Online Learning in Ukraine: How It Works and Whether Knowledge Levels Are Declining (Part 1)

As of January 1, 2025, according to the Ministry of Education and Science[1] (hereinafter—MES), 13% of schoolchildren were studying remotely (about 10% at the beginning of the school year), while 17.8% were enrolled in a blended format. Given the current security situation, the demand for remote learning is expected to persist. This article examines how online and hybrid learning are currently organized and how these formats affect educational outcomes.

The regulatory framework for distance education was established in 2020 by MES Order No. 1115, “On Certain Issues of Organizing Distance Learning,” which granted educational institutions autonomy in selecting their electronic learning environment. At the same time, MES, in cooperation with the NGO Smart Education, issued methodological recommendations for organizing distance learning in schools. These recommendations particularly encouraged the use of widely adopted online resources, including Moodle, Google Classroom, Zoom, Class Dojo, Learningapps.org, and others.

However, according to school leaders and teachers (based on personal interviews conducted as part of our study), the organization of distance learning largely depends on how school administrations have structured the process. As a result, distance learning takes on diverse forms, and the educational experiences of children in different schools can vary significantly.

In addition, the distance-learning format poses three challenges that are absent in traditional in-person schooling:

1. Digital inequality. While children in school have equal access to resources (textbooks, computers, or the internet), the situation at home is different. Access to a modern device, a stable internet connection, and even a quiet space for study depends on a family’s financial capacity.
2. Risks to knowledge acquisition. Parents and educators are concerned that students may learn less effectively in distance education than in the classroom 
3. Risks to social skills development. Children learning remotely have fewer opportunities to build communication and collaboration skills, which are typically developed through direct interaction at school.

This article examines how distance learning in Ukraine is currently organized and what challenges arise in terms of access to resources. The second part will analyze how the online format influences students’ knowledge levels. 

Methodology

This article is based on data from a survey conducted in March 2025 as part of the study “Future Index: Professional Expectations and Development of Adolescents in Ukraine.” The survey used a mixed CATI-CAWI method: mobile numbers were first randomly selected for telephone interviews with adults (18+) who had children of the target age. After confirming eligibility and obtaining parental consent, the child was invited to complete an online questionnaire.

At the telephone contact stage, 10,962 adults agreed to participate, resulting in 5,089 children completing the online survey (46.4% of those who consented). The study sample consisted of 5,089 students aged 13–16 from across Ukraine (excluding the occupied territories). In addition, their parents or other legal guardians were surveyed, and their responses were used to assess the family’s socio-economic status. Among the respondents, 2,351 students were studying online or in a blended format.

The questionnaire consisted of two parts:

• Section for parents, which included questions about the family’s socio-economic status.
• Section for students, which included questions on learning conditions, personal characteristics, and academic performance.

Compared to official MES data, the share of students in the sample who studied in person was noticeably smaller—53.8% versus 69.2%. At the same time, the sample reflects the structure of the overall student population by geographic indicators:

• Distribution by region: the maximum deviation from MES data was +1.8 percentage points (overrepresentation of the Center) and –1.4 percentage points (underrepresentation of the West);
• Distribution by type of settlement: the deviation did not exceed 1 percentage point, with a slight shift toward cities.

The format of learning was determined based on responses to the survey question: “Please indicate the format of instruction at your school.” Respondents were offered three options:

• Instruction takes place in the usual mode (in person);
• Instruction takes place remotely (online);
• Instruction takes place in a blended format.

Access to digital devices was operationalized through the question: “Which devices do you use for distance learning? Select all that apply.” The response options were: Computer, Laptop, Tablet, Smartphone, Other, None of the above. For each selected device, respondents were asked to indicate ownership: Mine, Belongs to a parent, Belongs to a sibling, Family-owned (shared), Other.
On this basis, a variable with four categories was constructed:

• No devices;
• Phone only;
• Shared tablet/PC/laptop;
• Own tablet/PC/laptop.

Internet stability was operationalized through the question: “Do you have stable internet access at home for online lessons?” 

