies of students during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 25 (8), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2020.1769300

Beaunoyer, E., Dupéré, S., & Guitton, M. J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 111 , 106424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106424

Blume, C. (2020). German Teachers’ Digital Habitus and Their Pandemic Pedagogy. Postdigital Science and Education, 2 (3), 879–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00174-9

Bond, M. (2020). Schools and emergency remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A living rapid systematic review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15 (2), 191–247. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4425683

Bozkurt, A. (2019). Intellectual roots of distance education: A progressive knowledge domain analysis. Distance Education, 40 (4), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1681894

Bozkurt, A. (2022). Resilience, adaptability, and sustainability of higher education: A systematic mapping study on the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the transition to the new normal. Journal of Learning for Development (JL4D), 9 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6370948

Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020a). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), i–vi. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3778083

Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020b). Education in normal, new normal, and next normal: Observations from the past, insights from the present and projections for the future. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15 (2), i–x. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4362664

Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2021). On the verge of a new renaissance: Care and empathy oriented, human-centered pandemic pedagogy. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 16 (1), i–vii. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5070496

Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., Al-Freih, M., Pete, J., Olcott, D., Jr., Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, A. V., Jr., Roberts, J., Pazurek, A., Raffaghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, P., … Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15 (1), 1–126. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3878572

Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet, 395 (10227), 912–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8

Cao, W., Fang, Z., Hou, G., Han, M., Xu, X., Dong, J., & Zheng, J. (2020). The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Research, 287 , 112934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934

Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., ... & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries' higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7

Czerniewicz, L., Trotter, H., & Haupt, G. (2019). Online teaching in response to student protests and campus shutdowns: Academics’ perspectives. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16 (1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0170-1

DePietro, A. (2020). Here’s a look at the impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) on colleges and universities in the U.S. Forbes.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/30/impact-coronavirus-covid-19-colleges-universities/?sh=20a7121461a6 . Accessed 15 Apr 2022

Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, D. L., Coombs, C., Constantiou, I., Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., Gupta, B., Lal, B., Misra, S., Prashant, P., Raman, R., Rana, N. P., Sharma, S. K., & Upadhyay, N. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information management research and practice: Transforming education, work and life. International Journal of Information Management, 55 , 102211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102211

Fayyad, U., Grinstein, G. G., & Wierse, A. (Eds.). (2002). Information visualization in data mining and knowledge discovery . Morgan Kaufmann.

Google Scholar  

Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power and liberation . Bergin & Garvey.

Book   Google Scholar  

Greenhow, C., Lewin, C., & Staud Willet, K. B. (2020). The educational response to Covid-19 across two countries: A critical examination of initial digital pedagogy adoption. Technology, Pedagogy and Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1866654

Guitton, M. J. (2020). Cyberpsychology research and COVID-19. Computers in Human Behavior, 111 , 106357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106357

Hansen, D. L., Shneiderman, B., Smith, M. A., & Himelboim, I. (2020). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.

Hern, A. (2020). Covid19 could cause permanent shift towards home working. The Guardian.  http://www.miamidadetpo.org/library/2020-03-13-uk-covid19-could-cause-permanent-shift-towards-home-working.pdf . Accessed 15 Apr 2022

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning . EDUCAUSE Review.  https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning . Accessed 15 Apr 2022

Hodges, C. B., Moore, S. L., Lockee, B. B., Aaron Bond, M., Jewett, A. (2021). An Instructional Design Process for Emergency Remote Teaching. In Burgos, D., Tlili, A., Tabacco, A. (Eds), Radical Solutions for Education in a Crisis Context. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology (pp. 37–51). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7869-4_3

Imad, M. (2020). Leveraging the neuroscience of now. Inside Higher Ed .  https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2020/06/03/seven-recommendations-helping-students-thrive-times-trauma . Accessed 15 Apr 2022

Islam, M. A., Barna, S. D., Raihan, H., Khan, M. N. A., & Hossain, M. T. (2020). Depression and anxiety among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh: A web-based cross-sectional survey. PLoS One, 15 (8), e0238162. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238162

Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G., & Seaman, J. (2020). U.S. faculty and administrators’ experiences and approaches in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Learning, 24 (2), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i2.2285

Karakaya, K. (2021). Design considerations in emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: A human-centered approach. Education Technology Research and Development, 69 , 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09884-0

König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (4), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650

Korkmaz, G., & Toraman, Ç. (2020). Are we ready for the post-COVID-19 educational practice? An investigation into what educators think as to online learning. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4 (4), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.110

Lorenzo, G. (2008). The Sloan Semester. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12 (2), 5–40. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i2.1693

Mishra, S., Sahoo, S., & Pandey, S. (2021). Research trends in online distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Distance Education, 42 (4), 494–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.1986373

Moore, S., Trust, T., Lockee, B. B., Bond, A., & Hodges, C. (2021). One year later... and counting: Reflections on emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review.  https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/11/one-year-later-and-counting-reflections-on-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning . Accessed 15 Apr 2022

Nicola, M., Alsafi, Z., Sohrabi, C., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., Iosifidis, C., ... & Agha, R. (2020). The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus and COVID-19 pandemic: A review. International Journal of Surgery, 78 , 185-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics . Moral Education.

Oldekop, J. A., Horner, R., Hulme, D., Adhikari, R., Agarwal, B., ... Zheng, Y. (2020). Covid-19 and the case for global development. World Development, 134 , 105044.

Pelletier, K., Brown, M., Brooks, D. C., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Arbino, N., Bozkurt, A., Crawford, S., Czerniewicz, L., Gibson, R., Linder, K., Mason, J., & Mondelli, V. (2021). 2021 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report Teaching and Learning Edition . EDUCAUSE.  https://www.learntechlib.org/p/219489/ . Accessed 15 Apr 2022

Purdue University Innovative Learning. (n.d.). Hy-flex and resilient pedagogy resources.  https://www.purdue.edu/innovativelearning/teaching-remotely/pedagogy.aspx . Accessed 15 Apr 2022 

Quilter-Pinner, H., & Ambrose, A. (2020). The new normal: The future of education after Covid-19 . The Institute for Public Policy Research.

Rapp, C., Gülbahar, Y., & Adnan, M. (2016). e-Tutor: A multilingual open educational resource for faculty development to teach online. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17 (5), 284–289. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2783

Robinson, H., Al-Freih, M., & Kilgore, W. (2020). Designing with care: Towards a care-centered model for online learning design. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 37 (3), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-10-2019-0098

Rodrigues, M., Franco, M., & Silva, R. (2020). COVID-19 and Disruption in Management and Education Academics: Bibliometric Mapping and Analysis. Sustainability, 12 (18), 7362. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187362

Rose, S. (2020). Medical student education in the time of COVID-19. JAMA, 323 (21), 2131–2132. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.5227

Sahu, P. (2020). Closure of universities due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): impact on education and mental health of students and academic staff. Cureus, 12 (4). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7541

Schwab, M., & Malleret, T. (2020). Covid-19: The great reset . World Economic Forum.

Shim, T. E., & Lee, S. Y. (2020). College students’ experience of emergency remote teaching due to COVID-19. Children and Youth Services Review, 119 , 105578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105578

Smith, A. E., & Humphreys, M. S. (2006). Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behavior Research Methods, 38 (2), 262–279. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192778

Suleri, J. (2020). Learners’ experience and expectations during and post COVID-19 in higher education. Research in Hospitality Management, 10 (2), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/22243534.2020.1869463

Talidong, K. J. B., & Toquero, C. M. D. (2020). Philippine teachers’ practices to deal with anxiety amid COVID-19. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 25 (6–7), 573–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2020.1759225

Thurmond, V. A. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33 (3), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00253.x

Time (2020). The great reset: cover image.  https://time.com/collection/great-reset/ . Accessed 15 Apr 2022

Tull, S., Dabner, N., & Ayebi-Arthur, K. (2017). Social media and e-learning in response to seismic events: Resilient practices. Journal of Open, Flexible & Distance Learning , 21 (1), 63–76.  http://www.jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/article/view/405 . Accessed 15 Apr 2022

UNESCO. (2020). COVID-19 education response.  https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/ . Accessed 15 Apr 2022

Unger, S., & Meiran, W. R. (2020). Student attitudes towards online education during the COVID-19 viral outbreak of 2020: Distance learning in a time of social distance. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4 (4), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.107

Van Lancker, W., & Parolin, Z. (2020). COVID-19, school closures, and child poverty: A social crisis in the making [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 7]. T he Lancet Public Health, 5 (5), e243–e244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30084-0

Viner, R. M., Russell, S. J., Croker, H., Packer, J., Ward, J., Stansfield, C., ... & Booy, R. (2020). School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: A rapid systematic review. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4 (5), 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X

West, D., & Allen, J. (2020). How to address inequality exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Tech Crunch .  https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/27/how-to-address-inequality-exposed-by-the-covid-19-pandemic/ . Accessed 15 Apr 2022

Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45 (2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641

Xiao, J. (2021). From equality to equity to justice: Should online education be the new normal in education?. In Bozkurt, A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on emerging pedagogies for the future of education: Trauma-informed, care, and pandemic pedagogy (pp. 1–15). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7275-7.ch001

Zhu, X., & Liu, J. (2020). Education in and after Covid-19: Immediate responses and long-term visions. Postdigital Science and Education, 2 , 695–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00126-3

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is dedicated to all educators and instructional/learning designers who ensured the continuity of education during the tough times of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article is produced as a part of the 2020 AECT Mentoring Program.

