STUDENT LEARNING PERSPECTIVES: DIFFERENCES BY RACE AND CLASS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC By Katrina C. Groeller A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sociology–Master of Arts 2022 ABSTRACT STUDENT LEARNING PERSPECTIVES: DIFFERENCES BY RACE AND CLASS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC By Katrina C. Groeller Undergraduate students across the United States had to adapt to learning that was primarily on screen and off campus during the COVID-19 pandemic. With time, campus communities adjusted to the “new normal” of distanced coursework. Little is known about student perspectives on distanced learning after the campus shutdown and more than a semester had passed. Utilizing an online survey of 364 undergraduate students a large Midwestern university during Spring 2021, multivariate ordinary least squares regression is used to estimate the effect of learning perspectives of students of color and low-income students. Though results were insignificant, students of color and low-income students encountered important barriers to their education during the COVID-19 pandemic. This thesis is dedicated to my aunt, Deborah “Debbie” Pahl, who unexpectedly passed during the writing process of this thesis in Fall 2021. Her passionate curiosity for the world has left a permanent mark on my soul. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have come to fruition without the immense support, love, and care from my partner, Ian Brigmann. Thank you for loving me through both my best and worst days. To my mom Diane Pahl, you are the light of my life and my lifelong best friend, I am infinitely grateful to have you. To my brother, Matthew Pahl, thank you for always being there for me no matter the distance. To Dr. Clifford Broman, from my first undergraduate sociology course with you, to this thesis, and onwards to my dissertation, thank you for keeping my feet on the ground when my head is in the clouds. In addition, all the advice, feedback, and love given by Dr. Jennifer Lai, Angélica Ruvalcaba, Kayleigh Ward, Dr. Jihan Mohammed, and Madeline Nash was truly invaluable to the defense of this research (and to my life as a graduate student!). Thank you to the members of my committee, Dr. Isabel Ayala, Dr. Zhenmei Zhang, and Dr. Joanne Marciano for your guidance. Finally, I’d like to deeply acknowledge any others that have cheered for me, there are not enough words nor room on this page to express my gratitude. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES vi INTRODUCTION 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 3 Mental and physical health 3 In the classroom: academics, instruction, and technology 3 Marginalized student groups 6 METHODS 9 Survey design 9 Sampling strategy and data collection 9 Measures 9 Data cleaning 11 Data analysis 12 RESULTS 13 Demographic characteristics of sample 13 Regression results 14 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 23 REFERENCES 25 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Demographic characteristics 13 Table 2: Confidence and engagement in asynchronous courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income 14 Table 3: Learning and motivation in asynchronous courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income 16 Table 4: Self-discipline and time management in asynchronous courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income 17 Table 5: Confidence and engagement in synchronous courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income 18 Table 6: Learning and motivation in synchronous courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income 19 Table 7: Self-discipline and time management in synchronous courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income 20 Table 8: Other learning attitudes since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income 21 Table 9: Course modality attitudes since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income 22 vi INTRODUCTION In response to the novel coronavirus pandemic that covered the globe in early 2020, colleges and universities across the world abruptly shut down when cases became too close for comfort. These institutions scrambled to adapt to changing state and federal regulations (Lederer et. al 2020), having cancelled courses for a brief time while faculty and teaching assistants changed modalities. Administrators instituted hiring chills and furloughed employees while students packed up their dorms. Undergraduate students struggled through the lost semester having been sent away from campuses, extracurricular activities, and coursework of all kinds. There was a need to adapt to a different kind of learning: one that is primarily on-screen and off- campus. The following months saw the publication of a variety of studies analyzing undergraduate student’s experiences during and in the months following the initial pandemic shutdown. Studies have shown that undergraduate students reported worse mental (Fruehwirth et. al 2021; Wang et. al 2020) and physical (Kowalsky et. al 2021) health outcomes during the pandemic. As a result of being sent home so suddenly, students experienced significant feelings of grief due to relocating from their campus communities (Conrad et. al 2021). Student performance dropped in the spring semester of 2020 (Orlov et. al 2021) while negative feelings toward the Zoom telecommunication platform emerged (Serhan 2020). Overall, students encountered a variety of barriers because of the pandemic (Gillis and Krull 2020; Hagedorn, Wattick, and Olfert 2021) and saw the sudden change to remote teaching as largely negative (Petillion and McNeil 2020). Marginalized college students experienced particularly difficult circumstances due to the pandemic shutdown, such as students of color (Molock and Parchem 2021), first-generation college students (Fraga 2020, Soria et. al 2020), international students (Firang 2020; Song, Zhao, 1 and Zhu 2021), student parents (Lin et. al 2021), and students with minority sexual or gender orientations (Gonzalez et. al 2020). It is important to note that this literature has not assessed student’s experiences once they had a semester or more of online coursework under their belt. With time, students and faculty adjusted to videoconferences and distanced coursework (Camilleri and Camilleri 2021). This study utilizes an online survey administered during spring semester 2021 of 363 Midwestern university undergraduates to evaluate perspectives on learning in the coronavirus pandemic context. This study examined the connections between student’s race and engagement in synchronous courses and student’s income and motivation in both asynchronous and synchronous courses. Due to race and class-based stressors amid the pandemic context, I predict students of color will be less engaged in synchronous coursework and lower-income students will have lower motivation in both types of courses since the pandemic shut down college campuses in March 2020. This analysis used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to assess the extent by which engagement and motivation in academic coursework during the COVID-19 pandemic can be explained by student’s race and class. 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Mental and physical health The coronavirus pandemic upended the lives of undergraduate college students across the world, greatly affecting the mental and physical health of young people. In the United States, Fruehwirth, Biswas, and Perriera (2021) used longitudinal data from before and after the pandemic shutdown to assess 419 first-year students’ mental health at a large North Carolina university. Results indicated both an increase in anxiety and depression, especially for women, students of color, and sexual and gender minorities (SGM). Social isolation negatively affected Black and SGM students, though being sent home positively affected Hispanic and first- generation college (FGC) students. A study specifically on campus relocation by Conrad et. al (2021) identified more anxiety, grief, and depression for several weeks in those mandated to relocate as well as those who had to leave personal belongings behind. In a larger sample (N = 2031) of both undergraduate and graduate students at Texas A&M University in April 2020, Wang et. al (2020) found similar results of an increase in anxiety and depression for a multitude of academic, social, and financial reasons. An interesting finding indicates lower anxiety associated with progressive year in college or type of graduate program, however, results are still alarming. In addition to mental health, the physical health of college students declined as a result of the pandemic. Kowalsky et. al (2021) surveyed 189 college students from various universities and findings showed increased time in bed, time to fall asleep, later bedtimes and wakeups, and lower amounts of physical activity during Spring 2020. In the classroom: academics, instruction, and technology Synchronous courses include a live meeting of both instructors and students at a shared time in a shared space. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, traditional synchronous lecture hall or 3 classroom meetings were transferred to online formats. Synchronous class meetings can provide high interactivity and engagement (Racheva 2018) in addition to enabling a strong sense of community and providing valuable social interaction (Lin and Gao 2020; Muilenburg and Berge 2005). The primary tool for synchronous distanced courses became Zoom, a videoconferencing platform that allows for private meetings to be held across time zones and locations. This software allows both instructors and students to interact on video and audio. During these class sessions, students were encouraged (but not mandated) to turn cameras on to foster a sense of a shared learning environment. Students of color often kept cameras off due to concern over their physical location being shown, their physical appearance, and weak internet connection (Castelli and Sarvary 2020). Though Zoom allows for increased flexibility and for courses to continue at the height of the pandemic in March and April 2020, Serhan (2020) identifies that their sample of students overall had a negative attitude toward the software. In their sample of 31 undergraduate students at a United States university, 61.29% disagreed that Zoom helped their learning and 61.29% disagreed that the platform helped them participate in class. Overall, students in the Serhan (2020) study preferred the face-to-face classroom setting versus Zoom. These negative perceptions of the Zoom software and decrease in camera usage negatively affects student engagement in this type of course. Asynchronous courses allow for increased flexibility in teaching and learning especially in the pandemic context, however, they often lack the sense of a learning community in the classroom. Although there is a lack of empirical evidence specifically linking lower motivation for low-income students in these types of courses, the lack of community and interaction in asynchronous courses has detrimentally affected students. 4 The abrupt shutdown of college campuses and change from in-person to distanced learning has created frustration for both students and faculty alike. Hagedorn, Wattick, and Olfert (2021) surveyed 2,643 undergraduate and graduate students about their productivity and quality of learning at the height of the pandemic in March and April 2020. Findings indicated (but are not limited to) struggles with internet connection (the lack of or low quality), less engaging or disorganized class material, and professors being either inflexible or ill-informed about how to use online course tools. Hagedorn, Wattick, and Olfert (2021) describe: Although online learning is touted to provide flexibility for students (Levy 2017), it also comes with limitations as retention rates and overall academic success rates are reported to be lower among students enrolled in courses fully online (Xu and Jaggars 2013). With the requirement to take on a larger responsibility in the facilitation of their learning (Levy 2017), many students may have lacked the preparation for online learning that was thrust upon them as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic if they traditionally took face-to-face classes prior to distancing requirements. Further, online learning requires specific online teaching pedagogies and understanding of technological resources for online learning (Levy 2017; Sinacori 2020). However, the COVID-19 pandemic also resulted in academic faculty having to abruptly switch classes to an online format without the time and professional development for learning a new pedagogy (Sinacori 2020). Thus, the transition to online learning thrust many students and faculty into an unprecedented situation. These sentiments are echoed both in a Canadian study by Petillion and McNeil (2020) and a United States study by Gillis and Krull (2020). These studies identify layered barriers to academic success for undergraduate students and suggest best practices for emergency remote teaching. Layered barriers for students included time zone difference, environmental distractions, and the loss of work and study space. Suggestions to make distanced learning more effective include low-stakes peer interaction, clear communication from professors, flexible assessments, and organized courses (asynchronous or synchronous). Later, a study by Orlov et. al (2021) identified faculty having prior online teaching experience and implementing peer-to-peer 5 interaction as mitigating factors to lower assessment scores in economics courses across four R1 United States institutions. Marginalized student groups Students of color, first-generation college (FGC) students, international students, student parents, and sexual and gender minority (SGM) students encountered additional barriers related to their identities during the coronavirus pandemic. Gillis and Krull (2020) identified nonwhite students being more likely to be worried about finances, having access to medical care, and confront inflexible coursework than white students. Aside from worries about only the coronavirus, Molock and Parchem (2021) identified additional stress in a sample of 193 ethnically diverse college students related to racial discrimination in the pandemic context. Of this sample, 52.85% witnessed racial discrimination mostly against Asian (64.86%) then Black (31.53%) individuals. In addition, students in this sample identified having to cope with the murder of George Floyd and ensuring protests in May and June 2020. Molock and Parchem (2021) illustrate: The overlap between the COVID-19 pandemic and the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 uniquely impacted the young people of color in our sample demonstrating the intersection of these psychosocial stressors. Several students noted their mental health challenges resultant from adjustments related to COVID-19 were compounded by the growing visibility of systemic racism in the US. Coping with two public health crises, namely the COVID-19 pandemic and systemic racism, is unjust and taxing for young people of color who have many responsibilities to balance. International students across the globe also encountered barriers specifically related to their immigrant and nationality status. Students from East Asia were especially prone to stress and anxiety from the pandemic given that many were forced to return home on short notice. In a study by Song, Zhao, and Zhu (2021) Chinese international students living in China during the pandemic encountered more stress, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder 6 (PTSD) symptoms compared to Chinese international students living in the United States. The authors reason that this is due to being academically delayed, forced toward an early entry into the labor market, and anti-Asian rhetoric that may prevent them from returning to their studies abroad. For international students who did not return home before countries halted cross-country transportation, Firang (2020) reported that one student from Ghana “go hungry and stress” every day because international money transfers experienced delays (Firang 2020:821). The Canadian government excluded non-permanent residents (i.e., international students) from the Canada Emergency Response Fund (CERB), a social and financial relief program designed to protect Canada’s most vulnerable residents during times of strife. Students who are the first in their family to go to college have encountered complex academic bureaucracies along the way to their degrees. Without a roadmap of academic and social capital, many have relied on university-based support to succeed. When California State University - Stanislaus shut down and these students were sent home, a study by Fraga (2020) discovered that Latinx FGC students were more likely to experience food insecurity than their non-FGC student peers. This finding is echoed through the Soria et. al (2020) SERU COVID-19 Survey of 28,198 undergraduate students across nine universities in May through June 2020. FGC students were more likely to experienced financial hardships, food insecurity, challenges in the transition to online learning, and mental health disorders than non-FGC student peers. FGC students were also less likely to live in safe environments compared to non-FGC students after universities sent students home, such as places away from physical, drug, emotional, or alcohol abuse. College students with children often share intersecting barriers with students of color, FGC students, and low-income students but this population is often underserved and 7 underrecognized. In context of the pandemic, undergraduate student parents need to take part in care tasks that may have been lessened by childcare on top of other academic and financial stressors. An essay written by Lin et. al (2020) outlines specific points of pandemic-related stress for student parents and the methods by which to support this student group. Student parents are described as “invisible” on campus as parenthood status is often overlooked, leading to insufficient resources and advising for student parents both before and during the pandemic (Lin et. al 2020:3). Upon the closure of college and university campuses in Spring 2020, sexual orientation and gender minority (SGM) students may have been sent home to unsafe environments. In a study conducted by Gonzalez et. al (2020) with a sample of 477 LGBT college students across 254 college campuses in the United States, 45.7% reported that their family is unaccepting of or is unaware of their LGBT identity. This same group were more likely to exhibit frequent mental distress compared to those families who were supportive of their identity. LGBT students who experienced mental distress were also unable to receive mental health care due to stay at home orders or telehealth options were insufficient through their college or university. Overall, the pandemic exacerbated barriers for LGBT students by being sent away from campus and community support. This study examined the connections between student’s race and engagement in synchronous courses and student’s income and motivation in both asynchronous and synchronous courses. Due to race and class-based stressors amid the pandemic context, I predict students of color will be less engaged in synchronous coursework and lower-income students will have lower motivation in both types of courses since the pandemic shut down college campuses in March 2020. 8 METHODS Survey design After this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Michigan State University, an online survey was designed and hosted in Qualtrics and included 38 questions. After data was exported from the Qualtrics survey platform, variable names were renamed and labelled according to section and survey question. Of the four sections of the survey, two will be utilized for this study: demographics and perspectives on learning before and during the pandemic. Sampling strategy and data collection Convenience sampling was used for this study, which allowed the researcher to obtain as many responses as possible. The sample for this survey was undergraduate college students enrolled in the spring semester 2021 at a large Midwestern university who are over the age of eighteen. As this data was cross-sectional, it pertained to perspectives at a single point in time. The researcher distributed email invitations to 41 faculty members who shared the survey with students in their courses. Email invitations were sent to faculty members in mid-March 2021. Nineteen faculty members confirmed sharing the survey with their courses. In total, 362 undergraduate students began the survey and 269 fully completed the survey. The survey was closed on April 9, 2021. Measures All measures in this study were created independently. The demographics section included seven questions: the student’s year in college, race, gender, annual household income, highest education level of student’s mother and father, and the student’s current living situation. The learning perspectives section included five questions. Four questions asked respondents to 9 rate their confidence, engagement, learning, motivation, self-discipline, and time management in asynchronous and synchronous courses before and after March 2020 on a 5-point scale ranging from “Very low” to “Very high” and “Not applicable”. These criteria were chosen to encompass some the multifaceted psychological aspects of a student enrolled in a college course. Confidence is a psychological construct associated with belief in one’s own abilities, including meeting goals and striving through hardship (Kukulu et. al 2013). Engagement encompasses both physical and psychological dedication (Lin and Huang 2018), with Axelson and Flick (2011) specifically identifying involvement with academic tasks and connectedness to the learning environment. Learning involves processes of acquiring new knowledge, remembering information and finally reflecting and applying it to one’s own life (Entwistle and Peterson 2004). Motivation is the willingness and push to perform a certain action, and “[a]cademic motivation is the reason students engage in learning” (Marley and Wilcox 2021). Self-discipline is the ability to control one’s actions to remain focused on a goal (Şimşir and Dilmaç 2021). Finally, time management involves short and long-term planning around goals as well as deliberate structuring and monitoring how time is spent (Wolters 2020). These definitions were not provided to respondents during the survey to avoid restricting individual interpretations. In addition, defining these measures during distanced learning is difficult across both synchronous and asynchronous courses. The last question of this section listed statements regarding student’s learning experience since March 2020 on a 4-point scale from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree”. Statements included perspectives on their professors’ level of support, connection to resources, and enjoyment of course modalities. “Pre 2020” and “Post 2020” describe the period before and after the college campus shutdown in mid-March 2020 due to rising COVID-19 cases in the region. 10 “Post 2020” includes the 20-21 academic year, when the institution for this sample continued to host a majority of courses online. Data cleaning The software program used for data cleaning and analysis was STATA/IC version 16.1. Six measures were cleaned in the demographics section, resulting in dropping or combining observations if there were less than ten responses. The year in college measure was condensed from seven options (First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh or higher) to four (First, Second, Third, Fourth or higher). “Fourth”, “Fifth”, “Sixth”, and “Seventh or higher” were combined into “Fourth or higher” due to low response rates. The measure of race and ethnicity was condensed from nine options (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern or North African, White, Other race, Prefer not to say) to five (Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, White, Other race). “Prefer not to say” was dropped due to low response rates. The gender measure was condensed from four options (Man, Woman, Other gender, Prefer not to say) to two (Man, Woman). “Prefer not to say” and “Other gender” were dropped due to low response rates. The family income measure was condensed from 11 options into four income quartiles: “$0-$29,999”, “$30,000-$59,999”, “$60,000-$89,999”, and “$90,000 or higher”. Both measures regarding the highest education level of mother and father were condensed from eight options (Less than high school, High school degree, Some college no degree, Associate’s degree, Vocational or technical degree, Bachelor’s degree, Graduate or professional degree, I have no knowledge) to four (High school degree or less, 2 year degree, 4 year degree, Graduate or professional degree). “I have no knowledge” was dropped due to low response rates. The current living situation measure was condensed from five options (On campus dorm or apartment, Off 11 campus apartment or home, Family home, I am houseless, Somewhere else) to three (On campus dorm or apartment, Off campus apartment or home, Family home). “I am houseless” and “Somewhere else” were dropped due to low response rates. Data analysis Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used to estimate the average change in learning perspectives of undergraduate students during the coronavirus pandemic given unit changes in race and annual family income. OLS regression accounted for missing values in the survey through automatic listwise deletion. For the race measure, “Asian”, “Black or African American”, “Hispanic or Latino”, and “Other race” respondents were used as dummy variables, and the option for “White” was omitted. For the family income measure, the lowest ($29,999 or less), middle ($30,000 to $59,999), and upper middle ($69,000-$89,999) quartile respondents were used as dummy variables, while the upper quartile ($90,000 or higher) option was omitted. 12 RESULTS Demographic characteristics of sample Table 1: Demographic characteristics N Cumulative Percent Cumulative N Percent Student year in college First 153 153 46.50% 46.50% Second 77 230 23.40% 69.90% Third 56 286 17.02% 86.92% Fourth or higher 43 329 13.07% 100.00% Living situation On campus dorm/apartment 44 44 13.37% 13.37% Off campus house/apartment 119 163 36.17% 49.54% Family home 166 329 50.46% 100.00% Father education High school or less 62 62 18.84% 18.84% 2-year degree or equiv. 71 133 21.58% 40.43% 4-year degree or equiv. 110 243 33.43% 73.86% Graduate/professional degree 86 329 26.14% 100.00% Mother education High school or less 57 57 17.33% 17.33% 2-year degree or equiv. 73 130 22.19% 39.52% 4-year degree or equiv. 130 260 39.51% 79.03% Graduate/professional degree 69 329 20.97% 100.00% Race Asian 38 38 11.59% 11.59% Black 37 75 11.28% 22.87% Hispanic/Latino 21 96 6.40% 29.27% White 219 315 66.77% 96.04% Other race 13 328 3.96% 100.00% Gender Man 111 111 33.94% 33.94% Woman 216 327 66.06% 100.00% Annual family income Less than $29,999 38 38 11.62% 11.62% $30,000 - $59,999 54 92 16.51% 28.13% $60,000 - $89,999 67 159 20.49% 48.62% Greater than $90,000 168 327 51.38% 100.00% 13 The majority of the sample were returning students, white students, women, affluent, continuing generation, and lived at a family home during Spring 2021 (Table 1). Though first year students are not the majority, they constituted nearly one half (N = 153, 46.50%) of the sample. Students of color represented one third of the sample, with Asian (N = 38, 11.59%) then Black (N = 37, 11.28%) students being the largest race groups. Women students constituted about two-thirds (N = 216, 66.06%) of the sample. Students whose families make more than $90,000 annually account for a slight majority of the sample (N = 168, 51.38%), with students from the lowest income group ($29,999 or less annually) compromising near one-tenth of the overall sample (N = 38, 11.62%). Most of the students are not first-generation college students, with the majority having mothers (N = 272, 82.67%) and fathers (N = 267, 81.15%) with at least one two-year postsecondary degree or higher. Regression results Table 2: Confidence and engagement in asynchronous courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income Confidence Engagement Pre 2020 Post 2020 Pre 2020 Post 2020 N = 285 N = 284 N = 284 N = 283 Race Asian .26 .21 .18 .36* Black .58* .20 .33 .36* Hispanic/Latino -.30 -.42 -.45 -.38 White Other race -.59 .35 -.27 .58* Gender Man Woman -.41* -.01 -.22 -.02 Annual family income Less than $29,999 .29 -.30 .44 -.10 $30,000 - $59,999 .07 -.10 .28 .02 $60,000 - $89,999 -.00 .13 .21 -.01 Greater than $90,000 *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 14 Table 2 covers the results of OLS regression between undergraduate student’s confidence and engagement in asynchronous courses before and after the March 2020 campus shutdown and demographic characteristics. All coefficients in Table 2 were not significant with a p-value less than .05, though five coefficients were significant with a p-value of less than .10. Black students showed a .58 change in confidence in asynchronous courses before the March 2020 campus shutdown. Women students showed a -.41 change in confidence in asynchronous courses before the March 2020 campus shutdown. Both Asian and Black students showed a .36 change in engagement in asynchronous courses after the March 2020 campus shutdown. Students who identify as “Other race” showed a .58 change in engagement in asynchronous courses after the March 2020 campus shutdown. These results indicate that Black students had a positive correlation with confidence in asynchronous courses before the COVID-19 pandemic, and women had a negative correlation with confidence before the pandemic. During the pandemic, Asian, Black, and “Other race” students shared a positive correlation with engagement in asynchronous courses. 15 Table 3: Learning and motivation in asynchronous courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income Learning Motivation Pre 2020 Post 2020 Pre 2020 Post 2020 N = 283 N = 282 N = 284 N = 283 Race Asian .21 .44** .39 0.50** Black .45 .07 .41 .20 Hispanic/Latino -.27 -.29 -.22 -.28 White Other race -.52 .42 -.35 .63* Gender Man Woman -.36* -.08 -.26 -.07 Annual family income Less than $29,999 .61 -.06 .49 -.15 $30,000 - $59,999 .30 .11 .16 .15 $60,000 - $89,999 .14 .10 .02 -.11 Greater than $90,000 *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 Table 3 reports the results of OLS regression between undergraduate student’s learning and motivation in asynchronous courses before and after the March 2020 campus shutdown and demographic characteristics. Two coefficients in Table 3 were significant with a p-value less than .10. Woman students showed a -.36 change in learning in asynchronous courses before the March 2020 campus shutdown. Students who identify as “Other race” showed a .63 change in motivation in asynchronous courses after the March 2020 campus shutdown. The most significant results (p>.05) were for Asian students after the March 2020 campus shutdown. There was a .44 change in learning and a .50 change in motivation for Asian students after the March 2020 campus shutdown. These results show no correlation between a student’s family income and their motivation in asynchronous courses after the March 2020 campus shutdown. 16 Table 4: Self-discipline and time management in asynchronous courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income Self-discipline Time management Pre 2020 Post 2020 Pre 2020 Post 2020 N = 284 N = 283 N = 283 N = 283 Race Asian .05 .27 .21 .31 Black .17 .15 .05 .03 Hispanic/Latino -.54 -.19 -.26 -.09 White Other race -.50 .22 -.48 .09 Gender Man Woman -.30 .09 -.24 .07 Annual family income Less than $29,999 .61* -.10 .60* -.19 $30,000 - $59,999 .09 .11 .18 .03 $60,000 - $89,999 .06 .04 .08 -.08 Greater than $90,000 *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 Table 4 details the results of OLS regression between undergraduate student’s self- discipline and time management in asynchronous courses before and after the March 2020 campus shutdown and demographic characteristics. All coefficients in Table 4 were not significant with a p-value less than .05, though two coefficients were significant with a p-value of less than .10. Students whose families made less than $29,999 annually showed a change of .61 in self-discipline and a change of .60 in time management in asynchronous courses before the March 2020 campus shutdown. These results suggest that students from families in the lowest income quartile had a positive correlation between self-discipline and time management in online asynchronous courses before the COVID-19 pandemic. 