The results are mixed, and whether online education is going to work for you largely depends on your personal circumstances (education level, if you work, mental state, capability of learning, work ethic).

Online learning is one of the fastest growing trends in educational technology. Online education market was projected to reach $350 billion prior to COVID (Research and Markets, 2019). The spread of the virus has dramatically shifted education worldwide. Over 1.2 billion children in 186 countries were affected by school closures (Education: From disruption to recovery, UNESCO), forcing students to move into virtual classrooms.

Naturally, this change has brought on a new set of challenges and advantages, and may have affected these student generations in ways we will only be able to understand in years, or even decades. The question of whether this style of education is effective, or even desirable, therefore, is more important than ever. Studying online is now not only a preference, but an unavoidable reality for many.

I’ve gone through many studies that dealt with the effectiveness of online education, some conducted more than 25 years ago. It appears that virtual learning was starting to gather pace around 2006-2009. By the 2006-2007 academic year, 61% of U.S. higher education institutions offered online courses at both undergraduate and graduate levels (Parsad & Lewis, 2008). In fall 2008, one quarter of all U.S. higher education students at the time (4.6 million) were taking at least one online course (Allen & Seaman, 2010). As of late 2009, 45 out of 50 U.S. states had at least one form of K-12 online program, or a full-time online school (Watson, et al., 2009).  

Various studies were published in the past about the positives of online education, outlining the affordability, cutting down on costs, etc. However, being forced into online education was a bit of a wake-up call. We have seen what the potential negatives are, too. To name a few:

• Decline in psychological and physiological well-being (Turmaud, 2020). 
• Mismatch between schools and programs with standardized testing (i.e. international programs for high school graduates – some schools conducted the final exams and some didn’t, some countries cancelled finals while others did not). As a consequence, the whole point of standardized testing – everyone competing on equal ground – was lost;
• Lack of in-person socializing (detrimental for children who are in the crucial points of their development and need to develop social skills).
• General unpreparedness of a lot of teachers and professors for online education, which led to student disengagement and lower knowledge acquisition.

The United States Department of Education posted a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies in 2010, outlining the benefits that online learning brings compared to the traditional face-to-face (F2F) teaching methods.

Key findings of study were that: 

• Students who took all or part of their course online (on average) performed better.
• Collaborative and instructor-directed courses were more effective than in those where online learners worked independently.
• The effectiveness depends on the content taught and learner types.
• Blended and purely online learning are comparable in terms of effectiveness.
• Video and online quizzes do not influence the amount of content learned.
• Online learning can be enhanced by interactions with learning media and encouraging reflection.
• Guiding questions influence the way students interact but not the amount they learn.

However, this report was partly disproven by a study from the same year, conducted by Shanna Smith Jaggars and Thomas Bailey (Community College Research Center), which claims that this favor of online courses in the report does not hold for the studies that pertain to fully online, semester-length college courses. For those courses, there is no trend in favor of online education. This study also points out that the report by the Department of Education considers studies that were taken by relatively well-prepared university students, so the outcomes may not transfer well for a more general population, and the type of course (online or in-person) may not have contributed to their final scores as much as it may initially appear. The report does not provide evidence that fully online delivery produces superior learning outcomes for typical college courses, and particularly those that concern low-income and academically unprepared students. Furthermore, another study from 2011 showed that the effects of moving full-semester classes online may have had a “robust negative impact of online course taking” for English and math courses (Xu & Jaggars, 2011). 

The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning published a meta-review in 2003 – Differences Between Traditional and Distance Education Academic Performances conducted by Mickey Shachar and Yoram Neumann. 

Key findings:

• Most of the studies (66%) reviewed concluded that DE courses compare favorably with classroom-based instruction and enjoy high student satisfaction, regardless of the technology used to conduct the courses.
• Some studies have come to different conclusions (no difference or negative results compared to F2F), creating a mixed and confusing situation.
• The analysis presented “broad” measures of effectiveness of DE: 
  • Academic Performance (Objective)
  • Satisfaction (Subjective)
  • Attitudes (Subjective)
  • Evaluation of Instruction (Subjective)
• Academic Performance of students enrolled in DE programs was higher than those enrolled in traditional F2F programs.

A Summary of Research on the Effectiveness of K-12 Online Learning written by Susan Patrick and Allison Powell and published in 2009 by the International Association for K-12 Online Learning, concluded by acknowledging that online learning is an effective alternative to traditional F2F education. It cites the study conducted by Florida’s nonprofit “watchdog” TaxWatch, which found that FLVS (Florida Virtual School) is a more cost-effective use of taxpayer’s money, due to its performance-based education system and higher achievements of FLVS students compared to traditional schooling students.

Reading all of these studies feels like trying to walk over a frozen lake – you have to tread carefully, or a simple crack (vulnerability) in the methodology can slowly expand into a full-on hole that sinks you. As far as I’ve seen, there are two problems with studies on this topic. Firstly, it is quite difficult to evaluate trends over multiple schools, as certain types of students naturally gravitate to some schools (vocational education, highest performers tend to aim for more prestigious schools, etc.). What works better for a IT-oriented school, might not work for sports-focused schools, special ED schools and so on. Secondly, just like with those covering the effect of screen time, is that they feel like they only exist to prove an already formed belief. For example, if I believe that online schooling is bad, I might end up valuing the outcomes that prove this belief, rather than trying to question it. This doesn’t have to be malicious, it’s often unconscious and quite human. But it does hinder the quality of this type of research.

Aside from the above-mentioned points, however, it is also important to point out the problem of the Digital Divide (also known as the Digital Gap). This term refers to the gap between those who have access to telecommunications and information technologies, and those who do not. One might assume that this is mostly a “third-world problem”, but it’s very much present in the West too. 59% of lower income American parents said their child may face digital obstacles for schoolwork (Vogels, 2020). Out of those, 40% reported that they might have to use public WiFi because of unreliable home network and 36% wouldn’t be able to complete schoolwork since they do not have a computer at home.

Having this in mind, it is hard to recommend online education to the wider public as it is discriminatory by nature. It might work for most, but those who need education the most are the ones being excluded from it. It perpetuates the poverty cycle – by making education very difficult, lower income families are unable to get better qualifications and therefore jobs, which keeps them poor.

So, what does all of this mean for you? Below is the summary of some ideas. Please keep in mind that this is by no means an exaustive list. It is important to consider your own economic, family, social and health situation in order to determine whether online education would be effective for you. The list below is simply meant to give you ideas how to think about your own situation.

Ultimately, whether online education will work for you depends on what degree you’re pursuing (i.e. CS students fill fare better than fashion design or fine art students), as well as what you’re trying to get out of your program. If the only thing you care about is the degree, then online education may work better since it generally takes less effort than traditional schooling. If your goal is to learn as much as you can, then you might benefit from traditional schools more – if nothing else, you might establish some life-changing contacts in student organization meetups.