Investigation into the transition to online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic, between new and continuing undergraduate students

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) were required to rapidly respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, integrating online and blended learning approaches to sustain teaching and learning provision. However, limited evidence exists to understand the student experience and perception of the various methods of online learning, in particular across different levels of study (new and continuing students). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the experiences of online learning transition, between new first year undergraduate students and continuing second and third year students, enrolled on various undergraduate sport programmes. A total of 182 students responded to an online survey, which investigated the students’ perceptions of online learning approaches. Participants were split according to level of study; [Level 3 (Foundation Year) and 4 (First Year Undergraduate) combined N = 62, Level 5 (Second Year Undergraduate), N = 51 and Level 6 (Third Year Undergraduate), N = 69]. Key findings highlight that both new and continuing students had an overall negative perception of online learning but did acknowledge that online learning provided a more flexible approach to their overall learning experience compared to face-to-face. Face-to-face teaching was deemed more engaging and sociable, in particular for the practical aspects of the programmes. Overall, there were no significant differences between the different levels of study for any of the questions asked. Although continuing students raised the difficulties of conducting practical sessions online, whereas this was not mentioned by new students. To conclude, this study provides novel insights into the experience of new and continuing students, and we advise that future blended learning strategies should consider the programme as a whole, rather than tailoring pedagogic strategies based on the level of study.


Introduction
The Covid-19 pandemic catalysed a new way of working for many deliverers of Higher Education (HE), requiring more flexibility than ever to allow academic staff to deliver, and learners to access, their programmes of study (Ali, 2020;Crawford et al., 2020). The UK Government's expectation in April 2020 was that HE institutions (HEI's) rapidly adopted a new normal for teaching, where initially all teaching and learning activities, for all programmes except those with a medical focus, moved entirely online, later transitioning to a more a 'blended' approach which involved in-person teaching and learning, supplemented by a rich array of online teaching and digital resources (Lomer & Palmer, 2020). However, this pandemic enforced online, and blended learning phase should be considered an accelerator rather than initiator of flexible learning in HE, as institutions have been exploring more flexible approaches for some time now. For example, the effectiveness of online sport courses was being considered pre-pandemic in relation to the sport management curriculum (Willett, Brown, & Danzy-Bussell, 2019). Therefore, understanding the learning experience of HE students during this period of enforced online teaching is important to know, despite the likelihood of not experiencing another pandemic, as the findings will inform how HEI's adopt a new post-pandemic 'blended' approach to learning and curriculum design.
Some of these challenges may be exacerbated in subjects such as sport that typically contain and promote an element of human interaction to achieve learning outcomes. For example, the Events, Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism benchmark statement from The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the UK (QAA) recommend outcomes such as; (1) "demonstrate the skills required to monitor and evaluate human responses to sport, exercise and/or rehabilitation" (section 6.17), and (2) "evidence the skills required to monitor and evaluate sports performance in laboratories and/or field settings" (section 6.18). These examples may relate more to sport and exercise science and sport coaching, but less practical sport disciplines also engage with others on a personal level to provide learning opportunities recommended by the QAA such as "contact with the industry, associations or professional bodies, for example through field work and other activities in the internal/external environment, visits, visiting speakers and other professionals in the field, 'live' case-studies and events/productions" (section 4.4). Our past work with sport students observed similar findings to others with students and staff identifying some unexpected positives with online learning, but challenges around engagement, focus, and the overall university experience (McCullogh, Allen, Boocock, Peart, & Hayman, 2022-a). Follow up work identified that the reduced practical element had a negative impact on perceived engagement, but there could be scope to move to a more blended delivery method (I.e. keep some content online) (Thornton, Peart, Hicks, McCullogh, & Allen, 2023-a). Such blended delivery has been well received in sport and exercise science, with students valuing the provision of face-to-face alongside online learning (Finlay, Tinnion, & Simpson, 2022). A limitation of this previous work though is that the student population has been considered only as a single generalised cohort and does not consider potential differences for experience and engagement between levels of study i.e., new compared to continuing HE students.
Online delivery was a significant change for continuing second and third year undergraduate students compared to their previous years' experience, whilst for new first year students joining HEI's in September 2020 such changes in delivery might not have been too different to their end of year A-Level/BTEC experiences. However, new students attending a HEI for the first time during the pandemic, not only had the new online learning approach to contend with, but also lacked the face-to-face interaction with staff and peers to help build softer skills to cope with the step up in learning. Indeed, research has demonstrated that a smooth transition from secondary and Further Education (FE) to HE requires individuals to have effective intrapersonal abilities and interpersonal abilities, be adaptable and emotionally intelligent whilst having the ability to manage stress effectively (Christie, 2009;Christie, Munro, & Wager, 2005;Nardi, 2001;Neumark & Rothstein, 2006;Parker, Hogan, Eastabrook, Oke, & Wood, 2006;Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan, & Majeski, 2004;Reay, 2002). Research into transitions for sport students specifically has highlighted some of the difficulties that first year students have with social integration when moving to a new institution, and the role in person teaching (Allin, Coyles, & Hayman, 2017) and the personal tutor (Hayman, Coyles, Wharton, & Mellor, 2020) have on transitions. Therefore, it is important to compare the perceptions of online learning between new and continuing students as their requirements and preferences around how best to approach online delivery might be quite different, thus requiring academic staff to alter their curriculum design and teaching approach based on these findings.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the experiences of online learning due to the Covid-19 pandemic, between new Foundation Year and First Year Undergraduate students (Levels 3 and 4) and continuing Second and Third Year Undergraduate students (Levels 5 and 6 respectively) enrolled on sport related undergraduate programmes.

