Emergency remote teaching amid global distress: how did teacher educators respond, cope, and plan for recovery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study explored the emergency remote teaching experiences of Ghanaian teacher educators during COVID-19. The study employed a basic qualitative interpretive approach and purposively interviewed 25 teacher educators from 15 teacher training institutions. Teacher educators in this study reported that emergency remote teaching (ERT) was a learning opportunity and professional capacity-building experience for them to engage in contemporary pedagogical practices. Teachers also indicated that synchronous and asynchronous remote teaching was helpful for their students, as it provided students with the opportunity to engage in self-paced learning due to their access to learning resources at any time. ERT promoted peer teaching, team teaching, and effective collaboration among teacher educators. However, with little preparation and training for remote teaching and learning, both teachers and students struggled with the remote teaching and learning process. A myriad of challenges were identified including the unsuitability and unfamiliarity of online teaching and learning platforms, a high rate of absenteeism and low student engagement, a lack of parental and school support, and inadequate technological resources. The study revealed that mathematics and science teachers needed advanced technological resources to support student learning. Implications for educational policy and practice are discussed.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".