Respondents were offered five answer options:

• Yes, the internet works well;
• Yes, but there are occasional problems not related to power outages;
• Yes, there are problems, but these are related to power outages;
• No, the internet often does not work;
• No, there is no internet at home.

Use of online platforms was measured through the question: “Which digital platform do you use most often for distance learning? Select all that apply.” The options included: Viber, Telegram, Google Classroom, Moodle, All-Ukrainian Online School (AUOS), and Other (unspecified). Separate options for Google Meet and Zoom were not provided; responses mentioning these services may have been classified as Other. This should be taken into account when interpreting the findings on platform use.

We classify Google Classroom, Moodle, and AUOS as educational platforms, and Viber and Telegram as messaging applications. Based on combinations of responses, a variable with three categories was constructed:

• Messaging applications only (Viber, Telegram);
• Educational platforms only (Google Classroom, Moodle, AUOS);
• Both messaging applications and educational platforms.

Type of settlement of residence was determined by the question: “What type of settlement do you currently live in?” Respondents could choose from the following options: regional center, other city within the region, village, township, or difficult to answer/no response. However, we did not ask about the place of schooling, since a child may attend a school located in a different settlement from their place of residence. Nevertheless, the type of settlement where the school is located provides important insight into its capacity to organize the educational process.

Findings

How is distance learning organized today?

Google Classroom is the most widely used online learning platform, with nearly 60% of students in online or blended formats reporting its use. At the same time, about one in five students (21%) rely exclusively on messaging applications (Viber and/or Telegram) for their learning.

Among learning platforms, Google Classroom dominates, with 59.3% of students in online or blended formats reporting its use. This makes it the de facto standard for distance learning. It is most often used either on its own (24.7%) or in combination with messaging applications such as Viber (26.6%) or Telegram (14.6%).

Viber and Telegram are the second most widely used tools for distance learning. Overall, 45.7% of students use Viber and 24.7% use Telegram, either independently or in combination with other platforms.

However, a significant share of students in online or blended formats rely exclusively on messaging applications. Our study found that one in five students (21.2%) use only Viber and/or Telegram for learning. This group includes those who reported using Viber only, Telegram only, or a combination of the two without educational platforms (102 out of 311 students in this category).

Messaging applications cannot fully substitute for online learning platforms, as they do not provide real-time communication between teachers and students. In addition, chat-based exchanges blur formal and informal communication, and important learning materials may be lost. A structured system that guarantees access to instructional materials and assignments—such as Google Classroom—is therefore essential. At the same time, messaging applications remain useful communication tools, particularly valuable when live interaction is unavailable, and their use is actively supported by students (Humanante Ramos, 2015).

Only slightly more than one-third of students (35.9%) use both platforms and messaging applications simultaneously. They study through Google Classroom, AUOS, or Moodle in combination with Viber or Telegram—a model that combines a structured system with convenient communication.

At the same time, 27.4% of students selected the option “Other” (unspecified) when choosing a platform—most often in combination with those listed in the questionnaire. This presents a significant limitation for the study, as it is not possible to determine whether these responses refer to real-time online communication services (Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams), which were not listed separately in the survey, or to various less common platforms and messaging applications.

Type of settlement is associated with the use of learning platforms and messaging applications: in villages, Viber dominates (54.9%) compared to 49.1% for Google Classroom, while in regional centers 63.5% of students use Google Classroom compared to 41.4% for Viber. This produces markedly different patterns of platform and messenger use depending on the type of settlement (see Chart 1).

As shown in Chart 1, the structure of platform and messenger use differs significantly. In large cities, learning platforms are more often combined with messaging applications, whereas in villages a substantial share of students rely solely on messengers, without access to full-fledged digital environments. This exacerbates inequalities in the quality of distance learning.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the key factor in distance learning is not merely the choice of platform or messenger, but above all the delivery of synchronous lessons by teachers in environments that enable live communication (e.g., Zoom, Google Meet, or Microsoft Teams). Platforms and messengers serve primarily as supporting tools, while the quality of distance learning is defined by sustained real-time interaction with the teacher.