This paper is supported by Anadolu University, Scientific Research Commission with grant no: 2106E084.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Distance Education Department, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey

Aras Bozkurt

Department of English Studies, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

Anadolu Üniversitesi, Açıköğretim Fakültesi, Kat:7, Oda:702, 26470, Tepebaşı, Eskişehir, Turkey

Applied Linguistics & Technology Department, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

Kadir Karakaya

Educational Psychology, Learning Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

Educational Technology & Human-Computer Interaction, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

Özlem Karakaya

Curriculum and Instruction, Learning Design and Technology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Daniela Castellanos-Reyes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing, Visualization, Funding acquisition.; KK: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing.; MT: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing.; ÖK: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing.; DCR: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aras Bozkurt .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This is a systematic review study and exempt from ethical approval.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

SNA of references covering pre-COVID-19 period (Only the first authors were labeled)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bozkurt, A., Karakaya, K., Turk, M. et al. The Impact of COVID-19 on Education: A Meta-Narrative Review. TechTrends 66 , 883–896 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00759-0

Download citation

Accepted : 22 June 2022

Published : 05 July 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00759-0

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

• Coronavirus pandemic
• Education during the pandemic
• Teaching and learning in the new normal
• Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Main navigation
• Main content

COVID-19 and Education: A Survey of the Research

• Peter L. Hinrichs

This Commentary reviews evidence on three areas of concern related to the COVID-19 pandemic and education in the United States for which research currently exists. First, the evidence suggests that the spread of the COVID-19 virus at K–12 schools has been low, although it may have spread through colleges at a higher rate. Second, while anecdotal evidence suggests that school closures have reduced labor force participation, the research evidence thus far does not find much support for this situation. Third, the limited research evidence does, however, suggest the COVID-19 pandemic is negatively affecting students’ academic performance.

The views authors express in Economic Commentary are theirs and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The series editor is Tasia Hane. This paper and its data are subject to revision; please visit clevelandfed.org  for updates.

In March 2020, millions of students, educators, and other school staff throughout the United States had their lives disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and associated mitigation policies. Millions of families have had to adapt unexpectedly to remote or hybrid learning environments. Some schools have since returned to in-person instruction, whereas others remain in a remote or hybrid mode. In addition to changes over time and differences across schools, at some schools the mode of instruction differs based on the decisions of parents or the grade of the student.

The disruption to education caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is unique in recent history, and research on its impacts will likely continue for many years. But some evidence has already emerged regarding the pandemic’s impact. This Economic Commentary presents existing evidence on three areas of concern related to the COVID-19 pandemic and education: the spread of the COVID-19 virus through in-person school settings, the impact of K–12 school closures on labor force participation, and the effects of virtual schooling on student outcomes. I discuss these three topics together here because they are among the few topics related to the pandemic’s impact on education for which research currently exists.

The Spread of the COVID-19 Virus through In-Person School Settings

As venues that bring large groups of people together to spend a substantial amount of time in each other’s company, schools are places where the COVID-19 virus could conceivably spread readily. But is this actually happening?

Abouk and Heydari (forthcoming) and Courtemanche et al. (2020a, 2020b) study the effects of school closures on COVID-19 case counts at the beginning of the pandemic by matching data on the timing of school closures and data on case counts at either the state or county level. Neither study finds a relationship between closures and case counts. Goldhaber et al. (2020) find that schools’ choices about instructional modality (in-person, remote, or a hybrid of the two) had little relationship with COVID-19 cases in the surrounding community in Michigan and Washington state in fall 2020, although they do find that in-person schooling was associated with a higher incidence of COVID-19 in areas where there was a high pre-existing infection rate. A nationwide study by Harris, Ziedan, and Hassig (2021) finds little relationship between school reopenings and COVID-19-related hospitalizations for most counties, but they find mixed and inconclusive evidence for counties with a high pre-existing hospitalization rate.

Although caution is warranted, commentators such as Henderson and Sullivan (2020) and Oster (2020) have argued that the benefits of in-person schooling coupled with a relatively low spread of the virus at K–12 schools in the United States call for reopening more schools for in-person instruction.

Research studying other countries finds similar results to the research on the United States. For example, Isphording, Lipfert, and Pestel (2020) and von Bismarck-Osten, Borusyak, and Schonberg (2020) do not find that school reopenings are associated with an increase in COVID-19 cases in Germany, but Vlachos, Hertegard, and Svaleryd (2020) find evidence that in-person schooling is associated with a higher infection rate in Sweden.

The evidence thus far on the spread of the COVID-19 virus at institutions of higher education differs from the evidence at the K–12 level. Mangrum and Niekamp (2020) study the spread of COVID-19 infection by college students using variation in the timing of spring breaks across colleges. With early spring breaks, students may have traveled somewhere and then brought the virus back with them. Later spring breaks were effectively canceled. Mangrum and Niekamp conduct their analysis at the county level and define an early-spring-break county to be one in which at least 25 percent of the college students enrolled there had a spring break that ended before March 9. The authors use smartphone geolocation data from SafeGraph Social Distancing Metrics to show that places with early spring breaks did indeed have a large number of people leave the area and then return, whereas places with later spring breaks had people leave and not return. The authors find that early-spring-break counties experienced 2.1 percentage points higher growth rates of infection in the first week after students returned home than the late-break counties, and 3.6 percentage points higher growth in the second week. Given the incubation period of the disease, these increases suggest that returning college students spread the virus to others in their local area. In line with Mangrum and Niekamp’s findings, Andersen et al. (2020) find that college reopenings in fall 2020 were associated with an increase in COVID-19 cases at the county level. The difference between college students and K–12 students may be partly due to physiological differences between people of different ages that affect how susceptible they are to the virus, but it might also be because college students are less likely to take precautions and are spreading the virus at events outside of the classroom.

The Impact of K–12 School Closures on Labor Force Participation

If parents leave the labor force to stay home with children whose schools have switched to remote instruction or a hybrid of remote and in-person instruction, one outcome may be that the labor force participation rate will fall. This may not only have deleterious consequences for the economy, but Bayham and Fenichel (2020) point out that it may be more difficult to treat patients and control the spread of the COVID-19 virus if the parents who are dropping out of the labor force to stay at home are healthcare workers. While journalistic accounts support the view that labor force participation has fallen because of at-home schooling (Guilford 2020 and Guilford and Chaney Cambon 2020), much of the academic research on school closures and labor force participation thus far runs counter to this conventional wisdom.

Barkowski, McLaughlin, and Dai (2020) use data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) to estimate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on three labor market outcomes: being employed, being at work (which differs from being employed because it excludes, for example, people who are sick or on vacation), and hours worked. They use three separate research designs to study how these outcomes changed over time for a treatment group relative to a control group. These research designs were specified in advance in a pre-analysis plan in order to guard against specification searching, a practice in which a researcher estimates a variety of statistical models before the “correct” one is found, and which can be misleading to readers if the researcher does not account for the fact that such a search has been conducted when reporting the results. 

The first research design compares people who have one or more children under age 13 (treated) to those who have no children under age 13 (control). The second research design limits the sample to people who have one or more children under age 13; it compares those whose oldest child is not aged 13 to 21 (treated) to those whose oldest child is aged 13 to 21 (control). The third research design limits the sample to people who have children under age 13 but whose oldest child is not aged 13 to 21 (i.e., the treated group from the second research design); it compares people who have a parent (the child or children’s grandparent) living with the family (treated) to those who do not (control).

The results of Barkowski, McLaughlin, and Dai (2020) vary based on which outcome they consider—being employed, being at work, and hours worked—and which of the three research designs they use. Insofar as they find an effect on labor market outcomes, it is a positive one. For example, depending on the research design, they find that the treated group is about 1 percentage point or 2 percentage points more likely to be employed and also to be at work. The same general qualitative results also hold when splitting the sample by gender.

One potential explanation for the results in Barkowski, McLaughlin, and Dai (2020) is that many people are able to work from home. It may even be possible that some people who wouldn’t work for pay under normal circumstances were drawn into the labor force because of the ability to work remotely. Another potential explanation is that some parents were able to find a friend, family member, or someone else to look after their children, allowing them to join the labor force.

Other research comes to similar conclusions, finding no strong evidence that school closures reduced labor force participation. Lozano-Rojas et al. (2020) use variation in school closures across states and over time to estimate how unemployment insurance (UI) claims respond to school closures. Although the authors find evidence that school closures are associated with higher UI claims in some specifications, the results become statistically insignificant and, in some cases, change signs when estimating alternative specifications. Furthermore, using exact dates of school closures and high-frequency Google search data, Kong and Prinz (2020) find that school closures are not associated with searches for the phrase “file for unemployment,” a proxy for filing for unemployment that can be used by researchers at a higher frequency than the official government employment data.

Heggeness (2020) uses CPS data to estimate the effects of school closures on labor market outcomes, like Barkowski, McLaughlin, and Dai (2020), but she relies on variation in school closures over time and across states, like Lozano-Rojas et al. (2020). Heggeness finds some evidence that school closures are associated with an increase in not working the previous week, but school closures also appear to be associated with an increase in hours worked. Part of the explanation for the increase in hours worked may be that certain workers worked additional hours in order to keep up with an increase in demand for the products they produce or services they provide, but another part of the explanation may be that workers became less productive working from home and thus needed to expend more hours than usual to perform the same amount of work as in weeks or months past. Additionally, workers may be devoting less time to commuting and spending some of that saved time working.

It is worth noting that all the research on school closures and labor force participation discussed here studies the impacts of the initial school closures in spring 2020. It is possible that the effects in fall 2020 or spring 2021 might differ. On the one hand, having more time to adapt and find alternative child care arrangements may make it easier for parents to work for pay even though their children’s schools do not meet in person. On the other hand, alternative child care arrangements may be more difficult to maintain as time goes on, making it more difficult for parents to work for pay. Additionally, the nature of virtual schooling and the propensity for schools to meet online have changed and will likely continue to do so. Research on school closures and labor force participation using data from fall 2020 and spring 2021 that relies on variation in the timing of schools returning to in-person learning would be very valuable.

The Effects of Virtual Schooling on Student Outcomes

It will take time to fully understand the effects of the pandemic and school closures on economic and educational outcomes, but the early evidence is not very encouraging. For example, Bacher-Hicks, Goodman, and Mulhern (2021) find that school-related Google searches rose more at the beginning of the pandemic in wealthier areas than in less wealthy areas. Insofar as these internet searches indicate effort put forth by parents or students to substitute for lost in-person instruction, the implication is that the pandemic and associated school closures may lead to greater educational inequality.

