Skip to main content
NCBI home page
SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Sep 24;50(3):264–277. doi: 10.1177/00986283211043924

Impact of COVID-19 Campus Closure on Undergraduates

Olufunmilayo Telli 1,✉, Lindsey Mountcastle 1, Brianna L Jehl 1, Angel Munoz-Osorio 1, Lynnda M Dahlquist 1, Ashani Jayasekera 1, Aryn Dougherty 1, Raquel Castillo 1, Kollin Miner 1
PMCID: PMC10261954  PMID: 37337592

Abstract

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an abrupt transition from in-person to online learning in Spring 2020.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to identify the impact of the transition on undergraduates during the period following the campus closure.

Method

131 psychology undergraduate students completed an online survey of how the COVID-19 closure had impacted their academics, online learning environment, and traumatic stress symptoms (using the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the DSM-5).

Results

Most participants reported increased academic difficulty compared to before closure. Approximately 30% reported elevated traumatic stress symptoms. Greater traumatic stress was associated with greater difficulty completing assignments, more limited access to the internet and quiet places to study, and greater sibling-care responsibilities.

Conclusions

The acute transition to online instruction posed academic and emotional challenges to many students, especially those from environments with competing demands or less access to academic supports. Follow-up evaluation is needed to determine whether these difficulties have persisted in subsequent semesters of online instruction.

Teaching Implication

Instructors should anticipate the emotional and academic needs of students who are relatively unfamiliar with online instruction and consider ways to minimize negative environmental impacts and increase access to mental health resources.

Keywords: online learning, vulnerable students, COVID-19, psychopathology

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected economic, health, and social wellbeing on a global scale. Undergraduate college student education was interrupted, and many were asked to move out of their on-campus housing. Because of COVID-19’s threat, students were forced to navigate new school learning environments while trying to remain physically and mentally healthy. Anecdotal reports suggest that the stress from the sudden change in many students’ circumstances and the anxiety surrounding potentially contracting COVID-19 led to an increase in mental health symptomatology, including that of depression, anxiety, and traumatic stress. The purpose of the current study was to document COVID-19 stressors faced by psychology undergraduate students during the transition from on-campus to remote instruction during the Spring of 2020.

Online Learning

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2019), in Fall 2018, only 34.5% of undergraduate students at degree-granting postsecondary institutions reported taking at least one distant education course. In response to the pandemic, over 1300 US universities canceled traditional in-person classes and shifted to online instruction during the Spring 2020 semester (Smalley, 2020). The literature suggests that online instruction offers both potential advantages and disadvantages to learners.

Advantages

Online learning provides an approach to education that allows students with outside responsibilities to have more flexible access and schedules. For example, full-time employed students have reported positive academic outcomes with the use of mobile devices to access course content (Han & Shin, 2016). Online learning also can help students who are traditionally viewed as disadvantaged gain access to higher education (Dumford & Miller, 2018). Other advantages include convenience and flexibility of access to course information, ability to gather responses from an entire class, rather than just the few who choose to participate in face-to-face class sessions, and the potential for multiple and varied opportunities for students to contribute to class discussions and access shared knowledge via online communication outlets (Graham, 2001; Sommer & Sommer, 2003).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, undergraduate students have reported a variety of advantages of remote learning, including learning in a comfortable environment, saving commuting time, taking classes at preferred times, such as immediately after waking up, and using online chat features to communicate with professors (Shim & Lee, 2020). Some students report being able to use freed-up time to catch up on emails, write poetry, or pursue hobbies (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020).

Disadvantages

In contrast, online classes may be disadvantageous for certain students (Graham, 2001; Mandernach et al., 2012; Sommer & Sommer, 2003). Students learn differently, specifically in terms of interactivity and the development of learning communities, when they are in a room full of other students compared to how they learn when alone (Kenzig, 2015). For Latinx and Black or African American college students, there exists a positive relation between social support from peers and academic performance (Baker, 2013). Therefore, the online learning environment may make it more difficult for such students to succeed if peer-interaction is not encouraged or possible.

Not only is peer contact limited, but interactions with faculty members are more challenging to maintain in the online college environment. Activities that involve high instructor–learner interaction (e.g., working through example models together as a class) may not translate well online (Kenzig, 2015; Zhong, 2020). Since there is a positive relation between support from faculty and academic outcomes for students of color, specifically Latinx female and male students and female Black or African American students, a learning environment with minimal access to faculty interaction may prove harmful to students who heavily rely on teacher interactions (Baker, 2013).

The potential negative impact of online courses is particularly concerning given that Black or African American and Latinx students have a history of underperforming academically in the college setting, and have been less likely than White or European American students to earn a bachelor’s degree by age 25 (American Council on Education [ACE], 2020; Baker, 2013). Students of color (i.e., Black or African American, Asian or Asian American, and multiracial/other) have been also found to underperform in terms of final course grades compared to White or European American students in online (McMath Turner, 2018). With this information in mind, it is important to examine the implications of the COVID-19 transition to a fully online college format for students of color who may be already at risk of underperforming under normal circumstances.

Finally, online learning requires students to have a functioning computer, required software, and sufficient internet access and speed from an off-campus environment. However, weather, geographic location, connection speed, cost, or inadequate equipment can interfere with internet access (Perez Guarda, 2014). Indeed, since the pandemic, accessibility remains the greatest challenge faced by students (Aboagye et al., 2020), with as many as 59% of students in the Southern Philippines expressing negative evaluations of an online-blended learning approach, primarily due to poor internet connections (Baloran, 2020). Online learning is also contingent on technology maintenance; a factor that contributes to a technological divide between students (Reisdorf et al., 2020). Undergraduates who can afford the latest laptops, premium Wi-Fi, and other tech accessories have a greater advantage to succeed in virtual learning compared to students in lower-income families (Reisdorf et al., 2020). The rapid closure of campuses due to COVID-19 cut off student access to supplemental campus technological resources, such as computer labs and reliable internet. Pandemic-related closures of internet cafes and other establishments with free Wi-Fi access further limited access to the internet. The abrupt transition to online instruction may also have interfered with professors’ ability to utilize optimal undergraduate educational strategies.

Educational Impact of COVID-19

Chickering and Gamson (1987) proposed seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education: encouraging student-teacher contact, reciprocity and peer cooperation, active learning, prompt feedback, adequate time spent on tasks, communicating high expectations, and respect for diverse ways of learning. To accomplish these objectives when designing online courses, according to Moore’s (1989) transactional distance theory framework, it is crucial to consider the ways in which learners interact with course content, teachers, and other learners (Moore, 1989). For example, providing timely feedback, leading discussions, building strong relationships, and designing peer collaboration activities are responsibilities of the teacher; communicating needs in a timely manner, participating in discussions, engaging in learning communities, and bonding with peers are the responsibilities of students (Vlachopoulos & Makri, 2019).

