Browsing by Subject "In-person learning"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    237 Sleep disturbances, online instruction, and learning during COVID-19: evidence from 4148 adolescents in the NESTED study
    (Oxford University Press, 2021-05) Saletin, Jared; Owens, Judith; Wahlstrom, Kyla; Honaker, Sarah; Wolfson, Amy; Seixas, Azizi; Wong, Patricia; Carskadon, Mary; Meltzer, Lisa; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Introduction: COVID-19 fundamentally altered education in the United States. A variety of in-person, hybrid, and online instruction formats took hold in Fall 2020 as schools reopened. The Nationwide Education and School in TEens During COVID (NESTED) study assessed how these changes impacted sleep. Here we examined how instruction format was associated with sleep disruption and learning outcomes. Methods: Data from 4148 grade 6-12 students were included in the current analyses (61% non-male; 34% non-white; 13% middle-school). Each student’s instructional format was categorized as: (i) in-person; (ii) hybrid [≥1 day/week in-person]; (iii) online/synchronous (scheduled classes); (iv) online/asynchronous (unscheduled classes); (v) online-mixed; or (vi) no-school. Sleep disturbances (i.e., difficulty falling/staying asleep) were measured with validated PROMIS t-scores. A bootstrapped structural equation model examined how instructional format and sleep disturbances predict school/learning success (SLS), a latent variable loading onto 3 outcomes: (i) school engagement (ii) likert-rated school stress; and (iii) cognitive function (PROMIS t-scores). The model covaried for gender, race-ethnicity, and school-level Results: Our model fit well (RMSEA=.041). Examining total effects (direct + indirect), online and hybrid instruction were associated with lower SLS (b’s:-.06 to -.26; p’s<.01). The three online groups had the strongest effects (synchronous: b=-.15; 95%CI: [-.20, -.11]; asynchronous: b=-.17; [-.23, -.11]; mixed: b=-.14; [-.19, -.098]; p’s<.001). Sleep disturbance was also negatively associated with SLS (b=-.02; [-.02, -.02], p<.001). Monte-carlo simulations confirmed sleep disturbance mediated online instruction’s influence on SLS. The strongest effect was found for asynchronous instruction, with sleep disturbance mediating 24% of its effect (b = -.042; [-0.065, -.019]; p<.001). This sleep-mediated influence of asynchronous instruction propagated down to each SLS measure (p’s<.001), including a near 3-point difference on PROMIS cognitive scores (b = -2.86; [-3.73, -2.00]). Conclusion These analyses from the NESTED study indicate that sleep disruption may be one mechanism through which online instruction impacted learning during the pandemic. Sleep disturbances were unexpectedly influential for unscheduled instruction (i.e., asynchronous). Future analyses will examine specific sleep parameters (e.g., timing) and whether sleep’s influence differs in teens who self-report learning/behavior problems (e.g., ADHD). These nationwide data further underscore the importance of considering sleep as educators and policy makers determine school schedules.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    675 COVID-19 Instruction Style (In-Person, Virtual, Hybrid), School Start Times, and Sleep in a Large Nationwide Sample of Adolescents
    (Oxford University Press, 2021-05) Meltzer, Lisa; Wahlstrom, Kyla; Owens, Judith; Wolfson, Amy; Honaker, Sarah; Saletin, Jared; Seixas, Azizi; Wong, Patricia; Carskadon, Mary; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted how and when adolescents attended school. This analysis used data from the Nationwide Education and Sleep in TEens During COVID (NESTED) study to examine the association of instructional format (in-person, virtual, hybrid), school start times, and sleep in a large diverse sample of adolescents from across the U.S. Methods: In October/November 2020, 5346 nationally representative students (grades 6–12, 49.8% female, 30.6% non-White) completed online surveys. For each weekday, participants identified if they attended school in person (IP), online-scheduled synchronous classes (O/S), online-no scheduled classes (asynchronous, O/A), or no school. Students reported school start times for IP or O/S days, and bedtimes (BT) and wake times (WT) for each applicable school type and weekends/no school days (WE). Sleep opportunity (SlpOpp, total sleep time proxy) was calculated from BT and WT. Night-to-night sleep variability was calculated with mean square successive differences. Results: Significant differences for teens’ sleep across instructional formats were found for all three sleep variables. With scheduled instructional formats (IP and O/S), students reported earlier BT (IP=10:54pm, O/S=11:24pm, O/A=11:36pm, WE=12:30am), earlier WT (IP=6:18am, O/S=7:36am, O/A=8:48am, WE=9:36am), and shorter SlpOpp (IP=7.4h, O/S=8.2h, O/A=9.2h, WE=9.2h). Small differences in BT, but large differences in WT were found, based on school start times, with significantly later wake times associated with later start times. Students also reported later WT on O/S days vs. IP days, even with the same start times. Overall, more students reported obtaining sufficient SlpOpp (>8h) for O/S vs. IP format (IP=40.0%, O/S=58.8%); when school started at/after 8:30am, sufficient SlpOpp was even more common (IP=52.7%, O/S=72.7%). Greater night-to-night variability was found for WT and SlpOpp for students with hybrid schedules with >1 day IP and >1 day online vs virtual schedules (O/S and O/A only), with no differences in BT variability reported between groups. Conclusion: This large study of diverse adolescents from across the U.S. found scheduled school start times were associated with early wake times and shorter sleep opportunity, with greatest variability for hybrid instruction. Study results may be useful for educators and policy makers who are considering what education will look like post-pandemic.