Resilience in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping literature review with implications for evidence-informed policymaking
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the construct of resilience has received growing attention in the higher education literature. The pandemic, acting as an external stressor, impacted multiple higher education settings in 2020 during the period of lockdowns, when universities had to temporarily close on-campus activities and shift to online emergency responses. The objective of this scoping review is to explore how resilience was conceptualized in the higher education research literature during the initial emergency response phase of the pandemic, and how conceptual and research design choices in this early body of literature shaped policy recommendations aimed at enhancing the resilience of individuals and support systems in higher education. This article, thus, contributes to the ongoing discussion in the academic and policy-relevant literature on how to better prepare universities as organizations and communities for a response not only during the emergency pandemic, but also beyond, in post-pandemic higher education settings. We find that the first wave of academic literature on the subject largely focused on resilience at the individual level, and more so on the resilience of students rather than the resilience of faculty and academic support staff. Resilience as a group-level construct was the focus of empirical study only in a few articles in our review sample, and even then, there were differences in the ways the concept was defined and operationalized, making comparisons between studies virtually impossible. We also found support for the argument that depending on the operationalization of the concept, some forms of resilience inadvertently may decrease other forms of resilience– either when resilience is conceptualized differently, or operationalized at a different level of analysis. The fragmentation in the literature reflecting different conceptualizations and measurements of resilience as a construct complicates the academic conversation in the field and the process of making recommendations for the design of support policies. In conclusion, the article makes several suggestions on promising lines of further research which can advance the state of art in the field.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle