Research in Science & Technological Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

Perspectives of teaching during the COVID-19

lockdown: a comparison of teaching in university
bioscience programmes from around the world

Shelini Surendran, Sam Hopkins, Arif Sabta Aji, Salisu Abubakar, Toni
Clayton, Tharaka Dunuwila, Lyndsay Goss, Robert Hatch, Maria Aderuza
Horst, Kumari M. Rathnayake, Stacey Rosenberg & Israa M. Shatwan

To cite this article: Shelini Surendran, Sam Hopkins, Arif Sabta Aji, Salisu Abubakar, Toni Clayton,
Tharaka Dunuwila, Lyndsay Goss, Robert Hatch, Maria Aderuza Horst, Kumari M. Rathnayake,
Stacey Rosenberg & Israa M. Shatwan (2021): Perspectives of teaching during the COVID-19
lockdown: a comparison of teaching in university bioscience programmes from around the world,
Research in Science & Technological Education, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2021.1993178

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1993178

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 25 Oct 2021.

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 695

View related articles View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=crst20
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1993178

Perspectives of teaching during the COVID-19 lockdown: a

comparison of teaching in university bioscience programmes
from around the world
Shelini Surendran a, Sam Hopkinsa, Arif Sabta Ajib, Salisu Abubakarc, Toni Claytond,
Tharaka Dunuwilae, Lyndsay Goss d, Robert Hatcha, Maria Aderuza Horst f,
Kumari M. Rathnayakeg, Stacey Rosenberg d and Israa M. Shatwan h
a
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK; bGraduate School of Public
Health Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Alma Ata, Yogyakarta, Indonesia; cDepartment
of Biochemistry and Africa Center of Excellence for Population Health and Policy, Bayero University, Kano,
Nigeria; dDepartment of Nursing and Health Professions, Southern New Hampshire University, Manchester,
USA; eDepartment of Medicine, Georgian American University, Tbilisi, Georgia; fNutritional Genomics
Research Group, Faculty of Nutrition, Federal University of Goiás (Ufg), Goiania, Goiás, Brazil; gDepartment of
Applied Nutrition, Faculty of Livestock, Fisheries and Nutrition, Wayamba University of Sri Lanka,
Makandura, Sri Lanka; hFood and Nutrition Department, Faculty of Human Sciences and Design, King
Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Background: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), first recog­ Coronavirus; COVID-19;
nised in Wuhan City, China, has spread rapidly around the world. As higher education
a result, record numbers of students are not attending University
due to temporary closures mandated by governments in an
attempt to reduce the number of cases. The COVID-19 outbreak
has created challenges for academics and students in the process of
adapting to online teaching and learning.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of
bioscience academics during the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020.
Design and methods: Perspectives from academics across eight
countries (Brazil, Georgia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sri
Lanka, UK and USA) were included giving a global insight into the
phenomena. A descriptive multiple case study approach was used
with each academic in their context as the case. Thematic content
analysis was used to analyse data, which enabled themes to
emerge.
Results and Conclusions: Three major themes emerged from the
experiences of the participants: (1) teaching methods, (2) emotions,
and (3) support networks. Our results suggest there have been both
benefits and challenges to the change in teaching methods and this
is reflected in similarities across the case studies. One key finding
was that both students and staff need to be better trained to use
online platforms, and adequate peer support and technical support
must be given to improve program effectiveness. The results of this
study have contributed new information on teaching and learning
throughout the pandemic and can be used as a platform for further
research and also as a reflection for those making high-level deci­
sions in policy in education in these interesting times.

CONTACT Shelini Surendran s.surendran@surrey.ac.uk School of Biosciences and Medicine, University of Surrey,
Guildford, ST GU2 7XH, UK
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med­
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 S. SURENDRAN ET AL.

Introduction
In late December 2019, an outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was first
identified in Wuhan City, China (Chahrour et al. 2020). This strain spread quickly across
China and within a few weeks the virus appeared in many countries across the globe
(WHO 2020a). On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the
COVID-19 epidemic a pandemic (WHO 2020b).
Efforts to contain the spread of COVID-19 had provoked governments across the world
to temporarily close educational institutions (Sahu 2020). The closure of Universities is often
seen as a non-pharmaceutical intervention to break the chain of transmission by reducing
social contact between students (Jackson et al. 2013). Thus, University closures are
expected to reap several benefits including: the slowing down of the pandemic to allow
time for the production of a vaccine, limiting the pressures on the health-care system and
preventing illness-related absenteeism within the population (Cauchemez et al. 2009). As of
6 July 2020, 690,211,490 students (pre-primary, primary, lower-upper secondary, as well as
tertiary education levels) were affected due to closure of educational institutes. According
to UNESCO, 42 countries implemented national closure of educational institutes, impacting
over 39.4% of the world’s student population (UNESCO 2020b).
Since spring 2020, many Universities have made the move from traditional in-class
teaching to online education. The migration to online learning was seen as an important
step for Universities relying on the income of international students who were unable to
leave their home country and for students and staff unable to attend University as they
were quarantined at home (Crawford et al. 2020). For low-income countries, approxi­
mately 25% could provide a form of distance learning for k-12 education, and most of
these countries relied on broadcasting education in the form of TV or radio. Whilst in high-
income countries, approximately 90% of schools are providing online learning (Vegas
2020). The severe short-term disruption of University closures could potentially have
detrimental social, health and economic consequences for academics, students and
their families (Nicola et al. 2020; Van de Velde et al. 2021). Closures of educational
institutions have illustrated several adverse social and economic consequences, including
adapting to interrupted and online distance learning, a rise in dropout rates and social
isolation (UNESCO 2020a; Grubic, Badovinac, and Johri 2020; Son et al. 2020). It is also
possible that some students will be faced with various problems related to accommoda­
tion, University healthcare systems, neurodiversity support and access to Internet (Sahu
2020; Cecilio-Fernandes et al. 2020; Wilson et al. 2020; Katz et al. 2021). Students living in
poverty are highly vulnerable to poor nutrition, increased exposure to violence and
exploitation, childcare issues and subsequent financial hardship among families who
can no longer work (UNESCO 2020a; Owens et al. 2020; Lee 2020; Ertan et al. 2020). It is
important to note that the disruptions caused by COVID-19 will not be a short-term issue
for Universities globally and are expected to exacerbate existing inequalities (Burgess and
Sievertsen 2020).
It is academic staff, however, who have been at the forefront of adapting to non-
traditional/online modes of education. Responses to the pandemic have been rushed and
with little prior training. There is now an opportunity to capture how academics have
responded to this upheaval and their perspective on how this will affect education going
forward.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 3

Universities across the world are responding to closures and dealing with the chal­
lenges posed to them in diverse ways (Crawford et al. 2020). Thus, the purpose of this
study is to investigate the different responses to COVID-19 from the perspectives of
academics teaching biosciences, representing Universities globally. This global perspec­
tive is not often captured and will provide insights into the similarities and differences of
the experience of this phenomenon from the academics’ perspective.

Aims of research
Capture the experience of Bioscience academics’ response to COVID-19 and its impact on
their teaching and learning
Analyse themes emerging from the data uncovering similarities and differences
between situations
Explore the viewpoint of academics from different countries on how the landscape of
teaching and learning will change post COVID-19

Research question
What is the experience of academics teaching in the biosciences in their response to the
COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on their teaching and learning?