Research context
Online learning is a form of distance learning, which takes place over the Internet, and a term often used interchangeably with elearning to describe the same approach to teaching delivery (Chan, Lin, Chau, Takemura, & Fung, 2021). Therefore, during the Covid-19 pandemic, large face-to-face lectures were replaced with an online live equivalent, where academics would still deliver the typical lecture content whilst integrating various technology enhanced learning methods (e.g., online voting polls etc.) to enhance the student learning experience. One of the core components of the undergraduate sport science and sport coaching curriculum is practical experience, with emphasis via programme learning outcomes placed on the importance of students developing practical skills and competencies. Therefore, for programmes with a large proportion of practical activities, the move to online delivery meant that the small group applied aspects of the course such as sport science practical laboratories and sport coaching sessions were replaced with activities that attempted to simulate the face-to-face environment. Whilst being guided live online by an academic staff member, students were provided with a series of interactive tasks and accompanying videos to replicate the learning process that they would have ordinarily received. Such practical sessions were less frequent for Sport Development and Sport Management students also featured in the analysis, but there was a similar impact on events such as site visits and engagement with local industry and initiatives.

Participants
This paper presents a further analysis of the data collected for a previous publication (McCullogh et al., 2022-a;Thornton et al., 2023-a). An online survey (as outlined by Thornton et al., 2023-a) was distributed to all undergraduate students on undergraduate sport related programmes at a university in the North of England in November 2020 (Foundation year, BSc Applied Sport and Exercise Science, BSc Applied Sport Science with Coaching, BSc Sport Coaching, BSc Sport Management and BSc Sport Development).

Procedures
Ethical approval was obtained for the study from the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee at the university. After being provided with a participant information sheet, written consent was gained for their participation in the study. Most of the students surveyed would have been entitled to attend practical and classroom-based sessions as part of their programme during pre-Covid-19 pandemic times. Some face-to-face teaching was able to occur in the first two weeks of the semester, after which all content moved online. The survey was delivered via 'Microsoft Forms' and was sent as an email link to students' university email addresses and promoted during taught sessions. Students completed the survey towards the end of the first semester, allowing them the opportunity to engage with the online learning materials and sessions. Online content was delivered via the Blackboard Ultra online platform and ranged from live streamed online seminar and lecture sessions, to uploaded, pre-recorded video footage of lab activities, lectures or workshop materials. All participants were kept anonymous, and students only had to identify their programme of study and their year group (level). A total of 182 students responded and they were split according to level of study; [Level 3 (Foundation Year) and 4 (First Year Undergraduate) combined N = 62, Level 5 (Second Year Undergraduate), N = 51 and Level 6 (Third Year Undergraduate), N = 69]. No other demographic information was taken. All students provided consent to participate.
The survey aimed to measure student responses and their perceptions and experience of online learning. Questions of interest were selected from the original survey based on where there might be a rationale for a difference between students in line with the introduction to this paper. These areas related to the student experience, the learning environment, engagement, course access and delivery, and skill development. Questions were answered on a 7-point Likert Scale with anchors of 1 = strongly disagree, to 7 = Table 1 Percentage of students in each category who agreed with the statement (sum of strongly agree, agree, and mostly agree responses). strongly agree and a neutral value of 4 = neither agree nor disagree. Space for qualitative comments was also provided to allow students to explain and provide additional context to some of their answers, if required.

