Educational Processes and Learning at Home During COVID-19: Parents’ Experiences with Distance Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the lockdown measures and severe restrictions taken to reduce COVID-19 transmission, which has globally been inflicted on people since March 2020, a new type of education in the form of online homeschooling has brought the role of parents to the forefront. Using online semi-structured interviews, this study aimed to investigate parents’ views on the implementation of distance education during COVID-19 in Istanbul, Turkey. The data obtained from parents with different socioeconomic backgrounds and whose children were at public and private schools were coded using initial, process, and emotion qualitative coding techniques. The data were categorized into three main themes: beginning of distance education, process of distance education, and outcomes of distance education. The beginning theme was further analyzed under three subcategories: problems related to the child, problems related to parents, and problems related to public schools. The problems encountered during the process of distance education were investigated under three subheadings: problems related to the child’s academic and social life, problems related to parents, and problems related to parent–child relationships. Data under the main theme, outcomes of distance education, were defined as positive or negative outcomes in terms of the child and parents. Results revealed that at the beginning of the process, during the process, and during the outcomes of distance education, parents experienced problems with digital technology, the new education model, teachers, themselves, and their children, as well as economic, social, and psychological problems. Parents also had various constructive suggestions about distance education during COVID-19.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it