In some instances, the approaches discussed above have been successfully implemented during the pandemic. For example, 30.1% of Georgia State University undergraduates in a study conducted by and colleagues (2020) preferred synchronous class structures for reasons such as interactions with peers and professors, attendance accountability, and structured course work (Armstrong-Mensah et al., 2020). Students also reported more positive satisfaction with online learning when professors made themselves available to students, communicated expectations, and made course materials available.

Unfortunately, the implementation of online learning during COVID-19 has not been successful when preparations for this unique learning experience are inadequate (Aboagye et al., 2020). In India, 76.3% of Bangalore City teachers reported a lack of interaction between teachers and college students during online classes, with a similar 60.4% of college students reported a lack of overall interaction in the online learning environment prompted by COVID-19 (Nambiar, 2020). The majority of teachers and students perceived face-to-face learning as a more effective classroom model (Nambiar, 2020). This unfavorable perception of online learning speaks to the difficulty of the transition. With lack of formal training or adequate time, many professors faced challenges adapting typical instruction methods to those appropriate for online learning (Dumford & Miller, 2018).

Research has shown that it is difficult to adapt some classic in-person techniques to the online environment (Dumford & Miller, 2018). Many professors relied on their current materials when transitioning to online teaching as they did not have time to make the changes needed to ensure that they were creating a fully suitable online course. In some instances, unprepared professors may have increased the amount of course work in an attempt to compensate for the lack of in-person instruction. For example, 64.5% of undergraduates in a study conducted by Armstrong-Mensah and colleagues (2020) at Georgia State University reported an increase in academic workload during the online transition.

Because of the abrupt and difficult transition from in-person to online learning during COVID-19, negative student opinions regarding online college courses are common. For example, a majority of Penn State University students reported a stronger preference for traditional face-to-face learning than for online learning. Furthermore, a preference for face-to-face learning had a moderately significant correlation with struggling to adapt to the online learning environment during COVID-19 (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020). The current study explores specific aspects of the learning process as well as environmental variables that may contribute to these challenges.

Household Distractions

Living and learning at home with family can present a variety of challenges for students accustomed to learning in a classroom and studying in a library, particularly if there are distractions in the home environment. Students who watched a videotaped lecture demonstrated drops in grades on post-video quizzes of one and up to three letter grades when randomly assigned to a multitasking distraction condition (e.g., folding laundry, playing video games, texting, engaging in conversation, and watching videos) compared to their baseline scores without multitasking distractions. Consequently, it is recommended that students taking online courses should attempt to eliminate distractions when listening to course lectures for optimal learning to take place (Blasiman et al., 2018). However, for many students, this recommendation may prove impossible during stay-at-home orders.

Other researchers have documented similarly detrimental impacts of noise on learners’ ability to concentrate on lessons, participate in discussions, and perform academically (Ali, 2013; Haines et al., 2001; Yang et al., 2020). Undergraduates at several urban commuter colleges reported a preference for studying at campus libraries due to the low noise levels and limited distractions (Regalado & Smale, 2015). Specifically, a student stated that the quiet library was more conducive to completing schoolwork than the home environment filled with TV watching and children playing (Regalado & Smale, 2015). Extremely noisy environments such as urban areas and housing near airports are known to provoke negative feelings, but even sounds in the 50-decibel range (conversation averages 60 decibels) are also documented to incite feelings of annoyance and are associated with work disruptions in adults (Bird & Puglisi, 1984; HealthLink British Columbia, 2019). Consistent exposure to noisy environments can also increase feelings of irritation and anger (Ouis, 2001). For example, employees in open-plan offices often experience an increased feeling of annoyance and decreased levels of work performance in response to irrelevant speech (Di Blasio et al., 2019).

Sibling caregiving may also distract from academic activities. Sibling caretaking has been described as the act of delegating parental powers and responsibilities to elder children so that a familial and cultural contribution is made (Hafford, 2009). While an overall decline in sibling caretaking in the US has taken place, it is still a common occurrence and cultural practice in communities of indigenous people and people of color (Hafford, 2009; Pollock, 2002; Weisner & Gallimore, 1977). Especially in immigrant families, elder children often are responsible for household chores such as cooking, cleaning, and running errands in addition to caring for their siblings and providing familial financial support (Hafford, 2009). Older siblings may have important influences on younger sibling learning, motivation, and classroom performance (Hafford, 2009; Weisner & Gallimore 1977), and may play an important role in tutoring and teaching, in addition to helping with homework, particularly in Black or African American and Vietnamese families (Zukow-Goldring, 2002). Thus, many students may face increased sibling responsibilities upon returning home and these responsibilities may interfere with academic pursuits. Determining the extent to which these disruptions affected psychology undergraduate students was another goal of the present study.

College Housing Displacement

It has been found that the more students involve themselves in both the social and academic settings of a college campus, the more likely they are to develop a productive mindset regarding graduation and class attendance (Braxton, et al., 1995; Nora, et al., 1996; Rea, 1991; Skahill, 2002). When displaced, students lose much more than just on-campus housing, they also lose access to valuable resources that can help them perform in the academic setting. Lost resources include student organizations and clubs, informal tutoring, peer social and study groups, consistent internet access, and reliable access to food. Additionally, some students may have also lost access to safe and secure housing.

The impact of these environmental challenges is only beginning to emerge in the literature. For example, 13% of undergraduate students attending Arizona State University (ASU) delayed graduation due to the pandemic and resulting campus closure (Aucejo et al., 2020). Other studies have found that students have experienced fatigue, trouble concentrating, lack of supportive resources for work completion, and difficulty communicating with professors since campus closures (e.g., Aguilera-Hermida, 2020). The current study contributes to this emerging body of literature by examining the immediate impact of Covid-19 campus closure on both the perceived environmental barriers as well as the academic challenges in psychology undergraduates.

Emotional Impact of COVID-19

At the time this study was conducted, little was known about COVID-19. The potential for perceiving COVID-19 as a health threat was exacerbated by news reports presenting frightening images of over-full hospital wards and daily death statistics. The novelty of the situation evoked considerable uncertainty. Moreover, students may have experienced personal COVID-19 illness or death in family members. The rapid transition to living off-campus and moving to virtual classes posed considerable additional stressors. Consequently, it would not be surprising if students experienced increased symptoms of anxiety and acute traumatic stress while living through this crisis.

A Chinese study conducted 1 month after the outbreak collected data on posttraumatic stress and depression via administration of the PTSD Check List-Civilian Version (PCL-C) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Probable prevalence of PTSD and depression were 2.7% and 9%, respectively (Tang et al., 2020). Results indicated that depressive and PTSD symptoms were more likely in undergraduates who reported less than 6 hours of sleep per night (Tang et al., 2020). Another study, conducted in China 4 months after the outbreak, administered the Chinese version of the Impact of Event-Scale-Revised (IES-R) and found that 16.3% of participants met the criteria for PTSD symptoms (Li et al., 2021). World-wide, an increase in depression and anxiety has been found throughout the general population (Wang et al., 2020). In a study of 898 18- to 30-year-old adults in the general public in the United States, 43% reported clinically elevated levels of depression, with 45% and 31% of participants reporting clinically elevated levels of anxiety and PTSD symptoms, respectively (Liu et al., 2020).

