Comparing conceptual learning in Zoom and in-class sections of college physics

The rapid shift to remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic required widespread adoption of synchronous virtual modalities such as Zoom in higher education. This study directly compares student conceptual learning outcomes in two parallel sections of an introductory physics course—one taught face-to-face (F2F) and the other synchronously via Zoom—delivered concurrently by the same instructor. Conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics was measured using the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, administered presemester and postsemester. Normalized gain analysis showed average improvements of 30.49% for the F2F group and 25.01% for the Zoom group, a difference that was not statistically significant. Effect size analysis revealed a large gain for the F2F cohort ( <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <a:mi>d</a:mi> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mn>1.27</a:mn> </a:math> ) and a moderate gain for the Zoom cohort ( <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <c:mi>d</c:mi> <c:mo>=</c:mo> <c:mn>0.72</c:mn> </c:math> ), with only a small, nonsignificant difference in post-test means ( <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <e:mi>d</e:mi> <e:mo>=</e:mo> <e:mn>0.19</e:mn> </e:math> ). Analysis of covariance confirmed that presemester scores were the strongest predictor of postsemester performance ( <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <g:mi>p</g:mi> <g:mo><</g:mo> <g:mn>0.001</g:mn> </g:math> ), while modality itself was not significant ( <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <i:mi>p</i:mi> <i:mo>=</i:mo> <i:mn>0.333</i:mn> </i:math> ). A significant interaction ( <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <k:mi>p</k:mi> <k:mo>=</k:mo> <k:mn>0.010</k:mn> </k:math> ) indicated that prior preparation translated more effectively into learning gains for F2F students. Overall, both instructional modalities fostered meaningful learning; however, face-to-face instruction produced more consistent outcomes, whereas Zoom-based instruction revealed greater variability tied to students’ initial levels of preparation.