Synchronous online learning was statistically comparable to face-to-face learning for both cognitive and affective outcomes¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i1 Across four studies, synchronous online learning did not statistically significantly improve cognitive outcomes compared with face-to-face learning (g = -0.20). → Florence Martin 2021 q3 i1 Across five studies, synchronous online learning did not significantly improve affective outcomes compared with face-to-face learning (g = 0.20). → Florence Martin 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Florence Martin 2021¶

Florence Martin, Ting Sun, Murat Turk, and Albert D. Ritzhaupt. (2021). A Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Synchronous Online Learning on Cognitive and Affective Educational Outcomes. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Volume 22, Number 3. https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects meta-analysis of four studies comparing synchronous online with face-to-face learning on cognitive outcomes. The pooled g = -0.20 was not significant; equivalence was not tested. Heterogeneity was significant (Q = 29.82, p < .001, I² ≈ 89.94).

"Results revealed a statistically insignificant negative effect size (g = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.749, 0.352], p = .48), indicating that SOL did not statistically significantly improve students’ cognitive outcomes compared with traditional face-to-face learning."

Florence Martin 2021 (2)¶

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects meta-analysis of five studies comparing synchronous online with face-to-face learning on affective outcomes. The pooled g = 0.20 was not significant; heterogeneity was significant (Q = 22.52, p < .001).

"Results revealed a statistically insignificant and small effect size (g = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.195, 0.568], p = .34), indicating that SOL did not significantly improve students’ affective outcomes compared with the face-to-face learning mode."

Discussion¶

Page metadata

Field	Value
`status`	`review`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-31`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.