The online format does not guarantee equal opportunities when schools rely on different tools. In villages, instruction is more often conducted through messengers, which reduces the degree of organization in the educational process. Students in cities, especially in regional centers, have access to more structured forms of distance learning.

Learning format is not associated with the use of platforms and messengers (Chart 2).

Among students in online and blended formats, no statistical difference is observed in the organization of distance learning: about 40% use both a platform and a messenger, one-third use only a platform, and one-quarter use only a messenger.

Thus, the main inequality in the organization of learning appears across settlement types, particularly between villages and regional centers.

What is the situation with access to electronic devices among students?

The smartphone is the primary device for online learning—almost four out of five students use one. Nearly 80% of schoolchildren have access to a laptop, computer, or tablet, meaning they use at least one of these devices. However, a large share of these are family-owned, with fewer than 60% of students having their own.

The vast majority of students have access to a smartphone for learning, yet more than 22.4% do not—and the situation is considerably worse with other devices. About half of students use laptops, while only around a quarter use a computer or a tablet. Overall, 69.7% of students use a laptop or computer (or both), while 20.5% rely solely on a smartphone.

Students in blended learning have poorer access to electronic devices than those studying fully online (see Chart 4).

Laptops are noticeably more common among students studying online—52.9% compared to 45.5% among those in blended learning. Overall, 71.6% of online students have access to a laptop or computer, enabling full participation in distance learning, whereas the figure is only 65% among students in blended learning.

Another issue is that exclusive smartphone use is more common among students in blended learning than among those studying fully online—22.7% compared to 17.1%. This level of access is insufficient for full participation in distance learning. Thus, while the ratio among online students of those with a laptop or computer versus only a smartphone is 71.6% to 17.1%, among blended learning students it is 65% to 22.7%.

This can likely be explained by the fact that in a fully online format, parents are more inclined to view the purchase of a laptop or computer for their child’s learning as necessary than in blended learning. Accordingly, the difference in device access reflects the lower dependence on electronic devices in blended learning: a student who attends school periodically completes part of the work in person and, when needed, can do homework (for example, in computer science or for creating a presentation) on a school computer.

At the same time, it should be noted that not all students use their own electronic devices—often the equipment is shared within the family (see Chart 5).

The vast majority of students in online and blended learning have their own smartphone—only 1.2% rely on a family device. Tablets are also generally personally owned. Laptops and computers are more often shared with family members, though this still accounts for a minority of cases—13.7% and 8.6%, respectively. Overall, 57.1% of students have their own laptop, computer, or tablet.

These findings indicate progress compared to a representative survey by the State Service of Education Quality in 2023 (p. 49), which reported that only 48% of students had their own laptop, computer, or tablet. At the same time, smartphones have not become more widespread—the increase from 74% to 76% lies within the margin of error.

The growing prevalence of laptops and computers likely reflects the success of charitable programs that provide students with devices. According to MES data, as of July 28, 2025, international organizations and companies had delivered more than 262,000 devices to students and teachers in Ukraine.

Lack of a personal device creates significant barriers to learning. Students who must share a computer or laptop with family members are more likely to miss classes, lack consistent access to materials, and be unable to complete assignments—ultimately undermining the quality of their education. Children from low-income families are especially vulnerable, as purchasing an additional device presents financial challenges that further widen educational inequality. Even so, a family-owned device offers at least limited access to learning, which is far better than having none at all.

According to the MES dashboard, as of July 28, 2025, the need for digital devices persists among 283,840 students and 66,781 teachers, while a total of 262,722 devices have been delivered since 2022.

Based on the survey results, three groups of students can be identified as facing problems with access to devices (see Chart 6).

• Critically disadvantaged group. Students in this group have no device for distance learning. It is the smallest group and is effectively excluded from the educational process.
• Disadvantaged group. Students in this group rely only on a smartphone for distance learning. It is a fairly large group that may face significant limitations and fall behind other students.
• Moderately disadvantaged group. Students in this group have access to electronic devices on a family-shared basis. It is also a relatively large group and may experience difficulties or discomfort in distance learning.

