University College Students’ Experiences with Online Teaching One Year after COVID-19 Lockdown in Spring 2020

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore university college students’ experiences with online teaching one year after the lockdown in spring 2021.With quantitative cluster analysis, we have identified a “learning gradient” among students, showing that cluster 1 students have the most positive preferences towards online teaching and the highest degree of self-regulation and learning outcome, cluster 2 students are mixed (both positive and negative experiences), and cluster 3 students have the most negative preferences and the lowest self-regulation and learning outcome. In this study, we used 5 focus group interviews with 29 students based on their preferences towards online teaching to discuss and reflect on their own study planning, the shift in the learning environment, their perceived learning outcome, and positive and negative experiences from online teaching. The results from this study have shown that students’ self-regulated learning strategies during online teaching environment are important for their learning outcome. Thus, we demonstrate the disjunction between students’ learning outcome and the classroom as a fixed place for learning.

1. Introduction

The acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first reported in a Chinese Province in December 2019 and has since evolved into a global pandemic with catastrophic consequences—politically, economically, socially, and humanitarian (Okan et al. 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has also affected higher level education around the world in many ways (Marinoni 2020; Parpala et al. 2021). This became evident when all physical teaching activities at higher level institutions were shut down in Spring 2020 and it was necessary with a shift to online teaching (Hodges et al. 2020; Parpala et al. 2021).

Research from the first “disrupted” period in 2020 emphasize that it was a rapid transition to go to 100% online teaching with focus in this research mostly on the negative effects on students’ learning, level of engagement (Huckins et al. 2020; Petillion and McNeil 2020) and students’ mental well-being (Huckins et al. 2020; Kaparounaki et al. 2020; Wang and Zhao 2020; Zimmermann et al. 2020; Baticulon et al. 2021).

Although students report different kinds of difficulties in adjusting to a new reality with “emergency” online teaching, e.g., synchronous teaching activities from physical classroom (e.g., long power point presentations, student dialog, and presentations) moved online with “power on” (Joksimovic et al. 2015; Georgsen and Qvortrup 2021; Bak and Schulin 2022), other research found contradictory results. On the one hand, some students report increased feelings and negative experiences with, e.g., being more “socially isolated” from their “normal” situation of interaction with classmates and teachers physically. On the other hand, positive experiences are found regarding improved performances in a new online learning environment, e.g., satisfaction with supervision/feedback and peer-to-peer support from fellow students in group work (Bak and Schulin 2022; Parpala et al. 2021; Asikainen and Katajavuori 2022). A major comparative study of 62 countries that included students’ experiences with teaching, studying, and well-being reported a satisfaction with supervision on the one hand, but also an increased feelings of anxiety and frustration on the other hand. This combined with a heavy workload might have prevented students from perceiving how their professional performance had improved in the new teaching environment (Hodges et al. 2020; Aristovnik et al. 2020).

Shisley (2020) argues that it is important to understand the differences between the teaching/courses that were offered online in the first disrupted period as a response to COVID-19 pandemic and well-planned online learning in evaluations of “emergency” remote teaching. It follows the scope of this article that a division between what is perceived as learned (the students’ learning outcome) and the attendance in a fixed learning environment (i.e., the classroom) are no longer in conjunction.

Qualitative studies (Bdair 2021; Lovrić et al. 2020; Utama et al. 2020) among nurse students show that both teachers and students appreciate the flexibility in the online learning environment, and students also found that their academic achievements have improved in online learning.

A literature review shows that the benefits of online learning can be many different things (Khaddage et al. 2015; McGarry et al. 2015; Truong 2016). They can, for example, be measured as student satisfaction, benefits from student learning (both perceived and actual learning), student engagement, etc. Different types of data can be used, e.g., grades, efficiency in task solving, and several other data. )

Many studies show that there is a learning benefit from online teaching, regardless of whether it is blended learning or distance learning (Joksimovic et al. 2015; Ellis et al. 2017; Bernard et al. 2014). This applies to both the perceived and the actual learning outcome. In some of the studies, it is pointed out that this is not a large learning effect, but a significant effect (Bernard et al. 2014).

According to the studies, what creates the effect is, among other things, that the students can flexibly access the teaching materials. This means that the students learn when they have time to do so, just as they can revisit relevant parts of the teaching when there is a need for it. This is also connected to the fact that both the flexibility and the content of online teaching accommodate different learning styles/approaches, which promotes the students’ opportunity for learning (McGarry et al. 2015; Truong 2016; Khaddage et al. 2015).

At the same time, studies also show that the effect will only be there if the online teaching is organized and carried out in a certain way. Using digital technology in education does not in itself have any effect. You cannot simply turn traditional teaching into online teaching and thus have an effect (Means et al. 2013; Khaddage et al. 2015). In fact, several studies indicate that almost nothing can be transferred one-to-one from traditional teaching. Everything must be developed and carried out with a different method and in a different format if it is to have a positive effect on the students. In other words, it is the method or the way in which online teaching is used that has an effect, and not just the fact that technology is used in teaching (Rambøll 2016).

A UK study during the COVID-19 lockdown among Psychology and Veterinary Science undergraduate students’ academic performances found that, e.g., students with high levels of self-regulation and digital capabilities were able to keep focused and engaged during the lockdown (Limniou et al. 2021). Most students have coped with the changed teaching delivery mode relatively easily, with minimum guidance, and the authors, assessing Psychology and Veterinary Science undergraduate students’ academic performance via their responses on a self-reported questionnaire, suggest teachers should further consider how digital technologies could enhance students’ flexibility, promoting critical thinking (Limniou et al. 2021).

Research into the importance of students’ ability to self-regulate their studies (Zimmerman and Kitsantas 2014; Zimmerman and Labuhn 2012; Biggs 1987; Zimmermann et al. 2020) have shown that self-regulation is a proactive activity in with which students are engaged in their own learning process. It can be creating a strategy yourself, rather than passively waiting for a teacher’s instructions. In the research on self-regulated learning, it is not only about the individual student’s learning styles; social forms of learning are also included in the form of, e.g., seeking help from fellow students and feedback from lecturers. Self-regulation is largely about self-motivation as well as metacognitive processes (Zimmerman and Kitsantas 2014).

In this article, we agree with other researchers (Parpala et al. 2010, 2021; Utama et al. 2020; Richardson and Price 2003) that most research has focused on students’ experiences and wellbeing but not considered the importance of students’ learning approaches and how they prefer to study. Research shows that students’ study processes/learning approaches are connected to their attitudes (negative vs. positive) towards the new online teaching-learning environment.

There is a long research tradition linked to research on student approaches to learning (Student Approaches to Learning, SAL) in Europe and the rest of the world. This applies not least within higher education (Biggs 1987; Entwistle and Ramsden 1982; Trigwell et al. 1999; Evans 2014; Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2019).

Results from Quantitative Cluster Analysis (2018–2021)

In a large quantitative study of university college student’s experiences with online teaching during the COVID-19 lockdown in spring 2020, we investigated student’s preferences for teaching environments using “non-hierarchic k-means” cluster analysis (Hussain and Lauridsen 2017). We divided the students into three clusters where cluster (1) are students who prefer 100% online teaching; cluster (2) students see pro and cons (a mix of physical and online teaching); and cluster (3) students prefer physical classroom teaching and have the most negative attitudes towards online teaching (Bak and Schulin 2022).

We compared these results from cluster analyses with student’s preferences before (2018, n = 487), under COVID-19 lockdown (2020, n = 3747), and again in (2021, n = 2548), using data from LEARN surveys at University College Southern Denmark, with the overall result that the transition from the physical teaching environment to the online teaching environment does not seem to have to affected students’ learning approaches and learning outcome (Bak and Schulin 2022).

Our cluster analysis identified what we call a “learning gradient”, which can be explained as the highest levels of self-regulation and learning outcome among students who prefer 100% online teaching environment (cluster 1) or partly online/physical teaching (50/50) (cluster 2), and the lowest self-regulation and learning outcome among students who prefer classroom teaching (cluster 3) (see

Table 1. Learning gradient and self-regulation (%).

	Learning Outcome		Self-Regulation
	Low Degree of Learning Outcome	High Degree of Learning Outcome	Low Degree of Learning Outcome	High Degree of Learning Outcome
Cluster 1: Prefers 100% online teaching	18.6%	81.4%	27.4%	72.6%
Cluster 2: Mixed (50/50 physical-online)	38.8%	61.2%	54.6%	45.4%
Cluster 3: Prefers physical classroom teaching	67.0%	33.0%	73.1%	26.9%
Significance Chi square	<0.001 Cramer’s V = 0.420 (moderate connection)		<0.001 Cramer’s V = 0.390 (moderate connection)

Source: (Bak and Schulin 2022). From national dataset in 2020 (n = 880).

). This result implies that online teaching environments enable some students to work in an independent and flexible way that maintains or improves their learning outcome to a higher level; this is in comparison to cluster 3 students, who prefer traditional physical teaching in the classroom.

This study includes the following research questions that we investigated using focus group interviews:

(1)

How do university college students (from different departments and education levels)’s preferences towards online teaching impact their experiences with online teaching during lock down one year after spring 2021?

(2)

Do students’ preferences towards “preferred” learning environments (physical/blended/online) have an impact on their self-regulation and learning outcome during the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020?

2. Method

In spring 2021, we invited 29 university college students to participate in 5 focus group interviews from different education levels and departments at University College of Southern Denmark.

The purpose of the focus group interviews was to analyze attitudes and experiences one year after the first disrupted period (the rapid lock-down in spring 2020) and to use discussions of our themes among the students to attain different perspectives of how students’ approaches to learning and their self-regulation might impact their preferences towards online teaching environment.

From the quantitative analysis (Bak and Schulin 2022) we identified the following main themes: flexibility, self-regulation, learning approaches, learning environment, and evaluation. We included these themes for discussion in the focus group interviews and prepared specific moderator questions related to each theme. Although it would be highly relevant, we do not have specific information on how the students learned by dividing them due to their study and department. We know that all the students used MS Teams as platform in online teaching and that they all had experience with synchronous and asynchronous teaching in different variations during the lockdown.

We have chosen 4 selection parameters for participation in the focus group interview: (1) age ± 25 years; (2); second semester + (study seniority); (3) predominant pros and cons of online education; (4) field of study/department.

It was not easy to attract participating students from all departments. However, through the aid from assistant professors who participate in the present project, and their teaching contacts with students, a total of 21 women and 8 men participated. The focus group interviews were conducted in the period April–June 2021. In each focus group interview, 5–8 students participated.

The recruitment of participants for the 5 focus group interviews resulted in the following composition across the selection criteria before the focus group interviews were conducted: 17 students were basically against online teaching; 7 students preferred more online teaching; and 5 students viewed both advantages and disadvantages. The conducted focus group interviews lasted between 2.5 h and 4 h. A maximum of 50 min was set aside for the discussion of each theme, with room for short breaks of 5–10 min after each theme.

As researchers, we organized the focus group interviews with the same main themes as mentioned above and we divided our roles as interviewer and observer. The interviewer introduced the purpose and main themes of the discussions and had the managing role of the focus group interviews. The observer wrote down observations during the interviews and discussions and participated with some questions during the discussions.

3. Results

The discussion of 29 student’s experiences with online teaching in the 5 focus group interviews shows the importance of including students’ own learning approaches and self-regulation in adapting the new online teaching environment in a disrupted period. In this section, we present qualitative statements from students from different education levels and departments on the main themes in the focus group interviews. The student’s names are anonymized and fictive and abbreviations for educations are used in the following section.

We used the following abbreviations:

• Soc = Study in Social Work;
• Adm = Study of Public Administration;
• Teacher = Study of Education;
• Ped = Study of Pedagogy.

3.1. Assessment of the Academic Material

The students had quite different experiences of how they learned the academic material in the online teaching. This was clearly expressed in each focus group interview. For example, Anne:

I learn best through teacher presentations with PowerPoint slides and then work on it myself and then build up. It works best for me. Some teachers are good at doing this. Online has been very different and I have lacked more collection. My learning outcomes have not been good online. The teacher has been afraid to make a presentation and I have lacked good intentions, but it doesn’t work for me.

(Anne, Adm.)

Anne feels comfortable with the teacher-directed teaching style she knows from physical teaching with presentations. To this, Jonas (Adm.) replies that he receives nothing of value from a 4-h presentation:

Presentation, discussion, collection. Online, it is about the teacher making small presentations with ongoing tasks. I get nothing out of a four-hour presentation.

