237 Sleep disturbances, online instruction, and learning during COVID-19: evidence from 4148 adolescents in the NESTED study

Saletin, Jared; Owens, Judith; Wahlstrom, Kyla; Honaker, Sarah; Wolfson, Amy; Seixas, Azizi; Wong, Patricia; Carskadon, Mary; Meltzer, Lisa

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. Support (if any):