Materials and methods

This research explored the authors’ knowledge and experience of the COVID-19 pandemic
and its impact on their teaching (Bryman 2016). In this work, we did not attempt to offer
an ontologically general or realist account of teaching and learning during COVID-19, as
each situation is relative to the understanding of the individual writing their case study
(Lincoln and Guba 2016). Instead, using a constructivist epistemology, we looked for
themes within the rich narrative of those experiencing the same phenomenon in their
context. The reason for this approach was that we wished to acknowledge that each
individual will have a different experience of teaching biosciences at the beginning of the
Covid pandemic and using constructivism will allow us to explore these experiences.
Sampling was non-probabilistic as data were not used for statistical purposes (Merriam
and Tisdell 2015), but to analyse what was occurring within biology teaching and learning
in higher education institutions (HEIs) in response to the COVID pandemic. Consequently,
purposeful sampling was used to obtain a well-spread sample (Merriam and Tisdell 2015)
rather than a determined random sample from the study population (Thompson 2012).
To address our research question, we adopted a descriptive multiple case study
methodology where a case example was considered the experience of the academic in
their institution. We used this definition of a case to take into account individual experi­
ences of teaching during Covid within the individual’s environment. Each case can be
considered the context of the individual and their institution and country. In educational
research, case studies are especially useful as they can examine challenges, which may
then lead to improving practice (Bassey 1999; Campbell 2015). The term ‘case study’ can
be used in three different ways (Savin-Baden and Major 2012). Firstly, the case may be the
limits and boundaries of the phenomenon being studied. Secondly, the case study can
4 S. SURENDRAN ET AL.

define a research approach and finally, it can outline the way the research is presented as
a description of a qualitative study. The current research uses the term case study in all
three respects to some extent. The boundary of the case in question is the academics
involved in teaching in the biosciences each in their individual context. The method to
create these cases was a set of semi-structured prompts, collected from participants on
the 10th of June 2020. For the semi-structured prompts, we did not use the research
questions as this would have made the scope of the case study too narrow. Instead, we
used the following six questions:

(1) What are the current educational state of affairs in your country/how are you
providing learning experiences?
(2) How do you feel your national culture impacts the education provided? What are
the perceptions of your students?
(3) How have you adapted taught content and/or assessments?

What do you perceive are the main barriers for students fully engaging optimally?
What positive changes to learning and teaching do you expect come from your
response to COVID-19?
What are your plans for teaching and learning going forward?
Drawing on the thematic content analysis method of Braun and Clarke (2006) thematic
analysis was used to capture significant concepts in the case studies and identify patterns
in the experience of academics (Ayres 2008). Coders did not contribute a case study to the
data. Using the six steps established by Braun and Clarke in their 2006 paper, coders firstly
familiarised themselves with the data. In the next stage, initial codes were generated by
moving line by line through the data set. At this stage, data extracts were given no code,
one code or multiple codes. Coders then individually searched for themes within their
initial coding and created a mind map of potential themes and sub-themes. Braun and
Clarke (2006) set phase four as reviewing themes. In this step, the two coders came
together to compare the analysis to allow for triangulation. Themes and sub-themes were
discussed with the relevant data extracts, and consensus was reached to create a thematic
map of the data. This map was then checked using the second part of phase four (Braun
and Clarke 2006) by re-reading the entire data set to check the themes represent the data
and also to code any additional data that had been missed in early steps. Once we
believed the thematic map represented the data, we moved onto phase five where we
defined the themes and phase six where we wrote the report. These themes were then
used to structure the results section of the paper and discussed in relation to other
published work in the discussion.

Results
Responses from eight academics representing eight countries (Brazil, Georgia, Indonesia,
Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, UK and USA) and five continents were received in English.
This spread of accounts from across the globe gives real insight into what academics are
living through during this pandemic. Whilst the response to the pandemic has been
different in each country, we have found similarities in the viewpoints and experiences of
the accounts given by each academic.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 5

Table 1. Themes and subthemes from the thematic analysis.

Theme Subthemes
Teaching methods Academic views regarding their teaching methods
Previous methods of teaching
Adaptions to teaching
Methods of delivery
Challenges to online learning
Benefits to online learning
Support network Support from the government
Support from companies
Support from Universities
Teacher support
Student support
Exam board support
Adequacy of support
Emotions Teachers emotions
Students emotions
Feelings of uncertainty
Feelings of worry
Feelings of positivity
Feelings of loneliness
Facing of difficulties

Through analysing the collected data, we found that three major themes (Table 1)
emerged from the experiences of the participants of this study: (1) teaching methods,
(2) emotions, and (3) support networks. Each theme was further divided into sub-
categories based on the principal elements within them that arose in the data set
(Table 1).

Teaching methods
One of the predominant themes emerging from the case studies was the academics’
views regarding their teaching methods. This is understandable as all of the case study
writers were involved with delivering teaching during the lockdown and so of course it
would be forefront in their minds when we asked them to write their case. Academics
talked about their previous methods of teaching and the new methods of delivery and
how the move to online learning had affected them and their students in both positive
and negative ways, often highlighting changes they had made over the past few weeks.
Interestingly, the challenges of online learning were talked about more in the form of
barriers rather than pedagogically suggesting perhaps that the academics in these case
studies had no chance to investigate the situation pedagogically yet. This, of course, is
understandable, as the change in all cases was sudden and swift. The academics also
highlighted the benefits of the move to online learning both in the current context and
for their future teaching. As well as methods of delivery, academics in the cases spoke
about the adaptations they had made.
The case study prompts did not ask specifically for information about how teaching
and learning was carried out at their institution before the pandemic however, some
case studies mentioned this often in relation to the amount of change to the situa­
tion now.
Up until now it was mandatory for all lecturers to be present at the university to conduct
lectures and distance learning was not a part of the curriculum (Georgia)
6 S. SURENDRAN ET AL.

Most of the universities has E-learning system, yet most of them might not be used optimally
(Indonesia)

Online learning was a complementary rather than supplementary component in almost all
state Universities (Sri Lanka)

In some of the cases, academics did not see a change in the learning environment, for one

. . . all lectures were recorded for students to see it whenever they want. Using virtual classes
did not affect delivery of content especially in theoretical courses (Saudi Arabia)

and due to the politics in the area another case stated

the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) has been on total, comprehensive and
indefinite strike even before the COVID-19 pandemic-induced closure of schools. . . .
Therefore, teaching and related activities have been on hold in Nigerian Universities even
before the COVID-19 pandemic-induced closure. (Nigeria)

There were a variety of different methods of online delivery noted in the case studies with
mention of many different platforms and E-learning systems. There was a varying degree
of synchronous and asynchronous teaching and of most interest were some novel
approaches such as the Georgia case study talking about their synchronous sessions
where ‘Students are questioned individually from time to time to ensure that they are
engaged in the lesson’. With the same academic replicating the end of a face-to-face
lecture by logging out last from the session giving students enough time to have their
doubts clarified. In Brazil, the case study spoke about a technique for replicating ‘a journal
club with the presentation and discussion about scientific articles’.
The theme of benefits to online learning can be split into benefits that the academic
sees currently and for the future. The case studies noted areas where they believed that
the online content gave a better experience for the students. With many talking about the
way recorded sessions could be viewed again to instil knowledge

Uploading of recorded zoom lectures and narrated power-point presentations . . . can help
the student to listen them again and again which will allow them not to miss anything that
are taught. (Sri Lanka)

And also that the medium of online delivery allowed students to thrive in the new
environment

Students are interested in using a new way of learning as it is more interactive and
advanced. . . . The shyness and class fear to ask doubts are very less than the traditional
classrooms. (Sri Lanka)

Following on from the idea of the online delivery suiting some students, many cases
discussed the independence and agency students had developed, as a result of the
change in delivery method.

This gives students more confidence . . . [to] be proactive to take ownership of the learning
process and therefore can explore all available avenues to learn modules through all possible
means with minimal input/contact by the lecturer (Nigeria)

which is echoed by an academic in the UK who has seen that ‘Some students seem to
engage better with their studies online and have greater confidence in speaking-out’.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 7

In more practical terms, there was a notion that the move to online teaching was
already a familiar environment for the students to inhabit and that it was convenient for
students to be taught in this way.

Students were fine with online learning as it can be flexible and financially efficient because
students save money on transport fares or motorbike gasoline. (Indonesia)

Looking to the future, academics saw the benefit that this would allow them to find more
novel ways of doing things. In the case studies, it is as if some academics were waiting for
this external driver to allow them to make these changes for example, they discuss that
‘this kind of pressure will force us to be more creative to deliver the courses and make
assignments or projects . . . This coronavirus outbreak has convinced us that online
learning can be used for all subjects’ (Indonesia).
Some cases discussed the benefits for the future in terms of opening education for
more students suggesting that ‘Innovative learning models with high learner capacity will
be advanced, while decreasing costs’ (USA) and ‘We could make education . . . cheaper,
more accessible online, affordable, and inclusive’ (Indonesia).
Some academics thought that the enforced change had allowed them to reflect on the
old way of doing things and how it impacts their productivity with quite practical ideas
around the ‘Time spent on commuting can be utilized to focus on teaching and learning’
(Georgia) and that ‘it has forced many of us (including me) to reflect on the suitability of
the office 9–5 work model’ (UK). Indeed, one case felt that there had been a . . .

paradigm shift in relation to teaching. I believe that it is possible to evolve in the relationship
between teachers and students in favour of expanding knowledge. The teacher leaves aside
his traditional role of informer of facts and data and becomes a provocateur. The student is no
longer an acceptor of information selected by the teacher and seeks to create and consoli­
date knowledge for themselves, from the path indicated by the tutor (Brazil).

Which is echoed in many of the case studies but eloquently summarised by the case study
from Brazil above.
Of course, we are not so naive to believe that the move to online delivery has not been
without its challenges. Many of the case studies highlighted barriers to this new way of
working and interestingly, some of these barriers were also discussed in positive terms
above.
Predictably, one of the largest set of comments was around the use of technology.
Some cases found that the systems they had in place were not sufficient or well supported
enough as one academic noted they had an ‘E-learning system but we do not have
a proper E-learning feature’ (Indonesia). Others noted the obstacles that students may
face with many references to hardware and connectivity issues. These technology issues
then spilled over into a comment on the financial aspect of online teaching. Above in the
benefits theme cases suggested that online teaching would open up access to academia
for some poorer students however, we also had a number of cases mention the financial
implications for students with online teaching.

the disruption of traditional education systems has put students from low-income families
and rural areas at a disadvantage. These are students who, even in normal conditions, are
already facing access barriers to education. They need to overcome additional barriers
brought about by the inequality in accessing technology infrastructure.’ (Indonesia)
8 S. SURENDRAN ET AL.

Not only highlighting the inequalities in technology, but also in ‘students that are essential
workers may be working longer hours than before the pandemic leaving less time to
complete school work’ (USA).

Suggesting that this move to online learning could really impact the widening participa­
tion agenda if not properly managed.
Another barrier that some cases noted was their own skill in online teaching which
‘exposes the need for teacher capacity building’ (Indonesia). Perhaps coupled with this is
the skills the students need to learn in this way.

Students find it difficult to concentrate for long hours looking at the computer screen alone.
Students are prone to more distractions whilst engaging at the lecture from the comfort of
their homes due to the lack of a disciplined and monitored environment. (Georgia).

In the case studies, there was not a large amount of data where academics discussed the
nuances of their bioscience teaching specifically which could suggest that Covid-related
impacts on teaching are not highly linked to subject at this level; however, there were
instances where academics highlighted examples of teaching that was not able to be done
online and these were more specific to the sciences. Cases gave examples of field trips,
internships and practical classes for subjects such as medical sciences. These cases sug­
gested that teaching in this sense would still be done in person when it was safe to do so.
The final set of barriers can be grouped into the assumptions and preconceived ideas
of both the academics and the students. One academic honestly noted that ‘the main
barrier is the cultural belief that teaching will lose . . . quality’ (Brazil) and another that
‘students come with various preconceived notions about working online, which may be
reinforced or countered by their teaching team’ (UK).

Emotions
In the process of adapting to teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, the participants
had different levels of emotional arousal when encountering the different challenges.
Some participants felt uncertain towards e-learning and how it could replace traditional
methods of teaching within a classroom setting.

no-one knows exactly what this will look like [online teaching] come September (UK)

I do not see how a virtual class can replace a nutritional assessment class or the food
composition analysis, for example (Brazil)

For one participant, being adequately prepared for classes seemed to be a worry.

There are still many teachers that are finding it difficult to conduct distance learning without
proper guidelines and facilities (Indonesia).

In another case, one participant believed that the shift to online education would provide
a positive experience for their students.

Technology will continue to be transformed to offer innovative experiences (USA)

 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 9

When facing the challenges, participants also had mixed accounts of the perceived
emotions of their students. One of the key perceived difficulties that students were facing
outside of University was the emotional impact of dealing with social isolation and the
loneliness associated with social isolation. For example:

day by day, they [students] found themselves stuck in houses away from friends and scared
about families and ones they love (Saudi Arabia)

For others, this was more of an ongoing struggle and they were not managing the
transition to online education well, this was mirrored by the overuse of the adjective
‘difficult’, seen across the different narratives.

not all students have access to computers or smartphones with Internet access that makes it
more difficult to implement education through digital technologies for a 100% of the
students (Brazil)

. . . some difficulties to quickly get familiarised to the university learning system through
virtual learning. (Sri Lanka)

Furthermore, difficulties were also identified within students attending placements.

students are having a difficult time finding facilities to complete these experiences due to
companies and organizations not allowing students into their buildings (USA)

And these difficulties caused some ‘students complain to education technology system
from their institution’ (Indonesia) and to ‘complain about noise, a lot of people in home
and lack of space to concentrate in online class. This can be a cause of decline in learning
and could be a trigger to emotional problems’ (Brazil)
Contrary to these negative responses, some institutions received more positive feed­
back from their students.

The feedback from students and teachers, who are involved in developing and delivering e-
learning, has been highly positive. (Sri Lanka)

Most importantly, this change has been well received by students and the facilities. (USA).

These responses may be grounded by students coming from a ‘technology generation’

and the students feeling ‘happy as they don’t have to attend University’ (Saudi Arabia).

Support networks
The current COVID-19 outbreak has required leaders worldwide to act rapidly and
effectively. The measures taken to contain the virus have impacted the whole of society,
including the way in which University staff and students are supported. Many participants
spoke about the different support they received, and the support given to their students
within their narratives. Some participants also reported the limited support given into
their transition online.
Given the important role of academics in delivering University education, any mone­
tary support provided to the Universities by the government, is likely to impact student
learning positively. It is interesting to note that only a few participants, acknowledged any
financial support given by their government.
10 S. SURENDRAN ET AL.

The government provided several incentives, such as undergraduates being provided with
free internet to access learning management systems. (Sri Lanka)

Our president gave orders to remain and even increase the budget allocation for the leading
Ministry in this crisis such as . . . . . . the Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC), increased up
to 70 trillion Rupiah or approximately 4.3 billion USD. (Indonesia)

The participant also seemed satisfied with their government’s support.

We believe that our government have been doing their best to accommodate this challenge
in all aspects including education sector. (Indonesia).

On the other hand, one participant described the limited economic funds available from
their government to support the education sector

In the year 2020, for example, less than 10% of the budget allocated to education in Nigeria is
grossly short of UNESCO’s benchmark of 26% of the annual national budget for education.
(Nigeria).

In many schools across the world, some of the poorest and most vulnerable students do
not have access to Internet to carry out essential home learning and to interact with their
academics. Many participants spoke about the free data and internet offered by
Universities, in hope of alleviating this digital divide.

access guarantees to internet were offered for some of the neediest students. (Brazil)

The universities provided free internet quotas to students by negotiating cooperation agree­
ments with a number of internet service providers and voucher to buy the internet quota to
accommodate online learning activities. (Indonesia)

some schools opened up their parking lots to provide internet access for their students . . . .
Providers of cell phone services offered free Wi-Fi and increased data for students.
Additionally, internet providers offered temporary free access to educators and students.
(USA)

Due to the challenges related to online education outlined in the above section, aca­
demics and students may be in additional need of academic and technological assistance.
A limited number of participants mentioned the targeted support aimed specifically on
e-learning.

all universities in Saudi Arabia have Deanship of e-learning and education distance, this
deanship always give courses on using e-learning and blackboard system to educators. All
members of this deanship gave full support to educators during semester and in each
department there is an e-learning coordinator whose responsibility to answer questions by
educators on how to use e-learning system or help them solve problems they faced. (Saudi
Arabia)

On-line administrators shared resources, with brick and mortar colleges to help with the
transition to remote learning. (USA)

In some Universities there is technical support and platforms that allow teaching in a secure
virtual environment (Brazil)

The IT department sends out invitations to the students’ email IDs prior to each lecture.
(Georgia)
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 11

While these are welcome steps towards the right direction, the experiences of other
participants in this thematic research suggest that there is a significant amount of work to
do for most other institutions to provide e-learning support.
some lecturers especially senior lecturers who has limited knowledge in digital or gadget
media. The sudden shift from face-to-face methods in the classroom to distance learning at
home also exposes the need for teacher capacity building (Indonesia)

Lack of established Learning Management Systems in educational institutions (Nigeria)

To maintain the pace of change, one participant described the institutional support given
to student’s assessments.
Some ways students are supported is through extending late assignment policies, extending
incomplete policies, and offering a pass/fail option. Flexibility is key to each unique student
situation. (USA)

In some cases, institutions offered support to students outside the focus of learning and
students felt satisfied with the support they received
School systems and the surrounding communities found a way to continue feeding students
with free breakfast and lunch pick-up services. While data is still being compiled, there is
evidence building that students have felt supported through the Pandemic. (USA)

Lastly, to retain student engagement, some teachers in Brazil have been offering classes
outside the curriculum ‘Some teachers, on their own initiative, offer online classes and
content to keep students studying, even without the undergraduate course load’ (Brazil).

Discussion
The case studies here show a wide range of experiences and situations that academics are
facing in the response to COVID-19. Whilst the data have been collected from countries
with different socio-economic and political backgrounds the three overarching themes of
teaching methods, support networks and emotions ran through each person’s narrative.
The conclusions drawn below are taken from a sample of bioscience academics.
Interestingly, the themes they highlighted are likely relevant to many academics in higher
education as they focused on general aspects of University organisation and pedagogy.
Predictably, the largest theme was around teaching methods and within this theme
the notion of change was often explored by the writer. It is noted that the adoption of
new technology in teaching practice is often associated with the beliefs and attitude of
academics (Chiu and Churchill 2016) and adopting new teaching methods can be a slow
process, especially for more seasoned professionals (Englund, Olofsson, and Price 2017).
These beliefs of the academic can inform the way they view the use of technology in their
teaching, for example Jääskelä, Häkkinen, and Rasku-Puttonen (2017) found four main
schools of thought in University academics around using technology. The first group felt
online teaching was useful for self-paced studying, the second as an additional tool for
active learning, third, useful for the integration and assessment of learning and finally as
a tool for changing the learning culture. In the cases in this current research, there was no
time to reflect on the reasons for using online technology whatever school of thought the
academic belonged to. This fast-paced, enforced adoption of technology would have left
12 S. SURENDRAN ET AL.

little time for academics to adjust their inherent belief systems as to their teaching
philosophy and would have challenged the second-order barriers (existing beliefs, estab­
lished practice and reluctance to change) discussed by Er and Kim (2017). The suggestion
of well-thought-out development programmes to allow academics time to challenge
these beliefs and create new ideas is a sound one (Er and Kim 2017) but was not available
to most in the current situation. Many found positives and negatives to highlight around
these changes and looked at the impact of this change from their own and their students’
perspectives. To contend with these changes, academics spoke of innovative approaches
in their teaching and the speed at which they had brought these changes about. In the
literature, it is possible to find examples where this adoption of online learning has been
slower and more considered. One of the cases presented by Prestridge (2017) outlined an
academic who maintained an academic-centred approach to their teaching and
embarked on the use of technology, by not altering their teaching philosophy. Only
after experiencing the use of technology in the classroom did this academic then begin
to explore other possibilities and perhaps had to go through this experience before they
were open to the new ideas. In this case, new technology was embraced, and the
academic took a more student-centred approach as they were no longer the expert in
the technology and became facilitator to the students who were constructing their own
knowledge. The academic had three years to adapt their teaching philosophy from
academic-centred instructional to a more constructivist facilitator, in the current case
studies the situation has changed rapidly and perhaps the academics doing the teaching
will not have had time to reassess their pedagogical philosophies yet.
One interesting point was that the break from the normal methods of teaching had
allowed time for reflection on the educators practice. This time reflection is not often built
into timetables but was obviously seen as valuable by the academic writing the case study
and has backing in the literature (Naidoo and Kirch 2016). Indeed, it is recognised that
time for reflective practice is crucial for the development of skilled academics (Jarvis 1992;
Liu and Milman 2010; Shehzad and Riaz 2010) and yet it is often neglected in timetables
and pushed out as other more tangible tasks become more pressing.
Adequacy of support played a significant role for academics delivering online classes.
In our study, educators relied on technical support to assist with setting up e-learning. The
technical requirements related to online classes were deemed far greater than in-class
teaching. Technical problems are common issues in the case of videoconferencing, for
example, using Zoom and Microsoft teams, where network traffic and improper set up can
affect the sound and video quality during classes (Fischer et al. 2018). Thus, the support
from IT technicians and experienced staff to operate online education platforms, is
significant.
One of the sub-themes identified in this study was the necessity of staff to undergo
training to deliver online education. Childs et al. (2005) identified technical skills as being
a barrier and solution for effective e-learning. McNeil et al. (2005) and Nguyen, Zierler, and
Nguyen (2011), also recognized the need for lectures to improve their computer literacy in
order to facilitate E-learning successfully. Childs et al. (2005) stated that a solution to the
inadequate staff training would be to enforce a compulsory ‘basic computer literacy
policy’. Additionally, it is also essential that staff are provided acknowledged overtime
to develop online courses, reflect on teaching styles and to stay updated with the latest
advancements in E-learning (Dyrbye et al. 2009). Some staff within this narrative were
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 13

sceptical of how E-learning could replace traditional in-class attendance for activities such
as lab classes. This disbelief could be alleviated if staff are exposed with alternative
e-learning technologies and trained to use alternative platformsfor example, using virtual
laboratories (Wolf 2010).
In our case studies, academics discussed their skill in adopting new teaching
approaches and also the new skills that students would gain through this way of teaching.
Through research, it has been shown that students’ adoption of collaborative online
technology enhances their self-efficacy and autonomy, which ultimately will lead to
independent learning (Magen-Nagar and Shonfeld 2018). However, this road to indepen­
dence is coupled with the confidence and positive feelings towards technology of the
student before the learning experience will have an effect (Magen-Nagar and Shonfeld
2018). This idea is confirmed in the cases with examples given of how this would be better
for learning and creating independent students who are pro-active and who take own­
ership of their learning. Interestingly, there is evidence that personality may pre-empt
a student’s affinity for online education. Not surprisingly, when looking at the big five
personality traits, student conscientiousness is the most important trait for succeeding in
an online course (Keller and Karau 2013) and the intrinsic motivation to learn is linked to
how students will engage with the online material (Lee 2013). So, do we see that online
learning produces more independent students or is this confounded by the personality
traits of those students who do best in an online environment?
There was also the suggestion that the enforced move to online learning would open
up education, making it more accessible, affordable and inclusive. One of the sustainable
development goals set out by the United Nations is to create inclusive and equitable
education and it is asserted that online education may be a way to do this (Perales Jarillo
et al. 2019). This is a contentious issue in the case studies here, and the literature, however,
there is evidence that online learning can allow students to access education (Kim and Lee
2011) and successfully complete a degree who would not necessarily have been able to in
person (Shea and Bidjerano 2014). However, in a complete contradiction, many of our
case studies noted that this swift move to online education had actually disadvantaged
some students through access to technology and their personal circumstances. These
ideas are reflected in the literature and Rye and Støkken (2012) group them nicely into
distinct themes. The first theme is the social dimension around the student’s obligations
outside of their course. This could be family or paid work commitments. The second
theme is the material dimension that encompasses the financial aspects of studying.
These challenges are recognised and highlighted in our case studies as well as in the
literature with academics stating concerns about access to internet and computer hard­
ware. Among the many inequalities revealed by the pandemic, digital exclusion is one of
the most startling finds. At a household level, approximately 58% of households world­
wide have access to the internet (ITU 2018). Overall, internet rates are lower in developing
countries, being concentrated in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the
cost of one gigabyte of data equates to roughly 40% of the average monthly wage for the
poorest 20% of the population (GMSA 2019). Thus, only 11% of countries in this region
rely on online education (Vegas 2020). It should be noted that even in the most advanced
economies, a proportion of individuals without any internet connection exists. Take
Scotland, for example: only just over half of households (51%) with an income of £6000-
10,000 are connected online. This dramatically increases when the household income is
14 S. SURENDRAN ET AL.

over £40,001 (99%) (Martin, Hope, and Zubairi 2016). A greater number of young adults in
the UK access Internet via a table or smartphone (OfficeforNationalStatistics 2018), thus
online course developers should be considerate on whether their course can be sup­
ported by various electronic devices and platforms (Tang, Wong, and Wong 2015). In the
USA, a 2017 congress report stated that 12 million American children were unconnected
to the internet (JEC 2017), and that 6% of the population do not have high-speed
broadband (FCC 2012). Furthermore, to make online learning effective, students must
also have the budget and accessibility of updated computer software and hardware
systems (Cragg et al. 2003; Atack and Rankin 2002; Scollin 2001)
Universities around the world are facing devasting financial losses, from unpaid tuition
and living expenses such as accommodation, to the increase in spending towards
supporting online learning. Furthermore, there was an additional risk of fewer students
attending Universities in the autumn of 2020. In this thematic analysis, only a limited
number of participants addressed the monetary support from the government (Sri Lanka
and Indonesia), whilst one participant acknowledged that their government did not have
additional funds to support the education sector (Nigeria). The mixed views about
government funding in our study were supported by a survey conducted in early
May 2020, which included 200 leaders from respected Universities across 53 countries
(THE 2020). One of the questions within the survey was ‘To what extent do you agree that
the coronavirus will reduce governments’ willingness to invest in higher education over
the next five years?’ Interestingly, results showed that confidence in the government was
highest in East Asia, where 9% of participants expected investments to decline. On the
other hand, in Europe and South Asia, there was a roughly equal expectation (≈35%) of
lower government investment (THE 2020). There is currently uncertainty, on whether
governments will have enough funds to invest in the education sector, as there are fears
of an imminent recession and financial collapse across many countries worldwide (Nicola
et al. 2020).
As the Coronavirus pandemic unfolds, government and health officials believe that
social-distancing measures will lessen the spread of the virus, but whether this is the case
remains uncertain as reliable data is scarce. The uncertainty of the spread of coronavirus
makes students and lectures fear for their health, and that of loved ones. There is also
uncertainty of how long countries across the world will impose lockdowns for, and the
extent of the structural damage to the economy. The uncertain nature of the pandemic
has led to academics within this study to question their own professional competence in
adapting to online learning, as well as their own personal identity as an academic.
According to Hargreaves (1994), uncertainty in teaching can lead to academics feeling
a sense of guilt, as they may not be readily prepared for the future. This guilt can
contribute to stress; thus, teachers are required to adopt a range of strategies to negate
stressful situations. Some teachers avoid discussing disruptive situations and the emo­
tions associated with it and instead focus on creating a peaceful environment within their
classroom (Campbell 2007). Then again, some would argue that uncertainty has the
possibility to incite curiosity, excitement and could even be an enlightening experience
to some lectures. Uncertain times can possibly enhance professional growth in some
academics (Campbell 2007). The uncertainty of the pandemic can also affect the experi­
ence of a University student. Previous studies have suggested that millennial students are
more prone to stress, as they are pressurized to achieve well academically by their parents
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 15

and themselves. As a result, they often use their peers to seek counselling on managing
uncertainties, as opposed to going to their instructors (Bland et al. 2012; Borges et al.
2010; Myers and Knox 2001). Students from the millennial generation take solace in being
given clear guidelines on how to behave (Howe, Strauss, and Matson 2000) and they
favour information that is relevant to their personal and professional development
(Goldman et al. 2017). If students are not given proper information that is related to
their academic studies, they are at risk of having the certainty of their University career
being fruitful, or they may discontinue with their University education (Tinto 2012).
Understanding the various uncertainties student’s face, can help students create realistic
expectations of what is needed for them to excel during their academic life. Furthermore,
it will help University staff develop programmes and services that create social connec­
tions and promote the value of students seeking valuable information from their peers
(Sollitto et al. 2018).
Given the number of students being ‘stuck in their houses’ (Saudi Arabia) across the
world, it is no surprise that students can begin to develop feelings of loneliness.
Currently, almost half of 18–24-year-olds have reported high levels of loneliness during
lockdown (Loades et al. 2020). Furthermore, loneliness is linked to the onset of many
mental disorders, e.g. insomnia, dementia in late life, depression and anxiety (Wilson
et al. 2007). Worryingly, one important theme which was not explored by academics
within this thematic analysis, was that of the mental health of students and staff. At
present, few published studies have explored the impact of COVID-19 on student well-
being. In a study by (Cao et al. 2020), 25% of college students reported anxiety during
the COVID-19 outbreak in China, this was positively associated with concerns about
disrupted daily life schedules, delays in academic activities and the negative economic
effects of the pandemic. Additionally, in another survey among Medical students in
China (n = 217), reports of anxiety and depression were observed in students with no
direct contact to the disease, indicating the severity of the psychiatric impact of the
disease (Liu et al. 2020). It is believed that long-term isolation can have a complex
influence on the mental health of young adults. The anxiety experienced by students
can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder if no early mental health interventions are
given (Adams, Boscarino, and Galea 2006). The social distancing measures adopted by
many countries across the world have led to disruptions in timely crisis education and
support networks for mental health (OfficeforStudents 2020). Therefore, it is possible,
that the priorities of the academics were deviated away from the focus on mental
health, due to the additional challenges they were presented with during the
pandemic.
Interestingly, none of the narratives included the importance of peer influence as
a support mechanism. Peer support has been reported as an important factor for motivat­
ing students with pursuing online education. Many studies have suggested that online
education can exacerbate feelings of loneliness through the lack of a cohort to develop
ideas (Atack and Rankin 2002; Billings, Connors, and Skiba 2001). Furthermore,
a qualitative study by Tang, Wong, and Wong (2015), noted that student engagement
reduces if there is minimal peer contact. The authors also noted that students with high
online participation, saw peer support as way to increase peer competition. It is therefore
important that future studies will address whether enough peer support was provided to
students during the COVID-19-pandemic.
16 S. SURENDRAN ET AL.

Limitations
There were some limitations to this study. The qualitative methods used within this
research were designed to offer descriptions of the participants’ experiences. These
experiences are unique to the individual and thus are subjective. It is important to note
that any verbalization from an individual represents an opinion at a given moment in
time and could have potential bias due to individual interpretation of the current
affairs.
One limitation to this study was that the participants were not intended to be
a random or representative sample of all undergraduate Bioscience academics teaching
at all types of academic institutions. Consequently, the findings of this study cannot be
generalised to all academic institutions within a country; however, they can and should be
used as the basis for additional investigations into improving teaching practice during
uncertain times.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the six question prompts given to the participants
may have limited the diversity of answers provided. It is therefore reasonable to assume
that the participants’ responses are not as complete as they might have been, if more
prompts had been given. Furthermore, the semi-structured prompts included a question
on the influence of ‘national culture’ on education. The concept of national culture has
previously been contested for a variety of reasons. One challenge is that substantial
cultural diversity may exist within a country. Furthermore, another argument is that
some countries exhibit similarities with their neighbouring countries, thus compromising
the notion of ‘national culture’. However, it should be noted that little empirical support
has been given to these challenges, as national culture may be influenced by other factors
such as state institution, school systems and the national non-governmental organisa­
tions (Minkov and Hofstede 2012). The semi-structured prompts, also included adjective
phrases such as ‘fully engaging optimally’, this may have been misleading to the partici­
pants, given the apparent vagueness of what student engagement is (Ashwin and McVitty
2015). Also, this research utilized a purposeful sample of participants. Participants who
had particularly strong and/or negative teaching experiences during the COVID-19 pan­
demic may have been more likely to join the study.

Finally, whilst the interview data and themes are presented in the words of the
academics, the discussion and future recommendations are undeniably shaped by
author subjectivities.Implications for the future and further research
This study has some implications for the future of educational practice and the research
that goes alongside. The following recommendations can be made to improve teaching
practice:
There has been a lack of academic’s peer learning due to lockdown and not meeting
informally (communities of practice), to provide these opportunities these informal meet­
ings need to be worked into the future timetable.
Academics need appropriate training in these new teaching methods, not just the
technicalities but also the pedagogical implications of online learning.
Students need to be familiarized with educational technology through student
training.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 17

Assessments need to be designed in a way that is suitable for the online modality, as
well as to maintain integrity and confidentiality.
Moving forward there needs to be proper thought given to the mental health of both
staff and students and support put in place as normal practice.
To bridge the gap in digital inequalities, academics should be aware of their students
who have no access to internet and institutions should aim to provide these students with
access to digital devices and wi-fi or provide learning resources in multiple formats.
Universities may have to offer reduced tuition fees or financial assistance to attract the
poorest students into education.
This new and changing situation has allowed some academics to reflect on their
teaching practice and going forward time could be afforded to academics for this kind
of reflection.
Considering these early initial insights from this self-reported purposeful sample,
further research into how the sector has moved through the crisis and are currently
adapting their teaching would be useful.
Useful information could also be collected on how different regions of the world are
developing their teaching considering their experience of COVID-19.

Author contributions
SS and SH were responsible for the study conception, conducted data analysis and drafted the
manuscript; ASA, SA, TC, TD, LG, RH, MAH, KMR, SR and IMS provided data and sense checked data
analysis and critically reviewed the manuscript; All authors contributed to and approved the final
version of the manuscript.

Availability of data and material

Anonymised data from this project will be available upon request.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Shelini Surendran http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9723-1937
Lyndsay Goss http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5590-4363
Maria Aderuza Horst http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6249-8946
Stacey Rosenberg http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9148-5792
Israa M. Shatwan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0222-9135

References
Adams, Richard E., Joseph A. Boscarino, and Sandro Galea. 2006. “Social and Psychological
Resources and Health Outcomes after the World Trade Center Disaster.” Social Science &
Medicine 62 (1): 176–188. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.008.
18 S. SURENDRAN ET AL.

Ashwin, Paul, and Debbie McVitty. 2015. “The Meanings of Student Engagement: Implications for
Policies and Practices.” In The European Higher Education Area, edited by Adrian Curaj, Jamil Salmi,
Liviu Matei, Peter Scott, Remus Pricopie, 343–359. Cham: Springer.
Atack, Lynda, and James Rankin. 2002. “A Descriptive Study of Registered Nurses’ Experiences with
Web-based Learning.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 40 (4): 457–465. doi:10.1046/j.1365-
2648.2002.02394.x.
Ayres, L. 2008. “Thematic Coding and Analysis.” In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research
Methods, edited by L. Given, 2. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. https://methods.
sagepub.com/reference/sage-encyc-qualitative-research-methods
Bassey, M. 1999. Case Study Research In Educational Settings. Buckingham, United Kingdom:
McGraw-Hill Education.
Billings, D. M., H. R. Connors, and D. J. Skiba. 2001. “Benchmarking Best Practices in Web-based
Nursing Courses.” ANS. Advances in Nursing Science 23 (3): 41–52. doi:10.1097/00012272-
200103000-00005.
Bland, Helen W., Bridget F. Melton, Paul Welle, and Lauren Bigham. 2012. “Stress Tolerance: New
Challenges for Millennial College Students.” College Student Journal 46 (2): 362–375.
Borges, N. J., R. S. Manuel, C. L. Elam, and B. J. Jones. 2010. “Differences in Motives between
Millennial and Generation X Medical Students.” Medical Education 44 (6): 570–576. doi:10.1111/
j.1365-2923.2010.03633.x.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative
Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Bryman, A. 2016. Social Research Methods. New York, United States of America: Oxford University
Press.
Burgess, Simon, and Hans Henrik Sievertsen. 2020. “Schools, Skills, and Learning: The Impact of
COVID-19 on Education.” Accessed 18 July 20. https://voxeu.org/article/impact-covid-19-
education
Campbell, Elizabeth. 2007. “Glimpses of Uncertainty in Teaching.” Curriculum Inquiry 37 (1): 1–8.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2007.00378.x.
Campbell, Suzanne. 2015. “Conducting Case Study Research.” American Society for Clinical
Laboratory Science 28 (3): 201. doi:10.29074/ascls.28.3.201.
Cao, Wenjun, Ziwei Fang, Guoqiang Hou, Mei Han, Xinrong Xu, Jiaxin Dong, and Jianzhong Zheng.
2020. “The Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Epidemic on College Students in China.”
Psychiatry Research 287: 112934. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934.
Cauchemez, S., N. M. Ferguson, C. Wachtel, A. Tegnell, G. Saour, B. Duncan, and A. Nicoll. 2009.
“Closure of Schools during an Influenza Pandemic.” The Lancet Infectious Diseases 9 (8): 473–481.
doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(09)70176-8.
Cecilio-Fernandes, Dario, Maria Cândida Ribeiro Parisi, Thiago M Santos, and John Sandars. 2020.
“The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Challenge of Using Technology for Medical Education in Low
and Middle Income Countries.” MedEdPublish, 9.
Chahrour, Mohamad, Sahar Assi, Ali A. Michael Bejjani, Hamza Salhab Nasrallah, Mohamad Fares,
and Hussein H. Khachfe. 2020. “A Bibliometric Analysis of COVID-19 Research Activity: A Call for
Increased Output.” Cureus 12 (3): e7357–e. doi:10.7759/cureus.7357.
Childs, S., E. Blenkinsopp, A. Hall, and G. Walton. 2005. “Effective E-learning for Health Professionals
and Students–barriers and Their Solutions. A Systematic Review of the Literature–findings from
the HeXL Project.” Health Information and Libraries Journal 22 (Suppl 2): 20–32. doi:10.1111/
j.1470-3327.2005.00614.x.
Chiu, Thomas K. F., and Daniel Churchill. 2016. “Adoption of Mobile Devices in Teaching: Changes in
Teacher Beliefs, Attitudes and Anxiety.” Interactive Learning Environments 24 (2): 317–327.
doi:10.1080/10494820.2015.1113709.
Cragg, C. E., N. Edwards, Z. Yue, S. L. Xin, and Z. D. Hui. 2003. “Integrating Web-based Technology
into Distance Education for Nurses in China: Computer and Internet Access and Attitudes.” CIN:
Computers, Informatics, Nursing 21 (5): 265–274. doi:10.1097/00024665-200309000-00015.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 19

Crawford, Joseph, Kerryn Butler-Henderson, Bashar H. Rudolph Jurgen, Matt Glowatz Malkawi,
Robert Burton, Paola Magni, and Sophia Lam. 2020. “COVID-19: 20 Countries’ Higher Education
Intra-period Digital Pedagogy Responses.” Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching 3. doi:10.37074/
jalt.2020.3.1.7.
Dyrbye, L., A. Cumyn, H. Day, and M. Heflin. 2009. “A Qualitative Study of Physicians’ Experiences
with Online Learning in A Masters Degree Program: Benefits, Challenges, and Proposed
Solutions.” Medical Teacher 31 (2): e40–6. doi:10.1080/01421590802366129.
Englund, Claire, Anders D. Olofsson, and Linda Price. 2017. “Teaching with Technology in Higher
Education: Understanding Conceptual Change and Development in Practice.” Higher Education
Research & Development 36 (1): 73–87. doi:10.1080/07294360.2016.1171300.
Er, Erkan, and ChanMin Kim. 2017. “Episode-centered Guidelines for Teacher Belief Change toward
Technology Integration.” Educational Technology Research and Development 65 (4): 1041–1065.
doi:10.1007/s11423-017-9518-1.
Ertan, Deniz, Wissam El-Hage, Sarah Thierrée, Hervé Javelot, and Coraline Hingray. 2020. “COVID-19:
Urgency for Distancing from Domestic Violence.” European Journal of Psychotraumatology 11 (1):
1800245. doi:10.1080/20008198.2020.1800245.
FCC. 2012. Eighth Broadband Progress Report. In, edited by. Washington DC: Federal
Communications Commission.
Fischer, Aaron J, Brandon K Schultz, Melissa A Collier-Meek, Kimberly A Zoder-Martell, and William
P Erchul. 2018. “A Critical Review of Videoconferencing Software to Support School Consultation.”
International Journal of School & Educational Psychology 6 (1): 12–22. doi:10.1080/
21683603.2016.1240129.
GMSA. 2019. State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2019.Routledge.
Goldman, Zachary W., Gregory A. Cranmer, Michael Sollitto, Sara Labelle, and Alexander L. Lancaster.
2017. “What Do College Students Want? A Prioritization of Instructional Behaviors and
Characteristics.” Communication Education 66 (3): 280–298. doi:10.1080/03634523.2016.1265135.
Grubic, Nicholas, Shaylea Badovinac, and Amer M Johri. 2020. “Student Mental Health in the Midst of
the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Call for Further Research and Immediate Solutions.” International
Journal of Social Psychiatry 66 (5): 517–518. doi:10.1177/0020764020925108.
Hargreaves, A. 1994. Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in the
Postmodern Age. New York, USA: Teachers College Press.
Howe, N., W. Strauss, and R.J. Matson. 2000. Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation:. New York,
USA: Vintage Books.
ITU. 2018. Measuring the Information Society Report 2018. Geneva, Switzerland: International
Telecommunication Union.
Jääskelä, Päivikki, Päivi Häkkinen, and Helena Rasku-Puttonen. 2017. “Teacher Beliefs regarding
Learning, Pedagogy, and the Use of Technology in Higher Education.” Journal of Research on
Technology in Education 49 (3–4): 198–211. doi:10.1080/15391523.2017.1343691.
Jackson, Charlotte, Emilia Vynnycky, Jeremy Hawker, Babatunde Olowokure, and Punam Mangtani.
2013. “School Closures and Influenza: Systematic Review of Epidemiological Studies.” BMJ Open
3 (2): e002149. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002149.
Jarillo, Perales, Luis Pedraza Mikel, Pablo Moreno Ger, and Elvira Bocos. 2019. “Challenges of Online
Higher Education in the Face of the Sustainability Objectives of the United Nations: Carbon
Footprint, Accessibility and Social Inclusion.” Sustainability 11 (20): 5580. doi:10.3390/
su11205580.
Jarvis, Jennifer. 1992. “Using Diaries for Teacher Reflection on In-service Courses.” ELT Journal 46 (2):
133–143. doi:10.1093/elt/46.2.133.
JEC. 2017. America’s Digital Divide, September 2017. United States of America: JOINT ECONOMIC
COMMITTEE.
Katz, Vikki S, Amy B Jordan, Katherine Ognyanova, and B. Motz. 2021. “Digital Inequality, Faculty
Communication, and Remote Learning Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of
US Undergraduates.” Plos One 16 (2): e0246641. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0246641.
20 S. SURENDRAN ET AL.

Keller, Heath, and Steven J. Karau. 2013. “The Importance of Personality in Students’ Perceptions of
the Online Learning Experience.” Computers in Human Behavior 29 (6): 2494–2500. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2013.06.007.
Kim, JaMee, and WonGyu Lee. 2011. “Assistance and Possibilities: Analysis of Learning-related
Factors Affecting the Online Learning Satisfaction of Underprivileged Students.” Computers &
Education 57 (4): 2395–2405. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.021.
Lee, Joyce. 2020. “Mental Health Effects of School Closures during COVID-19.” The Lancet Child &
Adolescent Health 4 (6): 421. doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30109-7.
Lee, Silvia Wen-Yu. 2013. “Investigating Students’ Learning Approaches, Perceptions of Online
Discussions, and Students’ Online and Academic Performance.” Computers & Education 68:
345–352. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.019.
Lincoln, Y.S., and E.G. Guba. 2016. The Constructivist Credo. Walnut Creek, California: Taylor & Francis.
Liu, Jia, Qing Zhu, Wenliang Fan, Joyman Makamure, Chuansheng Zheng, and Jing Wang. 2020.
“Online Mental Health Survey in a Medical College in China during the COVID-19 Outbreak.”
Frontiers in Psychiatry 11: 459. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00459.
Liu, Laura B., and Natalie B. Milman. 2010. “Preparing Teacher Candidates to Teach Diverse Student
Populations through Reflective Practice.” Reflective Practice 11 (5): 619–630. doi:10.1080/
14623943.2010.516973.
Loades, Maria Elizabeth, Eleanor Chatburn, Nina Higson-Sweeney, Shirley Reynolds, Roz Shafran,
Amberly Brigden, Catherine Linney, Megan Niamh McManus, Catherine Borwick, and
Esther Crawley. 2020. “Rapid Systematic Review: The Impact of Social Isolation and Loneliness
on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in the Context of COVID-19.” Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry S0890-8567(20)30337–3. doi:10.1016/j.
jaac.2020.05.009.
Magen-Nagar, Noga, and Miri Shonfeld. 2018. “The Impact of an Online Collaborative Learning
Program on Students’ Attitude Towards Technology.” Interactive Learning Environments 26 (5):
621–637. doi:10.1080/10494820.2017.1376336.
Martin, Chris, Steven Hope, and Sanah Zubairi; Ipsos MORI Scotland. 2016. The Role of Digital
Exclusion in Social Exclusion. Ipsos MORI Scotland, CarnegieUK trust, Scotland.
McNeil, B. J., V. L. Elfrink, S. T. Pierce, S. C. Beyea, C. J. Bickford, and C. Averill. 2005. “Nursing
Informatics Knowledge and Competencies: A National Survey of Nursing Education Programs in
the United States.” International Journal of Medical Informatics 74 (11–12): 1021–1030.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.05.010.
Merriam, S.B., and E.J. Tisdell. 2015. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San
Francisco, California, USA: Wiley.
Minkov, Michael, and Geert Hofstede. 2012. “Is National Culture a Meaningful Concept? Cultural
Values Delineate Homogeneous National Clusters of In-country Regions.” Cross-Cultural Research
46 (2): 133–159. doi:10.1177/1069397111427262.
Myers, Scott A., and Ronda L. Knox. 2001. “The Relationship between College Student Information-
seeking Behaviors and Perceived Instructor Verbal Behaviors.” Communication Education 50 (4):
343–356. doi:10.1080/03634520109379260.
Naidoo, Kara, and Susan A. Kirch. 2016. “Candidates Use a New Teacher Development Process,
Transformative Reflection, to Identify and Address Teaching and Learning Problems in Their Work
with Children.” Journal of Teacher Education 67 (5): 379–391. doi:10.1177/0022487116653659.
Nguyen, D. N., B. Zierler, and H. Q. Nguyen. 2011. “A Survey of Nursing Faculty Needs for Training in
Use of New Technologies for Education and Practice.” Journal of Nursing Education 50 (4):
181–189. doi:10.3928/01484834-20101130-06.
Nicola, Maria, Zaid Alsafi, Catrin Sohrabi, Ahmed Kerwan, Ahmed Al-Jabir, Christos Iosifidis,
Maliha Agha, and Riaz Agha. 2020. “The Socio-economic Implications of the Coronavirus
Pandemic (COVID-19): A Review.” International Journal of Surgery 78: 185–193. doi:10.1016/j.
ijsu.2020.04.018.
OfficeforNationalStatistics. 2018. “Opinions and Lifestyle Survey.” In, edited by UK Data Service.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 21

OfficeforStudents. “Students without Family Support - Office for Students.” Accessed 18th July 2020.
https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/coronavirus-briefing-note-students-without-
family-support
Owens, Meghan R, Francilia Brito-Silva, Tracie Kirkland, Carolyn E Moore, Kathleen E Davis, Mindy
A Patterson, Derek C Miketinas, and Wesley J Tucker. 2020. “Prevalence and Social Determinants
of Food Insecurity among College Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Nutrients 12 (9):
2515. doi:10.3390/nu12092515.
Prestridge, Sarah. 2017. “Examining the Shaping of Teachers’ Pedagogical Orientation for the Use of
Technology.” Technology, Pedagogy and Education 26 (4): 367–381. doi:10.1080/
1475939X.2016.1258369.
Rye, Ståle Angen, and Anne Marie Støkken. 2012. “The Implications of the Local Context in Global
Virtual Education.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 13 (1):
191–206. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1010.
Sahu, Pradeep. 2020. “Closure of Universities Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Impact
on Education and Mental Health of Students and Academic Staff.” Cureus 12 (4): e7541–e.
doi:10.7759/cureus.7541.
Savin-Baden, M., and C.H. Major. 2012. Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and
Practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Scollin, P. 2001. “A Study of Factors Related to the Use of Online Resources by Nurse Educators.”
Computers in Nursing 19 (6): 249–256.
Shea, Peter, and Temi Bidjerano. 2014. “Does Online Learning Impede Degree Completion?
A National Study of Community College Students.” Computers & Education 75: 103–111.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.009.
Shehzad, Wasima, and Aisha Riaz. 2010. “Reflective Practices for Teacher Empowerment in Teacher
Education/Development Program.” Kashmir Journal of Language Research 13 (1): 1.
Sollitto, Michael, Jan Brott, Catherine Cole, Elia Gil, and Heather Selim. 2018. “Students’ Uncertainty
Management in the College Classroom.” Communication Education 67 (1): 73–87. doi:10.1080/
03634523.2017.1372586.
Son, Changwon, Sudeep Hegde, Alec Smith, Xiaomei Wang, and Farzan Sasangohar. 2020. “Effects
of COVID-19 on College Students’ Mental Health in the United States: Interview Survey Study.”
Journal of Medical Internet Research 22 (9): e21279–e. doi:10.2196/21279.
Tang, Anson C. Y., Nick Wong, and Thomas K. S. Wong. 2015. “Learning Experience of Chinese
Nursing Students in an Online Clinical English Course: Qualitative Study.” Nurse Education Today
35 (2): e61–e6. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2014.11.017.
THE. “THE Leaders Survey: Will Covid-19 Leave Universities in Intensive Care?” Accessed 18 July
2020. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/leaders-survey-will-covid-19-leave-
universities-intensive-care
Thompson, S.K. 2012. Sampling. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Tinto, V. 2012. Completing College: Rethinking Institutional Action. Chicago, USA: University of
Chicago Press.
UNESCO. “Adverse Consequences of School Closures.” Accessed 18 July 2020a. https://en.unesco.
org/covid19/educationresponse/consequences
UNESCO. “COVID-19 Educational Disruption and Response.” Accessed 18 July 2020b. https://en.
unesco.org/themes/education-emergencies/coronavirus-school-closures
Van de Velde, Sarah, Veerle Buffel, Piet Bracke, Guido Van Hal, Nikolett M Somogyi, Barbara Willems,
and Edwin Wouters, C19 ISWS consortium#. 2021. “The COVID-19 International Student
Well-being Study.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 49 (1): 114–122. doi:10.1177/
1403494820981186.
Vegas, Emiliana. “School Closures, Government Responses, and Learning Inequality around the
World during COVID-19.” Accessed 18 July 20. https://www.brookings.edu/research/school-
closures-government-responses-and-learning-inequality-around-the-world-during-covid-19
WHO. “Coronavirus Disease (COVID-2019) Situation Reports. Situation Report – 64.” Accessed 18 July
20. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports
22 S. SURENDRAN ET AL.

WHO. “Coronavirus Disease (COVID-2019) Pandemic.” Accessed 18 July 20. https://www.who.int/

emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
Wilson, L, J Conway, N Martin, and P Turner. 2020. Covid-19: Disabled Students in Higher Education:
Student Concerns and Institutional Challenges Report by the National Association of Disability
Practitioners. London, UK.
Wilson, R S., K R. Krueger, S E. Arnold, J A. Schneider, J F. Kelly, L L. Barnes, Yuxiao Tang, and
D A. Bennett. 2007. “Loneliness and Risk of Alzheimer Disease.” Archives of General Psychiatry
64 (2): 234–240. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.64.2.234.
Wolf, T. 2010. “Assessing Student Learning in a Virtual Laboratory Environment.” IEEE Transactions on
Education 53 (2): 216–222. doi:10.1109/TE.2008.2012114.