







































Education, Society and Human Studies 
ISSN 2690-3679 (Print) ISSN 2690-3687 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs 

144 

Original Paper 

How Should Higher Education Institutions Provide Lectures 

Under the COVID-19 Crisis 
Yutaka Kurihara1* 

1 Department of Economics, Aichi University, Nagoya, Japan 
* Yutaka Kurihara, Department of Economics, Aichi University, Nagoya, Japan 

 

Received: September 24, 2020    Accepted: September 30, 2020    Online Published: October 7, 2020 

doi:10.22158/eshs.v1n2p144                     URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/eshs.v1n2p144 

 

Abstract 

As the COVID-19 crisis prevails, many universities and colleges all over the world were not able to 

conduct face-to-face classes and instead conduct online learning. Online learning has merits and is 

evaluated by learners and university faculties. However, whether or not the learning quality of online 

learning improves or maintains should be evaluated. Furthermore, online learning without being 

face-to-face is different from flipped classroom. This paper examines how the quality of online learning 

changes empirically. The empirical results show that most of the results are not different from 

face-to-face class, and online quiz type test scores are quite high; however, the quality of reports 

(writing) has declined significantly. There is some possibility that surface knowledge improved by 

online learning of undergraduates, but in-depth learning by thinking or discussing with other learners 

and faculty are not realized. 

Keywords 

active learning, COVID-19 crisis, face-to-face, flipped classroom, online learning, university 

 

1. Introduction 

Recently, researchers who not only major in higher education but also major in other fields have raised 

doubts about the effectiveness of traditional lecture-type teaching. One-direction teaching method from 

teachers to students has been criticized repeatedly. Instead, in-depth study methods by thinking for 

themselves such as “active learning”, have been highly regarded. On the other hand, such methods like 

active learning have also been criticized because of the effectiveness of promoting learnings. In spite of 

the fact that evolutions in ICT (information, communication, and technology) enable new ICT-based 

methods meaningful for pedagogy, traditional teaching is still the core teaching patterns regardless of 

conducting online learning. Of course, the introduction of ICT in classes needs knowledge about such 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
145 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

fields and time; however, some teachers do not agree that introducing ICT would have a positive effect. 

Some people say that educators are not familiar with the ICT; however, the reason is not so simple as 

such. 

These situations have changed suddenly and greatly because of the spreading COVID-19 in 2020 all 

over the world. Many schools, universities, and other educational institutions that have not introduced 

such ICT systems largely have to introduce online learning inevitably. In Japan, as well, most 

university and college classes are performing online learning. By now, a lot of studies and 

questionnaires have been presented for university education. Most studies show that not only learners 

but also faculty are satisfied with the online-based method. However, the evaluation of such learning 

method has not been examined in depth.  

Flipped classroom was introduced not only to junior and high schools but also to universities, and it has 

spread gradually. Most of the flipped classrooms use online materials and learners have to do pre-study 

before attending the class. Therefore, almost all the flipped classrooms are strongly related with online 

learning. In my class, the flipped classroom was introduced about fifteen to twenty years ago. Active 

learning such as teaching others, discussion, and presentations has been used for increasing the quality 

of learning. However, most flipped classrooms perform as a blended class, namely, online learning and 

face-to-face class. My class is no exception. Flipped classrooms may have to be changed without 

face-to-face classes under the COVID-19 crisis. Chats and forums are used for communicating among 

learners and between learners and faculty; however, different types of flipped classrooms would be 

necessary. 

This study examines the effects of online learning for student education. More concretely, the effect of 

online learning without face-to-face classroom education is examined. There would be a high 

possibility that most universities will have to continue online learning at least for the time being. It is 

necessary for universities to examine the effectiveness of the online learning without feelings or 

intuition, and sometimes make up for the shortcomings when able to. Too much dependence on feelings 

or intuition is dangerous, regardless of the satisfaction of educators and learners. 

This study is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews existing studies which focus on online learning. 

Moreover, some studies which examine flipped classroom and active learning are reviewed. Section 3 

provides a preliminary one for empirical analyses. Section 4 examines the effectiveness of online 

examinations for my class’s data and the statistical results are analyzed. Finally, this study ends with a 

brief summary. 