Most studies in the United States during the early months of the pandemic focused on mental health and trauma responses in healthcare workers and the general public; few focused specifically on American undergraduates. Hoyt et al. (2021) reported an increase in anxiety and depression symptoms in undergraduates compared to pre-pandemic norms. Bridgland and colleagues (2021) found that approximately 13.2% of adults in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States met criteria for PTSD, with a greater number of PTSD symptoms evident in the small percent (19.8%) of their sample that identified as students. However, the prevalence of PTSD in undergraduates in the United States was not reported. Horesh and Brown (2020) have called for increased research focusing on traumatic stress, especially in relation to the pandemic as they expect its consequences to be long lasting. To our knowledge, the prevalence of traumatic stress symptoms during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been studied specifically in US undergraduates.

It is important to further investigate the extent to which US college students endured acute traumatic stress responses during the shutdown, as trauma-exposure in undergraduates has been related to feelings of anger, fear, withdrawal, shock, denial, and distrust, as well as more severe mental health concerns such as depression, self-harming behaviors, substance abuse, and anxiety disorders (Artime et al., 2019), and such negatively valanced emotions have been associated with lower academic achievement (Bahmani et al., 2018). Therefore, an additional goal of the current study was to document the acute traumatic stress symptomatology undergraduate psychology students experienced early in the pandemic and examine potential contributors to elevated symptomatology as well as the associated academic impact.

The current study was conducted at a medium-sized university in the Mid-Atlantic region during the 7–9 weeks immediately following the COVID-19 campus closure. To contextualize the study, the following timeline is provided. The university informed students via email and web announcements on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 (the week before spring break) that classes would be canceled on Thursday and Friday. Resident students were instructed to leave campus by noon on Saturday, March 14. During the week of spring break, students were notified via email that classes would resume in a virtual format starting Monday, March 23, classes would continue online for the remainder of the semester, and all finals would be conducted online. The March 23 email also notified students of several steps being taken to help accommodate pandemic-related academic difficulties. First, students would have the option to change from regular grading to Pass/Fail (P/F) or withdraw from courses up until 2 weeks after final grades were presented. In addition, pass/fail grades would be accepted for all general education and Psychology major/minor courses taken during the semester.

Prior to the pandemic, online courses were relatively uncommon at this university. During the 2017–18 school year 6.4% of students were enrolled in at least one class online and 0.18% had fully online schedules during that school year (College Factual, 2020). In Fall 2019, only 92 out of the University’s 12,120 students (0.76%) were enrolled in entirely online class schedules. However, as of Fall 2020, 85% of undergraduate students were enrolled in all online courses. In the Psychology department, approximately .04% of 433 course sections in the 2019-2020 academic year were offered online and 15% were a hybrid combination of online and in-person. All post-spring break Spring 2020 and Fall 2020 Psychology courses were offered online.

Study Aims

The current study aims to identify the perceived academic and environmental challenges and traumatic stress reactions associated with the rapid changes related to the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic by surveying Psychology undergraduates 7–9 weeks after campus closure. In particular, the study documents specific areas of academic difficulty experienced by students, environmental challenges to online learning during this period, and self-reported acute traumatic stress symptomatology. Specific research questions include the following:

  1. To what degree do undergraduates report difficulty keeping up with course readings, understanding course content, studying for exams, completing course assignments, and meeting deadlines?

  2. To what degree are academic difficulties related to environmental barriers, such as reliable access to the internet, distracting home environments, and competing household responsibilities (i.e., sibling care)?

  3. What proportion of respondents experience clinically elevated levels of traumatic stress symptomatology?

  4. Are traumatic stress symptoms related to academic difficulties and environmental barriers?

  5. Do academic difficulties, perceived environmental barriers, and traumatic stress symptoms differ across racial groups?

Method

Participants

A voluntary convenience sample of students who were between the ages of 18 and 25 years (M = 20.86, SD = 1.85) at a medium-sized University in the Mid-Atlantic region, in the United States, were recruited via emails to psychology classes, word of mouth, and announcements on the Department of Psychology online research management system.

A total of 155 individuals completed the consent process, of which 138 were deemed eligible to participate. A total of 131 participants completed the survey, with almost all participants answering every survey question. The majority of participants identified as women (79%) and 38% of all participants held junior class standing at the time of the study. Approximately 41% of participants identified as European American. See Table 1 for additional participant demographic details.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics

Gender Sample Percent n
 Female 78.7 103
 Male 18.3 24
 Other 2.3 3
Race
 Asian or Asian American 26.2 34
 White or European American 40.8 53
 Black or African American 17.7 23
 Multiracial/Other 15.4 20
College standing
 Freshmen 14.3 19
 Sophomore 21.1 27
 Junior 37.6 50
 Senior 26.3 35
Students’ residency prior to housing displacement
 On-campus 40.5 53
 Off-campus apartment 7.6 10
 With family 49.6 65
 Other 2.3 3
Students’ place of residency after housing displacement
 On campus 2.3 3
 Off-campus apartment 4.6 6
 With family 89.2 116
 Other 3.8 5
Open in a new tab

Note. ns varied as some participants did not complete all questionnaires.

Measures

Participants provided the following demographic information: age, race, gender, and past and current living situation.

Academic Outcomes

Participants were asked to indicate how the recent campus closure associated with COVID-19 affected their performance in five academic areas: their ability to (a) keep up with course readings, (b) study for exams, (c) complete course assignments, (d) meet assignment due dates and deadlines, and (e) understand course content. Respondents rated each of the 5 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = much easier than before campus closure, 2 = a little easier than before campus closure, 3 = not affected by campus closures, 4 = a little more difficult than before campus closure, and 5 = much more difficult than before campus closure).

Learning Environment Challenges and Family Obligations

To assess reported learning environment challenges associated with the mandatory campus closure, participants were asked to rate the following on a 4-point Likert type scales: quality of internet access (1 = consistent access, 2 = moderate access, 3 = limited access, and 4 = no access), quiet place to study (1 = always, 2 = sometimes, 3 = rarely, 4 = never), and amount of sibling-care responsibility (1 = no responsibility, 2 = some responsibility, 3 = mostly responsible, and 4 = solely responsible).

Traumatic Stress Symptoms

Traumatic stress symptoms were measured using the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5; Blevins et al., 2015). The PCL-5 is a 20-item Likert scale self-report measure that assesses traumatic stress symptoms based on DSM-5 criteria. Items are summed and possible scores range from 0 to 80. Scores of 33 or greater are considered clinically significant and possibly indicative of a traumatic stress disorder (Blevins et al., 2015). The PCL-5 has shown convergent validity with the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (r = .72; Morrison et al., 2021) and the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R), a self-report measure of symptom severity associated with traumatic events (r = .82; Ashbaugh et al., 2016). Lower correlations with measures such as the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) (r = .10) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15) (r = .49) support the measure’s divergent validity (Wortmann et al., 2016). The PCL-5 was also found to have excellent internal consistency (a = .95; Ashbaugh et al., 2016). Coefficient alpha for the current sample was .952.