Thus, about 40% of students experience varying levels of difficulty in distance learning—challenges that could be mitigated through better device provision, particularly for the first two groups.

What is the situation with internet access among students?

Only 60% of students have stable, high-quality internet access. Internet quality depends strongly on household financial status: among students from the poorest families, only half have stable access, while in wealthier families the figure exceeds 70%.

Yet even owning a personal laptop does not guarantee access to learning, as online education requires another key component—a stable internet connection. Here, too, a similar pattern of digital inequality emerges (see Chart 7).

Overall, the internet situation in the country is relatively stable: about 60% of students in online and blended learning have reliable access. About one-quarter of respondents report occasional problems, while another 15% experience difficulties regularly, making full participation in classes difficult or impossible.

Importantly, the nature of students’ internet access problems has changed. In previous years, the main obstacle to learning was rolling power outages (according to the State Service of Education Quality, in 2023 up to 30% of students lacked stable access to classes for this reason). By 2025, however, the problem had shifted to an economic dimension.

Today, the main divide in internet access is not between cities and villages[3], but between families with different income levels. A household’s financial capacity to afford stable internet has become one of the key factors shaping access to online learning (see Chart 8).

Twenty-six percent of students from the poorest households experience regular internet difficulties—almost twice the sample average. Among students from households that can at least afford food, problems with outages and lack of internet are significantly less common. At higher income levels, the problem nearly disappears—only 7% of students from well-off households report regular internet difficulties.

The significance of the financial factor is also confirmed when controlling for place of residence and type of educational institution in a regression model (t-value = –6.75[4] , p-value < 0.001). In other words, regardless of where a student lives or studies, internet access is determined by household income.

Thus, digital inequality in access to high-quality internet has shifted from a geographic to a socio-economic dimension. In the context of distance learning, this means that a family’s financial capacity directly affects a child’s access to education, deepening existing educational inequality.

Conclusions

Distance education in Ukraine today is far from uniform. For some students, it means interactive lessons in Google Classroom, continuous teacher support via messenger, and studying on a personal laptop. For others, it amounts to assignments sent through Viber, recurring connectivity issues, and the small screen of a smartphone. This stark contrast in experience risks deepening inequalities in learning outcomes—a topic we explore further in Part 2. 

This is indeed a significant challenge: among students in online and blended formats, only 57% have their own electronic devices for learning, 60% enjoy reliable internet access, and just 35% use both platforms and messengers in their studies.

At the same time, distance learning is not only a source of challenges but also a means of leveling educational opportunities for all students. With proper organization, it can ensure that every learner—regardless of residence, type of school, or household financial situation—has equal access to quality teaching, learning materials, and feedback. The key task, therefore, is not to reject distance learning but to refine it so that, rather than widening losses and gaps, it helps to close them.

Limitations of the study

The survey sample has several important limitations. Adolescents living in temporarily occupied territories, in regions without access to communication, or abroad were not included. At the telephone contact stage, only about 11,000 parents agreed to participate out of more than 480,000 numbers dialed, which may have led to an overrepresentation of more engaged and better-resourced families. In addition, only half of the children whose parents consented actually completed the online questionnaire, adding another layer of self-selection and increasing the risk of systematic bias.

A second important limitation relates to how access to electronic devices was measured. Students were asked about device use, which we interpreted as the presence or absence of such devices in the household. A follow-up question on ownership was posed only to those who reported using a particular device. Therefore, “use” cannot always be equated with “access,” and this nuance should be considered when interpreting the findings.

A third limitation is the incomplete consideration of tools used to organize distance learning. Real-time communication with teachers is critical for the quality of distance education. Yet we did not measure the use of synchronous online communication services such as Google Meet, Zoom, or Microsoft Teams. Consequently, our analysis reflects mainly the use of organizational tools (platforms and messengers) but does not account for the role of synchronous lessons, which are central to the effectiveness of distance learning.