 

2. Existing Studies for Online Learning 

The pros and cons of online learning have been discussed much in many ways. Online learning reduces 

time and place barriers in general, and a lot of studies insist on large merits. Studies which focus on 

these merits have been presented, and advanced research have also been examined. Milman (2012), 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
146 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Steed (2012), and Louhab et al. (2018) showed that learners can study at their own pace and convenient 

time. Under this COVID-19 crisis, some students feel better when they do not need to ride crowed 

trains or buses to go to universities or colleges. Moreover, with on-demand-type lectures, students are 

able to view the video lectures repeatedly, if necessary. Learners can listen to lectures not only on a 

PC/tablet but also faculty can provide mobile devices whenever it is convenient to use. Goodwin and 

Miller (2013) revealed that educators who use this for online lessons feel this usefulness because they 

can give some students more advanced contents. Learner levels are not the same in almost any of the 

cases. Some learners sometimes feel bored because they have to spend much time on subjects they 

already know or understand without any difficulty. For such learners, educators provide materials that 

are more advanced levels. Of course, educators can give students easier, clearer, more concrete 

explanations. Online learning is easy to fit with learners’ levels. Schneider, Wallace, Blikstein, and Pea 

(2013) suggested that learners who enter into open-ended studies can attain better achievements than 

other learners who used traditional textbooks. By using chat or other functions, learners are able to 

participate in open-ended discussion or sometimes learners, themselves, can teach. Teaching others is 

sometimes a useful way, not only for learners who do not understand, but also for learners who are not 

perfect but understand well. Explaining to others can sometimes promote learners’ understandings. Wu, 

Hsieh, and Yang (2017) found that the online learning group not only promotes meaningful 

collaboration, but also achieved the participants’ oral proficiency, and it leads to more active learning in 

highly interactive learning activities, such as class discussion and presentations by groups. In most 

meeting software, such as Zoom, Slack, and Teams, such functions are equipped and learners and 

educators can use without difficulties. Amasha et al. (2018) suggested that the usage of online learning 

and assessment in synchronization becomes a motivation and can enhance students’ performance. 

Surely, some reports indicate that the drop rate of students during the semester decreased. Chats and 

forums can free learners from loneliness. 

On the other hand, some educators have negative opinions on online learning and feel face-to-face 

classes instead of online learning are more appropriate (see, for example, Willet, Brown, & 

Danzy-Bussell, 2019). Whitney (2019) indicated that online learning appears to have negative effects 

on student learning compared to in-person teaching. There are some studies which found no difference 

between online learning and face-to-face learning. Yen et al. (2018) revealed that students achieve 

equally well across all (three) teaching modalities. 

One important key point for the success of online learning seems to depend on learners’ readiness. 

Bovermann, Weidich, and Bastiaens (2018) showed that students who indicated low readiness for 

online learning have non-autonomous motivation. On the other hand, learners who have strong 

incentives to study are sometimes not eager to study online learnings.  

Flipped or reversed classrooms have recently been paid much attention in education. The relationship 

between online learning and flipped learning is, of course, strong. The flipped classroom is a reversed 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
147 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

method of traditional teaching in which learners study using materials outside of class (school), such as 

at home, usually videos (on demand) or textbooks, and then do their additional work, such as 

problem-solving, discussion, or debates, in the classroom. Caviglia-Harris (2016) showed that students 

in the flipped classroom scored higher points. Kurihara (2018) found that a flipped classroom facilitates 

the effectiveness of learning, but it is difficult to increase active learning such as spontaneous 

incentives for study. Sometimes there seems to be a lot of cases where lecture-based classrooms 

achieve more active study. If the goal of teaching is usually to engender understanding, educators must 

move from memorization of knowledge and facts, known as surface learning, for example, to deep 

learning in which understanding is promoted from active and constructive processes (Kurihara, 2016). 

It seems difficult to decide which is better, online learning or face-to-face learning. They are 

inconclusive at this point. There is one small possibility of blend classes, which constitute of online 

learning and face-to-face class; however, it is too intrinsic. There is less evidence about models that 

blend elements of online and in-person instruction. 

In most countries, most universities or colleges had to perform classes by online learning from April 

(most Japanese universities usually start from April). There is little study that copes with the pros and 

cons of online learning as the spreading of COVID-19 has been too sudden. However, researchers have 

to cope with COVID-19 and at least after COVID-19. It would be necessary to report the results of my 

class. Improving the quality of higher education is necessary. 

