Attitudes of Secondary Students Toward Online and Face-to-Face Learning in Mathematics: A Quantitative Causal-Comparative Study

The purpose of this quantitative, causal-comparative study is to investigate the current differences between online and face-to-face student attitudes toward mathematics and computer-based learning at the high school level. Because instruction and technology use have been influenced by the Covid-19 pandemic, it is important to assess student attitudes toward mathematics and computer-based learning in both traditional face-to-face and online settings. This study was conducted with 70 face-to-face students and 67 online high school students in a single school district in North Carolina. The Galbraith-Haines Mathematics-Computer Attitude Scales were used as the data collection instrument measuring student confidence toward mathematics, mathematics motivation, computer confidence, and computer-mathematics interaction. A secure Google form was used for data collection in the spring of 2023. A one-way MANOVA was used to determine if there was a difference in attitudes between the online and face-to-face participants in the dependent variables. The result of the MANOVA was significant, where F(4, 127) = 10.448, p \u3c .001, Pillai’s Trace = .248, and partial η^2 = 0.248, suggesting there are significant differences on the dependent variables by setting type for high school mathematics students in online and face-to-face settings. Results indicated a higher confidence in mathematics held by face-to-face students, higher mathematics motivation held by online students, and higher computer-mathematics interaction held by online students. No significant difference was found between online and face-to-face students in the area of computer confidence. Recommendations for further studies include a larger sample size, a comparison of technology uses, and a qualitative study

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health