17 Table 5: Confidence and engagement in synchronous courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income Confidence Engagement Pre 2020 Post 2020 Pre 2020 Post 2020 N = 282 N = 283 N = 281 N = 282 Race Asian .06 .15 -.07 .19 Black .05 -.31 -.14 -.41 Hispanic/Latino -.36 -.38 -.53 -.20 White Other race -.81* .23 -.42 .30 Gender Man Woman -.41** -.12 -.21 -.07 Annual family income Less than $29,999 -.25 -.07 -.15 .01 $30,000 - $59,999 -.13 .14 -.32 .27 $60,000 - $89,999 -.06 -.13 -.17 -.18 Greater than $90,000 *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 Table 5 covers the results of OLS regression between undergraduate student’s confidence and engagement in synchronous courses before and after the March 2020 campus shutdown and demographic characteristics. Two coefficients were significant in Table 5 with p-values less than .10, with one being significant with a p-value less than .05. Students who identify as “Other race” showed a change of -.81 in confidence in synchronous courses before the March 2020 campus shutdown. The most significant coefficient indicates a -.41 change in women student’s confidence in synchronous courses before the March 2020 campus shutdown. For engagement in synchronous courses, there were no significant coefficients, indicating that there are no definitive correlations between a student’s race and their engagement in synchronous courses during the COVID-19 pandemic. 18 Table 6: Learning and motivation in synchronous courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income Learning Motivation Pre 2020 Post 2020 Pre 2020 Post 2020 N = 280 N = 282 N = 281 N = 282 Race Asian .22 .37 .24 .34 Black -.23 -.40 .05 -.21 Hispanic/Latino -.54 -.27 -.54 -.25 White Other race -.67 .59 -.56 .95** Gender Man Woman -.14 -.10 -.29 -.15 Annual family income Less than $29,999 -.16 -.00 -.22 -.22 $30,000 - $59,999 -.23 .41* -.36 .14 $60,000 - $89,999 -.09 .05 -.31 -.16 Greater than $90,000 *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 Table 6 reports the results of OLS regression between undergraduate student’s learning and motivation in synchronous courses before and after the March 2020 campus shutdown and demographic characteristics. Two coefficients were significant with a p-value less than .10 and one was significant with a p-value less than .05. Students whose families made between $30,000 and $59,999 annually showed a .41 change in learning in synchronous courses after the March 2020 campus shutdown. The most significant coefficient was for students who identified as “Other race”. “Other race” students showed a .95 change in motivation in synchronous courses after the March 2020 campus shutdown. Results indicate that students from families who made between $30,000 and $59,000 had a positive correlation between motivation and synchronous courses during the COVID-10 pandemic, though these results are insignificant. In context of our hypothesis, there is no support for a negative correlation between lower income students and motivation in synchronous courses. 19 Table 7: Self-discipline and time management in synchronous courses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income Self-discipline Time management Pre 2020 Post 2020 Pre 2020 Post 2020 N = 281 N = 282 N = 281 N = 282 Race Asian .11 .22 .26 .27 Black -.13 -.52* -.18 -.64** Hispanic/Latino -.59 -.42 -.58 -.36 White Other race -.51 .52 -.70 .67 Gender Man Woman -.18 -.13 -.14 .01 Annual family income Less than $29,999 -.09 -.09 -.23 .11 $30,000 - $59,999 -.31 .26 -.29 .38 $60,000 - $89,999 -.13 -.24 -.17 -.11 Greater than $90,000 *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 Table 7 details the results of OLS regression between undergraduate student’s self- discipline and time management in synchronous courses before and after the March 2020 campus shutdown and demographic characteristics. There were two significant coefficients with a p-value less than .10 with one coefficient being significant below the .05 level. Black students showed a -.52 change in self-discipline in synchronous courses after the March 2020 campus shutdown. The most significant coefficient showed a -.64 change in time management for Black students in synchronous courses after the March 2020 campus shutdown. For Black students, there is a negative correlation between self-discipline and time management in synchronous courses during the COVID-19 pandemic, supporting literature that described the additional stressors for students of color since 2020. 20 Table 8: Other learning attitudes since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income Learning Professors Professors Have Know how just as want me to are flexible w resources to search much succeed deadlines needed to for succeed resources to succeed N = 284 N = 284 N = 283 N = 284 N = 284 Race Asian .46*** .08 .13 .12 .06 Black .28 .15 .43** .28* .34** Hispanic/Latino -.32 -.18 -.06 -.25 -.37* White Other race .87*** -.07 -.08 .20 .17 Gender Man Woman -.08 .01 -.09 .02 -.03 Annual family income Less than $29,999 .05 .02 -.20 -.14 -.29* $30,000 - $59,999 .14 .27** .03 .06 .03 $60,000 - $89,999 .12 -.04 -.06 -.01 .06 Greater than $90,000 *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 Table 8 and 9 report on other learning attitudes since the March 2020 campus shutdown. In Table 8, eight coefficients were significant below the .10 level, five below the .05 level, and two below the .01 level. The most significant coefficients indicated a .46 change for Asian students and .87 change for “Other race” students in “Learning just as much” since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Students whose families made between $30,000 and $59,999 annually showed a .27 change in “Professors want me to succeed”. For Black students, there was a .43 change in “Professors are flexible with deadlines” since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was also a .28 change in “I have the resources I need to succeed” and a .34 change in “I know how to search for the resources I need to succeed” for Black students since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, there was a -.37 change in know-how for resource searching for Hispanic students and a -.29 change for students in the lowest income quartile since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. These results indicate positive 21 correlations for students in the middle income bracket and Black, Asian, and Other race students in learning and institutional support, but negative correlations for