 

3. Preliminary Analysis for Evaluating Online Learning 

It should be examined much more from now on whether online learning promotes learners’ learning or 

not. More information is necessary to examine the examples of whether online learning will be or 

should be continued. There would be possibility that blend classes of online and face-to-face should be 

conducted after the COVID-19 crisis if the effectiveness of such style would be large. 

Table 1 is the questionnaire results for learners. The number of the sample is 42. It is interesting to note 

that “on-demand” type is the most popular among online learning. Of course, some points should be 

noted. One is that the results depend too much on the situation of COVID-19. For example, it is 

expected that face-to-face would be unpopular when the situation is too serious or rapidly worsening. 

Furthermore, as freshman have not been to universities almost at all, some of them would like to go to 

universities to make friends or for some incentives such as finding extracurricular activities. Most 

Japanese education institutions start from April. Moreover, if learners have many classes live, they 

sometimes feel tired. Watching screens for a long time impairs eyes and health. However, it is clear that 

on-demand type is popular and live type is unpopular. 

The number of the sample is small and the results are too dependent on many kinds of situations; 

however, hybrid type, namely, on-demand and face-to-face would be reasonable. One reason is that 

flipped classroom would be preferable if conducted face-to-face. However, as the COVID-19 situation 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
148 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

becomes too serious, face-to-face class would be impossible for many education institutions all over 

the world. 

In my classes, some classes that the number of students is relatively small, live type was employed; 

however, a few students could not join because the network was not working fully. At the earlier stage, 

microphone and camera were sold out. Some students may feel so stressful when they appear on the 

screen. Thus, on-demand type was basically used. Other classes that the number of the students is large, 

only on-demand type was conducted. 

 

 

Figure 1. Preference for Students 

 

This study focuses on the quality of learners’ learning. A lot of the results of questionnaire including the 

large number of samples have been presented about online learning; however, quality of learners’ 

learning has not been analyzed much. Quality assessment is urgently necessary. 

Table 1 is the results of evaluation of one class. This class is finally evaluated by report, small test, and 

final test. Present times and times of seeing the video were not included for final evaluation. The 

parentheses of the table are “mean” and are compared with face-to-face class (last year). Additionally, 

the weight of each point for final evaluation is different between this year and past ones (including last 

year). 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
149 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 1. Statistical Description and Comparison of Online Class and Face-to-face Class 

 Final result 

(0-100) 

Present 

(0-15) 

Times of 

seeing the 

video 

(0-) 

Report 

(0-10) 

Small test 

(0-15) 

Exams of 

the end of 

the semester 

(0-65) 

Mean 76.1404 

(-4.6096) 

14.7544 

(0.8244) 

105.5439 

(67.3639) 

3.7543 

(-5.0557) 

13.7421 

(4.6211) 

53.7532 

(-0.6518) 

Median 75.0000 15.0000 107.0000 4.0000 14.4000 57.5001 

Maximum 95.0000 15.0000 215.0000 10.0000 15.0000 64.0000 

Minimum 40.0000 8.0000 43.0000 0.0000 0.0000 25.0000 

Std. Dev 12.1479 1.0737 33.0843 2.5587 2.3095 14.9214 

Skewness -1.0992 -5.0878 0.6531 0.6120 -4.2977 -0.6911 

Kurtosis 4.9710 30.0437 3.6653 2.6386 24.0924 2.4030 

Jarque-Bera 20.7047 1982.900 1231.995 3.8689 1231.996 1.5009 

Probability 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1445 0.0000 0.4736 

Note. Parentheses are “mean” and compared with face-to-face class (last year). 

 

It should be noted that the number of learners seeing the video is large and it increased compared to the 

past face-to-face class; about a 1.5 times increase. Also, the score of small test (some of them are 

multiple choice) increased, but the score of reports decreased largely. Rublic was used because 

evaluation criteria should be much more clarified under this situation; however, it did not function well. 

There are not in the table, but for small tests, the scores of multiple-choice-type small tests scores are 

quite high but the scores of writing-type small test are quite low. 

It is interesting to note that there would be some possibility that the quality of the class did not improve. 

In the next section, some statistical analyzes are employed for further analyses. 