Data analysis
Data were analysed using SPSS statistics version 26. A Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to explore differences between each group: New students [Level 3 (Foundation Year) and 4 (First Year Undergraduate) combined N = 62, Level 5 (Second Year Undergraduate), N = 51 and Level 6 (Third Year Undergraduate), N = 69]. An inductive content analysis was also conducted on the qualitative questions within the survey. These comments were very short in nature (often only a sentence at most) and not all students left comments. The comments were initially read and re-read, and notes were made on common elements emerging. Following this, semantic codes were generated and were then amalgamated into broader themes as recommended by Willig (2017).

Results
Approximately half of the students reported attending all sessions available to them (N = 93), 70 students attended most sessions and 11 just over half. Three students attended just under half of the sessions, 3 reported attending very few and 1 attended none at all. There were no attendance differences between levels of study (p = 0.49), as was the case with all other questions (Table 1).
A content analysis was conducted on the qualitative questions; (i) what would you describe as the most beneficial features of online learning? (ii) what would you describe as the most beneficial features of face-to-face learning? Five key themes emerged from the data for both questions: Flexibility, Engagement, Developing skills, Thinking ahead to work and Practical sessions (see Tables 2 and 3).
Overall, students felt that online learning was more flexible than face-to-face, with all year groups agreeing it was easier and avoided unnecessary commutes. However, face-to-face teaching was deemed more engaging and sociable. There were a number of students across levels who could not think of a benefit of online learning, but none of the students stated that there was no benefit to face-to-face teaching. The practical aspect was highlighted as an issue in Levels 5 and 6 (Second and Thurs Year Undergraduate students) as being the major benefit to face-to-face teaching and the main disadvantage with online. The Level 3 (Foundation Year) and 4 (First Year Undergraduate) students differed slightly in their responses, as none highlighted the lack of practical classes as issues with online learning. In addition, they did not identify any skills that were developed during online learning. They also did not mention flexibility when it came to face-to-face teaching. It should be noted that not all students provided qualitative comments, and the comments were generally brief (usually no more than a sentence).

Discussion
This study investigated the transition to online learning due to the Covid-19 pandemic, between new Foundation Year and First Year Undergraduate students (Levels 3 and 4) and continuing Second and Third Year Undergraduate (Levels 5 and 6 respectively) students enrolled on a range of sport related undergraduate programmes. The main finding of the study was that students shown a mainly negative perspective of online learning, and this did not change between levels of study. There were however some advantages offered in the response to open answer questions, as it was acknowledged that online learning provided a more flexible approach to their overall learning experience compared to face-to-face, however, face-to-face teaching was deemed more engaging and sociable. Level 5 and 6 (Second and Third year Undergraduate) students highlighted that the practical sessions would bring greater benefit when delivered face-to-face as supposed to online, which was the major determinator for the advantage of face-to-face learning, though Level 3 and 4 (Foundation Year and First Year Undergraduate) students did not highlight this. "being in the comfort of your own home" "being able to interact on the screen" "I don't feel there are any" "not having to wake up early for lectures" "still being able to interact with the teacher" 5 (Second Year Undergraduate students) "ability to access content when needed" "typing rather than talking helps, as I am shy" "learning and developing more independent skills" "There are none, I just do not enjoy them" "being able to go back and pause the video if I am confused" "The breakout rooms make it feel less like we are not just in our own room" "teaches me to be efficient" 6 (Third Year Undergraduate students) "can attend the class from anywhere" "more interactive in live sessions (vs. Asynchronous)" "I have developed my IT skills" "It is a disadvantage" "you don't have to leave home" "one to one tutorials are helpful" "teaches me to be more independent" "external distractions are ever present" *shaded cells indicate that the theme was not mentioned/covered by that Level.
Analysis of the closed survey questions highlights a generally negative view of online learning. For example, in terms of access and delivery only 56% found online learning materials easy to engage with, 84% found online classes to be less stimulating than face-toface, and 80% found them less engaging. These opinions also held true for other questions related more to enjoyment, skill development, and learning experience. Such findings are unsurprising and match what we found in a previous paper related to engagement (McCullogh et al., 2022-a). However, it was expected that the perceptions may change dependent upon the stage of the degree the student was at due to differing levels of experience at the university, such as those in Levels 5 and 6 (Second and Third Year Undergraduate students) having pre-existing relationships with peers and lecturers, and expectations based on previous years.
The open survey questions also pointed to some negative factors that agreed with past research, such as distractions at home (Dost et al., 2020;Petillion & McNeil, 2020) and lack of social interaction (Mucci-Ferris et al., 2021;Mulrooney & Kelly, 2020). However, they also show more considered perceptions from students, and whilst there may have been a generally negative perception of online learning, some advantages were still identified. The key advantage noted was the flexibility it brought to the students overall learning experience, which agrees with the findings of others (Dost et al., 2020;Mulrooney & Kelly, 2020;Petillion & McNeil, 2020) and our own previous work (McCullogh et al., 2022-a). Like our previous work, students also spoke of the benefits of being able to interact with the lecturer during synchronous online sessions (e.g., via the chat function). When comparing new and continuing students there were some subtle differences. For example, the issue of missing practical classes was specific to continuing students and not mentioned by new students, as was also the case with broader skill development like opportunities to work in a team. However, it should be considered that this observation is based on the brief answers provided, and the new students only had a small number of weeks with some face-to-face classes before all content moved online due to restrictions. The focus groups discussed in McCullogh et al. (2022-a) were not relevant for this study due to the participant numbers being too low to allow a comparison between new and continuing students.
There were 939 students enrolled onto an undergraduate sport related degree during the 2020/21 academic year, so the data presented here represents 19% of the entire cohort, and this limitation should be considered when interpreting the results. However, the impact of this is minimised when considering that the survey was completed by students with a range of attendance levels and not just those with 100% attendance, and this did not differ between levels of study. Moreover, the interquartile ranges give confidence that the data does represent a consensus, as only four out of 14 questions had an interquartile range as high as three points, and there was a reasonable match in the number of students in each group. Another limitation is that these data were collected during very specific circumstances, the likes of which we may not experience again, and some responses may have been influenced by frustration with the situation.

Implications of study findings
Despite the mentioned limitations, some of the findings can still transfer into future practice as HEI's strive to learn from the "you can explain yourself and ask more questions" "Actually being able to do lab work would be more interactive" "it is more engaging and I can concentrate more" "I am a visual learner and it is easier in a classroom" 5 (Second Year Undergraduate students) "the personalisation that comes with itthe teacher can adapt to what they see" "Having someone in front of me makes me less distracted" "being able to learn skills like working in groups" "Online practical sessions are not the same. We need to be doing stuff" "being able to interact with my peers" "developing my confidence to ask questions" "practical experience" 6 (Third Year Undergraduate students) "easy to ask questions" "interaction allows better discussion" "develop my networking skills" "Practically applied lectures are much more engaging" "chat to peers more freelynot as strict an environment" "being allowed to work in groups with peers and discuss things" "access to facilities is good" "more sociable" "use of labs and equipment allows me to see what I am learning" "missing out on doing practicals impacts understanding. Face to face is better" *shaded cells indicate that the theme was not mentioned/covered by that Level.
pandemic for an effective and efficient blended future. Notably, based on these results, we have derived the following recommendations for HEI providers: • Tailoring blended delivery for different levels of study is not of concern beyond what would already be done for various levels.
• Affordable flexibility was acknowledged by both new and continuing students, which may be useful to take into account going forward but none of the groups were in favour of online over face-to-face teaching. • Bespoke online synchronous sessions may be useful on a limited number, for example, where session information is being disseminated and students can engage via the chat function, or one-to-one tutorial sessions. • For programmes with practical delivery, there is no effective substitute for face-to-face learning, as students see the value of using equipment and engaging in interactive practical sessions. • Do not discount the importance of face-to-face delivery to develop the 'softer' skills such as peer interaction, team working and networking, as students at all levels valued these.

Future research directions
Future work is required to confirm these findings in a cohort who undertook a more purposively designed blended approach postpandemic following a more traditional pre-university experience, as opposed to an enforced period of online learning mid-pandemic. Broader directions as we emerge from the pandemic enforced online teaching and learning are to investigate what, as educators, we learned from the experience and what adaptations have remained as we return to 'normal'.

Conclusion
To conclude, this study provides novel insights into the experience of new and continuing undergraduate students during a period of enforced online learning. Students had negative views of online learning, but still acknowledged some advantages, mainly regarding the flexible approach it offered compared to face-to-face learning. However, the main advantage to face-to-face teaching was that it was more engaging and give the social aspect that online lacked. These views did not differ between levels of study, and the only minor difference was that the practical aspect was highlighted by continuing but not new students as being the major benefit to face-to-face teaching and the main disadvantage with online, may be due to new students not having anything prior expectations to compare against. Further investigations are required to explore on a wider scale, with reflection, what we have learned from the pandemic enforced online teaching and learning and what adaptations we can take into future teaching and learning practice as we now return to 'normal'.

Funding
No funding was received for this research.

Declaration of competing interest
Declarations of Interest: None.