students in the lowest income quartile and Hispanic students in resource-searching. Table 9: Course modality attitudes since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic by race, gender, and annual family income Enjoy Enjoy Enjoy in-person Enjoy distanced synchronous asychronous courses learning N = 284 N = 284 N = 283 N = 283 Race Asian .18 .40** -.11 .45** Black -.09 .01 .043 -.08 Hispanic/Latino -.28 -.28 .03 -.52** White Other race .06 .63** -.19 .34 Gender Man Woman -.01 .22* -.03 .17 Annual family income Less than $29,999 -.23 -.25 -.21 .20 $30,000 - $59,999 -.09 .21 -.15 .37** $60,000 - $89,999 -.20 .01 -.10 .06 Greater than $90,000 *p<0.10, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01 In Table 9, there are 6 significant coefficients below the .10 level and 5 significant coefficients with p-values less than .05. Regarding enjoyment of asynchronous courses since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a .40 change for Asian students, a .63 change for “Other race” students, and a .22 change for women students. Concerning enjoyment of distanced learning, there was a .45 change for Asian students, a -.52 change for Hispanic students, and a .37 change for students whose families made between $30,000 and $59,999 annually. These results show mostly positive correlations between students of color and women students in enjoyment of asynchronous and distanced coursework. 22 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION In this study, the connections between race and engagement and income and motivation in synchronous and asynchronous courses in an academic year were analyzed using multivariate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Results for all three hypotheses were insignificant. Students of color in this sample were not found to have a significant decrease in their engagement in synchronous courses from before to after the campus shutdown (Table 5) and lower income students did not show a significant decrease in motivation in both types of courses after the campus shutdown (Table 3, Table 6). Given that all hypotheses were insignificant, it is imperative to assess the limitations of the study. It is possible that the hypotheses were unable to be assessed accurately with this sample. This data collection method, an online survey, could have contributed to selection bias. As students self-selected, only students with a positive engagement, motivation, or self-discipline took part in the survey. Rosy retrospection, or recalling the past more fondly than the present, could have affected responses as well. This is important because of the difficulty in predicting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. More effective sampling would include the same group of students across waves, such as before campus shutdowns in early 2020, during the height of the pandemic, months afterwards, and once they returned to in-person learning. However, this may be difficult due to the transition from emergency remote teaching to a more traditional in- person learning experience. In addition, as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, this theory is relatively new and selected variables may not have been operationalized efficiently. For example, different students may have different understandings of what motivation, self- discipline, and engagement mean, especially while pursuing higher education in a global pandemic. In addition, the hypotheses could be faulty. Though race and income level have been 23 connected to negative student experiences during the pandemic (Gillis and Krull 2020, Lin et. al 2021), there is little prior research to support race and class differences in specific aspects of engagement and motivation in distanced courses during the pandemic. As many colleges and universities have returned to face-to-face learning with the addition of vaccine and mask mandates, future research in this area will be assessing the short and long- term effects of the pandemic. Some studies have already been published on the “post-pandemic” undergraduate student, namely on online versus on-site courses in ecology (Pagani-Núñez et. al 2022), loneliness on campus (Vaterlaus 2022) and students’ desire to continue with distanced learning (Clary et. al 2022) or return to on-campus (Steimle et. al 2022). In the end, a variety of literature has shown that undergraduate students, particularly those that are minority and underrepresented, encountered difficulty adjusting to college during the coronavirus pandemic. 24 REFERENCES 25 REFERENCES Axelson, Rick D. and Arend Flick. 2010. “Defining Student Engagement.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 43(1): 38-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2011.533096. Camilleri, Mark Anthony and Adriana Caterina Camilleri. 2021. “The Acceptance of Learning Management Systems and Video Conferencing Technologies: Lessons Learned from COVID‑19.” Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021- 09567-6. Castelli, Frank R. and Mark A. Sarvary. 2021. “Why students do not turn on their video cameras during online classes and an equitable and inclusive plan to encourage them to do so.” Ecology and Evolution 11(8):3565-3576. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7123. Clary, Grant, Geoffrey Dick, Asli Yagmur Akbulut, and Craig Van Slyke. 2022. “The After Times: College Students’ Desire to Continue with Distance Learning Post Pandemic.” Communications of the Association for Information Systems 50:53-80. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05003. Conrad, Rachel C., Hyeouk “Chris” Hahm, Amanda Koire, Stephanie Pinder-Amaker, and Cindy H. Liu. 2021. “College student mental health risks during the COVID-19 pandemic- Implications of campus relocation.” Journal of Psychiatric Research 136:117-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.01.054. Entwistle, Noel J. and Elizabeth R. Peterson. 2004. “Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: Relationships with study behaviour and influences of learning environments.” International Journal of Educational Research 41:407-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.009. Firang, David. 2020. “The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on international students in Canada.” International Social Work 63(6):820-824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872820940030. Fraga, Monica. 2020. “The Levels of Food Insecurity Among First Generation and Non-First Generation Latinx College Students at California State University Stanislaus During the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Pandemic.” Journal of Mental Health and Social Behaviour 2(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.33790/jmhsb1100122. Fruehwirth, Jane Cooley, Siddhartha Biswas, and Krista M. Perreira. 2021. “The Covid-19 pandemic and mental health of first-year college students- Examining the effect of Covid- 19 stressors using longitudinal data.” PLoS One 16(3):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247999. 26 Gillis, Alanna, and Laura M. Krull. 2020. “COVID-19 Remote Learning Transition in Spring 2020: Class Structures, Student Perceptions, and Inequality in College Courses.” Teaching Sociology 48(4):283-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X20954263. Gonzalez, Gilbert, Emilio Loret de Mola, Kyle A. Gavulic, Tara McKay, and Christopher Purcell. 2020. “Mental Health Needs of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender College Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Adolescent Health 67(5):645-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.08.006. Hagedorn, Rebecca L., Rachel A. Wattick, and Melissa D. Olfert. 2021. “"My Entire World Stopped"- College Students' Psychosocial and Academic Frustrations during the COVID- 19 Pandemic.” Applied Research in Quality of Life. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021- 09948-0. Kowalsky, Robert J., Tyler M. Farney, Christopher E. Kline, Jessica N. Hinojosa, and Seth A. Creasy. 2021. “The impact of the covid-19 pandemic on lifestyle behaviors in U.S. college students.” Journal of American College Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.1923505. Kukulu, K., O. Korokcu, Y. Odzemir, A. Bezci, and C. Calik. 2013. “Self-confidence, gender and academic achievement of undergraduate nursing students.” Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 20(4):330-335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2850.2012.01924.x. Lederer, Alyssa M., Mary T. Hoban, Sarah K. Lipson, Sasha Zhou, and Daniel Eisenberg. 2020. “More Than Inconvenienced- The Unique Needs of U.S. College Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Health Education & Behavior 48(1):14-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120969372. Lin, Hung-Chu, Paula L. Zeanah, Dianne F. Olivier, Megan A. Bergeron and Cindy H. Liu. 2021. “Responding to the pressing yet unrecognized needs of student-parents amid the COVID-19 pandemic.” Journal of American College Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1870474. Lin, Shu-Hui and Yun-Chen Huang. 2018. “Assessing College Student Engagement: Development and Validation of the Student Course Engagement Scale.” Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 36(7): 694-708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917697618. Lin, Xi and Li Gao. 2020. “Students’ sense of community and perspectives of taking synchronous and asynchronous online courses.” Asian Journal of Distance Education 15(1): 169-179. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3881614. Marley, Scott C. and M. Jean Wilcox. 2021. “Do family and peer academic social supports predict academic motivations and achievement of first-year college students?.” Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-06-2020-0158. 27 Molock, Sherry Davis and Benjamin Parchem. 2021. “The impact of COVID-19 on college students from communities of color.” Journal of American College Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1865380. Muilenburg, Lin Y. and Zane L. Berge. 2005. “Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study.” Distance Education 26(1):29-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269. Orlov, George, Douglas McKee, James Berry, Austin Boyle, Thomas DiCiccio, Tyler Ransom, Alex Rees-Jones, and Jörg Stoye. 2021. “Learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: It is not who you teach, but how you teach.” Economics Letters 202:1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109812. Pagani-Núñez, Emilio, Mingxiao Yan, Yixuan Hong, Yu Zeng, Sihao Chen, Peng Zhao, and Yi Zou. 2022. “Undergraduates’ perceptions on emergency remote learning in ecology in the post-pandemic era.” Ecology and Evolution 12(3): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8659. Petillion, Riley J. and W. Stephen McNeil. 2020. “Student Experiences of Emergency Remote Teaching: Impacts of Instructor Practice on Student Learning, Engagement, and Well- Being.” Journal of Chemical Education 97:2486-2493. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00733. Racheva, Veronica. 2018. “Social aspects of synchronous virtual learning environments.” Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Applications of Mathematics in Engineering and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5082050. Serhan, Derar. 2020. “Transitioning from Face-to-Face to Remote Learning- Students' Attitudes and Perceptions of Using Zoom during COVID-19 Pandemic.” International Journal of Technology in Education and Science 4(4):335-342. Şimşir, Zeynap and Bülent Dilmaç. 2021. “The mediating roles of grit and life satisfaction in the relationship between self-discipline and peace: Development of the self-discipline scale.” Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01515-y. Song, Bijia, Yilin Zhao, and Junchao Zhu. 2021. “COVID-19-related Traumatic Effects and Psychological Reactions among International Students.” Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health 11(1):17-123. https://doi.org/10.2991/jegh.k.201016.001. Soria, Krista M., Bonnie Horgos, Igor Chirikov, and Daniel Jones-White. 2020. “First-generation students’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.” SERU Consortium. Steimle, Lauren N., Yuming Sun, Lauren Johnson, Tibor Besedeš, Patricia Mokhtarian, and Dima Nazzal. 2022. “Students’ preferences for returning to colleges and universities 28 during the COVID-19 pandemic: A discrete choice experiment.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 80:1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101266. Vaterlaus, J. Mitchell. 2022. “College Student Loneliness and the Reopening of Campuses During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Family & Consumer Sciences 50(3):205-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12427. Wang, Xiaomei, Sudeep Hegde, Changwon Son, Bruce Keller, Alec Smith, and Farzan Sasangohar. 2020. “Investigating Mental Health of US College Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic- Cross-Sectional Survey Study.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 22(9):1-11. https://doi.org/10.2196/22817. 29