Aucejo et al. (2020) survey students at Arizona State University and find that the COVID-19 pandemic caused 13 percent of students to delay graduation, 11 percent of students to withdraw from a class, and 12 percent of students to change their major. Respondents also thought they would have lower grade point averages, a lower probability of finding a job, a lower reservation wage (the lowest wage at which one would accept a job), and lower earnings at age 35 because of the pandemic. Although the authors acknowledge that they are estimating “subjective treatment effects” based on respondents’ perceptions rather than the actual effects of the pandemic, they point out that what is relevant for understanding people’s choices is what they perceive the situation to be rather than what is reality. As an example of this, they note that, “If students (rightly or wrongly) perceive a negative treatment effect of COVID-19 on the returns to a college degree, this belief will have an impact on their future human capital decisions (such as continuing with their education, choice of major, etc.).”

The current situation is unique, but online education is not completely new. We may thus be able to take away lessons from earlier experiences with online education. At least three randomized controlled trials have studied online courses in higher education. Alpert, Couch, and Harmon (2016) randomly assign students at an unnamed large public university in the Northeast to a live, online, or blended principles of microeconomics course. Figlio, Rush, and Yin (2013) randomly assign students to live versus online lectures in an introductory microeconomics course at an unnamed large and selective university. Finally, Bowen et al. (2014) randomly assign students at six public universities to a hybrid (machine-guided online instruction with one hour of face-to-face instruction per week) or traditional statistics course.

The results of these three studies are not very encouraging for online education. Although Alpert, Couch, and Harmon (2016) find that students in the blended course do about as well on the final exam as those in the live course, they also find that students in the online version perform substantially worse. Figlio, Rush, and Yin (2013) find that students have lower test scores with the online lectures relative to the live ones. Bowen et al. (2014), however, do find that students have similar test scores in the hybrid course and traditional course.

There are also several observational studies of online courses in higher education. Xu and Jaggars (2011, 2013, 2014) find strong negative effects of online courses on course grades and course completion at community colleges in Virginia and Washington state. Bettinger et al. (2017) find negative effects of online courses on grades and on enrolling the next semester or next year at a large unnamed for-profit university, while Hart, Friedmann, and Hill (2018) find negative effects on grades and course completion in California community colleges. Studying online education in the current pandemic at community colleges in Virginia, Bird, Castleman, and Lohner (2020) find that courses beginning in person and then moving online in spring 2020 resulted in a 6.7 percentage point lower completion rate. To be sure, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that the results of these observational studies are driven by other differences between students who choose to take online courses and those who do not. However, it is worth emphasizing that they all find results that are generally consistent with the randomized controlled trials, which are not subject to this type of selection bias.

There is less evidence on online education at the elementary or secondary level, probably because, before the pandemic, virtual K–12 education was much rarer than virtual college education. However, Bueno (2020) studies virtual schools in Georgia. She finds, controlling for lagged test scores, students in grades 4–8 attending such schools have lower scores on statewide standardized tests in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies than students who attend traditional schools. Hart et al. (2019) study online education in Florida and find mixed results. They find that students taking a course online are more likely to pass the course, although they acknowledge that this might reflect differing grading standards rather than increased learning. For students taking a course the first time, online students are less likely to take and pass follow-up courses and are less likely to be on track to graduate from high school, although both of these results reverse for students repeating a course. Furthermore, Ahn and McEachin (2017) find that students at online charter schools in Ohio perform worse on statewide standardized tests than students at traditional charter or public schools, while Heissel (2016) finds that students in North Carolina who take Algebra I online perform worse on statewide standardized tests than those who take the course in person. This evidence on online education at the K–12 level is consonant with the evidence from higher education in suggesting that, at least so far, online education may not be a good substitute for in-person education.

• Abouk, Rahi, and Babak Heydari. Forthcoming. “The Immediate Effect of COVID-19 Policies on Social Distancing Behavior in the United States.”  Public Health Reports .  https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354920976575 .
• Ahn, June, and Andrew McEachin. 2017. “Student Enrollment Patterns and Achievement in Ohio’s Online Charter Schools.”  Educational Researcher , 46:1, 44–57.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x17692999 .
• Alpert, William T., Kenneth A. Couch, and Oskar R. Harmon. 2016. “A Randomized Assessment of Online Learning.”  American Economic Review , 106(5): 378–82.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20161057 .
• Andersen, Martin S., Ana I. Bento, Anirban Basu, Chris Marsicano, and Kosali Simon. 2020. “College Openings, Mobility, and the Incidence of COVID-19.” medRxiv Preprint.  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.22.20196048v1 .
• Aucejo, Esteban M., Jacob French, Maria Paola Ugalde Araya, and Basit Zafar. 2020. “The Impact of COVID-19 on Student Experiences and Expectations: Evidence from a Survey.”  Journal of Public Economic s, 191: 104271.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104271 .
• Bacher-Hicks, Andrew, Joshua Goodman, and Christine Mulhern. 2021. “Inequality in Household Adaptation to Schooling Shocks: COVID-Induced Online Learning Engagement in Real Time.”  Journal of Public Economics , 193: 104345.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104345 .
• Barkowski, Scott, Joanne Song McLaughlin, and Yinlin Dai. 2020. “Young Children and Parents’ Labor Supply during COVID-19.” Unpublished manuscript.  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3630776 .
• Bayham, Jude, and Eli P. Fenichel. 2020. “Impact of School Closures for COVID-19 on the US Health-Care Workforce and Net Mortality: A Modelling Study.”  The Lancet Public Health , 5(5): e271–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30082-7 .
• Bettinger, Eric P., Lindsay Fox, Susanna Loeb, and Eric S. Taylor. 2017. “Virtual Classrooms: How Online College Courses Affect Student Success.”  American Economic Review , 107(9): 2855–75.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151193 .
• Bird, Kelli, Benjamin L. Castleman, and Gabrielle Lohner. 2020. “Negative Impacts from the Shift to Online Learning during the COVID-19 Crisis: Evidence from a Statewide Community College System.” EdWorkingPaper No. 20–299. Annenberg Institute at Brown University.  https://doi.org/10.26300/gx68-rq13 .
• Bowen, William G., Matthew M. Chingos, Kelly A. Lack, and Thomas I. Nygren. 2014. “Interactive Learning Online at Public Universities: Evidence from a Six-Campus Randomized Trial.”  Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 33(1): 94–111.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21728 .
• Bueno, Carycruz. 2020. “Bricks and Mortar vs. Computers and Modems: The Impacts of Enrollment in K–12 Virtual Schools.” EdWorkingPaper No. 20–250. Annenberg Institute at Brown University.  https://doi.org/10.26300/kahb-5v62 .
• Courtemanche, Charles, Joseph Garuccio, Anh Le, Joshua Pinkston, and Aaron Yelowitz. 2020a. “Strong Social Distancing Measures in the United States Reduced the COVID-19 Growth Rate: Study Evaluates the Impact of Social Distancing Measures on the Growth Rate of Confirmed COVID-19 Cases across the United States.” Health Affairs, 39(7): 1237–46.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00608 .
• Courtemanche, Charles, Joseph Garuccio, Anh Le, Joshua Pinkston, and Aaron Yelowitz. 2020b. “Did Social-Distancing Measures in Kentucky Help to Flatten the COVID-19 Curve?” Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise, Working Paper No. 29.  http://isfe.uky.edu/research/2020/did-social-distancing-measures-kentucky-help-flatten-covid-19-curve .
• Figlio, David, Mark Rush, and Lu Yin. 2013. “Is It Live or Is It Internet? Experimental Estimates of the Effects of Online Instruction on Student Learning.”  Journal of Labor Economics , 31(4): 763–84.  https://doi.org/10.1086/669930 .
• Goldhaber, Dan, Scott A. Imberman, Katharine O. Strunk, Bryant Hopkins, Nate Brown, Erica Harbatkin, and Tara Kilbride. 2020. “To What Extent Does In-Person Schooling Contribute to the Spread of COVID-19? Evidence from Michigan and Washington.” CALDER Working Paper No. 247-1220.  https://caldercenter.org/publications/what-extent-does-person-schooling-contribute-spread-covid-19-evidence-michigan-and .
• Guilford, Gwynn. 2020. “Remote Schools’ Hidden Cost: Parents Quit Work to Teach, Prompting New Recession Woes.”  Wall Street Journal , U.S. (September 7).  https://www.wsj.com/articles/remote-schools-hidden-cost-parents-quit-work-to-teach-prompting-new-recession-woes-11599487201 .
• Guilford, Gwynn, and Sarah Chaney Cambon. 2020. “COVID Shrinks the Labor Market, Pushing Out Women and Baby Boomers.”  Wall Street Journal , Economy (December 3).  https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-shrinks-the-labor-market-pushing-out-women-and-baby-boomers-11607022074 .
• Harris, Douglas N., Engy Ziedan, and Susan Hassig. 2021. “The Effects of School Reopenings on COVID-19 Hospitalizations.” REACH Technical Report.  https://www.reachcentered.org/uploads/technicalreport/The-Effects-of-School-Reopenings-on-COVID-19-Hospitalizations-REACH-January-2021.pdf .
• Hart, Cassandra M.D., Dan Berger, Brian Jacob, Susanna Loeb, and Michael Hill. 2019. “Online Learning, Offline Outcomes: Online Course Taking and High School Student Performance.”  AERA Open , 5(1): 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419832852 .
• Hart, Cassandra M.D., Elizabeth Friedmann, and Michael Hill. 2018. “Online Course-Taking and Student Outcomes in California Community Colleges.”  Education Finance and Policy , 13(1): 42–71.  https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00218 .
• Heggeness, Misty L. 2020. “Estimating the Immediate Impact of the COVID-19 Shock on Parental Attachment to the Labor Market and the Double Bind of Mothers.”  Review of Economics of the Household , 18(4): 1053–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-020-09514-x .
• Heissel, Jennifer. 2016. “The Relative Benefits of Live versus Online Delivery: Evidence from Virtual Algebra I in North Carolina.”  Economics of Education Review , 53: 99–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.05.001 .
• Henderson, David R., and Ryan Sullivan. 2020. “End the School Shutdown.”  Wall Street Journal , Opinions (October 20).  https://www.wsj.com/articles/end-the-school-shutdown-11603235888 .
• Isphording, Ingo E., Marc Lipfert, and Nico Pestel. 2020. “School Re-Openings after Summer Breaks in Germany Did Not Increase SARS-CoV-2 Cases.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 13790.  https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13790/school-re-openings-after-summer-breaks-in-germany-did-not-increase-sars-cov-2-cases .
• Kong, Edward, and Daniel Prinz. 2020. “Disentangling Policy Effects Using Proxy Data: Which Shutdown Policies Affected Unemployment during the COVID-19 Pandemic?”  Journal of Public Economics , 189: 104257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104257 .
• Lozano-Rojas, Felipe, Xuan Jiang, Laura Montenovo, Kosali I. Simon, Bruce A. Weinberg, and Coady Wing. 2020. “Is the Cure Worse Than the Problem Itself? Immediate Labor Market Effects of COVID-19 Case Rates and School Closures in the U.S.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 27127.  https://www.doi.org/10.3386/w27127 .
• Mangrum, Daniel, and Paul Niekamp. 2020. “College Student Travel Contributed to Local COVID-19 Spread.” Unpublished manuscript.  https://www.danielmangrum.com/docs/MangrumNiekamp_C19SB.pdf .
• Oster, Emily. 2020. “Schools Are Not Spreading COVID-19. This New Data Makes the Case.”  Washington Post , Opinions (November 20).  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/20/covid-19-schools-data-reopening-safety/?arc404=true .
• Vlachos, Jonas, Edvin Hertegard, and Helena Svaleryd. 2020. “School Closures and SARS-CoV-2. Evidence from Sweden’s Partial School Closure.” medRxiv Preprint.  https://www.doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.13.20211359 .
• von Bismarck-Osten, Clara, Kirill Borusyak, and Uta Schönberg. 2020. “The Role of Schools in Transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Germany.” CREAM Discussion Paper CDP 22/20.  https://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_20.pdf .
• Xu, Di, and Shanna Smith Jaggars. 2011. “The Effectiveness of Distance Education across Virginia’s Community Colleges: Evidence from Introductory College-Level Math and English Courses.”  Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 33(3): 360–77.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711413814 .
• Xu, Di, and Shanna Smith Jaggars. 2013. “The Impact of Online Learning on Students’ Course Outcomes: Evidence from a Large Community and Technical College System.”  Economics of Education Review , 37: 46–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.08.001 .
• Xu, Di, and Shanna Smith Jaggars. 2014. “Performance Gaps Between Online and Face-to-Face Courses: Differences across Types of Students and Academic Subject Areas.”  The Journal of Higher Education , 85(5): 633–59.  https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2014.0028 .

Suggested Citation

Hinrichs, Peter L. 2021. “COVID-19 and Education: A Survey of the Research.” Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland,  Economic Commentary  2021-04. https://doi.org/10.26509/frbc-ec-202104

• Frontiers in Education
• Educational Psychology
• Research Topics

Covid-19 and Beyond: From (Forced) Remote Teaching and Learning to ‘The New Normal’ in Higher Education

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

The COVID-19 pandemic brought extraordinary disruption to the higher education (HE) landscape, with campuses closing everywhere seemingly overnight. The speed with which faculty were making the (forced) shift to remote teaching was astounding and unparalleled, and complicated by the fact that such “emergency ...

Keywords : COVID-19, higher education, student experience, remote delivery, on-line teaching and learning, higher education leadership

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Submission closed.

Participating Journals

Total views.

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

• Introduction
• Conclusions
• Article Information

eTable. Misinformation vs Public Health Guidelines

eReferences

Data Sharing Statement

• Errors in Quotes and Dates JAMA Network Open Correction October 25, 2023

See More About

Sign up for emails based on your interests, select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Get the latest research based on your areas of interest.

Others also liked.

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn

Sule S , DaCosta MC , DeCou E , Gilson C , Wallace K , Goff SL. Communication of COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media by Physicians in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(8):e2328928. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28928

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Communication of COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media by Physicians in the US

• 1 Department of Health Promotion and Policy, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
• Correction Errors in Quotes and Dates JAMA Network Open

Question   What types of COVID-19 misinformation have been propagated online by US physicians and through what channels?

Findings   In this mixed-methods study of high-use social media platforms, physicians from across the US and representing a range of medical specialties were found to propagate COVID-19 misinformation about vaccines, treatments, and masks on large social media and other online platforms and that many had a wide reach based on number of followers.

Meaning   This study’s findings suggest a need for rigorous evaluation of harm that may be caused by physicians, who hold a uniquely trusted position in society, propagating misinformation; ethical and legal guidelines for propagation of misinformation are needed.

Importance   Approximately one-third of the more than 1 100 000 confirmed COVID-19–related deaths as of January 18, 2023, were considered preventable if public health recommendations had been followed. Physicians’ propagation of misinformation about COVID-19 on social media and other internet-based platforms has raised professional, public health, and ethical concerns.

Objective   To characterize (1) the types of COVID-19 misinformation propagated by US physicians after vaccines became available, (2) the online platforms used, and (3) the characteristics of the physicians spreading misinformation.

Design, Setting, and Participants   Using US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection during the study window to define misinformation, structured searches of high-use social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Parler, and YouTube) and news sources ( The New York Times , National Public Radio) were conducted to identify COVID-19 misinformation communicated by US-based physicians between January 2021 and December 2022. Physicians’ state of licensure and medical specialty were identified. The number of followers for each physician on 4 major platforms was extracted to estimate reach and qualitative content analysis of the messages was performed.

Main Outcomes and Measures   Outcome measures included categories of COVID-19 misinformation propagated, the number and traits of physicians engaged in misinformation propagation, and the type of online media channels used to propagate misinformation and potential reach.

Results   The propagation of COVID-19 misinformation was attributed to 52 physicians in 28 different specialties across all regions of the country. General misinformation categories included vaccines, medication, masks, and other (ie, conspiracy theories). Forty-two physicians (80.8%) posted vaccine misinformation, 40 (76.9%) propagated information in more than 1 category, and 20 (38.5%) posted misinformation on 5 or more platforms. Major themes identified included (1) disputing vaccine safety and effectiveness, (2) promoting medical treatments lacking scientific evidence and/or US Food and Drug Administration approval, (3) disputing mask-wearing effectiveness, and (4) other (unsubstantiated claims, eg, virus origin, government lies, and other conspiracy theories).

Conclusions and Relevance   In this mixed-methods study of US physician propagation of COVID-19 misinformation on social media, results suggest widespread, inaccurate, and potentially harmful assertions made by physicians across the country who represented a range of subspecialties. Further research is needed to assess the extent of the potential harms associated with physician propagation of misinformation, the motivations for these behaviors, and potential legal and professional recourse to improve accountability for misinformation propagation.

As of May 11, 2023, an estimated 1 128 000 COVID-19 deaths had occurred in the US, 1 and nearly 14% of people infected by the COVID-19 virus have experienced the post–COVID-19 condition. 2 , 3 As of December 2022, estimated death rates for unvaccinated persons in the US were 271 per 100 000 compared with 82 per 100 000 for those fully vaccinated, yet only 69.2% of eligible people had received the full primary vaccine series, and 15.5% had received the bivalent booster. 1 Vaccination rates have varied by region throughout the pandemic despite widespread availability, with southeastern states having lower full primary series rates (52%) compared with northeastern states (80%). 1 Other preventive behaviors, such as mask wearing and social distancing, have varied similarly by geographic region. 4 , 5

Individual health behaviors related to COVID-19 have been attributed to complex social phenomena, including inconsistent recommendations by government entities early in the pandemic, mistrust of the scientific community, political polarization, and unclear or incorrect guidance from other sources. 6 - 8 COVID-19 misinformation, defined as false, inaccurate, or misleading information according to the best evidence available at the time, and disinformation, defined as having an intentionally malicious purpose, have been ubiquitous on social media, despite major platforms’ COVID-19 misinformation policies. 9 Medical misinformation was propagated long before the COVID-19 pandemic, 10 but the internet increases reach and speed of dissemination, potentially exacerbating misinformation consequences during an unparalleled public health threat that has killed more than 7 million people across the globe. 11 - 13

COVID-19 misinformation has been spread by many people on social medial platforms, 14 but misinformation spread by physicians may be particularly pernicious. 15 Physicians are often considered credible sources of medical and public health information, increasing the potential negative impact of physician-initiated misinformation. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and others have called for action to limit the potential harm of physician-propagated COVID-19 misinformation. 15 , 16 Despite the rising concerns voiced in news articles and opinion pieces, physician-propagated COVID-19 misinformation and its associated outcomes remain understudied.

This study aimed to address this gap in knowledge by examining COVID-19 misinformation communicated on social media platforms and other online sources by US physicians after vaccines were made available. Understanding the extent of this phenomenon, its potential impact, and associated professional, ethical, and legal ramifications may help to better understand the role that physician-propagated COVID-19 misinformation may have played in preventable COVID-19 deaths and mistrust in institutions.

This mixed-methods study sought to characterize the (1) type of COVID-19 misinformation physicians communicated online between January 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022; (2) social media and other online platforms where misinformation appeared; and (3) characteristics of the physicians. Physician age, sex, and race and ethnicity were not available on social media or other online postings. A decision was made to not infer these data from pictures or other means to avoid potential bias and misclassification. We defined COVID-19 misinformation as assertions unsupported by or contradicting US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance on COVID-19 prevention and treatment during the period assessed or contradicting the existing state of scientific evidence for any topics not covered by the CDC (eTable in Supplement 1 ). We conservatively classified inaccurate information as misinformation rather than disinformation because the intent of the propagator cannot be objectively assessed. The University of Massachusetts Institutional Review Board determined that this study did not meet criteria for human participant research. This study followed the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research ( SRQR ) reporting guidelines.

First, we conducted structured searches of social media platforms and general web searches in late spring of 2022 to identify media containing COVID-19 misinformation attributed to US-based physicians, defined as using doctor of medicine (MD) or doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) after their name and being licensed to practice medicine in the US at some time or never licensed but working in the US. The start date was selected in relation to the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines. Search terms included the following: “COVID,” “vaccine,” “doctor” or “physician,” “ineffective,” “pharmaceutical,” “medication,” “ivermectin,” “hydroxychloroquine,” and “purchase.” Search terms were refined based on initial searches to include “COVID misinformation,” “doctor” or “physician,” and/or “conspiracy theory.” Conspiracy theories were defined as communicating skepticism of all information that does not fit the theory, overinterpreting evidence that fits the theory, and/or evidence of internal inconsistency. 17 The platforms searched were selected based on the volume of news articles, popularity, and searchability (Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Parler, TikTok, The New York Times , National Public Radio) 18 ; if the findings on one platform indicated that another platform could have additional new data, it was added to the search list. Due to the large volume and repetitiveness of Tweets, Twitter searches focused initially on America’s Frontline Doctors’ Twitter profile because of the volume of COVID-19 misinformation in its Tweets, 19 its large following, and the potential for physicians propagating misinformation to follow the page. Followers of the America’s Frontline Doctors’ page with an MD or DO in their header were traced on Twitter and other platforms as well. General internet searches using Google’s search engine were conducted to identify misinformation attributed to physicians in third party platforms, such as local news articles.

The following information was collected from each source: physician’s name, medical specialty, the state(s) in which they were currently or had been licensed, whether their license to practice was active, had lapsed, or been revoked based on state medical board site searches, when the misinformation was posted (if available), from what source it was found, and the number of followers the physician had (if the source was a social media platform). Misinformation was classified into the following categories: medication, vaccine, mask/distancing, and other unsubstantiated or false claims. After the initial searches were completed, the physicians’ names were searched on the social media platforms and through general online searches to identify misinformation they posted that may have been missed in the initial searches and extended through December 2022.

Descriptive statistics were used to quantify the types of misinformation, the frequency in which they appeared, the platforms on which they were found, and characteristics of the physicians identified (eg, specialty and state[s] in which the physician was licensed). We calculated the total, median, and IQR for the number of followers on platforms with the highest volume of users (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram) using Stata software, version 17 (StataCorp).

We performed directed qualitative content analysis 20 of the misinformation using a validated rapid qualitative analysis approach. 21 The analytic team (S.S. and M.D.) populated a templated summary table with misinformation text extracted from each media platform. The team divided the physician list and generated a summary of the misinformation associated with each of the physicians. In the second step of this analytic process, each team member individually identified pertinent and common themes, subthemes, and supporting quotes for each. After this was done individually, the team met to discuss their findings and combine the findings into a final list of themes and subthemes. Considerations regarding reflexivity included that S.G. is a public health professor and physician, and M.D. and S.S. are aspiring physicians, which may have increased sensitivity to potential harms.

A total of 52 US physicians were identified as having communicated COVID-19 misinformation in the period assessed. All but 2 were or had been licensed to practice medicine in the US; the others were researchers. The 50 physicians who currently were or had been licensed represented 28 distinct medical specialties (3 of 50 had 2 different specialties; primary care was the most common overall [18 (36.0%)]) and they were licensed or working in 29 states across the US ( Figure and Table 1 ). Forty-four of the 50 physicians (88.0%) held an active license in at least 1 state; 3 (6.0%) did not have an active license, 4 (8.0%) had had a license suspended or revoked, and 1 (2.0%) had active licenses in 2 states and revoked/suspended licenses in 2 other states. Nearly one-third (16 of 52) were affiliated with groups with a history of propagating medical misinformation, such as America’s Frontline Doctors. Specific types of misinformation included the following: (1) vaccines were unsafe and/or ineffective, (2) masks and/or social distancing did not decrease risk for contracting COVID-19, (3) medications for prevention or treatment were effective despite not having completed clinical trials or having been FDA approved, and (4) other (eg, conspiracy theories).

Most of the 52 physicians (40 [76.9%]) who posted misinformation did so in more than 1 of the 4 categories identified. Vaccine misinformation was posted by the majority (42 [80.8%]), followed by other misinformation (28 [53.8%]; eg, government and public health officials deliberately falsified COVID-19 statistics) and medication misinformation (27 [51.9%]).

Of these 52 physicians, 20 (38.5%) posted COVID-19 misinformation on 5 or more different social media platforms and 40 (76.9%) appeared on 5 or more third-party online platforms such as news outlets. Twitter was the most used platform, with 37 of the 52 physicians (71.2%) posting misinformation and a median of 67 400 followers (IQR, 12 900-204 000). Additional details of physicians’ reach by platforms and followers are in Table 2 and Table 3 .

Major themes identified included the following: (1) claiming vaccines were unsafe and/or ineffective, (2) promoting unapproved medications for prevention or treatment, (3) disputing mask-wearing effectiveness, and (4) other misinformation, including unsubstantiated claims, eg, virus origin, government lies, and other conspiracy theories. Supportive quotes are listed in Table 4 .

The most common theme identified was physicians discouraging the public from receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Promoting fear and distrust of the vaccine and reliance on “natural” immunity were common subthemes.

Some of the misinformation propagated by physicians claimed that COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective at preventing COVID-19 spread. A common approach included circulating counts of positive case rates by vaccination status, claiming that most positive cases were among vaccinated individuals. This claim is technically true but misleading, as many more people are vaccinated, and the proportion of unvaccinated people who are infected is much higher. 22 Some stated that the significant increase in case rates after the initial vaccine rollout was evidence for ineffectiveness.

Assertions that COVID-19 vaccines were harmful was not supported by scientific evidence at the time. Unfounded claims included that the vaccines caused infertility, irreparable damage to one’s immune system, increased risk of developing a chronic illness for children, and a higher risk of cancer and death. Claims that myocarditis was common in children who received the vaccine and that the risks of myocarditis outweighed the risk of vaccination were also unfounded. 23 Several physicians redistributed news articles with stories of individuals suddenly or mysteriously dying from the vaccine, despite evidence from the CDC confirming that deaths caused by a COVID vaccine were extremely rare (9 deaths for over 600 million doses administered in the US as of January 2023) and could be attributed only to the Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, which was used much less frequently than other manufacturers’ vaccines in many countries. 24

Many of the identified physicians promoted the use of treatments that had not been tested or FDA approved for use in relation to COVID-19. The 2 most prominent medications promoted were ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which have been found to not be effective at treating COVID-19 infections in randomized clinical trials. 25 , 26

Anecdotal personal experiences of successfully treating patients with untested medications were commonly used to support claims about safety and effectiveness, such as patients’ conditions were not improving before receiving the untested medication, but the patient recovered after starting the treatment.

Many physicians posted links or screenshots to articles claiming that ivermectin decreased mortality and hospitalization and increased time to recovery and viral clearance. Although some of the articles appeared to be peer-reviewed, none were in high-quality peer-reviewed biomedical journals, and the FDA had not approved the use of these medications for treating COVID-19. At least 1 of the cited articles has been retracted due to misinterpretation of the data. 27

Many of the physicians propagating misinformation about masking effectiveness portrayed masks in a negative light. Claims centered on ineffectiveness, harm, or both.

Most of the misinformation propagated about wearing protective masks asserted that studies conducted before the pandemic definitively concluded that masks do not prevent the spread of respiratory viral infections. Additionally, data showing rising cases in areas enforcing mask mandates were interpreted to mean that the mandates did nothing to slow the spread of infection.

Allegations of consequences of mask wearing included medical and social or developmental effects, all of which were unfounded. 28 Alleged medical consequences included claims that wearing a face mask restricts one’s oxygen, increases the amount of carbon dioxide being inhaled, and causes mask wearers to inhale bacteria that gets trapped. Many physicians focused on negative consequences related to children and mask mandates in schools, claiming that masks interfered with social development despite lack of evidence and that requiring children to wear masks was a form of child abuse.

This misinformation category included conspiracy theories related to domestic and foreign governments and pharmaceutical companies. Theories related to the government included the following: (1) the COVID-19 pandemic was planned by government officials—the “plandemic”; (2) government and public health officials withheld key information regarding COVID-19 from the public, such as hydroxychloroquine effectiveness, falsified statistics to make the virus appear more severe, and censored information that challenged government messaging; (3) the virus originated in a laboratory in China, which contradicted scientific evidence at the time; and (4) the virus was part of a National Institutes of Health–funded study, was leaked, and that the leak was covered up by government and public health officials. Theories related to pharmaceutical companies included that they played a role in discouraging the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine because these medications were inexpensive and easily accessible, and pharmaceutical companies benefited from the promotion of more novel and expensive treatments.

This study was the first, to our knowledge, to identify the types of COVID-19 misinformation propagated by US physicians on social media and the platforms they used, as well as characterize the physicians who spread the misinformation. The content of misinformation physicians spread was similar to the misinformation spread by others; this study contributes new information about the range of specialties and regions of the country the physicians represented. The widely varying number of followers on social media for each physician suggested that the impact of any individual physician’s social media postings also may vary.

Some of the physicians identified belonged to organizations that have been propagating medical misinformation for decades, 10 but these organizations became more vocal and visible in the context of the pandemic’s public health crisis, political divisiveness, and social isolation. Understanding the motivation for misinformation propagation is beyond the scope of this study, but it has become an increasingly profitable industry within and outside of medicine. For example, America’s Frontline Doctors implemented a telemedicine service that charged $90 per consult, primarily to prescribe hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for COVID-19 to patients across the country, profiting at least $15 million from the endeavor. 29 Twitter’s elimination of safeguards against misinformation 30 and the absence of federal laws regulating medical misinformation on social media platforms suggest that misinformation about COVID-19 and other medical misinformation is likely to persist and may increase. Deregulation of COVID-19 misinformation on social media platforms may have far-reaching implications because consumers may struggle to evaluate the accuracy of the assertions made. 31

National physicians’ organizations, such as the American Medical Association, have called for disciplinary action for physicians propagating COVID-19 misinformation, 32 but stopping physicians from propagating COVID-19 misinformation outside of the patient encounter may be challenging. 33 Although professional speech may be regulated by courts 34 and the FDA has been called on to address medical misinformation, 16 few physicians appear to have faced disciplinary action. Factors such as licensing boards’ lack of resources available to dedicate toward monitoring the internet 35 and state government officials’ challenges to medical boards’ authority to discipline physicians propagating misinformation 36 may limit action.

