Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Comparing conceptual learning in Zoom and in-class sections of college physics

Ramesh Dhungana*

  • *Contact author: ramesh.dhungana@ucdenver.edu

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020145 – Published 12 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/j4st-rj18

Abstract

The rapid shift to remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic required widespread adoption of synchronous virtual modalities such as Zoom in higher education. This study directly compares student conceptual learning outcomes in two parallel sections of an introductory physics course—one taught face-to-face (F2F) and the other synchronously via Zoom—delivered concurrently by the same instructor. Conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics was measured using the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, administered presemester and postsemester. Normalized gain analysis showed average improvements of 30.49% for the F2F group and 25.01% for the Zoom group, a difference that was not statistically significant. Effect size analysis revealed a large gain for the F2F cohort (d=1.27) and a moderate gain for the Zoom cohort (d=0.72), with only a small, nonsignificant difference in post-test means (d=0.19). Analysis of covariance confirmed that presemester scores were the strongest predictor of postsemester performance (p<0.001), while modality itself was not significant (p=0.333). A significant interaction (p=0.010) indicated that prior preparation translated more effectively into learning gains for F2F students. Overall, both instructional modalities fostered meaningful learning; however, face-to-face instruction produced more consistent outcomes, whereas Zoom-based instruction revealed greater variability tied to students’ initial levels of preparation.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (14)

  1. L. R. Krome, A review of Zoom utilization in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic, Educ. Thinking 1, 11 (2020), https://analytrics.org/article/a-review-of-zoom-utilization-in-higher-education-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/.
  2. P. Klein, L. Ivanjek, M. N. Dahlkemper, K. Jeličić, M.-A. Geyer, S. Küchemann, and A. Susac, Studying physics during the COVID-19 pandemic: Student assessments of learning achievement, perceived effectiveness of online recitations, and online laboratories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010117 (2021).
  3. J. D. Ametepe and N. Khan, Teaching physics during COVID-19 pandemic: Implementation and report of teaching strategies to support student learning, Phys. Educ. 56, 065030 (2021).
  4. A. Pernia-Espinoza, A. Sanz-Garcia, F. J. Martinez-de Pison-Ascacibar, and F. Navaridas-Nalda, Active learning methodologies in STEM degrees jeopardized by COVID-19, in Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Vienna, Austria (IEEE, New York, 2021), pp. 689–695.
  5. J. M. Cotter and R. Guldiken, Remote versus in-class active learning exercises for an undergraduate course in fluid mechanics, in Proceedings of the 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference (2021), https://peer.asee.org/37661.
  6. E. G. Rincon-Flores and B. N. Santos-Guevara, Gamification during COVID-19: Promoting active learning and motivation in higher education, Australas. J. Educ. Tech. 37, 43 (2021).
  7. J. Von Korff, B. Archibeque, K. A. Gomez, T. Heckendorf, S. B. McKagan, E. C. Sayre, E. W. Schenk, C. Shepherd, and L. Sorell, Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50 k–student study, Am. J. Phys. 84, 969 (2016).
  8. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  9. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
  10. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  11. J. M. Nissen, R. M. Talbot, A. N. Thompson, and B. Van Dusen, Comparison of normalized gain and Cohen’s d for analyzing gains on concept inventories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010115 (2018).
  12. E. Burkholder, C. Walsh, and N. G. Holmes, Examination of quantitative methods for analyzing data from concept inventories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010141 (2020).
  13. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (Routledge, New York, 1988).
  14. R. Dhungana, Pre-post data of zoom and in-class sections (2025), 10.7910/DVN/B6OWRV.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation