Higher Education in a Post-Pandemic World

Abstract

The pandemic caused major disruptions in academic life and led educational institutions to adopt online learning which is likely to leave its mark on post-pandemic higher education. The aim of this study was to contribute to the effort of overcoming the challenges of higher education during the fragile period of transitioning to the post-pandemic era. The objectives were to investigate undergraduate students’ experience during and after the pandemic and to identify the factors that affect their satisfaction with online and in-person learning. To meet these objectives, environmental students, recruited with multistage sampling, were administered questionnaires. Results showed that satisfaction with in-person learning was higher than online learning pointing to a preference for face-to-face modes of education. Although students were optimistic during the transition to the post-pandemic period, the pandemic caused students more stress over their studies than economic difficulties. Moreover, students’ satisfaction with online learning was mostly affected by their anxiety about their studies due to the pandemic, their demographic characteristics, and the type of information sources they used to obtain information about COVID-19. On the other hand, satisfaction with in-person learning was affected by information sources on COVID-19 and their parents’ occupation. Finally, students acknowledged the importance of protecting the environment and biodiversity in order to prevent pandemic outbreaks in the future.

1. Introduction

A pressing question among educators is whether and how the pandemic will continue to impact the educational process in the post-COVID-19 era. The pandemic was the first crisis that compelled educational institutions to suspend in-person learning indefinitely causing a very sudden change for which most students and instructors were unprepared. It is moving that over 1,500,000,000 students from all levels of education around the globe were not able to attend school due to mandated school closures to contain the spread of the virus [1].

The unprecedented closure of schools led to the transition from traditional in-person instruction to distance learning modes in higher education [2]. Greece is a typical example of a country that had to make such an abrupt transition. It should be noted that in Greece there are 24 universities, all of which are state-accredited and public. According to Article 16 of the Greek Constitution, all Greek citizens are entitled to free education at all educational levels. In Greek universities, in-person learning was the sole mode of delivery. Once the first cases of COVID-19 were confirmed in the country in March 2020, in-person learning was suspended and both students and faculty had to transition to on-line learning overnight.

It is important to note that both in Greece and in other countries where on-line learning was adopted due to the pandemic, undergraduate students had to acquire an enriched experience and participate in the transformation of higher education into a ‘laboratory of e-learning’ [3]. Until that time, there had only been scarce efforts to facilitate students’ function in virtual learning environments and even fewer efforts had been made to teach students how to maintain suitable on-line learning behaviors and etiquette [2]. For instance, students were observed to be reluctant to use their computer cameras without, however, understanding that this reluctance minimized their psychological engagement with the virtual classroom and the efficacy of interactive learning [4]. Students were thus unaware of behaviors that cancel the objectives both of the design and the pedagogy of online courses [5].

However, it is meaningful to note that long before the pandemic there was already a great interest in distance learning and online degree programs [6]. Along with this interest, the educational value of distance learning was being debated and it seems that two main schools of thought emerged as now described. On the one hand, much like traditional forms of knowledge delivery and assessment, online learning could be informed and shaped by integrating pedagogical principles [7]. If such principles are integrated properly, online learning could become a pedagogical innovation that engages learners as much as in-person education does. Other indisputable benefits involve the information accessibility and the notable flexibility with which learners are able to undertake the work while being able to decide when and what to learn [8]. Since online learning assumes a self-paced and student-centered approach, it could instigate profound learning [9,10]. In this regard, learners who have basic technical skills as well as self-discipline, commitment, dedication, and ability to manage their time can be successful in online education [8,11].

The positive effect of online learning on psychology in times of health crises should also be pointed out [2]. Since social distancing measures disrupt not only the academic but also the social life of undergraduate students, virtual academic classrooms become students’ anchor to normalcy and an opportunity to contact people in addition to other household members [2]. This opportunity acquires great significance if one considers that lockdowns, with the inevitable reinforcement of inequalities, had been causing a tremendous amount of social and psychological stress to students [12,13].

On the other hand, the pandemic and the subsequent transition to virtual classrooms have brought to surface certain drawbacks of on-line learning that are hard to overlook. Most importantly, online education can become a painful experience because it exacerbates inequality issues. An example of such inequalities would be students who lack computers, reliable wireless connectivity, and quiet spaces at their home [2]. Moreover, online learning platforms have attracted criticism for facilitating the redefinition, simplification, and reduction of learning in order to serve the narrative of the education technology revolution [14,15]. In other words, online learning may be failing to comply with fundamental pedagogical principles, best practices, and education research [16]. What mainly contributes to this limited compliance is of course the absence of face-to-face relationships among students as well as among students and instructors [17,18]. This absence creates a sense of isolation as well as a lack of connectedness and belonging which, in turn, minimize learners’ engagement with the online course [8,9]. From the perspective of educators, it is often difficult to move away from the role of the direct controller of the teaching process to the role of facilitator in an explicitly technology-mediated online learning environment [19]. Moreover, empirical studies have indicated that in-person education offers much better educational experiences in comparison to any type of online learning [20]. There is finally substantial skepticism surrounding the commercialization of education. The rapid transition to online learning revealed gaps and shortcomings for which the market created an influx of different kinds of support in the form of sessions, webinars, and so on [21]. Consequently, market-driven digital learning platforms create serious concerns about their sociological effects as educational tools [22].

Another concern about digital learning has to do with the effect of its less structured environment on learning outcomes. That is, students are required to regulate their learning and motivation much more independently in virtual classrooms. In particular, students require a high intrinsic motivation, which has been shown to be a determining factor for successful learning. However, if students have low levels of intrinsic motivation they may adopt maladaptive behavior such as procrastination (intended delays in actions regardless of adverse consequences). According to self-determination theory, learners’ satisfaction with the three fundamental psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and social relatedness can result in higher intrinsic motivation [23,24]. The latter is critically essential for promoting adaptive patterns of learning behavior. Conversely, dissatisfaction with these basic psychological needs exerts a detrimental effect on intrinsic motivation.

In view of these challenges and given that higher education may encounter similar pandemic outbreaks in the future, it is necessary to examine ways to improve the quality of learning especially during times of crisis. In addition to learning objectives, higher education should now seek sensitive and meaningful ways to provide a sense of normalcy and purpose to both students and faculty members [2]. In practical terms, quality standards for online exams and student participation in online courses must be established to ensure quality n teaching, learning, and assessment [3]. The integration of online learning modes in higher education, however, seems to be inevitable. It has been suggested that the pandemic has led to a ‘new normal’ which is quite different from what higher education is accustomed to. The massive adoption of online learning in higher education due to the pandemic is most likely to cause changes in conventional forms of education and trigger a broader adoption of online learning in the post-COVID-19 world. In other words, it can be expected that online learning will become an integral part of education after the pandemic [8]. For this reason, the faculty should re-envision and re-imagine both the design and delivery of courses. This preparation would serve one more purpose; even though working from home was established as a way to avoid the spread of the virus, employment settings are expected to continue to become remote. From this perspective, training students on online behavior in virtual classrooms becomes a necessary skill for students’ future employment prospects. There are also other skills that students and faculty use in virtual classrooms that can be useful in employment settings [2]. To prepare students for the coming era of digital transformation, it has been proposed to integrate both distance and in-person learning in higher education. A blend of the two learning modes seems to be the future direction of academic learning and perhaps employment [3]. In this regard, online learning ceases to be a mere alternative to in-person education in case of crisis and becomes a serious model that facilitates the transition to the digitalized era. Against this background, student satisfaction with online and traditional modes of learning is becoming a promising area of research [25]. The pandemic and the large-scale adoption of online learning provides the unique opportunity to receive feedback from students and examine ways to overcome its challenges and shortcomings. While traditional education is mainly associated with the value of learning, satisfaction with online education could be defined as learners’ attitude which stems from their evaluation of the educational experience, facilities, and services [26]. It is thus more complicated and affected by factors such as communication, participation in online discussions, flexibility, technological support and feedback, flexibility, individual enthusiasm for online learning, technical problems, study load, the marketing construct of university reputation, and interactions among learners [25,27,28]. Negative evaluations of online learning were recorded by Tang et al. [29] who found that science and engineering students were dissatisfied with online learning in general and more specifically with modes that concerned communication and Q&A. In addition, students perceived that the effectiveness of online education is low and had difficulty mastering the taught material.

Beside the need for evaluating student satisfaction with online learning, it is equally important to examine students’ awareness about the role of environmental quality and biodiversity in pandemic outbreaks. This is particularly meaningful for students whose discipline is related to the environment. Hence, an emerging area of research interest focuses on the awareness about the close relationship of biodiversity with disease outbreaks [30]. That is, biodiversity loss due to human activity has been inducing critical changes in the types of pathogens as well as human disease burden. In addition, high levels of biodiversity may reduce the transmission of pathogens whereas lower biodiversity may reduce the degree of predation and competition on reservoir hosts increasing thus the interactions between pathogens and hosts [31]. Consequently, lower biological diversity not only increases transmission but also multiplies the risk for new infectious diseases for which human health is unprepared. In addition, the conditions of modern living foster an ideal breeding ground for disease transmission as high numbers of people inhabit urbanized areas.

With the above information in mind, it can be seen that this is a critical moment to focus on the direction that education should follow in the years to come and to examine the ways in which these two learning modes can co-exist in post-pandemic higher education. Hence, the aim of this study was to contribute to the effort of overcoming the challenges of higher education during the fragile period of transitioning to the post-pandemic era. The objectives were to investigate undergraduate students’ experience during and after the pandemic and to identify the factors that affect their satisfaction with online and in-person learning. Results presented in this paper could be particularly useful to operators of higher education interested in ensuring the effectiveness of education during the transition to the post-COVID-19 era.

2. Materials and Methods

Results presented in this paper are part of a wider research that was conducted in Greece during the period December 2021–February 2022. Regarding the sample, respondents were undergraduate students in the Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources at the Democritus University of Thrace. The duration of studies at the department is five years and students from all academic years participated in this study. The chosen research instrument was the structured questionnaire as it served better the aim and objectives of the study. Regarding the collection of questionnaires, multistage sampling was used to recruit respondents. According to the principles of multistage sampling, the year of study served as the first stage, and the courses that students attend as the second stage. For every academic year, two courses were drawn and, therefore, students attending ten courses were asked to participate in the study. Questionnaires were to be administered by professors of each class at the beginning of regular class periods.

The design of questionnaire items considered previous relevant studies as well as factors that affect questionnaire completion. Since questionnaires were to be completed during classroom time, it was necessary to ensure that respondents would require little effort and time to complete them. To that end, the closed-ended type was deemed to be the most suitable option as it is the most effortless type. Moreover, the items were explicitly designed to elicit students’ attitudes to distance and face-to-face learning as well as their experience with the transition to the post-pandemic era. In order to ensure that the questionnaire could yield accurate and coherent results, a pilot study was performed on a limited scale which helped improve the questionnaire, particularly in terms of the formulation of certain items. Specifically ten subjects from the population under study participated in the pilot study and gave feedback on the questionnaire. Based on the comments from these respondents, three items had to be reworded and the response scale for one question had to be changed. The pilot study also showed that it would take respondents about 15–20 min to complete the questionnaire which was an acceptable time. Once these changes had been made, the final version of the questionnaire was ready. The questionnaire was three pages long and consisted of 19 closed-ended items. All variables in this study were measured at ordinal scales except two sociodemographic items (gender and occupation) which were measured at nominal scales.

In total, the questionnaire was completed by 134 undergraduate students. The collected data were inserted into MS Excel, coded, and then transferred into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). First, descriptive statistics was applied to all variables and then the non-parametric Friedman test as well as categorical regression analysis were performed.

Finally, it is important to note that, in accordance with the relevant legislation, every research study carried out within the university has to receive approval by the Research Ethics Committee of each institution. For this reason, before the study, the respective Committee of the Democritus University of Thrace monitored and approved the content of the questionnaire and the methodology to perform the study (Decision 25103/172, 20-12-2021 Decision of the 4th/16-12-2021 board meeting of the Research Ethics Committee).

3. Results

Results are structured in sub-sections based on the content of the presented analysis. Section 3.1 presents information on demographic characteristics such as respondents’ gender, academic year, parental occupation, and educational level. Section 3.2 describes respondents’ emotions during the transition to the post-pandemic period and their satisfaction with online exams as well as in-person and distance education. Section 3.3 presents the information sources that students used to obtain information about COVID- 19 and Section 3.4 describes their views on the state of the environment and the prevention of future pandemics. Then, subsections present the results of categorical regression analysis regarding undergraduates, the factors that affect students’ satisfaction with distance and face-to-face learning.

3.1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

As can be seen in

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.

Variable	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Students’ gender	Male	61	45.5
	Female	73	54.5
	Other	0	0.0
Year of study	1	9	6.7
	2	22	16.4
	3	38	28.4
	4	21	15.7
	5	42	31.3
	Higher than 5	2	1.5
Father’s occupation	Public employee	31	23.1
	Private employee	20	14.9
	Freelancer	37	27.6
	Farmer	22	16.4
	Unemployed	6	4.4
	Pensioner	18	13.4
Mother’s occupation	Public employee	30	22.4
	Private employee	28	20.9
	Freelancer	17	12.7
	Household	27	20.1
	Farmer	11	8.2
	Unemployed	10	7.5
	Pensioner	11	8.2
Educational level of father	Compulsory education	40	30.6
	Secondary education (Upper high school, vocational school)	53	39.6
	Higher education	41	30.6
Educational level of mother	Compulsory education	22	16.4
	Secondary education (Upper high school, vocational school)	56	41.8
	Higher education	56	41.8

, female respondents outnumbered their male counterparts by nine percentage units and third- and fifth-year students represented the highest shares in the sample (59.7%). Regarding students’ fathers’ occupation, it can be seen that most were public employees (23.1%) and freelancers (27.6%) while a substantial share were farmers (16.4%) and private employees (14.9%). As with fathers, considerable shares of students’ mothers were public (22.4%) and private employees (20.9%) and another substantial share was engaged in household work (20.1%). In terms of parental educational level, students’ mothers presented a higher educational level as 41.8% were university graduates with the respective share of fathers being lower (30.6%). It is also worthwhile to note that in comparison to fathers (30.6%), significantly fewer mothers had completed only compulsory education (16.4%).

3.2. Students’ Emotions during the Post-Pandemic Transition and Satisfaction with Online Exams, In-Person and Online Learning

Students were first asked to report their satisfaction with their performance on distance exams (

Table 2. Frequency and percentages of students’ satisfaction with their performance on distance exams.

	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Not at all satisfied	7	5.2
Slightly satisfied	16	11.9
Moderately satisfied	42	31.3
Very satisfied	28	20.9
Extremely satisfied	36	26.9
No answer	5	3.7
Total	134	100.0

). It can be seen that as many as 47.8% of students were much or very much satisfied with how they performed in the exams that had been conducted remotely via online platforms. That being said, an appreciable share of 17.1% was dissatisfied and 3.7% refrained from answering this question.

Respondents’ level of satisfaction with education, which was again performed in-person at the time of this research, was examined. As shown in

Table 3. Frequency and percentages of students’ satisfaction level with in-person education.

	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Not at all satisfied	4	3.0
Slightly satisfied	20	14.9
Moderately satisfied	46	34.3
Very satisfied	36	26.9
Extremely satisfied	26	19.4
No answer	2	1.5
Total	134	100.0

, 46.3% reported to be ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ satisfied and 34.3% were ‘moderately’ satisfied. Moreover, a considerable share of respondents (14.9%) reported to be slightly satisfied whereas only 3% of students were not satisfied at all.

Students were next asked to evaluate their satisfaction with the two forms of education that they had experienced during and after this health crisis (

Table 4. Percentages of students’ satisfaction with the two forms of education applied during and after COVID-19 restrictions.

	Unacceptable	Unsatisfactory	Very Satisfactory	Extremely Satisfactory	No Answer
Distance education	3.7	28.4	41.8	16.4	9.7
In-person education	3.7	11.9	56.0	19.4	9.0

). That is, the traditional in-person education that has been resumed and distance education that was implemented due to the restrictions to contain the spread of COVID-19. It can be seen that the majority of students (75.4%) gave a high evaluation to in-person education which they characterized as ‘very’ and ‘extremely’ satisfactory. This evaluation was significantly higher than the corresponding figure for distance education (58.2%). In addition, a substantial share of students (28.4%) regarded distance education as unsatisfactory whereas the respective share for in-person education was markedly lower (11.9%).

Students also reported how financial difficulties and the pandemic affected their level of stress. In

Table 5. Percentages of students’ level of stress over their studies due to financial difficulties and the pandemic.

	Not at All	Slightly	Moderately	Much	Very Much	No Answer
Financial difficulties	26.9	29.1	23.1	14.2	6.7	0.0
Pandemic	18.7	23.1	26.9	15.7	12.7	3.0

, it can be seen that the pandemic had a stronger effect on students’ stress levels since 28.4% reported to be very and very much stressed about their studies due to the pandemic whereas the respective figure for financial difficulties was lower (20.9%).

Students were then asked to report the emotions that they experienced during the period over which this research was conducted, namely during the transition to post-COVID-19 era (

Table 6. Percentages regarding students’ emotions during the post-COVID-19 era.

	Not at All	Slightly	Moderately	Much	Very Much	No Answer
Uncertainty	14.2	29.1	30.6	12.7	12.7	0.7
Anxiety	11.9	28.4	24.6	17.2	17.2	0.7
Optimism	3.7	24.6	39.6	20.1	9.7	2.2
Insecurity	24.6	31.3	26.1	11.2	5.2	1.5
Disappointment	39.6	38.8	9.0	6.0	5.2	1.5
Anger	49.3	26.9	9.7	5.2	7.5	1.5
Shame	64.2	20.1	6.7	2.2	3.0	3.7
Certainty	16.4	24.6	35.1	11.9	9.0	3.0
Pride	22.4	19.4	29.9	16.4	9.0	3.0
Fear	41.0	31.3	13.4	6.7	6.0	1.5
Loneliness	56.0	27.6	9.7	3.7	1.5	1.5
Panic	54.5	30.6	6.7	5.2	1.5	1.5

). It can be seen that although students did not give high ratings to negative emotions, the emotions that students were experiencing to a higher degree involved anxiety (34.4%), optimism (29.8%), and uncertainty (25.4%).

The non-parametric Friedman test was applied to detect statistical differences among students’ responses on the emotions that they were experiencing (

Table 7. Rankings of the Friedman test for respondents’ emotions in the post-COVID-19 era.

Variables	Mean Ranks
Uncertainty	8.10
Anxiety	8.59
Optimism	8.75
Insecurity	7.00
Disappointment	5.50
Anger	5.31
Shame	4.43
Certainty	7.78
Pride	7.64
Fear	5.63
Loneliness	4.68
Panic	4.62
Ν = 134, Chi-Square = 371.394, df = 11, p < 0.001

). Before performing the Friedman test, the value of Cronbach’s alpha was estimated as 0.735 indicating that the data are reliable. It was shown that students mostly experienced optimism (mean rank 8.75), followed by anxiety (mean rank 8.59), and uncertainty (mean rank 8.10). On the other hand, the least experienced emotions were loneliness (mean rank 4.68), panic (mean rank 4.62), and shame (mean rank 4.43).

In order to analyze further students’ responses, the above emotions were transformed into positive and negative emotions using cumulative rating. In

Table 8. Positive and negative emotions.

	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation
Positive emotions	9.00	46.00	19.5746	7.07
Negative emotions	3.00	18.00	8.7463	2.89

, it can be seen that positive emotions present higher values than negative emotions in terms of mean and standard deviation.

3.3. Information Sources about the Pandemic

The information sources that students used in order to obtain information about the pandemic were also examined. According to

Table 9. Frequency and percentages regarding the information sources students used to obtain information about COVID-19.

	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Television	25	18.7
Scientific articles	39	29.1
Social media	32	23.9
General websites	17	12.7
Online newspapers	4	3.0
I prefer not to be informed	17	12.7
Total	134	100.0

, high shares of students resorted to scientific articles (29.1%) and social media (23.9%), in addition, considerable shares of students reported having used television (18.7%) and general websites to meet their information needs about the pandemic. Finally, very few respondents used the online versions of newspapers (3%).

3.4. Respondents’ Views on the State of the Environment and Pandemic Prevention

The questionnaire involved a section that examined students’ views on the prevention of similar pandemics in the future. First, students’ satisfaction with the state of the environment was examined. As

Table 10. Frequency and percentages of students’ satisfaction with the state of the environment.

	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Not at all	15	11.2
Slightly	35	26.1
Moderately	43	32.1
Much	27	20.1
Very much	10	7.5
No answer	4	3.0
Total	134	100.0

presents, a significant proportion of students was moderately satisfied (32.1%) and another considerable proportion was slightly satisfied (26.1%). However, significantly fewer respondents were much and very much satisfied with the state of the environment (27.6%).

Students were next asked whether they would be willing to change their habits/lifestyle in order to protect the environment (

Table 11. Frequency and percentages of students’ willingness to change their habits/lifestyle to protect the environment.

	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Not at all	2	1.5
Slightly	9	6.7
Moderately	38	28.4
Much	40	29.9
Very much	43	32.1
No answer	2	1.5
Total	134	100.0

). It was indicated that the majority of students (62%) were willing whereas only as few as 1.5% were not willing at all to make changes for the sake of the environment.

Students were also asked whether they perceived that the spread of COVID-19 is associated with the high population density in urban areas (

Table 12. Frequency and percentages regarding students’ level of agreement with the statement that COVID-19 is associated with high urban population density.

	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Not at all	6	4.5
Slightly	10	7.5
Moderately	41	30.6
Much	38	28.4
Very much	32	23.9
No answer	7	5.2
Total	134	100.0

). Over half of the students (52.3%) agreed that there is an association between the spread of the disease with high urban population density. The percentage of students reporting a moderate level of agreement was substantial (30.6%) while fewer students perceived that there is no such association (4.5%).

Students’ opinion on the ways to prevent pandemics in the future was next investigated (

Table 13. Percentages regarding students’ agreement with ways to prevent pandemics in the future.

	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neither Agree nor Disagree	Agree	Strongly Agree	No Answer
Improvement of medical research and vaccine development	6.0	3.0	18.7	38.1	29.9	4.5
Improvement of the natural environment and biodiversity protection	1.5	6.0	11.2	38.8	37.3	5.2

). The examined ways involved medical research improvement and vaccination as well as environmental improvement and biodiversity protection. Even though high agreement rates were recorded for both ways, there was a higher preference for the improvement of the natural environment and biodiversity protection (76.1%).

3.5. Factors Affecting Students’ Satisfaction with the Educational Process

Categorical regression analysis was performed in order to investigate the factors that affect students’ satisfaction with in-person and distance education that were applied during and after the application of measures to contain the spread of COVID-19. The correlation matrices of the independent variables and Pratt’s indices of relevance importance revealed a multicollinearity problem. Specifically, certain independent variables were highly correlated and Pratt’s index presented high negative coefficient values and low tolerance values. Since these independent variables decreased the stability of the model, it was necessary to remove them from the categorical regression model. The removal took into account the values of the F statistic which determines whether the removal of some variables from the model reduces the predictive ability of the model. It is also important to note that the removal of the variables was not conducted simultaneously but instead one variable was removed each time based on its F statistic. After repeating this process, results are limited to the presentation of the most significant Pratt’s relevant importance coefficients and the standardized beta coefficients.

3.5.1. Satisfaction with Distance Education

To perform categorical regression, students’ satisfaction with distance education was used as the dependent variable in the analysis (Table 4). The categorical regression gave the coefficient value of multiple determination R2 = 0.495 and F= 4.031 which is statistically important. The standardized coefficients of the independent variables showed that students’ satisfaction with distance education is mostly affected by the following variables: students’ anxiety about their studies due to the pandemic, mothers’ occupation, the information sources from which students obtain information about COVID-19, and students’ fathers’ occupation (

Table 14. Factors affecting students’ satisfaction with distance education.

Independent Variables	Beta	F	p	Importance (Pratt)
Gender	0.114	1.940	0.167	0.028
Year of study	−0.175	1.209	0.303	0.018
Fathers’ occupation	0.258	6.784	0.000	0.131
Mothers’ occupation	0.277	6.680	0.000	0.133
Fathers’ education level	0.055	0.142	0.707	−0.014
Mothers’ education level	−0.013	0.006	0.937	0.004
Source of information about COVID-19	0.274	11.505	0.000	0.107
Negative emotions	−0.230	3.404	0.068	0.152
Positive emotions	0.006	0.004	0.952	0.001
Stress over studies due to COVID-19	−0.460	3.623	0.015	0.441

).

In addition, independent variable measures of relevance importance indicated that the greatest contribution to the dependent variable was made by the variable concerning students’ anxiety about their studies due to the pandemic (44,1%), followed by students’ mothers’ occupation, fathers’ occupation (13.1%), and the information sources students use to obtain information about COVID-19 (10.7%). Based on the transformation diagrams and the signs of standardized coefficients, the following can be inferred about distance education:

• Higher satisfaction with distance education is observed for students whose fathers are farmers, pensioners, freelancers, and public employees while lower satisfaction is observed for students whose fathers are unemployed and private employees
• Higher satisfaction is observed for students whose mothers are pensioners, freelancers, private employees, and public employees whereas students whose mothers are unemployed are less satisfied with distance education
• Students who used social media and scientific articles to obtain information on COVID-19 were more satisfied with distance education compared to students who used websites and television
• Students who were not stressed about their studies due to the pandemic were more satisfied with distance education than students who had stress over their studies

3.5.2. Satisfaction with In-Person Education

The dependent variable that was used was students’ satisfaction with in-person education (Table 4). The analysis gave coefficient values of multiple determination of R2 = 0.441 and F = 2.956 which is statistically significant. The standardized regression coefficients of the independent variables indicate that satisfaction with in-person education is affected mostly by the following variables: main sources of information about COVID-19, fathers’ and mothers’ occupation (

Table 15. Factors affecting students’ satisfaction with in-person education.

Independent Variables	Beta	F	p	Importance (Pratt)
Gender	0.177	3.508	0.064	0.070
Year of study	0.078	0.167	0.918	0.033
Fathers’ occupation	0.208	3.852	0.003	0.126
Mothers’ occupation	0.156	3.399	0.004	0.036
Fathers’ education level	−0.042	0.046	0.830	0.023
Mothers’ education level	−0.121	0.472	0.625	0.050
Source of information about COVID-19	0.291	8.838	0.000	0.189
Negative emotions	−0.241	2.145	0.146	0.163
Positive emotions	0.065	0.307	0.581	0.012
Stress over studies due to COVID-19	−0.297	0.869	0.460	0.298

).

In addition, the measures of relevance importance show that the variable concerning the information sources that students use to obtain information about COVID-19 makes the greatest contribution to the dependent variable (18.9%). This is followed by fathers’ (12.6%) and mothers’ occupation (3.6%). On considering the transformation diagrams and the signs of standardized coefficients, the following observations about students’ satisfaction with in-person education can be made:

• Students whose fathers are farmers, freelancers, pensioners, and public employees are more satisfied with in-person education than students whose fathers are private employees and unemployed
• Higher satisfaction is observed for students whose mothers are pensioners, unemployed, private employees, farmers, and freelancers whereas lower satisfaction is observed for students whose mothers are public employees and homemakers
• Students who use social media for their information on COVID-19 are more satisfied with in-person education compared to students who use scientific articles and websites. The lowest level of satisfaction is observed for students who did not prefer to be informed about the pandemic

4. Discussion

This study has brought to the surface a comparably higher student satisfaction with face-to-face than online education, which resonates with previous studies that indicated low satisfaction with online learning during the pandemic [29]. Such findings suggest perhaps that in-person learning, which had to be suspended due to COVID-19 restrictions, was more effective in comparison to online learning modes which, however, have been gaining considerable ground in higher education. In addition, lower satisfaction with online learning may result from the possible difficulty of online learning in the integration of fundamental pedagogical principles as well as in complying with best practices and the findings of education research [14,15,16]. At the same time, low satisfaction could also be associated with students’ inability to regulate their learning and motivation independently in order to acquire a high intrinsic motivation, which has been shown to lead to successful learning [23]. The absence of face-to-face relationships and personal contact is likely to be the most problematic component of online learning since it has been shown to have an adverse effect on students’ engagement with the online course [25,27,28]. Low satisfaction levels with online education, however, could also be ascribed to the low level of the faculty’s training on online instruction. That is, the pandemic led to the abrupt transition of education towards explicit online education for which both students and the faculty had either no or limited prior training and experience. It is thus possible that both students and the faculty were not able to leverage the features and tools provided by digital learning platforms. This explanation is consistent with earlier research showing that students’ lack of training on online education induced behavior which cancelled pedagogical objectives and subsequently minimized the effectiveness of interactive learning [2,5].

Student dissatisfaction with both forms of education was found to be associated with students’ parents’ occupation; that is, students whose fathers were unemployed or private employees expressed higher dissatisfaction compared to students whose fathers were engaged in other occupations. Various reasons could account for this finding; in terms of satisfaction with online education; students whose fathers are unemployed or private employees (who often earn less money than other employee categories) may have been experiencing economic difficulties, which may have deprived them of high-quality equipment (computers, headphones, and so on), that would have enabled them to leverage the features and tools of digital platforms. This defines a substantial policy implication that has to be considered in the development of strategies aiming at addressing inequalities in higher education and improving the effectiveness of online learning during crises.

Students’ emotional state during the transition to the post-pandemic era ought also to be discussed. A considerable proportion of students reported experiencing positive emotions, such as optimism, showing that students’ emotional state, which was previously compromised by the uncertainty caused by the pandemic, has now been improved. When asked to evaluate, however, how the pandemic and economic difficulties affect their stress over their studies, it was shown that the pandemic is still a cause for anxiety and uncertainty. It can thus be suggested that the pandemic has left its mark and perhaps still creates uncertainty.

Another interesting finding concerns the information sources that students reported using in order to obtain information about COVID-19. In specific, students used mostly reliable information sources such as scientific articles but also social media. Given that information can shape students’ attitudes towards major issues such as a global pandemic, this finding assumes great significance. In relation to students’ preference for scientific articles, it could be suggested that as undergraduate students, respondents were able to evaluate information sources and acknowledge their reliability. On the other hand, it appears that social media have also been a highly influential information source which, however, is not always reliable. The use of social media for such a severe issue raises concerns and should be further examined.

Respondents in this study were environmental students and it is possible that their background in environmental studies made a great contribution to their understanding of the causes and prevention of pandemic outbreaks. In particular, respondents understood that the spread of COVID-19 was associated with factors such as high urban population density and that, apart from improving medical research, it is equally important to improve the natural environment and protect biodiversity in order to prevent pandemic outbreaks in the years to come. Students’ clear perception of the effect of environmental quality could also be indicated by their willingness to change their habits in order to contribute to environmental protection.

The limitations of this study have to be stated. The study was conducted only in one university department in Greece and thus the study is composed of a unique perspective of students’ experience with COVID-19 and student satisfaction with both in-person and online education. It is possible that the situation described through the results presented in this paper would be different in other departments. In other words, findings are specific to the sample and can be generalized only to students who are attending undergraduate studies at the Forestry Department of Democritus University of Thrace. Moreover, as the study was performed almost a year after the experience with online education during lockdowns, it is possible that this may have affected students’ responses. In addition, questionnaires were administered to students in-person during classroom time rather than online. For this reason, results may be different from the results of web-based studies examining the same topic. Finally, some directions for future studies may be recommended. It would be highly relevant and meaningful to examine student satisfaction with the online delivery of courses related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The reason is that, in order to be effective, such courses require much interaction which is difficult to achieve in virtual classrooms.

5. Conclusions

This study sought to examine the views of undergraduate environmental students on online education during the pandemic and in-person education, while it also investigated the factors affecting their satisfaction with both forms of education. The students’ views can guide the relevant operators to improve higher education in ways that were not known before the pandemic. Students chose to be informed about COVID- 19 mostly from scientific articles and social media. At the time of this study, respondents experienced positive emotions but were also stressed about their studies reflecting their fear of experiencing lockdowns and school closures again. Students were also more satisfied with in-person than online learning. Student satisfaction with in-person and online learning was mostly affected by their parents’ occupation showing that satisfaction with learning modes is affected also by economic rather than purely educational factors. Another influential factor concerned the sources that students used to obtain information about COVID-19. Students who used scientific articles and social media as information sources about COVID-19 were satisfied with both educational modes, whereas students who used websites and television were less satisfied. Finally, students acknowledged that the environment plays an important role in the spread of viruses and perceived that improvement of environmental quality and biodiversity protection could be a way to prevent pandemic outbreaks in the future.