 

4. Empirical Analyses 

This paper focuses on the achievement of my class. Numerous studies have begun to be presented; 

however, the evaluation of quality has not been fully examined and discussed. 

The correlations of each variable are in Table 2. 

Table 2. Correlations among Variables 

 Present Times Small test 

Present 1 0.1970 0.8064 

Times 0.1970 1 0.2650 

Small test 0.8064 0.2650 1 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
150 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Leaners could not attend face-to-face classes at all, so seeing the video at least one time counts as 

“present” in the class. As expected, some learners repeatedly viewed the video. However, have they 

accomplished this subject’s goal successfully? Other important points including this one are analyzed 

next. 

Regression analyses are performed for the final scores. Least Squares and Robust estimations are 

empirical methods. Robust estimation is unlike maximum likelihood estimation and is used because the 

number of the samples is not so large. OLS estimates for regression are sensitive to observations that 

do not follow the pattern of other observations. This is not a problem if the outlier is simply an extreme 

observation from the tail of a normal distribution; however, if the outlier is from non-normal 

measurement error or some other violation of standard OLS, it compromises the validity of the 

regression results if a non-robust regression method is employed. In the panel analyses, fixed effects 

model and random effects model are employed. The results of the regressions are in Table 3. 

 

Table 3. Regression Analyses for Final Score 

Method Ordinary Least 

Squares 

Robust Least 

Squares 

Ordinary Least 

Squares 

Robust Least 

Squares 

C -69.5333*** 

(-4.5128) 

-70.2128*** 

(-4.3871) 

-40.2426** 

(-2.3701) 

-39.9641** 

(-2.2284) 

Present 8.8867***+ 

(8.3701) 

8.9969*** 

(8.1582) 

4.7584*** 

(2.9204) 

4.8286*** 

(2.8057) 

Times 0.0730**- 

(2.1189) 

0.0662* 

(1.8491) 

0.0542 

(1.6697) 

0.0534 

(1.5587) 

Small test   2.4460*** 

(3.1757) 

2.3518*** 

(2.8908) 

Adjusted 

R-squared 

0.5966  0.6547  

Adjusted 

Rw-squared 

 0.6944  0.7015 

F-statistic 42.4145  36.3951  

Prob(F-statistic) 0.0000  0.0000  

Rn-squared 

statistic 

 78.9857  95.2412 

Prob(Rn-squared 

statistic) 

 0.0000  0.0000 

Note. Parentheses are t statistics. ***, **, and * denote significant at 1, 5, and 10%, respectively. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
151 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

It should be noted that learners could get final good scores by multiple choice small tests. As Table 2 

shows, however, the score of reports declined largely. Wring ability seems not to be increased. 

Moreover, the times of viewing the videos are related positively with the final score; however, the 

relationship is not so conclusive. There would be a possibility that the method of learning has damaged 

some aspects. Spontaneous and progressive learning may be hindered. On the other hand, learners 

asked many questions compare with the last year (face-to-face). Finally, the number of questions 

increased. It cannot conclude that the willingness to study has not seemed to be damaged; however, 

there would be some possibility that learners who are not good at face-to-face class may have asked 

questions while learners who are good at face-to-face class may not have asked questions. 

Finally, three questionnaires are conducted: 

Q1: Did it (video material) help your understanding? 

Q2: Did it make you challenge spontaneous study? 

Q3: Did you feel growth as a learner? 

The results are in Table 4. 

 

Table 4. Questionnaires 

 Q1 Q2 Q3 

Mean 4.0833 

(-0.4287) 

3.4583 

(-0.8227) 

3.9166 

(-0.2184) 

Median 4.0000 3.5000 4.0000 

Maximum 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 

Minimum 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000 

Std. Dev 0.7389 0.9443 1.0883 

Skewness 0.4499 -0.2618 -0.9350 

Kurtosis 2.8957 2.7279 3.3302 

Jarque-Bera 1.6411 0.6965 7.2130 

Probability 0.4401 0.7058 0.0271 

Note. Parentheses are “mean” and compared with face-to-face class (last year). 

 

Faculty must change themselves and move from “memorization” of knowledge and facts, generally 

known as surface learning, to deep learning which learners understanding is facilitated from 

meaningful and constructive processes (Kurihara, 2016). 