(Jonas, Adm.)

Jonas commented on the importance of organizing online teaching in a different way with short presentations and providing more tasks in online teaching. Emma (administration) is not quite sure how she learns best:

I am curious and happy to discuss how it can be done differently. Some subjects are so exciting that online teaching is okay. Online teaching is best if you have not met your classmates before! I don’t know how I learn bestv.

(Emma, Adm.)

Kim (teacher) states I learn faster and more effectively when it’s online, but I don’t know if it’s learned in the right or strongest way. Here, Kim expresses a different approach to learning, where, in line with Jonas (Adm), he does not like the long presentations from teachers and points out here that the same applies to physical education. Kim mentions the need to be more active in online teaching, e.g., via collaboration with fellow students in “breakout rooms” online.

It is difficult with teaching where there is a teacher who only talks. It is the same if it were physical education. Here it is essential that there are several activities that affect the relational work—for example when we are quickly thrown into ‘breakout rooms’ with fellow students and have a dialogue with them. Here you can easily forget that you are sitting in a ‘breakout room’ and that they are sitting with a computer somewhere else. The natural dialogue has been one of the most important things about the structure. Our teachers have found that they must have ‘breakout rooms’ and have interaction. It has strengthened my motivation and commitment.

(Kim, Teacher)

In relation to online teaching, most students, regardless of their preferences, state that many and long presentations online do not work well. Some students miss the social interaction with teachers and fellow students that they are used to from physical education. Henrik (Soc) states:

It is difficult to maintain motivation and stay focused behind a screeI. there is a lack of interaction with other students [..] I have noticed that my engagement has decreased compared to when we had physical education. For me it’s because you’re staring into a screen. There is no movement as there is otherwise in the class and there is not the same dynamic in the discussions that follow.

(Henrik, Soc)

Here, reference is again made to dialogues and interactions online, which do not work as well as in physical attendance classes. However, students’ own learning approaches can also be identified behind these statements. This can be seen, for example, with Henrik (Soc.), who believes that his learning outcomes online have become more superficial:

I think my learning outcomes are more superficial with online. I got less out of it. Among other things, this has meant that I had to seek a little extra guidance to understand it better.

(Henrik, Soc.)

In the focus group interview with students from teacher education, it emerged that some students feel that what form the teaching takes is unimportant to them; online teaching is therefore not an obstacle to their learning, as they nevertheless experience that learning takes place through their own efforts in preparing, participating in, and finishing the teaching.

Since this group of students has an independent and committed approach to preparing for and participating in the teaching in all circumstances, it is therefore not a problem for them that the teaching takes place online, and they are in favor of this form of teaching. Online teaching offers the same opportunities to work independently in a social context and with support from the teacher.

3.2. Space to Reflect on One’s Own Learning Approach and Outcome

Nethe (Soc) expressed how she thinks that online teaching has created a space to reflect on one’s own learning approach and refers to the fact that, as a newcomer to social work education in her first year, you quickly undertake group work and thus collaborate with fellow students.

Online teaching made room for me to find out what I am good at, because we worked more independently than just in groups all the time [in physical classroom teaching]. Then you can invite in the study group work a little more easily, when you are more aware of what you can contribute yourself. I have found that I must find out how I relate to the material before I avoid collaborating on the material—otherwise my learning will be far too superficial.

(Nethe, Soc.)

The students have discussed how they learn best during the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020, and Nethe indicates that she thinks there is more independence in their study work now, and hereafter (in spring 2021):

Before the lockdown there were some from the group who were quite passive, but then they were forced to work more independently and come up with their ideas, thoughts, and suggestions and this has benefited them in the long run.

(Nethe, Soc.)

Ole (Teacher) believes that his learning outcomes have been largely the same as in the physical classroom. He mentions his own preparation and approach to his own learning:

Where I get the most out of it is by reading homework. For teaching, I can expand my understanding, the learning yield is greater if it is a very complicated text and it is only in the application of it, in the discussion of it. Where I get it under my skin is when I read and take notes and must repeat the teaching to cement it.

