Purpose
Following the rapid shift to online learning due to COVID-19, this paper aims to compare the relative efficacy of face-to-face and online university teaching methods.
Design/methodology/approach
A scoping review was conducted to examine the learning outcomes within and between online and face-to-face (F2F) university teaching programmes.
Findings
Although previous research has supported a “no significant difference” position, the review of 91 comparative studies during 2000–2020 identified 37 (41%) which found online teaching was associated with better learning outcomes, 17 (18%) which favoured F2F and 37 (41%) reporting no significant difference. Purpose-developed online content which supports “student-led” enquiry and cognitive challenge were cited as factors supporting better learning outcomes.
Research limitations/implications
This study adopts a pre-defined methodology in reviewing literature which ensures rigour in identifying relevant studies. The large sample of studies (n = 91) supported the comparison of discrete learning modes although high variability in key concepts and outcome variables made it difficult to directly compare some studies. A lack of methodological rigour was observed in some studies.
Originality/value
As a result of COVID-19, online university teaching has become the “new normal” but also re-focussed questions regarding its efficacy. The weight of evidence from this review is that online learning is at least as effective and often better than, F2F modalities in supporting learning outcomes, albeit these differences are often modest. The findings raise questions about the presumed benefits of F2F learning and complicate the case for a return to physical classrooms during the pandemic and beyond.
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to review the federal decisions to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response in the United States and consider the different approaches employed by the California state government.Design/methodology/approachThis paper focuses on COVID-19-related issues, responses and implications in federal countries, and largely draws comparisons between the Trump Administration and California state.FindingsThe slow response of the federal government could have been avoided, had there been a current and tested national plan. The defunding of the Office of Pandemics and Emerging Threats, and the lack of coordination between the Trump Administration and the states have contributed to its ranking as the country with the highest COVID-19 infection and fatality rates worldwide. California state oversaw an effective initial pandemic response, which was ultimately undermined by a lack of national support and the refusal of some citizens to comply with the restrictions.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper draws upon open-source information published on government websites and news media.Originality/valueAs the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is currently ongoing, information about the federal governance and state response is still evolving. The authors examine California as a state exemplar, since it is the largest such jurisdiction by populace and the first state to issue statewide mandatory lockdown measures. This comparison offers insights as to the decisive initiatives that could have occurred at the federal level. The “lessons learned” highlight the critical role of crisis leadership in societal and public health preparedness for future pandemic events.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.