Additionally, the PCL-5 can be used to determine a provisional diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) based on DSM-5 criteria. Items rated with a 2 (2 = Moderately) or higher are treated as a symptom endorsed. Following the DSM-5 diagnostic guidelines, endorsement of at least one Criterion B item (questions 1–5), one Criterion C item (questions 6–7), two Criterion D items (questions 8–14), and two Criterion E items (questions 15–20) suggests a possible PTSD diagnosis. Because assessments in this study were not conducted by a clinician, the number of individuals who met requirements for a provisional PTSD diagnosis was examined for descriptive purposes only.

Procedure

Study procedures were approved by the University Institutional Review Board. The study was conducted online using Qualtrics software, a secure platform that is commonly used for clinical research. Upon entering the Qualtrics page, participants received a description of the purpose of the study and the procedures. Participants were informed that they could discontinue at any time with no negative consequences and that no individually identifiable information would be shared with individuals outside of the research group. Individuals who agreed to participate in the study and met age eligibility completed the online survey. As compensation, participants who were enrolled in a university psychology course that offered extra credit through psychology study participation, received one credit point through the research portal. All students received information about campus mental health resources, including contact information for the campus counseling center.

Analysis Plan

Because participant ratings of academic difficulties, family obligations, and learning environment challenges yielded ordinal, rather than interval data (i.e., the intervals between Likert ratings, such as: 1 = much easier than before campus closure, 2 = a little easier than before campus closure, 3 = not affected by campus closure, etc., could not be presumed to be equal in magnitude) nonparametric statistics (i.e., Spearman rank-order correlations or Mann–Whitney U or Kruskal–Wallis H-tests for group differences) were employed when examining these variables. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare group differences on the PCL-5 raw scores. PCL-5 scores ≥33 were classified as clinically elevated. Chi-square analyses were then used to test for racial group differences in the proportion of students scoring in the clinically elevated range.

Results

Prior to the COVID-19 campus closure, 41% of participants lived on campus, 8% lived in off-campus apartments, and 50% lived with family. After campus closure, approximately 2% lived on campus, 5% lived in off-campus apartments, and 89% lived with family.

Table 2 presents endorsement frequencies for ratings of academic outcomes, environmental challenges, and family obligations by racial group and for the entire sample. Corresponding median values are presented in Table 3. Table 4 summarizes PCL-5 scores.

Table 2.

Endorsement Frequencies for Student Ratings of Academic Outcomes, Learning Environment Challenges, and Family Obligations

Asian or Asian American White or European American Black or African American Multiracial/Other Total Sample
n 34 53 23 20 130
— Percent endorsement
Access to a quiet place to study
 Always (1) 44 32 22 35 34
 Sometimes (2) 47 57 65 45 54
 Rarely (3) 6 9 9 20 10
 Never (4) 3 2 4 0 2
Reliable internet access
 Consistent (1) 88 79 70 85 81
 Moderate (2) 12 21 26 15 18
 Limited (3) 0 0 4 0 1
 Never (4) 0 0 0 0 0
Keeping up with course readings
 Much easier (1) 6 11 13 0 24
 A little easier (2) 6 6 9 0 37
 Not affected (3) 18 15 9 15 24
 A little more difficult (4) 50 42 48 65 28
 Much more difficult (5) 21 26 22 20 36
Studying for exams
 Much easier (1) 3 9 13 0 7
 A little easier (2) 12 9 9 10 10
 Not affected (3) 12 11 13 5 11
 A little more difficult (4) 50 30 22 40 35
 Much more difficult (5) 24 40 44 45 37
Completing course assignments
 Much easier (1) 6 15 13 5 11
 A little easier (2) 15 8 9 5 9
 Not affected (3) 15 15 13 15 15
 A little more difficult (4) 56 42 35 30 42
 Much more difficult (5) 9 21 30 45 24
Meeting assignment deadlines
 Much easier (1) 9 11 22 0 11
 A little easier (2) 12 9 0 5 8
 Not affected (3) 24 15 22 15 18
 A little more difficult (4) 41 43 13 30 35
 Much more difficult (5) 15 21 44 50 28
Understanding course content
 Much easier (1) 0 4 9 5 4
 A little easier (2) 12 4 0 5 5
 Not affected (3) 15 19 22 0 15
 A little more difficult (4) 29 47 44 35 40
 Much more difficult (5) 44 26 26 35 36
Sibling home schooling
 Solely responsible (1) 0 0 0 18 2
 Mostly responsible (2) 4 0 22 9 7
 Some responsibility (3) 21 29 17 18 22
 Not responsible (4) 75 71 61 55 68
Sibling responsibility
 No responsibility (1) 64 87 48 55 69
 Some responsibility (2) 30 9 35 30 22
 Mostly responsible (3) 6 4 17 15 9
 Solely responsible (4) 0 0 0 0 0
Open in a new tab

Note. n = 130.

Table 3.

Distributions of Students’ Academic Outcomes and Learning Environment Challenges and Family Obligations

Variable Asian or Asian American White or European American Black or African American Multiracial/Other Total Sample
n 34 53 23 20 130
— Median
Access to a quiet place to study a 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Internet access b 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Difficulty keeping up course readings c 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Difficulty studying for exams c 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Difficulty completing course assignments c 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Difficulty meeting assignment deadlines c 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.50 4.00
Difficulty understanding course content c 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00
Sibling home schooling d 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Sibling responsibility e 1.00* 1.00 2.00* 1.00* 1.00
Open in a new tab

Note. ns varied as some participants did not complete all questionnaires.

a1 = Never, 4 = Always.

b1 = Consistent Access, 4 = No Access.

c1 = Much Easier Since Closure, 5 = Much More Difficult Since Closure.

d1 = solely responsible, 4 = Not Responsible.

e1 = No Responsibility, 4 = Solely Responsible.

*Significantly different from White/European Americans.

Table 4.

Distributions of Student’s Traumatic Stress Symptoms by Racial Group

Variable Asian or Asian American White or European American Black or African American Multiracial/Other Total Sample
n 34 52 21 17 125
Traumatic stress M (SD)
PCL-5 total score 25.09 (20.44) 21.85 (15.65) 23.43 (17.51) 30.00 (23.00) 24.29 (18.45)
— Percent of sample
PCL-5 clinically elevated (Total score ≥33) 35.3 21.2 23.9 47.1 29.6
Open in a new tab

Note. ns varied as some participants did not complete all questionnaires.

To what degree do undergraduates report difficulty keeping up with course readings, understanding course content, studying for exams, completing course assignments, and meeting deadlines? To examine whether students experienced greater academic difficulty after campus closure, the responses of “a lot more difficult before the campus closure” and “a little more difficult before the campus” were summed for each academic area question. As shown in Table 2, the majority of respondents reported having increased difficulty with academic functioning after the campus closure. Approximately 72% of participants reported increased difficulty keeping up with course readings; 73% reported increased difficulty studying for exams; 66% reported increased difficulty completing course assignments; 63% reported increased difficulty meeting deadlines; and 76% of participants reported increased difficulty understanding course content (Table 5).

Table 5.

Spearman Correlations Among PCL-5 Traumatic Stress Scores and Student Ratings of Learning Environment and Family Obligations, and Academic Outcomes, and Housing Status

M SD n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. PCL-5 traumatic stress symptoms 24.3 18.4 125 ─ — — — — — — — —
2. Limited access to quiet place to study a 1.81 .70 131 .39** ─ — — — — — — —
3. Limited internet access b 1.20 .42 131 .24** .32** ─ — — — — — —
4. Difficulty keeping up with course readings c 3.73 1.14 131 .17 .26** .09 ─ — — — — —
5. Difficulty studying for exams c 3.86 1.22 131 .16 .18* .01 .67** ─ — — — —
6. Difficulty completing course assignments c 3.59 1.25 131 .29** .31** .18* .57** .47** ─ — — —
7. Difficulty meeting assignment deadlines c 3.63 1.27 131 .17 .17 .22* .53** .42** .73** ─ — —
8. Difficulty understanding course content c 3.98 1.04 131 .14 .21* .05 .42** .59** .34** .39** ─ —
9. Greater sibling responsibility d 1.39 .64 130 .27** .36** .11 .02 −.07 .15 .02 .07 ─
10. Housing status pre-COVID e 2.14 .99 131 −.04 −.03 −.09 −.26** −.39** −.20* −.18* −.15 −.23*
Open in a new tab

Note. * = p < .05. ** = p < .01. ns varied as some participants did not complete all questionnaires.

a1 = Always, 4 = Never.

b1 = Consistent, 4 = No Access.

c1 = Much Easier Since Closure, 5 = Much More Difficult Since Closure.

d1 = No Responsibility, 4 = Solely Responsible.

e1 = campus dorm, 2 = off-campus apartment, 3 = with family.

To what degree are academic difficulties related to environmental barriers, such as reliable access to the internet, distracting home environments, and competing household responsibilities (i.e., sibling care)? Approximately 81% of participants reported having consistent internet access and 18% reported having moderate access to the internet. However, only about 34% of the participants reported always having a quiet place to study. Approximately 32% of participants were at least partially responsible for helping homeschool their siblings during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated campus closure. As shown in Table 2, 31% of participants had some or most of the responsibility for taking care of their siblings.

Spearman rank-order correlations presented in Table 5 indicated that participants who had less access to a quiet place to study tended to have more difficulty keeping up with course readings, r s (129) = .26, p = .003; more difficulty studying for exams, r s (129) = .18, p = .035; more difficulty completing course assignments, r s (129) = .31, p < .001; and more difficulty understanding course content, r s (129) = .21, p = .018. Poorer access to a quiet place to study was associated with difficulty completing course assignments, regardless of whether students were already living at home, r s (63) = .40, p = .001 or had to leave campus and move home, r s (51) = .36, p = .008.

Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted to compare reports of academic difficulty for the 53 students who had lived on campus prior to campus closure with the 65 students who had been living with family prior to campus closure. Participants who lived on campus prior to the pandemic tended to have more difficulty keeping up with course readings, U = 1276.5 (Mrank = 67.92 vs. 52.64), p =.01; more difficulty studying for exams, U = 1049.5 (Mrank = 72.20 vs. 49.15), p < .001; more difficulty completing course assignments, U = 1316.0 (Mrank = 67.92 vs. 52.64), p = .02; and more difficulty meeting deadlines, U = 1370.5 (Mrank = 66.14 vs. 54.08), p =.047, compared to those students who had been living with family prior to the pandemic.

What proportion of respondents experience clinically elevated levels of traumatic stress symptomatology? Approximately 30% of participants reported clinically elevated traumatic stress symptoms (i.e., scores of 33 or higher) on the PCL-5 (see Table 4). Approximately 27.9% reported a pattern of at least moderate traumatic stress symptoms that, based on DSM-5 criteria, suggest a possible diagnosis of PTSD.

Are traumatic stress symptoms related to academic difficulties and environmental barriers? Spearman rank-order correlations were conducted to examine the relation between total number of reported traumatic stress symptoms and perceived post-campus closure academic difficulties as well as reported learning environment challenges. As seen in Table 3, participants with more elevated traumatic stress symptoms had more difficulty completing assignments, r s (129) = .29, p = .001; less reliable internet access, r s (129) = .24, p =.007; poorer access to a quiet place to study, r s (129) = .39, p < .001; and greater sibling-care responsibilities, r s (128) = .27, p = .003.

Do academic difficulties, perceived environmental barriers, and traumatic stress symptoms differ across racial groups? Kruskal–Wallis H-tests tested whether there were group differences in academic difficulties across four racial groups (Asian or Asian American, European American, Black or African American, and multiracial/other). Results indicated no significant racial group differences for keeping up with course readings, H(3) = 0.92, p = .82, η2 = .01; studying for exams, H(3) = 2.07, p = .56, η2 = .02; completing course assignments, H(3) = 4.97, p = .17, η2 = .04; meeting deadlines, H(3) = 7.37, p = .06, η2 = .06; and understanding course content, H(3) = 5.60, p = .13, η2 = .04 (see Tables 2 and 3).

A Kruskal–Wallis H test comparing sibling-care responsibility across racial groups (Asian or Asian American, European American, Black or African American, and multiracial/other) was significant, H(3) = 14.85, p = .002, η2 = .17. Post-hoc Mann–Whitney paired tests indicated that White or European American (EuA) participants had significantly less responsibility for sibling care than Asian or Asian American (AsA), U(MRankEuA = 39.77, MRankAsA = 49.48) = 677.00 = −2.43, p = .02; Black or African American (AfA), U(MRankEuA = 33.98, MRankAfA = 48.91) = 370.00, z = −3.58, p < .001; and multiracial/other participants (MuO), U(MRankEuA = 33.79, MRankMuO = 45.50) = 360.00, z = −2.92, p = .004. These results suggest that students of color had significantly greater responsibility for taking care of their siblings compared to White or European American identifying participants during the campus closure associated with COVID-19. No other environmental barriers were significantly different between groups (p > .05; see Table 3).

An ANOVA comparing students of different races’ (Asian or Asian American, European American, Black or African American, and multiracial/other) PCL-5 total scores showed no racial group differences in number of traumatic stress symptoms, F(3, 120) = 0.88, p = .454, η2 = .02. A Chi-square analysis indicated that the proportion of students with clinically elevated PCL-5 traumatic stress scores (i.e., ≥ 33) did not differ by racial group, X2 (3, N = 125) = 5.17, p = .16, φ = .20 (see Table 4).

Discussion

The current study examined the stressors and areas of difficulty faced by undergraduate students during the Spring 2020 transition to online classes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The results indicated that the majority of students in our study experienced increased difficulty in multiple academic areas, including understanding course content and studying for exams, which is consistent with the findings of Lassoued et al. (2020) and others. Students who lived on campus prior to the closure experienced heightened academic difficulty compared to their peers who lived off campus prior to the pandemic, suggesting that, as a result of campus closure, many students likely lost access to potentially valuable campus resources that have been shown to assist students and foster their academic success, such as social, academic, and emotional support, and safe and secure housing. For some students, all or many of these resources may not be available in off-campus settings (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020).

Additionally, the university’s response to COVID-19 was necessarily very quick. Students had only a few days’ notice of campus closure. Thus, they had little time to set up alternative sources of support. Problems finding a quiet place to study were reported by two-thirds of participants and were associated with more difficulty keeping up with course readings, completing assignments, and understanding course content. These problems were evident in students who lived on campus as well as students who lived at home prior to the COVID-19 associated campus closure, suggesting that campus provides important resources, such as a quiet environment, to both commuter and resident students.

The increased level of academic difficulty reported by participants also may reflect challenges inherent in the unprecedented online college environment. Professors had very limited time to transition their in-person courses to a fully online setting. Courses that heavily relied on specialty equipment, peer collaboration, and/or performance had especially difficult transitions, which may have lowered the perceived quality of learning for students (Almomani et al., 2021). Moreover, many techniques and styles used to teach in-person classrooms do not always translate easily to online methods (Kenzig, 2015). Professors with limited or no experience teaching online may have been unwilling or unable to adjust class structures.

While most students reported increased academic difficulties during this time of crisis, some students instead reported improved experiences. This finding may be attributed to an increase in the amount of time to complete schoolwork as a result of not commuting to and from campus and a decrease in extracurricular activities. Additionally, the online learning environment may better suit students with social anxiety, introverted personalities, or individualized learning preferences. Students reporting academic ease during the online transition may have benefited from experienced online professors or professors who implemented COVID-19 appropriate accommodations and submission date leniency (Armstrong-Mensah et al., 2020). Lastly, the nature of online learning can lead to cheating on tests and assignments and receiving help from friends and family more readily than in traditional environments. Professors cannot be certain that the person who takes an exam or completes an assignment is the actual student (Lassoued et al., 2020).

A striking 30% of participants reported clinically elevated traumatic stress symptoms, with 29% reporting symptoms consistent with a traumatic stress disorder. The proportion of students experiencing clinical levels of traumatic stress was similar to findings from COVID-19 general population studies and higher than has been found in the population pre-pandemic (see Liu et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). These traumatic stress symptoms may reflect personal exposure to individuals with COVID-19, hospitalization or death in family members, media portrayal of the pandemic, and/or fears of personal vulnerability. This result could also be attributed to the loss of social support that participants experienced when campus closed (Hoyt et al., 2021). For example, lower social support (i.e., fewer friends or people who can offer supportive resources in times of crisis or need) has been associated with clinically elevated stress symptoms in flood (Feng et al., 2007) and earthquake (Sattler et al., 2006) survivors. Dinenberg et al. (2014) argued that social support may protect against negative feelings like fear or anxiety and reduce the development of PTSD after a trauma has occurred.

The high level of traumatic stress symptomatology reported in this sample is concerning in light of research showing that exposure to traumatic situations may lead to increased stress sensitivity, which has the potential to raise stress levels and decrease performance in academic settings (Cherry & Wilcox, 2020). As a result, students may experience heightened stress when faced with uncertain access to the internet or to a quiet environment. Online exam performance may suffer as a consequence. The current findings suggest that the combination of greater academic difficulty and family burden may also contribute to stress symptomatology.

Racial/ethnic differences were not evident in traumatic stress symptomatology or reported academic difficulties in this sample. However, students of color reported more responsibility for sibling care than their European American counterparts. These differences may reflect ethnic/cultural differences in expectations for family responsibilities in general. Alternatively, differences in sibling-care responsibility may also reflect the racial demographics of frontline workers. The Center of Economic and Policy Research recently reported an overrepresentation of people of color as frontline workers (Rho et al., 2020). Students of color may have had more responsibilities for homeschooling and taking care of their younger siblings because their parents were essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic and could not stay home. Assisting a parent who is an essential worker would understandably increase the burden on the student while at the same time increasing potential concern about the health and safety of the parent. Thus, it is not surprising that greater responsibility for sibling care was associated with more traumatic stress symptomatology as well as greater academic difficulty.

Although racial differences in traumatic stress symptoms were not evident in this sample in the 2 month period following the pandemic shutdown, it is important to note that the greater burden of sibling care identified in students of color could have a cumulative impact, resulting in more discrepant long-term emotional or academic impact. Thus, ongoing monitoring of the impact of prolonged campus closure on students of color is warranted.

Limitations

The current study has several limitations that are important to note. Firstly, some of the relations examined in this study were correlational in nature and all of the data were collected at one time point. Thus, one cannot infer any causal relationship between the variables under investigation. The student ratings of academic difficulty and environmental barriers used in this study were newly developed; therefore, supporting validity data were not available. Additionally, because all of the data were self-reported, participants may have exaggerated or underreported symptoms.

Because the current study was conducted online, those with limited internet access may not have been able to respond. Internet availability may be a potential indicator of one’s socioeconomic status. Students with limited resources likely experience even higher levels of stress and difficulty. Thus, the data reported herein may well underestimate the magnitude of student difficulties.

Finally, this study was conducted at the end of the semester, which is a time of increased stress for many students because of final exams and projects, which could have influenced perceived difficulties and stress symptoms. Replication at an earlier point in the semester would help identify concerns specific to remote learning during the pandemic.

Future Research

Further research on the cumulative burden of family obligations that can compete with academic responsibilities is needed, including other forms of familial responsibility in addition to sibling care. For instance, many students are parents themselves, may have ill family members, or may need to assist in the caregiving of vulnerable family members, like grandparents or mentally/physically challenged relatives.

In addition, ongoing assessment is needed to determine the degree to which the problems reported by students in this study reflect difficulties associated with the abrupt emergency transition to online instruction, versus ongoing difficulties associated with primarily remote college instruction. Until the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, the stresses and challenges identified in this article may well continue for vulnerable students.

Teaching Implications

The results of this study suggest several pandemic-related accommodations that may help to foster equitable support and flexibility for students. First, it is important for professors to understand the potential loss of resources associated with campus closure. Anticipating student needs and preemptively providing students with information regarding online resources, such as office hours, tutoring services, writing center access, potential university internet access opportunities, and the like may prove beneficial to many students. Furthermore, providing students the opportunity to accustom themselves to the online environment through training for specific course platforms may improve online learning (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020). However, due to the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic such strategy was not possible for the online transition but should be applied in future online courses.

Given that over 60% of students in this study reported having increased difficulty meeting assignment deadlines, the strategies some instructors use to incentivize active student engagement, such as frequent assignments or quizzes, may inadvertently place undue burden on some students. A delicate balance between frequent assignments and instructor-student communication needs to be enforced by instructors to prevent students from feeling isolated in an online environment (Dumford & Miller, 2018). Therefore, it is advisable that instructors create time to connect with their students at any given opportunity. Careful consideration of the number of assignments in the context of potentially limited access to academic resources and competing family responsibilities is also recommended.