(Ole, Teacher)

Ole does not think that he has changed his own preparation because of the online teaching. This is in line with our survey results, which show that from 2018 to 2020, students have largely not changed their own learning approach even though the learning environment changed to online teaching (Bak and Schulin 2022).

Alma (Teacher) agrees with Ole, who also does not believe that her learning outcomes have been affected by the online teaching:

I read my text before the lesson and have questions ready and ask the same questions as in physical education. I disturb the teaching a lot.

(Alma, Teacher)

Nicole (Ped) also believes that she has become better at taking notes and had better time to learn systematically compared to physical attendance teaching:

I am now better at taking notes—sit down and have focus on the computer, where you sit and look up for physical education. The first few weeks I’m good at it in physical education, and then it slips a little because then I focus up there [on the black board]. You have no other focus in online teaching when you sit and focus. It gives a greater learning benefit because the notes can help in the exam.

(Nicole, Ped)

Most students do not believe that their learning outcome has been influenced by online teaching, with some students thinking it has directly influenced them in a positive direction and others think it has been negative. The students who see it as unchanged or improved typically mention their own learning approach, e.g., preparation in the form of reading, taking notes, etc., has an impact on their experience of the online education.

Kim (Teacher) points out that with online teaching, there is not so much to work with, and it is easier to be able to work on your subject when you are not physically together with other students:

One positive thing about online is that there is not much else to work with. There is not so much side noise or so much else—you can quickly get started with the material. It is positive to be able to isolate a subject when you are sitting away from each other.

(Kim, Teacher)

This quote refers to the academic aspects that come into focus in online teaching and independent work. It points in the direction of organized and in-depth learning students who do not change their own way of preparing for classes even though the learning environment has changed.

3.3. Flexibility in Online Teaching

Although most students agree that there has been a lack of social interaction, pleasant chats etc., which are lost online, many students think the flexibility of online teaching has been good. Even students who are predominantly against online education think that the flexibility has been the best thing about online education.

Tove (Soc) states:

The flexibility has been the best thing about online teaching. You can sit at home. You can do other things from time to time, and it is a pleasant atmosphere when you are sitting at home. It works when the teacher just talks from PowerPoint. If you have already built relationships with fellow students and teachers, then it works.

(Tove, Soc)

Henrik (Soc) adds and agrees:

It’s also about flexibility—it’s easy to meet the study group online. In a way, it is not so teaching-related, but more education-related. Study group work works well online. It is both about geography, family relationships and work relationships. Deep learning has been possible in both study group work and in ‘break-out rooms’ in teaching.

(Henrik, Soc)

The same interest in flexibility was also expressed in the focus group interview with administration students. Kathrine also mentions the need for more asynchronous teaching:

More flexibility in online teaching would be great e.g., asynchronous so you can go on and off. You could get a deadline. Then it could be adapted to other things, e.g., work that was study relevant. For me, flexibility would be more motivating”

(Kathrine, Adm)

In the focus group interview with student teachers, there is also agreement on the greater flexibility of online teaching, as was expressed in the dialogue between the students. Mette (Teacher) mentions, e.g., a changed everyday life with less stress:

Compared to the ‘normal’ everyday life, online teaching is more flexible. I live in Kolding and have 40 min to Haderslev. Not having to walk the dog, going to bed earlier to get his sleep. Some illness that makes me unable to show up physically. Get more lessons and get more out of it that way.

(Mette, Teacher)

Ole, (Teacher) agrees and points out that although everyday life as such has not changed during online teaching, there has been greater freedom to be able to decide for himself, e.g., when he wanted to listen to a recorded presentation from a teacher. At the same time, it has not disturbed the synchronous (face-to-face) teaching.

3.4. Lack of Individual Feedback

Among students, there has been a desire to be able to receive more individual feedback in online teaching. The negative experiences are very much linked to the experience of long synchronous presentations via the screen. Lisbeth (Adm.) mentions, e.g., that the lecturer often moves on quickly in his presentation, while she, as a student, could lack feedback.

We have been challenged on feedback in online teaching. Those who don’t say much—how does the teacher know where they are? It’s harder for me to ask follow-up questions online. You can send an email, but it’s not the same.