It would be quite difficult to achieve significant and positive effects in my class by introducing a 

flipped classroom and active learning at the same time; however, it would not be impossible. A blended 

class that combines the flipped classroom and face-to-face class may be one key issue or solution with 

or after the COVID-19 crisis. However, flipped classroom and online class are not goal. For flipped 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
152 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

class, the method was almost the same with the last year (face-to-face). However, it seems that learners 

could not improve important abilities in reality. Spontaneous study may drop and this problem is 

serious. 

Face-to-face could have solved this issue, although it is difficult to judge. However, at least over 

dependence on online learning could cause serious problems. Pursing too much clarity on the grounds 

that we are not face-to-face or reducing the level of the class for clarity would hinder learners’ learning, 

especially spontaneous learning. Comparing last year’s class, the key points are the results of reports 

and multiple choice tasks. Learners would like to learn under this sever condition. However, 

communicating with other learners, much more feedback from faculty to students, and tasks which are 

related with real world would be solutions. Face-to-face classrooms give selectable choices. Moreover, 

learners are under too much stress and worry about tasks, so some faculty, including myself, did not 

give students many tasks. Faculty may have to adjust the amount and number of tasks with other 

faculty. While considering such things, the contents of the tasks should be also considered. 

 

5. Conclusions 

As the COVID-19 crisis occurs, many education institutions all over the world have to quit face-to-face 

classes and instead conduct online learning. Online learning has merits and are highly welcomed by 

learners and faculty. However, whether the learning quality of online learning improves or not should 

be evaluated adequately. Online learning without face-to-face is different from flipped classrooms. The 

empirical results show that most of the results are not different from face-to-face class and quiz-type 

test scores are quite high; however, the quality of reports declined significantly. There is some 

possibility that surface knowledge improved, but in-depth learning by thinking or discussing with other 

students are not realized. 

There is room for further studies. Ramirez (2018) showed no differences in attitudes toward Twitter for 

educational purposes based on the number of online courses the students and faculty completed. As 

such, new technologies will be invented and teachers should follow them if the introduction will 

improve the classes. 

 

Acknowledgement 

This work was supported by the Nitto Foundation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 
153 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Amasha, M. A., Abougalala, R. A., Reeves, A., & Alkhalaf, S. (2018). Combining online learning & 

assessment in synchronization form. Education Information Technologies, 23, 2517-2529. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9728-0 

Bovermann, K., Weidich, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2018). Online learning readiness and attitudes towards 

gaming in gamified online learning—a mixed methods case study. International Journal of 

Educational technology in Higher Education, 15, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0107-0 

Caviglia-Harris, J. (2016). Flipping the undergraduate economics classroom: Using online videos to 

enhance teaching and learning. Southern Economic Journal, 83(1), 321-331. 

Kurihara, Y. (2016). Flipped Classroom: Effects on Education for the Case of Economics. Journal of 

Education and e-Learning Research, 3(2), 65-71. 

Kurihara, Y. (2018). Is Flipped Classroom Effective in Higher Education for the Case of Economics. 

Journal of Business Economics and Information Technology, 5(5), 1-7. 

Louhab, F. E., Ayoub, B., & Talea, M. (2018). Considering mobile device constraints and 

context—awareness in adaptive mobile learning for flipped classroom. Education and Information 

Technology, New York (May 2018), 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9733-3 

Milman, N. B. (2012). The flipped classroom strategy: What is it and how can it best be used? Distant 

Learning, 9(3), 85-87. 

Ramirez, D. M. (2018). Computer technology and Twitter for online learning and student engagement. 

Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 10(1-2), 137-153. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100206 

Westermann, E. B. (2014). A half-flipped classroom or an alternative approach? Primary sources and 

blended learning. Educational Research Quarterly, 38(2), 43-57. 

Whitney, K. (2019). Moving the classroom to the computer lab: Can online learning with in-person 

support improve outcomes in community colleges? Economics of Education Review, 70, 159-172. 

Wu, W.-C. V., Hsieh, J. S. C., & Yang, J. C. (2017). Creating an online learning community in a flipped 

classroom to enhance EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 

142-157. 

Yen, S.-C., Lu, Y., Lee, A., & Enriquez, J. (2018). Learning online, office, and in-between: Comparing 

student academic outcomes and course satisfaction in face-to-face, online, and blended teaching 

modalities. Education Information Technologies, 23, 2141-2153. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9707-5 


