The America Medical Association has classified negative mental health in children and adolescents as a global crisis ^[1]. The World Health Organization Special Initiative for Mental Health (2019–2023): Universal Health Coverage for Mental Health cites suicide as the leading cause of death in young people ^[2]. Concurrently, it has been noted that the highest achievers in standardized school settings are at the greatest risk for negative mental health ^[3], a phenomenon well-known in the scientific literature ^[4]. Furthermore, school dropouts with poor academic performance are found at risk for major depressive symptoms upon reaching adulthood, considered a result of their previous poor academic performance in school ^[5]. As such, in this children’s mental health crisis, standardized learning must be recognized as having a direct and lasting negative mental health effect on both the most and least academically inclined students in public schools.

Public schools are government-sponsored common schools open to all students, aiming to stabilize and reproduce public social values with the intention of guiding individual psychological development from one generation to the next ^[6] through a standardized method of learning ^[7] intended to sort students into those expected to maintain the accepted psychosocial belief system and those anticipated to develop psychosocial deviance ^[8]. As such, standardized educational assessment is designed to reliably discriminate among students concerning the knowledge, skills, and abilities assessed ^[9] in relation to accepted psychosocial standards. In this way, the stability of school structure has assumed that students will adjust to the desired standardized methods of school over time ^[10] (p. 35), rather than recognize that different approaches are needed for different students ^[11].

Standardized learning is students adopting, believing in, and following the “curricula of initiation” for a particular society, the meaning of which in public schools is set by a ministry of education where these curricula of initiation cannot be modified by the teacher, the pupils, or their parents—no individualized instruction is permitted ^[12]. Learning is standardized when students are directed to learn in relation to the content of particular tests ^[13]. Learning is then judged as a percentage of how many questions students correctly answer on such tests. Given that the curricula of initiation cannot be changed by teachers, pupils, or parents, standardized learning identifies with indoctrination. Indoctrination means “infiltrating (drilling, inculcating, etc.) concepts, beliefs and theories into a student’s mind”. This is done by bypassing the student’s “free and critical determination” ^[14]. Indoctrination leads to state-controlled outcomes in social and political change with severe penalties for transgression ^[15]. As such, standardized learning promotes negative mental health in students ^[16].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public schools underwent significant change ^[17]. Identified as a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO) ^[18], on 4 May 2023, The Emergency Committee on COVID-19 met and issued a statement on 5 May 2023 in which COVID-19 was downgraded by the WHO as an established and ongoing health issue which no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern ^[19]. During the three years of the COVID-19 pandemic, schools throughout the world were forced to contend with limitations to standardized program delivery that often included full school closure, necessitating an immediate and complete transition to online learning ^[20]. Defined as internet-delivered education ^[21], online learning was a necessary change, including in areas in the world where online learning was underdeveloped ^[22]. Teachers had to quickly establish online teaching skills ^[23] and students were expected to adjust to learning that was primarily self-directed ^[24][25][26].

Self-directed learning is defined as the ability to learn on one’s own ^[27] (p. 17). Self-directed learning in public school students became particularly important regarding various psychosocial factors following the shift from teacher-centered classrooms to learner-centered approaches with online learning during COVID-19 ^[28]. With respect to online learning, self-directed learning has been recognized to have a strong correlation with academic achievement when the learning is self-initiated ^[29]. A significant relationship has been demonstrated among digital literacy competence, academic performance, and self-directed learning readiness ^[30]. Unlike high academic achievement through standardized learning, high academic performance with student-initiated self-directed learning during COVID-19 was found to produce positive psychosocial outcomes ^[31][32]. However, for those students who did not self-initiate their self-directed learning and did not exhibit self-directed learning readiness, the effect of self-directed learning during COVID-19 has been found to be detrimental ^[33].

Positive psychosocial outcomes in students are necessary for the current mental health crisis in children to be alleviated ^[34]. According to transactional theory and research on emotions and coping concerning psychological stress, short-term outcomes represent emotions during and immediately after an encounter, and long-term outcomes involve subjective well-being, social functioning, and somatic health ^[35][36]. Although short-term emotional outcomes may, when stable, contribute to long-term outcomes ^[35] (p. 160), it is the long-term positive psychosocial outcomes that are of concern regarding the mental health crisis. As such, positive psychosocial outcomes in association with public schools are those that reduce anxiety, increase resilience, improve well-being, and increase positive mental health in students ^[37]. In this regard, successful self-initiated self-directed learning represents a problem-focused form of coping especially responsive to contextual factors while the relaxation of parents’ expectations concerning the maintenance of standardized expectations is, in contrast, a form of emotion-focused coping influenced by factors relevant to persons ^[35]. From this perspective, an individual’s appraisal of the situation greatly influences their resulting emotions, coping strategies, and subsequent outcomes ^[36].

In relation to COVID-19, online learning in association with self-directed learning became a tried and accepted option for public schools that has become a potentially sustainable feature of these schools ^[38]. This is important, as self-initiated self-directed learning has been found able to promote positive psychosocial outcomes unachievable through standardized learning in public school settings ^[39]. Yet, there are problems associated with self-directed learning, particularly regarding parental expectations concerning continued standardization of learning ^[28][40], that can decrease students’ school success and mental health if such challenges are not recognized and accommodated.

2. Positive and/or Negative Assessments for Each of the Three Variables

2.1. All Positive

The research topics of those articles that had a positive evaluation of all of self-directed learning, online learning, and mental health of public school students during COVID-19 included the following: Impact of information literacy ^[41]; Self-directed learning on learning outcomes in MOOCs ^[42]; Guiding teaching strategies ^[43]; Mental health of high school students ^[44]; Factors affecting students’ happiness on online learning ^[45]; The school of the future ^[46]; and Challenges to learners in interpreting self as other ^[47]. To be discussed is if these articles mention the importance of self-directed learning being self-initiated and parents relaxing their concern that learning be standardized. Self-directed learning has been found to have a positive outcome in public school students during COVID-19 if the online learning undertaken was self-initiated ^[31][32][39]. Otherwise, self-directed learning has a negative result ^[33]. The article on the impact of information literacy ^[41] reports on a study of Chinese public school students. A positive correlation was found among self-directed learning, online learning, and positive mental health. Yet, this was a result of self-directed learning being understood by the authors to mean that the students self-direct to accomplish socially acceptable tasks, not the understanding of the term as learning guided by what students personally value ^[48][49]. The focus of the authors is creating a ”harmonious and independent online learning atmosphere”. In other words, the meaning of self-directed learning is contrary to demonstrating trust in the students’ ability to actually self-direct their learning. The article does not mention self-initiated learning because the learning supported by these authors is opposed to self-initiated. The success of online learning and positive mental health reported has come from teacher and parent-controlled learning, rather than self-initiated self-directed learning. The second article, concerning self-directed learning on learning outcomes in massive open online courses (MOOCs) ^[42], does not mention self-initiated learning per se. However, it does refer to self-regulated, self-managed, and self-monitored learning. The authors understand self-directed learning to come from learning engagements preferred by the student, rather than skills development by teachers and parents. These authors identify MOOCs as learning environments providing learners with “unprecedented autonomy in learning”. It is in providing this autonomy that this particular type of online learning provides positive mental health to students. The concerns of parents regarding standardized learning are not mentioned. The third article that finds a positive connection among self-directed learning, online learning, and mental health investigates guiding teacher strategies ^[43]. This is another article from China relating self-directed learning to “Strict Management of Online Teaching”, including behavior and emotional management of students. This strict management is considered to result in positive mental health. The fourth article reports on a study of the mental health of high school students ^[44] in providing a positive view of the three variables. The primary concern is the mental health of students—the fact of students self-directing their learning and doing so online is a secondary interest. Both students and parents are described as “shocked” by the move to online learning given the previous expectation of standardized, in-person learning. Although the students initially demonstrated anxiety related to COVID-19, they developed skills to cope with the pandemic through their self-directed online learning leading to positive mental health. There is no discussion of the students’ learning and whether or not it was self-initiated. The fifth article concerns factors affecting students’ happiness regarding online learning ^[45]. From the perspective presented, the need for autonomy “to feel free and self-directed” is imperative. As such, whatever improves the ability of students to self-direct their learning will necessarily make them happier. In this way, self-directed online learning during COVID-19 had the potential to make students happier if they felt free to self-direct their learning. The study found self-directed learning to be a positive experience if this learning is self-initiated. The school of the future is the next paper ^[46]. It provides positive assessments because the authors contend that students will adjust to self-directed online learning since these methods will be the mainstay of future education. It is because they will adjust that they will have positive mental health. Learning will become individualized, in these authors’ estimations. These authors mention neither self-initiated learning nor parental concerns. However, in considering that learning of the future will be individualized, they contend that parents need to educate themselves on the new technologies. In this way, it appears the authors are assuming the importance of self-initiation to learning in the future and to parents letting go of their interest in standardization in their children’s learning as future learning will give “students the freedom to express their creativity, cultivate their imaginations, and approach knowledge through entertainment, their interests, and their learning profiles” (p. 77). Finally, of those papers that are positive regarding each of the three variables, a paper discussing challenges to learners in interpreting self as other ^[47] makes a clear distinction between students who develop their sense of self by turning to the norm and those who are self-reflective. Those influenced by the norm felt a sense of discomfort with self-directed online learning being required during COVID-19 and their mental health suffered as a result. However, mental health was positive when self-directed learning was embraced through self-reflection. Although the perspective offered does not mention self-initiated learning itself, self-reflective learning is that which is self-initiated. The author stresses that self-directed learning can be developed in students and that, especially with respect to online learning, it should be enhanced as it was found to improve academic performance during COVID-19. The role of parents is to mentor their children to become self-directed learners by helping them reflect on their personal values, rather than demanding adherence to standardized school norms.

2.2. Two Positive, One Negative

Students’ self-directed learning in English (foreign language) ^[50], Challenges and opportunities in online distance learning ^[51], Digital engagement and academic functioning ^[52], and Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on k-12 education ^[53] are the topics of the articles considering two of the three variables to be positive and one of them negative. For the articles that looked at student’s self-directed learning in English when studied as a foreign language, and the one concerned with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 education, both self-directed learning and mental health were found to be positive while online learning had a negative effect on the students. In contrast, for the article investigating the challenges and opportunities in online distance learning, and the one regarding digital engagement and academic functioning, self-directed learning and online learning were found to be positive while the mental health of the students was negative. The article investigating self-directed learning with respect to English language learning determined that COVID-19-demanded self-directed online learning produced three different types of self-directed learners ^[50]. The first, students who self-initiate their learning and prefer self-directed learning such that self-directed learning is a positive experience. The second group, not inclined to begin self-directed learning on their own, was able to develop into self-directed learners with teacher support. Of the last group, the students were neither interested in self-directed learning nor able to benefit from teacher accommodations because they were uninterested in learning English. This group did not see self-directed learning positively. What was common among all the students is the poor internet connections they experienced. It is because accessing their online learning consistently and regularly was so difficult for these learners that online learning was judged negatively. Regarding the article concerned with the challenges and opportunities of online distance learning, these authors found that the majority of students adjust well to self-directed online learning ^[51]. What they could not adjust to was COVID-19, as they remained depressed and anxious because of the pandemic, even though they may have found self-directed online learning to be effective. As a result, the consequence of either self-directed learning or online learning on mental health could not be judged independently from COVID-19, producing a negative assessment regarding mental health. The authors on digital engagement and academic functioning ^[52] found most of the literature assesses mental health negatively concerning self-directed online learning being necessitated with COVID-19. However, this result is not considered inevitable by these authors. Rather than “self-initiated”, they instead focus on “connected learning”, a process where learners’ self-regulation is dependent on interest-driven learning. As such, these terms seem equivalent. When connected, student learning is considered to lead to positive mental health. The motivational process dependent on connected learning is found to promote positive mental health. The role of parents with respect to both of the processes is not investigated.

2.3. One Positive, Two Negative

The paper regarding motivating online learning presupposes that self-directed learning is valuable and that all learning should be evolving in this direction ^[54]. Self-initiation of learning is not mentioned. Where the article finds challenges with self-directed learning during COVID-19 is with online learning. Although the authors appreciate the autonomy that comes from online learning, they have a negative assessment of online learning because they consider in-person social engagement as fundamental to positive mental health. With respect to the literature review on the impact of COVID-19 on teaching and learning, this was the second paper that was positive about self-directed learning but negative concerning both online learning and mental health ^[55]. The authors assume self-directed learning to be the preferred method of learning. Nevertheless, poor internet connections made online learning a negative experience for students. Yet, it was neither self-directed learning nor online learning that caused the mental health of the students studied to be negative. This was attributed to the rise in domestic violence and child abuse resulting from children being required to remain home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lower secondary school students’ barriers to learning ^[56] is the final paper positive only in relation to self-directed learning and considered online learning and the mental health of students negative. In this literature review, the authors found self-directed learning directly linked to each student’s development, independent work, and students’ self-confidence. There was a lack of internet connection and poor infrastructure for students leading to inequities in the use of online learning. The pandemic itself and the lockdowns that followed were considered the cause of poor mental health. These authors do not refer to self-initiated learning. However, they focus on creating self-regulated learning, permitting students to construct knowledge. Although not equivalent to self-initiated learning, it seems these authors were not in support of standardized learning with the self-direction they endorse. In relation to those papers returned in the Google Scholar search that were positive regarding online learning but negative concerning the other two variables, the first of the three to consider is the one that investigated high school students’ experience of online learning during COVID-19 in association with the influence of technology and pedagogy ^[57]. The authors assumed online learning was a positive development in learning with teacher-directed learning the type of learning appropriate for public school students. They did not support self-directed learning during COVID-19 limitations. It is evident that the view of self-directed learning considered by these authors was not self-initiated learning. An article assessing the impact of COVID-19 on students’ acceptance of readiness for online learning ^[58], with online learning being considered the new norm by these authors, evaluates online learning positively. The purpose of the article is to determine what is holding students back in their ability to accept online learning. In this regard, the need to self-direct learning was seen to be a burden by the students studied because they lacked mental readiness and this negative aspect of their mental health affected their lack of motivation to accept online learning. In this regard, unlike other articles that considered online learning negatively with similar results, these authors saw the problem not with online learning but, rather with poor self-direction and diminished mental health. Yet, without a comment on self-initiated learning, it is unclear what these authors understood in their reference to self-directed learning. The next article that considered online learning to be positive but self-directed learning and mental health negative in public school students during COVID-19 looked at adaptability and high school students’ online learning ^[59]. As online learning was the only method of learning available during COVID-19 lockdowns, as a result of it continuing student learning, it is considered positive. An article focused on adaptability, both self-directed learning and mental health were negative because students were unable to adapt to either self-directed learning or to the uncertainty of COVID-19, causing their mental health to be negative. What these authors did not compare were the conditions under which self-directed learning was successful regarding online learning and mental health during COVID-19.