(Lisbeth, Adm)

Anne (Adm) points out in the discussion that alone time (1:1) with the teacher will also provide something social, so that you learn better. Sofie (administrator) believes that motivation and feedback are connected and that it must be prioritized more in the organization of online teaching.

Sofie (Adm) mentions that individual feedback has generally been lacking during physical education also. During the COVID-19 shutdown, they have experienced class feedback that has not been adequate. I need individual feedback because we do tasks in different ways. Sofie (Adm).

Some individual students indicate that they have experienced a difference in the quality of their guidance online compared to physical guidance. They believe that nonverbal physical communication is important, e.g., to be able to read the supervisor and vice versa.

4. Discussion

The aim of the present study was to investigate how university college students in Denmark have experienced the rapid lock-down of physical classroom teaching caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020. We explored these experiences with a focus on students’ learning approaches, their self-regulation, and learning outcome using focus group interviews with 29 students one year after the lock-down.

The previously mentioned quantitative results and those in this paper show the need to separate experiences from the first disrupted period in spring 2020, i.e., “emergency” online teaching, from experiences one year after.

The presented statements from our focus group interviews must therefore been interpreted within a mixed method framework wherein it is difficult not to include the important results and insights from our own quantitative results and similar research. We will do that in the following discussion.

Our qualitative results are in line with other research studies that refer to students’ learning profiles as “deep approach”, “organized”, and “surface” approaches to learning (Asikainen and Katajavuori 2022; Parpala et al. 2021; Kuittinen and Meriläinen 2011; Govaerts et al. 2011; Trigwell et al. 1999).

Cluster 1 and 2 students with the highest degree of self-regulation and learning outcome during online teaching seem to reflect previous research with focus on “organized” and “deep approach students”, although our cluster 2 students show mixed—both positive and negative—experiences (e.g., Parpala et al. 2010; Asikainen and Katajavuori 2022). We agree with Asikainen and Katajavuori (2022) that some students, and mostly cluster 3 students, experiences problems with “taking responsibility” for the time usage and had problems with procrastination. Our results also point to cluster 3 students as the most demotivated with online teaching during the pandemic, and cluster 1 and partly cluster 2 students as those who have used the flexibility and responsibility, emphasizing that the shift from physical classroom teaching to online teaching had a positive impact on their learning approaches or learning outcomes. This is confirmed by our quantitative cluster analysis (Bak and Schulin 2022). In other words, cluster 1 students especially and cluster 2 students in part have profited by the flexibility in the online teaching environment; they could simply continue with their good preparation and time management skills and maintain their high motivation. This is also in line with previous studies.

Parpala et al. (2021) found that it is important to note that students of an unorganized and unreflective profile, such as our cluster 3 students, had the most negative experiences with the teaching–learning environment as well as the lowest scores on the deep approach and organized studying tests, which is in line with previous research findings that an unreflective approach is negatively related to positive experiences with the teaching–learning environment (Herrmann et al. 2017; Parpala et al. 2010; Richardson and Price 2003).

The focus group interviews show that all students mention flexibility during the lock down as positive regardless of their attitudes/preferences and learning approaches. Some students mentioned, e.g., more spare time and less stress.

We agree with Parpala et al. (2021) that during the COVID-19 pandemic, students in the “all high profile” categories (cluster 1 and 2) may have adapted to the new learning environment more easily precisely because the situation was so exceptional, and this may have diminished their exhaustion level. It may also be that they benefitted from the freedom of studying and learning outside the classroom during the COVID-19 pandemic because the learning environment was so much more flexible.

This refers to the need for more support and the of facilitation 1:1 support among cluster 3 students especially, i.e., those with the lowest degree of self-regulation and learning outcomes and who experienced the most difficulty in adapting to the new online environment. We believe that this group of students reflects the traditional role of the student as a product of a school system that has been based on teacher-directed teaching, with students as (passive) recipients of the teaching. Traditional teaching has probably created expectations that the teacher is the most important person in the classroom, and thus contributed to decreasing self-regulation and the will to take responsibility for one’s own learning.

Although different research studies over time have clearly revealed how self-regulatory processes lead to success in school, few teachers currently prepare their students to learn on their own (Zimmerman 2002). Another important result concerns online self-regulated learning (Rogers and Swan 2004). Zimmerman (2002) asserted that self-regulated learning was the learner’s capability to consciously and actively control and managed their own learning process according to behavior, cognition, and motivation. Dabbagh (2007) stated that successful online learners should demonstrate good interpersonal and communication skills with strong academic self-concepts to acquire self-regulated learning strategies.

During the COVID-19 lockdown, self-regulated learning became very important in students’ learning outcomes. Our quantitative cluster analysis (Bak and Schulin 2022) and the focus group interviews in this article showed that cluster 1 students especially and cluster 2 students in part had most control over their own learning, being aware of their learning needs and having the strategies to meet them (e.g., prepare more to lessons, take more notes, read more in books). Self-regulation is also about having structure and disciplined learning. This could be having fixed study times, being aware of distractions, and being able to focus on learning and thereby not being so dependent on the actual learning environment (Parpala et al. 2021).

As proposed by Parpala et al. (2021), a tool to support students wellbeing is an acceptance and commitment (ACT)-based intervention that aims to promote students’ psychological flexibility, enhancing study progression and decreasing problems in studying (Asikainen et al. 2018; Parpala et al. 2021). We believe this could be relevant to use for cluster 3 students especially to foster their study skills online and help them organize their studying skills using instructions on how to consciously structure and plan their learning (Holzer et al. 2021).

It is important to consider students’ learning approaches/the styles of each student in the design of courses. Too often, online courses are designed as physical classroom teaching in a one-size-fits-all format. Our focus group interviews have shown a plurality of different needs among students, and it is possible to design courses online that can better accommodate students’ different learning approaches and provide more individualized instructions to each student, which is not possible in the traditional classroom (Navarro and Shoemaker 1999).

There are some limitations of our study. First, the recruitment of participants to the focus group interviews favored the students who were most critical in their attitudes towards online teaching during the lockdown. This might have an impact on the discussions in the focus groups. In addition, we also believe that it is important to include “silent” students that did not participate in the original LEARN-questionnaire from our quantitative analysis in the period 2018–2021. Furthermore, we could have focused more on the differences between the disciplines in their approaches to learning and their preferences towards the online teaching environment (Parpala et al. 2010). It was not possible in this qualitative study to make incorporate this division into the groups due to their different education levels and departments. Our quantitative results from cluster analysis show minor differences between the different departments at the university college although we have to study this in more detail.

More research should focus on how the development of asynchronous learning activities contribute to improve students’ self-regulated learning strategies in online learning environments, taking account of student’s different approaches to learning and their abilities to self-regulate their study. We agree with the Finnish researchers, Katajavuori et al. (2021), that supporting (in particular) cluster 3 students’ well-being, as well as their study skills with ACT-based course in higher education studies, can lead to more effective studying. Further cluster analysis can be useful for examining how students’ learning outcomes and self-regulation vary depending on their background, such as their level of education, their study program, and their age. This can provide insight into which groups of students are particularly challenged during the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020, and it can help identify ways to support these students better.

The obtained results in our study and related research enable a discussion about whether there still exists a conception of the classroom as a fixed component for students’ learning. The focus on students’ learning approaches, as well as on their learning outcomes in the newly emerged online reality, apart from those of their traditional learning environment (e.g., the classroom), shows an enhanced learning outcome due to the absence of one key component: the social and relational dimension, which was viewed as the pinicale of the way one learns before the COVID-19 lockdown (Georgsen and Qvortrup 2021).

5. Conclusions

This study has shown that students’ self-regulated learning strategies in the online teaching environment are important for their learning outcomes. Thus, we demonstrate the disjunction between the students’ learning outcomes and the classroom as a fixed place for learning. Cluster 1 and 2 students were good at adjusting to the new learning environment, using the high degree of flexibility to take responsibility for their own learning. Their learning approaches support positive experiences and reflections on their own adjustments to the online teaching environment. Cluster 3 students need more support via teaching methods to improve their reflections on studying online, to encourage them to take more responsibility for their own learning, and to stimulate them to take a more reflective approach. It will be important, with the further development of asynchronous learning activities, to contribute to improving students’ self-regulated learning strategies in the online learning environment, beginning from students’ different approaches to learning and their abilities to self-regulate their study.