Scientific evidence depends on a body of accumulated research to inform practice and guidelines and the evidence depends on the best quality research available at any given time. A recent Cochrane Review has been misinterpreted to have definitively shown that wearing masks does not reduce transmission of respiratory viruses and has been used to support assertions that masks definitively “do not work.” 37 Although the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Energy presented a theory to Congress that the COVID-19 virus was the result of a laboratory leak, 38 scientific evidence and a more recent report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence demonstrate lack of evidence for a laboratory leak and favor a zoonotic origin of the virus. 39 , 40 These recent challenges to prior understandings illuminate the importance of transparency and reproducibility of the process by which conclusions are drawn.

This study had some limitations. We conducted the study in the spring of 2022, after many major social media platforms had begun to establish policies to combat the propagation of COVID-19 misinformation, which means that the current study may underrepresent the extent of misinformation present before these policies were put in place. On some platforms (eg, Twitter), we were unable to analyze all posts by individuals due to the high volume of Tweets and degree of repetition. This study focused on online platforms whose content was readily accessible to the public; different approaches to identifying misinformation and searches of less used platforms might identify other physicians and include other topics. Misinformation disseminated in other ways, such as during clinical care, was not captured. Vaccines had been approved at the start of the period studied, but accessibility may have varied in the early days of the initial rollout. Finally, the state of scientific evidence for COVID-19 guidelines has evolved rapidly over the course of the pandemic, and this study represents a cross-section of time. The current evidence base for preventive and treatment practices, such as duration of vaccine effectiveness, may differ from the evidence base during the study time frame.

Results of this mixed-methods study of the propagation of COVID-19 misinformation by US physicians on social media suggest that physician-propagated misinformation has reached many people during the pandemic and that physicians from a range of specialties and geographic regions have contributed to the “infodemic.” High-quality, ethical health care depends on inviolable trust between health care professionals, their patients, and society. Understanding the degree to which the misinformation about vaccines, medications, masks, and conspiracy theories spread by physicians on social media influences behaviors that put patients at risk for preventable harm, such as illness or death, will help to guide actions to regulate content or discipline physicians who participate in misinformation propagation related to COVID-19 or other conditions. A coordinated response by federal and state governments and the profession that takes free speech carefully into account is needed.

Accepted for Publication: July 6, 2023.

Published: August 15, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28928

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License . © 2023 Sule S et al. JAMA Network Open .

Correction: This article was corrected on October 25, 2023, to fix dates in several of the quotes in Table 4 due to coding errors and to correct minor wording inaccuracies in several of the quotes. In addition, the date range of the initial social media searches was clarified in the Methods.

Corresponding Author: Sarah L. Goff, MD, PhD, Department of Health Promotion and Policy, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, 715 N Pleasant St, Amherst, MA 01002 ( [email protected] ).

Author Contributions: Dr Goff had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Mss Sule and DaCosta are considered co–first authors.

Concept and design: Sule, Gilson, Goff.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Sule, DaCosta.

Statistical analysis: Sule, DaCosta, Gilson.

Administrative, technical, or material support: DaCosta, DeCou, Gilson, Goff.

Supervision: DaCosta, Goff.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Wallace reported contributing to this work while she was a student at University of Massachusetts Amherst, before and outside of her official capacity as a government employee. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: The study was funded via internal support by the University of Massachusetts (Dr Goff).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the official policy or position of the US Department of Veteran Affairs or the US government.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2 .

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

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:

Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024

Public trust in the federal government, which has been low for decades, has increased modestly since 2023 . As of April 2024, 22% of Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (2%) or “most of the time” (21%). Last year, 16% said they trusted the government just about always or most of the time, which was among the lowest measures in nearly seven decades of polling.

When the National Election Study began asking about trust in government in 1958, about three-quarters of Americans trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time.

Trust in government began eroding during the 1960s, amid the escalation of the Vietnam War, and the decline continued in the 1970s with the Watergate scandal and worsening economic struggles.

Confidence in government recovered in the mid-1980s before falling again in the mid-’90s. But as the economy grew in the late 1990s, so too did trust in government. Public trust reached a three-decade high shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks but declined quickly after. Since 2007, the shares saying they can trust the government always or most of the time have not been higher than 30%.

Today, 35% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they trust the federal government just about always or most of the time, compared with 11% of Republicans and Republican leaners.

Democrats report slightly more trust in the federal government today than a year ago. Republicans’ views have been relatively unchanged over this period.

Since the 1970s, trust in government has been consistently higher among members of the party that controls the White House than among the opposition party.

Republicans have often been more reactive than Democrats to changes in political leadership, with Republicans expressing much lower levels of trust during Democratic presidencies. Democrats’ attitudes have tended to be somewhat more consistent, regardless of which party controls the White House.

However, Republican and Democratic shifts in attitudes from the end of Donald Trump’s presidency to the start of Joe Biden’s were roughly the same magnitude.

Among Asian, Hispanic and Black adults, 36%, 30% and 27% respectively say they trust the federal government “most of the time” or “just about always” – higher levels of trust than among White adults (19%).

During the last Democratic administration, Black and Hispanic adults similarly expressed more trust in government than White adults. Throughout most recent Republican administrations, White Americans were substantially more likely than Black Americans to express trust in the federal government to do the right thing.

Note: For full question wording, refer to the topline . White, Black and Asian American adults include those who report being one race and are not Hispanic. Hispanics are of any race. Estimates for Asian adults are representative of English speakers only.

Sources: Pew Research Center, National Election Studies, Gallup, ABC/Washington Post, CBS/New York Times, and CNN Polls. Data from 2020 and later comes from Pew Research Center’s online American Trends Panel; prior data is from telephone surveys. Details about changes in survey mode can be found in this 2020 report . Read more about the Center’s polling methodology . For analysis by party and race/ethnicity, selected datasets were obtained from searches of the iPOLL Databank provided by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research .

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

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

• 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 .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies and similar tracking technologies described in our privacy policy .

Voice of the Discipline

News and publications.

Access AHA news and publications supporting the work of historians.

Stay up-to-date with the AHA

June 25, 2024

AHA Members Co-author Article on SCOTUS and Gun Control

AHA members Holly Brewer (Univ. of Maryland) and Laura F. Edwards (Princeton Univ.) have co-authored an article for Washington Monthly…

June 24, 2024

Action Alert Opposing Ohio SB 83

June 21, 2024

AHA Signs On to CIE Letter Urging HEA-Title VI Funding for FY 2025

June 18, 2024

Welcome to the AHA’s New Website

The American Historical Review is the flagship journal of the AHA and the journal of record for the historical discipline in the United States, bringing together scholarship from every major field of historical study.

Perspectives on History is the newsmagazine of the AHA and is the principal source for news and information about the discipline of history. Since 1962, Perspectives has promoted our work by publishing articles and commentary on all aspects of the historical discipline.

History in Focus Podcast

Environmental Crisis and Recovery

Collaborative history + revisiting marion thompson wright, aha booklets.

The AHA publishes booklets that address a diversity of topics to serve the needs of history students and historians in all professions. Our publications include career advice for history graduates, overviews and syntheses of current historical topics and fields, and guides to teaching and learning in history.

For the Press

The AHA is pleased to provide resources for journalists and press. If you are a member of the media and would like to submit a request for a referral or interview, please email [email protected] . Please provide any pertinent deadlines and we will do our best to accommodate your request. The AHA can find you a historian for any topic, and assists with dozens of inquiries each year.

The AHA encourages the reading of history with periodic reading challenges.

Permission to Use AHA Copyrighted Material

All material published by the American Historical Association in any medium is protected by copyright.

The European Green Deal

• Find out what progress the von der Leyen Commission has made so far with the European Green Deal towards becoming climate-neutral by 2050.

Striving to be the first climate-neutral continent

Climate change and environmental degradation are an existential threat to Europe and the world. To overcome these challenges, the European Green Deal will transform the EU into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy, ensuring:

• no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050
• economic growth decoupled from resource use
• no person and no place left behind

The European Green Deal is also our lifeline out of the COVID-19 pandemic. One third of the €1.8 trillion  investments from the NextGenerationEU Recovery Plan, and the EU’s seven-year budget will finance the European Green Deal.

The European Commission has adopted a set of proposals to make the EU's climate, energy, transport and taxation  policies fit for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 , compared to 1990 levels. More information on  Delivering the European Green Deal .

Discover the European Green Deal visual story

12 March 2024 - The Commission has published a Communication on managing climate risks in Europe that sets out how the EU and its countries can implement policies that save lives, cut costs, and protect prosperity. It comes as a direct response to the first-ever European Climate Risk Assessment by the European Environment Agency. It also addresses the concerns that many Europeans have following last’s year record temperatures and extreme weather events. The Commission is calling for action from all levels of government, the private sector and civil society to improve governance and tools for climate risk owners, manage risks across sectors and set the right preconditions to finance climate resilience.

Key figures

Featured initiatives.

Related links

Share this page

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Impact of COVID-19: a particular focus on Indian education system

Pushpa gothwal.

1 Amity School of Enginnering and Technology, Amity University Rajasthan, Jaipur, India

Bosky Dharmendra Sharma

2 Mayoor Private School, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Nandita Chaube

3 Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, India

Nadeem Luqman

4 Ansal University, New Delhi, India

The COVID-19 pandemic has stirred up the world, and its overwhelming impacts can be seen from micro to macro level, that is, from an individual’s day-to-day functioning to the broader level—health sector, finance sector, and off course, the education sector. The younger generation is considered to be the torchbearer of the society. As such, their nutrition, health, safety, and providing education for a holistic development being basic essential needs should be a prime concern for policymakers and all nations worldwide. The present theoretical framework sheds light on the negative as well as the positive impact of COVID-19 on education. It presents a critical analysis of how the education sector experienced a shift from contact teaching to digital learning and got a boost through various online platforms despite having its limitations at the same time including the multidimensional impact of uncertainty and difficulties in sustaining. The chapter also emphasizes the effects of home confinements on students and teachers as well. In this way, the present chapter puts forth the pros and cons of online teaching including various other related aspects.

12.1. Introduction

The word COVID was first discovered in Ontario Cancer Institute in Toronto in 1963. Since then, various mutations were found in different parts of the world, but COVID-19, which was discovered toward the end of 2019, will be written in the history of 2020. The history indicates such incidences every 100 years. Various types of flu infections such as plague (1720), cholera (1817), Spanish flu (1918), and corona virus (2019) have been declared as pandemics. The diagonals of impact or the crater created due to the situation are major concerns today.

The novel corona virus (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020. It is established that this virus influences the aged persons more ( Zhou et al., 2020 ); however, this view was countered ( Bhatnagar et al., 2020 ) and few others have done descriptive and mathematical analysis of COVID spread and made few predictions upon it which are to be observed ( Harjule et al., 2020 , Kumari et al., 2020 , Singh et al., 2020 ). It has globally impacted many sectors like small and large scale businesses, the world economy, health sector, transportation, wages, industries, education, etc. It is evident by the news reports and other reliable sources that this pandemic has majorly brought adverse consequences. However, it is evident that during the global lockdown, a lot of curricular activities, including regular courses, webinars, faculty development programs, lectures, training, and certification programs, have much flourished when it comes to the education sector. Where this online facility has made education easier and comfortable, it has its limitations also. Here, we have emphasized the impact of COVID-19 on the education sector. As per the UNESCO report, the worldwide lockdown has affected over 91% of the world’s student population ( UNESCO, 2019 ). This estimation predicts that the corona virus will adversely impact over 290 million students across 22 countries. The same report estimates that about 32 crore students are affected in India, including those in schools and colleges.

In this chapter we discuss the impact of COVID-19 with a particular focus on education. This chapter is organized as follows: Section 12.1 is introduction; Section 12.2 throws light on impact of COVID-19 on education, which has two subsections—effect of home confinement on children and teachers, and a multidimensional impact of uncertainty. Section 12.3 describes sustaining the education industry during COVID-19 and conclusions are mentioned in the last section.

12.2. Impact of COVID-19 on education

During this pandemic education sector has experienced gross changes such as a shift from regular contact classes to online platforms, modified teaching pedagogy adopted by teachers, conduction of examinations and competitive exams etc. As per the UNESCO report in the education sector, 1,190,287,189 learners have been affected and 150 countrywide closures ( UNESCO, 2019 ). The effect of COVID-19 on the education and mental health of students and academic staff has been explored in the studies ( Cao et al., 2020 , Sahu, 2020 ). It presents some challenges due to COVID-19 on education. First, to protect the traditional teaching system, which is entirely shifted to online teaching, which requires teachers’ training, strong technical support, and high-speed internet, which is not accessible for everyone. Second, the assessment and evaluation system using an online platform does not provide student performance accuracy because the originality of performance cannot be assured ( Ruder, 2019 ). The students may use some other device to take help while answering the questions asked during the assessment. The third is the research platform, including international travel, cancellation, and postponing conferences and seminars. Other research activities have adversely affected the work ( Hutton, Dudley, Horowitz-Kraus, DeWitt, & Holland, 2020 ). However, many such events have shifted to online platforms based on the possibilities, which has increased the participation and popularity of these events ( Cao et al., 2020 ). The fourth concern is student mental health and career, which is grossly affected due to this outbreak ( Sahu, 2020 ).

Studies have been conducted where the impact of COVID-19 on physicians’ education was to be assessed for which they conducted seminars based on self-regulation theory and found significant results ( Clark et al., 1998 , Ferrel and Ryan, 2020 ). Ferral and Ahmad discussed the pandemic’s impact due to which some hospitals in the United Kingdom canceled students’ internship and observations ( Ahmed et al., 2020 , Ferrel and Ryan, 2020 ). This was reassured by another study, which concluded that, as a preventive measure, many hospitals are not permitting students in hospitals, which is adversely influencing their education ( Burgess & Sievertsen, 2020 ).

Edgar discussed the effects of COVID-19 on higher secondary education and the impact of using Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics education. In this study, the authors collected data through the telephonic mode from public school teachers, where they found a significant drop in these students’ academic performance ( Iyer, Aziz, & Ojcius, 2020 ).

COVID-19 has brought the entire education methods from traditional to online modes. There are various online platforms available for learners and professionals. The students can work with peace of mind while staying at their homes where their time, energy, and money are not wasted traveling. They are not fatigued and hence can invest themselves more in comparison to preCOVID conditions. Studying at home has also provided a more significant benefit to the students being directly monitored by parents. When it comes to theory classes, the online platform has given them a vast chance to excel. However, the practical assignments that the students are supposed to conduct in laboratories and fields have seen a major constraint. This has created a significant limitation of teaching for teachers when they cannot provide the demonstrations to the students in the absence of laboratory instruments and other necessary practical materials.

However, this has led to the timely completion of courses despite the complete lockdown but with incomplete knowledge among students whose courses are more practical. Therefore a combination of these pros and cons has brought the education world to a different level.

Several online platforms are available for lectures, training etc., which have made learning easier ( Bambakidis & Tomei, 2020 ). However, in the absence of contact teaching, a one-to-one discussion between a teacher and students is adversely influenced. The chances of filling this lacuna are also not assured because the students will probably be deprived of contact learning before being promoted to the next level. This again leads to next level difficulties that these students may face shortly soon due to unclear concepts of previous standards/grades ( Sintema, 2020 ). Also, in the absence of a formal class environment, the student’s concentration is more likely to be adversely influenced.

Where the online facility has provided the ease of learning through flexi classes, there is no surety that the student himself or herself is attending the class. Due to network troubles, sometimes the teacher and students face many disturbances. Students sometimes get involved in mischievous activities by making fake email IDs, making noises, or giving unnecessary comments etc. The teacher faces difficulty maintaining discipline. However, this online mode is more appropriate for some disciplines than direct contact teachings, such as web designing, etc., where the practical demonstration can be better understood through online presentation and screen sharing options.

On the other hand, students from the low socio-economic class are getting no chance to experience online learning. This creates a huge and unfair social stratification where learners are left deprived of their legitimate right to education. In developing countries like India, where a huge population belongs to rural backgrounds, people are not so technology friendly. This is another challenge for the Indian education system despite the availability of technological facilities. This difficulty is faced by either or both teacher and student. Teachers who are more apt and comfortable in contact teaching cannot give their 100% through online lectures. A very advantageous and constructive aspect that emerged during the lockdown is that many professionals started throwing free online courses, training programs, workshops, webinars, etc., which have given a good chance to all the learners to update their credentials at no expense. People having busy official schedules who are usually not able to invest time in such programs are now getting a chance to upgrade themselves. On the other hand, young professionals are getting a fair chance to present themselves with more confidence.

When it comes to the physiological and cognitive effects, online education has both advantages and disadvantages. Recently, a study was conducted at Harvard Medical School on digital devices’ interference in sleep and creativity. It was found that the use of digital media plays a significant role in making the neural connection for a growing human brain. However, the screen usage of more than the recommended hours can lead to lower brain development. This also leads to the disruption of sleep by undersecretion of the melatonin hormone.

Another major concern is the availability of study resources. Not all the study material is available through online mode. Several offline materials are usually available in the library but not in the online database. A student is being deprived of this material. Furthermore, the educational institutions, which have decided to conduct online examinations, face difficulty in preparing question papers. The question papers are mostly multiple choices that do not give the student a window to write descriptive answers, which are equally crucial for a student to learn. This improves the writing skills of the student.

Where the online conduct of classes and conducting examinations has its challenges, the evaluation, on the other hand, has become more convenient and transparent between the teacher and student, where the students come to know about their performance. There are platforms that allow the faculty to give online assignments and evaluation. Online teaching does not require a large infrastructure for the conduct of classes. Instead, a strong IT team is sufficient to make it workable. In direct contact teaching, the other teaching and stationary materials are required, in the absence of which teaching is likely to suffer. The online teaching platform has covered up this drawback of direct contact teaching. However, online teaching makes people more digitally dependent by reducing direct and one-to-one social interaction. This is gradually making people more technology addicts.

12.2.1. Effect of home confinement on children and teachers

Due to the COVID-19 crisis (in more than 150 countries), all levels of the education system, from preschool to tertiary education, have been affected ( Bjorklund and Salvanes, 2011 , Vahid, 2020 ), wherein gradual closure of schools and universities took place. Similar situations prevailed in the past as well, during the pandemics ( Klaiman, Kraemer, & Stoto, 2011 ). Being confined to home or lockdown has impacted lives and livelihood across different spheres and so the education sector too, though have been able to meet the demands ensuring that via “online learning,” “homeschooling,” “virtual learning,” or “E-learning” children’s educational attainment remains undisrupted mainly ( IAU, 2020 ).

At the tertiary level, almost all universities and colleges have offered online courses and switched to virtual lectures, classes, and webinars ( Strielkowski, 2020 ), since digital learning has emerged as a significant aid for education from just an extracurricular facility. Although the contingencies of digital technologies rendition go past a stop-gap solution during the crisis, it has helped answer a new set of questions entirely about what, how, where, and when students shall learn. With the help of technology, students and teachers can ingress resource materials and not limit just to the text books in different formats, styles at their own pace and time by just going online. Besides teachers, smart digital technologies do not just teach only. Instead, it simultaneously observes, monitors how we study, how we learn, what interests us, the tasks that we involve in, the kind of problems that we face and find difficult to solve and adapt accordingly to meet the needs of the learner with more accuracy, specifications as compared to traditional learning within classrooms ( Kumar, 2020 ).

However, the necessary measures taken are highly applaudable; there are various issues that arise due to prolonged school closures and home confinement ( Cao et al., 2020 ) impacting students’ well-being in COVID time wherein students feel physically less active, sleep irregularities, dietary changes marked by weight gain along with low motivation ( Wickens, 2011 ), boredom to getting more anxious, and irritable as well. Abundant research has been carried out, suggesting having adverse effects on physical and psychological health in school-going children and students pursuing higher education at colleges and universities ( Liu et al., 2019 ). Nevertheless, at the tertiary level, the closing of campuses left them with no choice to leave hostels and dormitories and return to their hometown; however, many got stuck too, leaving them helpless and anxious ( Grubic, Badovinac, & Johri, 2020 ).

The switch to online education ensures minimum loss of studies suffered, and progress and attainment are also closely monitored via timely assessment and evaluations. Internal learning evaluation and assessments are considered to have high significance as it demonstrates the students’ learning needs and support for taking remedial actions ( Pandit, 2020 ). However, having been shifted to online platforms and accessed remotely, a major concern that emerged was the availability of proper internet facility networks and technology, especially in lower socio-economic zones and strata. In many countries, via online portals, TV and radio channels were started and the concern was addressed by the respective governments ( Gyamerah, 2020 ).

Imparting of average grade points based on the course completion for students pursuing higher studies, deferring the exams till further notice, promotion to the next level using “predictive grade,” were announced by few higher education institutions and schools. As per Gonzalez et al. (2020) and Black and Wiliam (2018) , the evaluation method and assessment would also change from traditional high stake to small project-based and activity, assignment-based evaluation shortly as the pandemic continues. At higher education institutes, there is a hold on the ongoing research projects and field works. A virtual internship is provided and various scientific research conferences and symposiums have been postponed and canceled ( Viner et al., 2020 ). They have moved online, whereby these virtual conferences have adversely affected networking opportunities and informal communication, creating a wide gap, especially in case of the inequalities prevailed in accessing technology to educational resources and the absence of proper remedial measures ( Gjoshi & Kume, 2014 ).

It is perceived that higher education can be relatively managed with digital learning or remote schooling ( Srivastava, 2020 ). As such, most of the research carried out to study the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on education discusses the adverse effects in terms of learning and student well-being ( Herold, 2017 ) due to home confinement and digital learning or homeschooling taking place with parental issues and concerns to provide childcare management and guidance required for their distance learning programs, availability of resources, and their socio-economic conditions ( Hiremath, Kowshik, Manjunath, & Shettar, 2020 ).

Despite the ongoing conditions prevailing due to COVID-19, online learning has said to have long-term positive implications that can be expected in comparison to the earlier research studies that suggested that student well-being is affected by the quality of learning ( Mahboob, 2020 ). A recent study sheds light on the significant positive impact of COVID-19 on learning efficiency and performances by adopting online learning strategies. To better understand the teaching and learning process during this crisis, it is imperative to have an education reform made to provide necessary teacher training, making further advancement of the new normal digital learning for functioning smoothly in the future as well ( Stephens, Leevore, Coryell, & Pena, 2017 ).

Furthermore, according to WHO, COVID-19 may never be gone. Instead, people have to learn to live with it. As such, by the policymakers, distance learning is embedded in normal education, so as to help students learn coping skills to deal effectively, minimizing negative impacts in case of crises encountered.

However, as a need of the hour, education shall increasingly embrace online/virtual classrooms, keeping in mind the exposure to students’ screen time in a day, planning of activities wherein parental involvement, assistance, and guidance are considered ( India Today, 2020 ). More physical education, music, dance, home gardening along with art integration should be focussed so as to enhance creativity, and affective domains that advertently shall enhance motivation, physical activities ( Sprang & Silman, 2013 ) and in adolescence too, continuous sitting, eye strains ( Levy & Ramim, 2017 ) and issues like cyber bullying, video game addictions and social media browsing can be put under control. Even for university students, through distance learning, they can collaborate with others, watch lectures prerecorded, and have fruitful discussions. The lecturer can be more of a facilitator rather than an instructor. Distance learning can be as effective as a traditional face-to-face mode of learning. Students have more family time; they can engage at their own pace ( Simonson, Zvacek, & Smaldino, 2019 ).

Moreover, there are barriers to distance learning and are unique to every country. However, its use has worldwide benefits that can be counted on, especially educating, imparting training on various focussed topics to general hobbies ( Bell et al., 2017 ). For educators, having been faced with so many challenges to adjust and get accustomed to the distance learning platform, it is highly commendable to have done so effectively. Still, they find it convincing, and a feel-good factor also persists, as work from home has helped manage home, take care of one’s self and family as mostly the time is spent on daily commuting, travels to reach the workplace, endless department meetings, colloquia or ongoing discussions on one side, and on the contrary, the research evidence ( Goodman, Joshi, Nasim, & Tyler, 2015 ) demonstrated that parents with a low socio-economic background faced difficulties in providing nutritional meals to their children due to school closures, and also the affordability of extra-school activities compared to more advantaged backgrounds.

Nevertheless, to minimize the challenges experienced due to home confinement and school closures, distance learning should be encouraged. Need for updating with modern technology should be introduced with high-speed internet, continuous power supply, cyber security, as well as proper training to educators and students so as to have skills and competencies to operate electronic devices, along with the necessary knowledge and understanding about the method in which the information is imparted.

Clearly, due to our recent experience with the COVID-19 pandemic, many conventional academic life principles have to be reshaped. However, a common goal is being shared by all the education systems, which is to overcome the learning crisis faced and deal effectively with the COVID-19 pandemic.

While talking about the family environment, it has been observed that many faculties are reporting about online teaching difficulties. Especially in children’s cases, it is reported that the families are not cooperating to maintain the class’s decorum. The family members keep disturbing the child for one or the other reason, which promotes the child to continue with disturbing and inattentive behavior. The cognitive skills of the parents also have a significant role in understanding and growth of the child. If the academic and the other assignments are better understood by the parents, the children will have a constant source of support whenever needed without any delay or waiting time for the next interaction with the teacher. In this aspect, India is facing much difficulty because a large population is illiterate or less educated to compliment the contemporary educational demands of their children. Hence, the family has a central role in the learning of the child ( Moon, Kim, & Moon, 2016 ).

12.2.2. A multidimensional impact of uncertainty

The diagonals of impact or the crater that is created due to the situation is a matter of major concern today. If we see the situation and scenario, we will find that this pandemic problem is not just medical or psychological. However, it encompasses a three-dimensional area, that is the bio-psycho-social domain of health psychology, which explains an interconnection between biology, psychology, and socio-environmental factors. This model plays an important role in defining interaction between humans and the environment and puts light on humans’ interaction with their social environment in which we operate within certain domains and norms. When these domains are affected by environmental factors, a lethal combination takes birth. The world is facing the same evidence in the form of various psychological and socio-environmental outcomes, such as financial, mental health, environmental, etc. None of the areas are untouched by the pandemic influences. In the current chapter, the impacts of COVID-19 on education are explained in detail.

Suppose we see the present scenario when uncertainty is prevailing in every sector of society. In that case, it will not be superlative to say that the students of today, despite having their completed degrees, will have a certain and stable career. Such situations are making the students prone to rumination , which means that they are most likely to think about their uncertain future. In the present context, it is in terms of examination outcome and job security. This thought process is likely to affect their overall psyche and, in turn, will lead to a greater rise in major psychological problems.

12.3. Sustaining the education industry during COVID-19

This pandemic situation generates many education losses like postponing the board exams, competitive exams, government exams, schools and colleges closed, etc. To overcome or minimize these losses, the Human Resource Development (HRD) minister released the guideline to all educational institutes to utilize the online platforms for teaching purposes ( Di Pietro, Biagi, Costa, Karpiński, & Mazza, 2020 ). Here, the most popular open-source of online teaching platforms are MS Team, Moodle, Zoom App, Chamilo, Webex, Canvas, Forms, Google Hangouts, and Google Meet. These platforms have helped teachers in online lecture delivery, sharing of notes, assessment, quiz conduction, etc. Several e-learning platforms are also available for students, which offer free certification or audit of the courses. These sources are Coursera, NPTEL, Swayam, edX, WHO, Harvard University, Stanford University, MITs, IITs, NITs, and many more. Therefore, in this situation, students learn at their own pace using digital platforms, while protecting themselves from the corona virus. Hence, the impact of COVID-19 on the education sector is compensated by online teaching platforms ( UNESCO, 2020 ). This online platform also provides teachers and students with various opportunities to interact with experts as per their area of interest without any expenses. Such teaching facilitates students’ effective utilization of time and more online learning activities based on their preferences.

The entire chapter can be summarized in the table mentioned below:

SME definition

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) represent 99% of all businesses in the EU. The definition of an SME is important for access to finance and EU support programmes targeted specifically at these enterprises.

What is an SME?

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are defined in the EU recommendation 2003/361 .

The main factors determining whether an enterprise is an SME are

• staff headcount
• either turnover or balance sheet total

These ceilings apply to the figures for individual firms only. A firm that is part of a larger group may need to include staff headcount/turnover/balance sheet data from that group too.

Further details include

• The revised user guide to the SME definition (2020) (2 MB, available in all EU languages)
• Declaring your enterprise to be an SME (the form is available in all languages as an annex in the revised user guide)
• The SME self-assessment tool which you can use to determine whether your organisation qualifies as a small and medium-sized enterprise

What help can SMEs get?

There are 2 broad types of potential benefit for an enterprise if it meets the criteria

• eligibility for support under many EU business-support programmes targeted specifically at SMEs: research funding, competitiveness and innovation funding and similar national support programmes that could otherwise be banned as unfair government support ('state aid' – see block exemption regulation )
• fewer requirements or reduced fees for EU administrative compliance

Monitoring of the implementation of the SME definition

The Commission monitors the implementation of the SME definition and reviews it in irregular intervals. Pursuant to the latest evaluation, the Commission concluded that there is no need for a revision.

On 25 October 2021, we informed stakeholders by holding a webinar with presentations on the SME evaluation's results and next steps.

Supporting documents

• Study to map, measure and portray the EU mid-cap landscape (2022)
• Staff working document on the evaluation of the SME definition  (2021)
• Executive summary on the evaluation of the SME definition  (2021)
• Q&A on the evaluation of the SME definition  (2021)
• Final report on evaluation of the SME definition  (2018) (10 MB)
• Final report on evaluation of the SME definition (2012)  (1.8 MB)
• Executive summary on evaluation of the SME definition (2012)  (345 kB)
• Implementing the SME definition (2009)  (50 kB)
• Implementing the SME definition (2006)  (40 kB)

Share this page