Difficulty keeping up with course requirements can be minimized, to some degree, by creating an organized class schedule for students to reference, posting assignments well in advance of due dates, and posting clear instructions for how and where to submit assignments. Such course structure may be particularly important for students with executive functioning difficulties (i.e., weaker organizational and planning skills) and/or students already experiencing high levels of stress and unpredictability in their lives.

To minimize the potential impact of competing family responsibilities, when possible, synchronously offered classes should be recorded and posted for later review. Holding a combination of synchronous and asynchronous classes may be another way to support such students. Flexible exam times, such as day-long windows to take timed class exams, and flexible due dates when feasible, may help accommodate competing family burdens. Acknowledgment of the competing familial and household responsibilities students hold both verbally and in syllabi may further communicate support and understanding of the challenges students face.

Lastly, it is crucial that instructors keep in mind the tremendous impact of the pandemic on students’ mental health. Information regarding mental health resources available to students should be highlighted in course syllabi and on course platforms. By recognizing early signs of academic difficulty, reaching out to struggling students, and directing students to appropriate resources, instructors may be able to help students gain timely access to much-needed mental health care and minimize negative academic functioning.

Footnotes

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Aryn Dougherty https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9209-773X

References

  1. Aboagye E., Yawson J. A., Appiah K. N. (2020). COVID-19 and E-learning: The challenges of students in tertiary institutions. Social Education Research, 2(1), 1-8. 10.37256/ser.212021422. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguilera-Hermida A. P. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to Covid-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100011. 10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ali S. A. A. (2013). Study effects of school noise on learning achievement and annoyance in Assiut city, Egypt. Applied Acoustics, 74(4), 602-606. 10.1016/j.apacoust.2012.10.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Almomani E. Y., Qablan A. M., Atrooz F. Y., Almomany A. M., Hajjo R. M., Almomani H. Y. (2021). The influence of coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the quarantine practices on university students’ beliefs about the online learning experience in Jordan. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 595874. 10.3389/fpubh.2020.595874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. American Council on Education . (2020). Educational attainment, by race and ethnicity. Retrieved 10 September 2020. https://www.equityinhighered.org/indicators/u-s-population-trends-and-educational-attainment/educational-attainment-by-race-and-ethnicity. [Google Scholar]
  6. Armstrong-Mensah E, Ramsey-White K, Yankey B, Self-Brown S. (2020). COVID-19 and distance learning: Effects on Georgia State University School of Public Health students. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 576227. http://doi.org/0.3389/fpubh.2020.576227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Artime T. M., Buchholz K. R., Jakupcak M. (2019). Mental health symptoms and treatment utilization among trauma-exposed college students. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 11(3), 274-282. https://doi-org.proxy-bc.researchport.umd.edu/10.1037/tra0000376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ashbaugh AR, Houle-Johnson S, Herbert C, El-Hage W, Brunet A. (2016). Psychometric validation of the English and French versions of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). PLoS One, 11(10), e0161645. 10.1371/journal.pone.0161645. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Aucejo EM, French J, Ugalde Araya M. P, Zafar B. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey. Journal of Public Economics, 191, 104271. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bahmani D. S., Faraji P., Faraji R., Lang U. E., Holsboer-Trachsler E., Brand S. (2018). Is emotional functioning related to academic achievement among university students? Results from a cross-sectional Iranian sample. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 40(3), 290-295. 10.1590/1516-4446-2017-2434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Baker C. N. (2013). Social support and success in higher education: The influence of on-campus support on African American and Latino college students. The Urban Review, 45(5), 632-650. 10.1007/s11256-013-0234-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Baloran E. T. (2020). Knowledge, attitudes, anxiety, and coping strategies of students during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 25(8), 635-642. 530 10.1080/15325024.2020.1769300. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bird C. P., Puglisi D. D. (1984). Noise reduction in an undergraduate library. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 10(5), 272-277. [Google Scholar]
  14. Blasiman R. N., Larabee D., Fabry D. (2018). Distracted students: A comparison of multiple types of distractions on learning in online lectures. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 222-230. 10.1037/stl0000122. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Blevins C. A., Weathers F. W., Davis M. T., Witte T. K., Domino J. L. (2015). The posttraumatic stress disorder checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5): Development and initial psychometric evaluation. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28, 489-498. 10.1037/t51564-000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Braxton J. M., Vesper N., Hossler D. (1995). Expectations for college and student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 36, 595-611. 10.1007/BF02208833. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Bridgland V. M. E., Moeck E. K., Green D. M., Swain T. L., Nayda D. M., Matson L. A., Hutchison N. P., Takarangi M. K. T. (2021). Why the COVID-19 pandemic is a traumatic stressor. PLoS One, 16(1), 1-15. 10.1371/journal.pone.0240146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cherry M. L., Wilcox M. M. (2020). Decreasing perceived and academic stress through emotion regulation and nonjudging with trauma-exposed college students. International Journal of Stress Management, 27(2), 101-110. 10.1037/str0000138. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chickering A. W., Gamson Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7. Retrieved 15 March, 2021 fromhttps://www.lonestar.edu/multimedia/sevenprinciples.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  20. Di Blasio S., Shtrepi L., Puglisi G., Astolfi A. (2019). A cross-sectional survey on the impact of irrelevant speech noise on annoyance, mental health and well-being, performance and occupants’ behavior in shared and open-plan offices. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(2), 280. 10.3390/ijerph16020280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dinenberg R. E., McCaslin S. E., Bates M. N., Cohen B. E. (2014). Social support may protect against development of posttraumatic stress disorder: Findings from the Heart and Soul Study. American Journal of Health Promotion, 28(5), 294-297. 10.4278/ajhp.121023-QUAN-511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dumford A. D., Miller A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30, 452-465. 10.1007/s12528-018-9179-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Feng S., Tan H., Benjamin A., Wen S., Liu A., Zhou J., Li S., Yang T., Zhang Y., Li X., Li G. (2007). Social support and posttraumatic stress disorder among flood victims in Hunan, China. Annals of Epidemiology, 17(10), 827-833. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Graham T. A. (2001). Teaching child development via the Internet: Opportunities and pitfalls. Teaching of Psychology, 28(1), 67-71. 10.1207/S15328023TOP2801_10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hafford C. (2009). Sibling caretaking in immigrant families: Understanding cultural practices to inform child welfare practice and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(3), 294-302. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Haines M. M., Stansfeld S. A., Job R. F. S., Berglund B., Head J. (2001). Chronic aircraft noise exposure, stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school children. Psychological Medicine, 31(2), 265-277. 10.1017/s0033291701003282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Han I., Shin W. S. (2016). The use of a mobile learning management system and academic achievement of online students. Computers & Education, 102, 79-89. 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.07.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. HealthLink British Columbia (2019, July 29). Harmful noise levels. https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/health-topics/tf4173. [Google Scholar]
