This report examines whether student learning outcomes differ between online and in-person education. It concludes that academic performance can be comparable across both formats when instructional quality, student support, and equity are addressed. In-person learning tends to yield higher engagement and stronger social-emotional benefits, while online learning offers flexibility but requires greater self-regulation and access to technology. Equity gaps, teacher preparedness, and course design are critical factors influencing effectiveness. Overall, neither modality is inherently superior—success depends on how well each is implemented.
The COVID-19 pandemic abruptly redefined the educational landscape, forcing a sudden transition from traditional classrooms to remote learning. This shift sparked a pressing question among educators, researchers, and policymakers: Do student learning outcomes differ significantly between online and in-person education? While technology has evolved to support distance learning, questions remain regarding the quality, engagement, equity, and effectiveness of online instruction compared to face-to-face teaching. This report critically examines empirical studies and meta-analyses to explore how learning outcomes are impacted by modality, with a focus on academic achievement, engagement, cognitive development, equity, and teacher preparedness.
Understanding the Modalities
Online learning is generally defined as instruction that occurs over the internet, including asynchronous formats (pre-recorded videos, discussion forums) and synchronous approaches (live virtual classes). In-person learning refers to traditional face-to-face instruction in physical classrooms. Hybrid or blended models combine both. Although online education offers flexibility, its effectiveness largely depends on instructional design, technological access, and learner independence (Allen & Seaman, 2017). In-person learning, on the other hand, benefits from real-time interaction, structure, and the immediacy of teacher-student communication (Hrastinski, 2009).
Academic Performance
Academic performance, often measured through course grades, standardized test scores, and assignment completion, has been widely studied in both formats. A meta-analysis by Means et al. (2010) found that students in online or blended learning environments performed modestly better than those in traditional face-to-face settings. However, the advantage was largely attributed to additional learning time or instructional resources in online courses, not necessarily the mode of delivery itself.
Newpher et al. (2023) conducted a study comparing student performance in neuroscience courses delivered via face-to-face and online collaborative learning. Their findings showed no statistically significant difference in learning outcomes between the two groups. Similarly, Cavanaugh et al. (2009) concluded that online students at the K–12 level performed comparably to peers in physical classrooms, assuming equal access to support and curriculum design.
However, large-scale data during the pandemic told a more nuanced story. Walsh (2024) reported that although the majority of students experienced learning loss during remote schooling, approximately 10% actually improved their test scores. These students were more likely to come from households that supported online learning or had previously opted out of traditional schooling. This suggests that online education can be effective for some learners, depending on individual context and readiness.
Engagement and Motivation
Student engagement—defined as participation, attention, and emotional investment in learning—has proven to be a critical differentiator between the two modes. In general, face-to-face instruction appears to foster higher engagement, particularly among younger students who thrive on routine and physical presence (Kauffman, 2015). Öncü et al. (2024) found that students in in-person courses demonstrated more consistent participation in active learning compared to their online counterparts, especially in group-based activities and discussions.
Triantis and Stavrakas (2023) surveyed university students and found a strong preference for in-person learning, citing better motivation, clearer understanding, and stronger peer connection. First-year students, in particular, struggled to engage meaningfully in remote settings, reporting feelings of isolation and decreased satisfaction with course quality.
That said, engagement is not inherently lower in online environments. Martin and Bolliger (2018) highlighted that courses incorporating multimedia content, real-time feedback, discussion forums, and regular quizzes significantly enhance online engagement. The challenge is that many online courses, especially those developed quickly during emergency remote learning, lacked these elements (Hodges et al., 2020).
Cognitive Development and Retention
Cognitive development involves higher-order thinking, critical analysis, and long-term knowledge retention. Research suggests that both modalities can support these outcomes when instructional strategies are aligned with cognitive science principles. Martin et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis and found that synchronous online learning had similar cognitive and affective outcomes to face-to-face instruction, indicating that the depth of learning is not inherently compromised by the online format.
However, retention over time may vary depending on the level of self-regulation and reinforcement mechanisms in place. In traditional classrooms, schedules and teacher monitoring encourage regular review and comprehension checks. In online environments, students must often manage their own pacing, which can affect knowledge consolidation (Zhao et al., 2005). Yet, when well-designed, online courses with spaced repetition and interactive elements can actually improve retention (Nguyen, 2015).
Equity and Accessibility
One of the most pressing concerns about online learning is the digital divide. UNESCO (2020) reported that nearly 826 million students globally lacked a computer at home during the pandemic, and 43% had no internet access. In the U.S., disparities in technology access mirrored socioeconomic status, with low-income and rural students at the greatest disadvantage.
Van Dijk (2020) argued that digital inequality is not just about hardware, but also about skills, motivation, and support. Online learning can deepen educational inequities if not paired with intentional access strategies, such as device distribution, subsidized internet, and parent training. Conversely, when access barriers are removed, online learning can increase educational opportunities, especially for students in remote areas or with physical disabilities (Rice & Carter, 2016).
In contrast, in-person education, while more equitable in terms of uniform access to resources, is less flexible. Students with chronic illness, caregiving responsibilities, or anxiety disorders may find it harder to thrive in rigid, in-person settings. A hybrid model, therefore, might offer the best of both worlds, combining structured support with flexible engagement options.
Social-Emotional Learning and Well-Being
Beyond academics, schools serve as social ecosystems that shape emotional development, peer relationships, and identity formation. In-person settings offer richer opportunities for social interaction, empathy development, and real-time conflict resolution (Wentzel & Brophy, 2014). These factors are essential for long-term student success.
However, remote learning had unexpected emotional benefits for some students. According to Walsh (2024), students who experienced bullying or social anxiety at school reported feeling safer and more focused in online environments. Nevertheless, the overall trend showed a negative impact on mental health during school closures. Students missed the sense of community and spontaneity that in-person environments offer (Triantis & Stavrakas, 2023).
Educators also faced new challenges in supporting student well-being online. The absence of visual and behavioral cues made it harder to detect when a student was disengaged or distressed (Hrastinski, 2009). As a result, many students felt emotionally disconnected from their teachers and peers, even if academic content was delivered effectively.
Teacher Effectiveness and Preparedness
Regardless of modality, the teacher remains a pivotal factor in student outcomes. However, the skills required for effective online instruction differ from traditional teaching. Singleton et al. (2023) found that many educators felt underprepared for the demands of digital instruction, particularly in creating engaging online content and managing virtual classrooms.
Hodges et al. (2020) warned against conflating well-planned online education with emergency remote teaching, where many educators were forced into unfamiliar territory with little training. This gap in preparedness often led to lower-quality instruction and decreased student satisfaction.
Professional development is key. Teachers who receive training in digital pedagogy and technology integration are more likely to succeed in online environments. Moreover, strong instructional design—emphasizing interactivity, feedback, and scaffolding—can bridge the gap between modalities and ensure consistency in learning outcomes (Means et al., 2013).
Conclusion
The question of whether student learning outcomes differ between online and in-person learning cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. Academic performance, when supported by high-quality instruction and equitable access, is generally comparable across both formats. However, significant differences emerge in areas like engagement, equity, social-emotional development, and teacher preparedness.
In-person learning continues to offer advantages in real-time engagement, social interaction, and structure. Online learning, meanwhile, provides flexibility and accessibility but depends heavily on student motivation and access to technology. A growing body of research suggests that hybrid models—blending the best elements of both—may offer the most effective approach to learning.
As education continues to evolve, the focus should shift from debating which modality is better to ensuring that all modalities are designed with equity, engagement, and evidence-based practice in mind. With thoughtful implementation, both online and in-person learning can support strong and meaningful educational outcomes.
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. Babson Survey Research Group.
Cavanaugh, C., Barbour, M. K., & Clark, T. (2009). Research and practice in K–12 online learning: A review of open access literature. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i1.607
Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23, 26507. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26507
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Martin, F., Sun, T., & Ritzhaupt, A. (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, 22(1), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i1.5140
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education.
Newpher, T. M., Savier, E., & Niemeyer, B. (2023). Comparing student outcomes in collaborative face-to-face and remote neuroscience learning. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 21(1), A70–A79.
Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309–319.
Öncü, S., Çolakoğlu, M., & Colak, H. (2024). Comparative analysis of student engagement in online vs. face-to-face instruction. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 7(3), 321–333.
Rice, M., & Carter, R. A. (2016). When we talk about compliance, it’s because we lived it: Online educators’ experiences supporting students with disabilities. Online Learning, 20(1), 118–135. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i1.605
Singleton, R., Cosignani, D. R., & Kam, M. (2023). Faculty development for strengthening online teaching capability. MedEdPublish, 13, 127.
Triantis, D., & Stavrakas, I. (2023). Student perspectives on remote learning: Utility versus social connection. Education Sciences, 13(6), 126.
UNESCO. (2020). Startling digital divides in distance learning emerge. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/startling-digital-divides-distance-learning-emerge
Van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.
Walsh, D. (2024, March 12). Some students do better in online school. Chicago Booth Review. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/some-students-do-better-online-school
Wentzel, K. R., & Brophy, J. E. (2014). Motivating students to learn (4th ed.). Routledge.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00544.x