The pandemic semesters: Examining public opinion regarding online learning amidst <scp>COVID</scp> ‐19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current educational disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has fuelled a plethora of investments and the use of educational technologies for Emergency Remote Learning (ERL). Despite the significance of online learning for ERL across most educational institutions, there are wide mixed perceptions about online learning during this pandemic. This study, therefore, aims at examining public perception about online learning for ERL during COVID-19. The study sample included 31,009 English language Tweets extracted and cleaned using Twitter API, Python libraries and NVivo, from 10 March 2020 to 25 July 2020, using keywords: COVID-19, Corona, e-learning, online learning, distance learning. Collected tweets were analysed using word frequencies of unigrams and bigrams, sentiment analysis, topic modelling, and sentiment labeling, cluster, and trend analysis. The results identified more positive and negative sentiments within the dataset and identified topics. Further, the identified topics which are learning support, COVID-19, online learning, schools, distance learning, e-learning, students, and education were clustered among each other. The number of daily COVID-19 related cases had a weak linear relationship with the number of online learning tweets due to the low number of tweets during the vacation period from April to June 2020. The number of tweets increased during the early weeks of July 2020 as a result of the increasing number of mixed reactions to the reopening of schools. The study findings and recommendations underscore the need for educational systems, government agencies, and other stakeholders to practically implement online learning measures and strategies for ERL in the quest of reopening of schools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".