2.4. All Negative

The first article in this regard focused on the isolation students felt during COVID-19. This isolation necessarily produced negative mental health in the view of these authors ^[60]. Resulting from this perceived negative mental health, students were unable to engage in self-directed learning, and online learning only further increased their isolation. In assuming that working on one’s own is equivalent to feeling isolated, these authors could not consider the potential benefits of either self-directed learning or online learning, demonstrating the authors’ particular prejudice. Although these authors did report that the students perceived advantages to self-directed learning. Nevertheless, they conclude that self-directed learning is a “plight in solitary learning”. These authors did not consider the role of self-initiation in self-directed learning. Parents during COVID-19 are to act as teachers. In other words, they are to continue the standardized expectations of the school. An article focused on high school student–athlete experiences judges all accommodations made during COVID-19 regarding the physical education program to be negative ^[61]. The social distancing ban on team sports ^[62] demanded by COVID-19 limitations caused self-directed online learning to lead to the negative mental health of the students studied. Parents were seen to support the standardized expectations of the in-person athletic program. Those students who did not prefer the regular in-person physical education classes because they had a disinterest in physical contact, team sports, or both were not considered. The mental health of non-athletes has been found positive during COVID-19 in other research ^[63], although neither self-directed learning nor online learning was considered in this finding. A paper investigating self-directed learning and attitude to online learning was specifically concerned with both self-directed learning and online learning regarding the mental health of public school students ^[64]. Although ultimately judging self-directed learning, online learning, and mental health each as negative in public school students during COVID-19, this assessment was balanced regarding the factors involved in both the positive and negative results. For those students who self-initiated their learning, self-directed online learning was positive and correlated with positive mental health. However, most of the students studied did not self-initiate their learning and, as a result, their experiences were entirely negative during COVID-19. An article that proclaims school connectedness still matters ^[65], as does an article that judged all three variables as negative, begins with a biased point of view that connectedness is best experienced in school. As such, necessarily these authors would conclude that self-directed learning, online learning, and mental health were all negative as a result of the school closures brought on by COVID-19 because the students were not physically in school. This result demonstrates again that all negative results regarding the three variables can arise from the authors’ beginning with a particular point that is not directly related to the three variables but, as a result of that point of view, the three variables are necessarily judged as negative. The results of a paper on the impact of learning on science regarding social and digital literacy ^[66] show a relationship between the impact of social distancing regarding COVID-19 and a decline in mental health, leading to a decrease in scientific literacy. The research concludes that, if appropriate supports are introduced and responded to positively and applied optimally, the negative impact of the pandemic regarding online learning can be reduced. In other words, the negative results regarding the three variables were not seen as necessary by these authors. Rather, it was the speed at which the changes took place to self-directed online learning that was considered to have caused these negative consequences. Self-initiated learning was not investigated. A comparison of online learning challenges was undertaken for another study with a negative evaluation of self-directed learning, online learning, and the mental health of both adults and public school students during COVID-19 ^[67]. Online learning is considered an “education revolution”. Yet, considering public school students, it is because of insufficient support by parents and teachers stressing standardized expectations that the public school students’ assessment of self-directed online learning was negative, negatively affecting their mental health. Consideration is not given to the importance of self-initiation of learning. One of the negative articles is named after an assessment of a student interviewed: “Teachers act like we’re robots” ^[68]. The authors found each self-directed learning, online learning, and mental health of public school students to be negative during the pandemic. The authors examined 1930 TikTok videos by students who posted their experiences regarding, among other things, the three variables under consideration. They found that students were overwhelmed and traumatized by the pandemic and that their focus was seeking support, empathy, and authenticity from teachers. For these students, their anxiety related to COVID-19 itself produced negative mental health and affected their perception of self-directed learning and online learning as also negative. Self-initiation of learning was not investigated. These students commented that their parents berated and upset them regarding their poor performance at school, demonstrating the type of effect parental concerns regarding standardized expectations can have on their children. A paper focusing on socioeconomic inequities during COVID-19 ^[69] found that students from lower socioeconomic living conditions lacking resilience necessarily had a negative response to self-directed learning and online learning, and had their mental health suffer during COVID-19. Students from other socioeconomic brackets similarly required resilience to overcome problems in these three areas but they were more likely to demonstrate it during the pandemic. Similar to the previously mentioned paper on high school athletes’ experiences ^[61], the paper on high school physical education teachers’ perceptions of student learning during COVID-19 ^[70] was negative with respect to self-directed learning in students, online learning, and student mental health. What differs for these authors is that they assume the mental health of students is poor because it has been reported elsewhere as such. Similarly, as studies of other physical education teachers have reported self-directed online learning to be a barrier, these authors accept it as such. The final paper with all negative assessments of the three variables regarding public schools during COVID-19 concerned the home-school linkage ^[71]. Self-directed learning is not supported because, in lower grades, students are seen to have low motivation to self-direct and insufficient skills. In upper grades, they are found to be too distracted by their technological devices to self-direct their learning. Online learning is evaluated as ineffective because, in remote and poor areas, students do not have the devices or connectivity to learn online. This problem is further exacerbated if families have only one device and several children who need to share it for their online learning. In this regard, to improve their children’s mental health, these authors contend, “parents need to supervise and guide them to study for a longer time” (p. 240). It becomes clear from this solution to negative mental health that these authors consider parents to equate positive mental health with standardized school success. Self-initiation of self-directed learning is not considered.

3. Self-Initiated Learning/Parental Concern Regarding Retaining Standardized Learning

As is evident from the discussion of the 30 articles returned in a search of the parameter containing the five keywords, the perception of the authors regarding self-initiated learning and their view on parental concern regarding the maintenance of standardized learning in their children during the COVID-19 lockdowns is dependent on whether they see each of self-directed learning, online learning, and mental health as positive or negative. Furthermore, each of these depends on whether the authors view standardized learning as necessary to public school learning for all students, or whether those who can self-initiate their learning should be permitted to do so. The answer to these questions is dependent on the view the authors have of parents in supporting standardized learning.  In only 8 (26.7%) of the papers did their authors provide support for self-initiated learning. Furthermore, these articles favoring self-directed learning also did not agree that standardized learning is for all learners. In total, there were 11 (36.7%) papers that supported standardized learning for all students. However, the issue of whether learning should be self-initiated was not mentioned in 11 (36.7%) of the papers, although merely 5 (16.7%) articles were clearly against self-initiated learning—each of which was definite in considering that standardized learning was for all students. In every case where parents were seen to be supportive of standardized learning the article assumed that standardized learning was for all; however, there were 5 (16.7%) additional papers where it was clear that parents valued standardization yet the message of the authors of these papers was not in itself clear in supporting of standardized learning for all. In total, 15 (50%) of the included articles were definite in parental concern that learning be standardized. In fact, there was only 1 (3.3%) paper in which parents were entirely against the idea of standardized learning for all ^[47]. This is in contrast to only 2 (7.6%) of the articles mentioning that parents were supportive of self-initiated learning ^[46][51]. However, in the vast majority of the papers included (25 or 83.3%), the issue of whether student learning should be self-initiated was not even considered from the point of view of parents. There were, however, more parents entirely against self-initiated learning (three or 10%) than for it (two or 7.6%). That neither self-initiation of self-directed learning nor the role of parents in relaxing their concern that learning continues to maintain standardized expectations during COVID-19 were mentioned in the majority of the reports of those included is troubling in relation to transactional theory and research on emotions and coping concerning psychological stress. It is through self-directed learning that is self-initiated that coping with the online learning required during COVID-19 was successful, as it represented a problem-focused form of coping responsive to contextual factors. Furthermore, without consideration of the relaxation of parents’ expectations involving the maintenance of standardized expectations, a form of emotion-focused coping influenced by factors relevant to personal relations was not assessed ^[35]. In this regard, the influence on students’ resulting emotions, coping strategies, and subsequent psychosocial outcomes were not examined by these reports and they are therefore found lacking ^[36].