  29. Holmes E. A., O'Connor R. C., Perry V. H., Tracey I., Wessely S., Arseneault L., Ballard C., Christensen H., Cohen Silver R., Everall I., Ford T., John A., Kabir T., King K., Madan I., Michie S., Przybylski A. K., Shafran R., Sweeney A., Bullmore E. (2020). Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for action for mental health science. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(6), 547-560. https://doi-org.proxy-bc.researchport.umd.edu/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Horesh D., Brown A. D. (2020). Traumatic stress in the age of COVID-19: A call to close critical gaps and adapt to new realities. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(4), 331-335. 10.1037/tra0000592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hoyt L. T., Cohen A. K., Dull B., Maker Castro E., Yazdani N. (2021). “Constant stress has become the New normal”: Stress and anxiety inequalities among US college students in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Adolescent Health, 68(2), 270-276. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.10.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kenzig M. J. (2015). Lost in translation. Health Promotion Practice, 16(5), 625-628. 10.1177/1524839915588295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lassoued Z., Alhendawi M., Bashitialshaaer R. (2020). An exploratory study of the obstacles for achieving quality in distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 10(9), 232. 10.3390/educsci10090232. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Li X., Fu P., Fan C., Zhu M., Li M. (2021). COVID-19 stress and mental health of students in locked-down colleges. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 771. 10.3390/ijerph18020771. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Liu C. H, Zhang E, Wong G. T. F, Hyun S, Hahm H. C. (2020). Factors associated with depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptomatology during the COVID-19 pandemic: Clinical implications for U.S. young adult mental health. Psychiatry Research, 290, 113172. 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mandernach B. J., Mason T., Forrest K. D., Hackathorn J. (2012). Faculty views on the appropriateness of teaching undergraduate psychology courses online. Teaching of Psychology, 39(3), 203-208. 10.1177/0098628312450437. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. McMath Turner L. (2018). A democratic conundrum: A study of online student performance at community colleges. [Doctoral dissertation]: The City University ofProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (Publication No. 10745379). [Google Scholar]
  38. Moore M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. [Google Scholar]
  39. Morrison K., Su S., Keck M., Beidel D. C. (2021). Psychometric properties of the PCL-5 in a sample of first responders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 77, 102339. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Nambiar D. (2020). The impact of online learning during COVID-19: students’ and teachers’ perspective. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 8(2), 783-793. 10.25215/0802.094. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. National Center for Education Statistics . (2019). Fast facts: Distant learning. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80. [Google Scholar]
  42. Nora A., Cabrera A., Serra Hagedorn L., Pascarella E. (1996). Differential impacts of academic and social experiences on college-related behavioral outcomes across different ethnic and gender groups at four-year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 37(4), 427-451. JSTORhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/40196218. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ouis D. (2001). Annoyance from road traffic noise: A review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1), 101-120. 10.1006/jevp.2000.01. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Perez Guarda P. A. (2014). Professional development for rural teachers in Chile: What they need and how technology can help. [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing; (Publication No. 3683936). [Google Scholar]
  45. Pollock E.G. (2002). The childhood we have lost: When siblings were caregivers, 1900-1970. Journal of Social History, 36(1), 31-61. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rea D. W. (1991). College students’ perceptions of academic success: An examination of motivational orientation. Teaching of Psychology, 18(2), 109-111. 10.1207/s15328023top1802_13. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Regalado M., Smale M. A. (2015). “I am more productive in the library because it’s quiet”: Commuter students in the college library. College & Research Libraries, 76(7), 899-913. 10.5860/crl.76.7.899. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Reisdorf B. C., Triwibowo W., Yankelevich A. (2020). Laptop or bust: How lack of technology affects student achievement. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(7), 927-949. 10.1177/0002764220919145. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Rho H. J., Brown H., Fremstad S. (2020). A basic demographic profile of workers in frontline industries. Center for Economic and Policy Research. https://cepr.net/a-basic-demographic-profile-of-workers-in-frontline-industries/. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sattler D. N., De Alvarado A. M. G., De Castro N. B., Male R. V., Zetino A. M., Vega R. (2006). El Salvador earthquakes: Relationships among acute stress disorder symptoms, depression, traumatic event exposure, and resource loss. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19(6), 879-893. 10.1002/jts.20174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shim T. E, Lee S. Y. (2020). College students’ experience of emergency remote teaching due to COVID-19. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105578. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Skahill M. P. (2002). The role of social support network in college persistence among freshman students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4(1), 39-52. 10.2190/LB7C-9AYV-9R84-Q2Q5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Smalley A. (2020 December 28). Higher education responses to coronavirus (COVID-19). National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/higher-education-responses-to-coronavirus-covid-19.aspx. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sommer B. A., Sommer R. (2003). A virtual lab in research methods. Teaching of Psychology, 30(2), 171-173. 10.1207/S15328023TOP3002_16. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Tang W., Hu T., Hu B., Jin C., Wang G., Xie C., ChenXu S.J., Xu J. (2020). Prevalence and correlates of PTSD and depressive symptoms one month after the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic in a sample of home-quarantined Chinese university students. Journal of Affective Disorders, 274, 1-7. 10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Vlachopoulos D., Makri A. (2019). Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. International Review of Education, 65, 605-632. 10.1007/s11159-019-09792-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Wang Y, Kala M. P, Jafar T. H. (2020). Factors associated with psychological distress during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the predominantly general population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 15(12), e0244630. 10.1371/journal.pone.0244630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Warner R.M. (2008). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques. SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  59. Weisner T. S., Gallimore R., Bacon M. K., Barry H., Bell C., Novaes S. C., Edwards C. P., Goswami B. B., Minturn L., Nerlove S. B., Koel A., Ritchie J. E., Rosenblatt P. C., Singh T. R., Sutton-Smith B., Whiting B. B., Wilder W. D., Williams T. R. (1977). My brother’s keeper: Child and sibling caretaking [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology, 18(2), 169-190. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2741311. [Google Scholar]
  60. World Health Organization . (2020 June 29). Timeline of WHO’s response to COVID-19. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/29-06-2020-covidtimeline. [Google Scholar]
  61. Wortmann J. H., Jordan A. H., Weathers F. W., Resick P. A., Dondanville K. A., Hall-Clark B., Foa E. B., Young-McCaughan S., Yarvis J. S., Hembree E. A., Mintz J., Peterson A. L., Litz B. T. (2016). Psychometric analysis of the PTSD Checklist-5 (PCL-5) among treatment-seeking military service members. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1392-1403. 10.1037/pas0000260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Yang X., Zhao X., Tian X., Xing B. (2020). Effects of environment and posture on the concentration and achievement of students in mobile learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 29, 1-14. 10.1080/10494820.2019.1707692. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhong R. (2020 March 17). The coronavirus exposes education’s digital divide. Retrieved from The New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/technology/china-schools-coronavirus.html. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zukow-Goldring P. (2002). Sibling caregiving. In Bornstein M. H. (Ed), Handbook of parenting: Volume 3, Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 253-286). Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Teaching of Psychology (Columbia, Mo.) are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES