MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400043341 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2024.6366

E-learning Challenges Faced by University Teachers During COVID-19 Pandemic

2024· article· en· W4400043341 on OpenAlexaff
Noor Ayesha, Sana Mumtaz, Fozia Malik, Sultan Maqsood

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of Niagara
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Mathematics educationMedical educationPsychologyVirologyMedicineOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research has explored various challenges related to E-learning dynamics faced by high-education academicians during the COVID-19 period. To develop an in-depth understanding, qualitative research methods were used and the narrative inquiry method was integrated for collecting data from interviewees. Data were collected from 14 university teachers via focus group discussions in which respondents were required to provide written narrations about the teaching-related challenges as well. Data were narrated from the words of respondents using the thematic analysis approach. Based on the analysis, seven major themes were derived and characterized as the key challenges of e-learning during COVID-19 named as lack of readiness, lack of resources and training, lack of interaction and motivation, quality of education deliverance, assessment & monitoring issue, Workload and distractions and Curriculum revision. Accordingly, this research has offered useful suggestions for education policymakers, senior management of universities, and researchers which will enable them to have a better understanding of E-learning challenges in developing countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.199
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207