social work distance education field consortium

SOCIAL WORK DISTANCE EDUCATION FIELD CONSORTIUM

Bridging the Distance

WELCOMES YOU

[email protected]

Membership Information

Perks of joining the Social Work Distance Education Field Consortium:

• Access to evolving list of distance education field educators
• Participation in physical and virtual meetings
• Minutes from our physical and virtual meetings
• Participation in webinars on emerging and trending social work topics

Institution Membership - $50

Individual Membership - $50

• Follow us on Twitter
• Follow us on Facebook

A Collection of Resources for New and Emerging Field Directors

Posted By Laurel Hitchcock on Feb 7, 2020 | 1 comment

Editor’s Note: The idea for this blog post came from the listserv of the Association of Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors.   With over a 1000 subscribers, this listserv gets a lot of action from social work educators, frequently asking for resources or best practices.  In January 2020, a discussion thread came up about resources for social workers who were new directors of field education. I reached out to Kristen Samuels, the Director of Field Education at the University of Phoenix, and who has written posts for this blog in the past.  She graciously agreed to pull together a list of her favorite resources for field education.

As I transitioned into being a Field Director a few years ago, I had a great deal of anxiety over performing the role well and meeting the expectations of what seemed like an endless list of stakeholders. Although I had experience across many roles in Social Work Field Education, including coordinator, liaison, field instructor, and field faculty, the role of Field Director came with a steep learning curve. I had so many questions about how to manage the complex and competing demands of the role (Buck, Bradley, Robb & Kirzner, 2012), and found comfort in a few particular resources. Below is a compilation of a few of the resources I found most helpful in easing my transition. If you are new to leading the Field Education component of a Social Work program, these are a few ideas on where to start learning more about the Field Director position beyond your immediate university setting. 

One helpful resource was an online training series developed by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) called Managing a Field Education Program: A Training for New Field Directors . The training was developed by a group of industry leaders with helpful content about the primary roles and responsibilities of a Field Director. For the $150 registration fee, you receive: 

• access to a series of training videos presented by several long-standing Field Directors who offer their tips and expertise. The videos cover key topics such as gatekeeping, recruiting agency partners and field instructors, and the administrative components of the role.
• a discussion forum with peers who are new to the role, 
• a collection of handouts and sample documents from other institutions, including learning contracts, field manuals, field seminar assignments, student performance improvement plans, placement interview tips, etc.  
• links to helpful resources, 
• and a live one-hour webinar. 

It is estimated to take 4-6 hours to engage with all the content and complete the training. 

It is also important to become connected with some of the organizations and email listservs that are dedicated to Social Work Field Education. These are great ways to network with peers, ask questions, and share resources and best practices. 

The Field Directors Listserv has a robust and active community of field educators. To be added to the Field Directors electronic mailing list, directions are posted on the CSWE website. At the time of posting this blog, requests to join should be sent to Karen Chapman, Accreditation Specialist at: [email protected] , but we recommend visiting the CSWE site to confirm the current email recipient. You do not have to be a member of CSWE to join the listserv, and it is free to join. 

The Association of Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors (BPD) offers another helpful email listserv to network with a wider range of social work educators beyond field education, including BSW program directors, faculty, administrators, researchers, etc. You do not have to be a member of BPD to join, and there are no fees for participation. A thorough overview of how to subscribe, post, reply, and use the content for research purposes is available here . Colleagues from programs big and small will post questions or requests for information with the general expectation that they will compile answers and post them back to the listserv. 

This list is particularly helpful because it archives all posts made to the listserv since February 2004, which is a real treasure trove of incredible discussions, resources, and best practice tips over the years. If you have a burning question, I recommend starting here to see if it has been asked before, or if the discussion is new or should be revived again. Directions to access the archives are available here and requires login credentials which are free to obtain. 

The North American Network for Field Educators and Directors (NANFED ) website can help connect you with a closer group of Field Educators through their consortia groups. These Field Consortia listservs are organized by common interests like geographic location or online/face to face program offerings. Membership fees are required to be a part of this organization, which are $35/year for an individual, or $100/year for an institution which covers all Field administrators within a program. Membership provides access to a repository of resources from peer institutions, organized by program, student, stakeholder, and policy and procedure levels.

I highly recommend reviewing the State of Field Education Survey for a comprehensive overview of Field Education across institutions. This resource was developed by CSWE following their 2015 national survey of Field Directors and is packed with information about the way programs organize Field Education, the various staffing models and resources used to support Field Education, and even a section on annual salary ranges for roles supporting Field Education! 

The book Social Work Field Directors (Hunter, Moen, & Raskin, 2016) is an invaluable tool as you establish your role as a Field Director. This text is a collection of scholarship from Field experts, who present their experience on how to develop, maintain, and evaluate Field Education programs. There are sections devoted to innovative Field models, training and support for Field instructors, legal and ethical issues in Field, and Safety and Risk Management, along with many other helpful tips and ideas. It also discusses ways to achieve compliance under the 2015 EPAS. The text is $55 and available through Oxford University Press at the link above, or through Amazon. 

Speaking of the 2 015 EPAS , if you don’t already have a copy of the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards, this resource should be your guiding light as you plan your work and work your plan. This document, particularly section 2.2 Signature Pedagogy: Field Education but also weaved throughout many sections of the standards, outlines the expectations your program must meet to remain in compliance with CSWE Accreditation standards. As Field Director and a leader in your program, you will be called upon to report the ways you support student achievement of CSWE competencies in Field Education, so become familiar with these standards! 

The Field Educator is another helpful resource to gain knowledge about Field Education practice and research. This a bi-annual online journal that publishes content on innovative field models, best practices, peer reviewed articles on theory and research, and interviews with leading Social Work educators. The Field Educator is open access, and it is free to subscribe to receive email notifications as new issues are released. This is a great place to share your research as you gain confidence in your position! 

Conferences 

Each year, a Pre-Conference Field Education Institute is presented at the CSWE Annual Program Meeting each year. This institute is designed for anyone interested in Field Education (deans, directors, faculty, coordinators, etc), and in previous years has featured breakout sessions on emerging issues and trends, innovative strategies, and assessing student competence. Attendance to this full-day event costs $150 for CSWE members, and $200 for non-members (This fee is separate from the full conference fees). CE credit is available for 4.5 contact hours. For the first time in 2019, the Field Education Institute was offered virtually, with a live stream of portions of the event available to remote attendees. The rate for attendance in this event was $100, and included the ability to post questions and engage in dialogue with attendees in person and online. The event was also archived for on-demand access. 

If your program is willing and able to send you to the full CSWE Annual Program Meeting (also known as APM), this is also a great way to connect with and learn from Social Work faculty, administrators, influencers, and students. The event brings together over 2,500 leaders from programs small, large, online and in-person, and offers presentations and workshops across 40 tracks. Registration for the conference is typically around $500, plus around $200 for annual CSWE dues. Depending on the location, which shifts annually, the total cost can be upwards of $3000 after airfare, hotel, transportation, and meals. To maximize the opportunity, many universities use the event to advertise job opportunities and interview candidates, which adds great value if you are actively searching for new opportunities or hiring new faculty or staff. 

Although I have not attended this one personally, I have only heard great things from colleagues about the annual BPD conference . This conference is designed for educators, students, and practitioners to promote excellence in undergraduate Social Work education. As it relates to Field Education, the 2020 conference is hosting two full-day pre-conference workshops for Field Directors, one for new Field Directors with 0-3 years experience, and one for experienced Field Directors. The workshop for new Field Directors will focus on foundations of the role and a few of the major  responsibilities like maintaining placement sites, orienting and training field instructors, evaluating student learning, and gatekeeping, among others. The workshop costs $85 and will earn 4 CE hours. This is separate from fees associated with the full conference, which has varying rates based on BPD membership, single day participation, or if you are an exhibitor. 

My personal favorite conference to attend has been the Social Work Distance Education (SWDE) conference, primarily because of my role at an online institution, but I also believe there is value for programs who are interested in developing or improving their distance education course offerings. SWDE is a 3-day event held in April each year and hosted in San Antonio, Texas. Workshops and presentations focus on the unique challenges Social Work educators face as we develop and implement coursework and Field Education from a distance. The cost of registration is $485, or $200 for students, and about $1800 when considering airfare, hotel, transportation and meals. 

If you are new to the Field Director role, I hope you’ll find this information valuable to your journey. Although there is much to learn and manage in Field Education, there are many resources available to support you in the endeavor, only a few of those are listed here. If you have any additional advice or recommendations, we would be grateful for you sharing your wisdom by offering a comment below! 

References:

Buck, P., Bradley, J., Robb, L. & Kirzner, R. (2012). Complex and competing demands in field education: A qualitative study of field directors’ experiences. The Field Educator, 2(2), Retrieved from: http://fieldeducator.simmons.edu/article/complex-and-competing-demands-infield-education/  

How to cite this post: 

Samuels, K. (2020, February 7). A Collection of Resources for New and Emerging Field Directors [Blog Post]. Retrieved from Teaching & Learning in Social Work website: https://laureliversonhitchcock.org/2020/02/07/a-collection-of-resources-for-new-and-emerging-field-director/

Author: Laurel Hitchcock

Dr. Hitchcock served as the editor for this blog post. The author is the Guest Blogger (Social Work Educator or Student).

May 26, 2021

This post acts as a really valuable guide for people entering this aspect of their social work education career. I will be sharing with many of the field directors I work with, and it will inform my discussions with them as they manage field placement.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Laurel Hitchcock

Photo Credit: Jared Bash

• #SWvirtualpal
• Accreditation
• Assignments for Social Work
• Guest Educator Post
• Guest Student Post
• Interprofessional Education
• Presentations/Conferences
• Professional Collaboration Network
• Professional Learning Network
• Service Learning
• Simulations
• Social Media
• SW Field Education
• SW Practice with Tech
• Teaching with Tech

Archived Posts

Signup today to be notified of new updates!

Your email:

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by WordPress

• Faculty and Staff
• Rinehart, Lindsey

Lindsey Rinehart, MSW, LICSW

Field Education Director and Clinical Instructor

• M.S.W. New York University
• B.S.W. Shepherd University

TEACHING INTERESTS

• Field education
• Nonprofit leadership
• Community Engagement

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

• MSW Committee
• Field Education Committee
• GSWO Advisor
• WVU Faculty Senate
• Committee on Anti-Racism, Equity, and Justice
• Curriculum Committee
• Social Work Distance Education Field Consortium
• WV Coalition to End Homelessness BoS CoC Steering Committee

ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

• National Association of Social Workers
• Rinehart CV 2023

Jackie Votapek

• Clinical Associate Professor for Child Welfare Scholars MSW Program
• IU Indianapolis Child Welfare Education and Training Partnership

(317) 278-9813

•   [email protected]

Education/Social Work Building Room ES 4146 902 W. New York St.

Jackie Votapek is a Clinical Associate Professor with Indiana University School of Social Work. She has worked at IU for more than 15 years. In her current role she is the MSW Child Welfare Scholars Program Coordinator. She works with the IN Department of Child Services to recruit, select, and support employees pursuing their MSW degree as they matriculate through the graduate program. Prior to this, Jackie held a field faculty coordinator role with the MSW Direct online program. She worked with more than 500 students across the country and had the pleasure of seeing 6 graduating classes from the program. While in this role she co-founded a national consortium, the Social Work Distance Education Field Consortium. The mission of this consortium is "to create a platform for collaboration and cooperation for those placing students at a distance; educate and advocate for distance education within schools of social work and the practice community; and engage in research to further develop best practices for field education at a distance". Jackie was elected as the Consortium's first President and served on the leadership team for more than 6 years in various roles. She worked with field faculty across the country to develop best practices for field education programs that worked with students at a distance and made conference presentations each year to share them with others. Jackie's first role with IU School of Social Work was Training Manager with the Indiana Child Welfare Education & Training Partnership. She spent her first 7 years at IU partnering with the Indiana Department of Child Services to build an innovative workforce development program. The goal of this program was to effectively and efficiently train more than 2,000 staff working for the state of Indiana’s child welfare agency. As a result of the Training Partnership accomplishments, IU School of Social Work and IN Department of Child Services were awarded the Spirit of Philanthropy Award by IUPUI and the Governor of Indiana in April 2011. Jackie earned her MSW degree from IU School of Social Work in 2001. She has a diverse social work background that includes working with children and families, not-for-profit organizations, philanthropy, community planning, leadership, education, and training. The focus of her professional experience and academic work includes child welfare, positive youth development, leadership training, and education. Her interest in online education has inspired her to pursue a Ph.D. in Education, still in progress. Jackie is a native of Minnesota, she has been married for more than 25 years, and has two adult daughters. She enjoys spending free time with her family and traveling.

Master of Social Work - MSW

Research interests.

On-line education, social work supervision and leadership, organizational development, accreditation, and competency-based learning.

Teaching Interests

Social work education, clinical supervision, leadership, program development, community organizing, advocacy, and policy.

Presentations

In an effort to improve students experience through the field placement process, field faculty piloted a new communication strategy using Canvas. This presentation reviews how the field placement process was adapted for the learning management system, the experience for the field faculty, and survey results from students.

In an effort to improve students experience through the field placement process, field faculty piloted a new communication strategy using Canvas. This presentation reviews how the field placement process was adapted for the learning management system, the experience for the field faculty, and survey results from students. It has greater implications for improving student services at a distance and increasing communication and student engagement in the distance program as well.

The new social work technology standards issued by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB), Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), and Clinical Social Work Association (CSWA) have outlined standards for social work practitioners, students, and educators to guide their use of technology in practice. Upon reviewing the standards, it appears as if they place undue burden on social work practitioners to be responsible for internet content that is outside of their control and violates their right to free speech. As field educators partner with social work practitioners in their local communities, they should actively engage and inform them of these new standards and their implications for social work practice with clients and field instruction of students.

There are instances where the makeup of field education offices or programs lend themselves to students working with the same person who developed their field placement and who will be their field liaison. Sometimes the person who does the previous two roles is also a director or assistant director of the field office. This panel will discuss the different makeups of three field offices and what procedures and policies are put in place to mitigate conflicts from the students perspective should they arise.

Online social work programs have multiplied exponentially over the last five years. While the idealistic nature of offering higher education to underserved and rural areas of the country and the world appeals to many educators, the reality is that online programs for social work include a substantial internship component which does not easily translate to online learning. In addition, many social workers in academia and the community still acknowledge a bias that social work skills and values cannot be taught in a solely online format. Field education has historically been built on strong partnerships between schools of social work and non-profit agencies in their local community. Students graduate, become employed in a social work agency, and eventually agree to supervise future students for an internship in their agency. Now that many schools of social work have begun to offer an online degree program, field faculty and staff must meet geographical challenges across time zones and states, programmatic complications in terms of agency approvals and liaison visits, and issues of competition in other communities from local schools that are unprecedented and unforeseen.

• Votapek, J. S. (2016). SWDE Consortium Meeting .

Institutional Services

• Committee Member 2020 - IUPUI Faculty Council - Technology Committee View Description for Committee Member - Actively participate on the Technology committee as a campus representative to identify, discuss, and address technology related challenges that impact academic work and progress that faculty and staff encounter in their day to day work.
• Committee Member 2020 - IUSSW - System Field Team - Field & Task Instructor Orientation View Description for Committee Member - Work with a group of field faculty to develop an asynchronous self directed orientation for the Field & Task Instructors assigned to work with BSW & MSW students enrolled in social work programs across the state of Indiana.
• Committee Member 2020 - School of Social Work - Student Awards Committee View Description for Committee Member - Active committee member of the school's student awards committee.
• Committee Member 2015 - System-Wide Field Team View Description for Committee Member - Actively participate in monthly meetings to discuss field education courses, policies, and activities related to the IU School of Social Work
• Committee Member 2020 - School of Social Work - Promotion & Tenure Committee View Description for Committee Member - Member of the committee that developed promotion and tenure standards for clinical faculty appointments with the School of Social Work. The work on this committee began in January 2020 and was completed in April 2020.
• Committee Member 2018 - Faculty Council - Ombudsteam View Description for Committee Member - Helped to assess and revise current faculty grievance process and adopt an ombudsteam process.
• Committee Member 2019 - Faculty Search and Screen Committee View Description for Committee Member - Hiring committee member for the field faculty positions in my assigned program, MSW Direct. Engaged in a search and screen process to fill 3 faculty positions throughout 2019.
• Committee Member 2019 - Faculty Merit Policy View Description for Committee Member - This work group was tasked with researching best practices for annual faculty review and merit pay increases. They were tasked with putting for a recommendation to implement with faculty.
• Committee Member 2019 - Bereavement Workgroup View Description for Committee Member - This work group was tasked with looking at bereavement policies and best practices for students and developing a policy for implementation at the IU School of Social Work
• Committee Member 2018 - Special Populations Practice Area Committee View Description for Committee Member - Member of Special Populations Practice Area Committee. Worked to assess and revise the 555 and 651/652 field courses to reflect the CSWE 2015 EPAS Competencies.
• Task Force Chair 2016 - Optimal Field Workgroup View Description for Task Force Chair - Focus of the workgroup is to identify and develop standards for an optimal field education program. The focus of the workgroup I chaired was on field agency criteria
• Committee Member 2016 - Field Sonia Form Workgroup View Description for Committee Member - Focus of work group was to review all MSW field documents, assess their utility, and recommend use for Sonia if appropriate.
• Committee Member 2016 - Policy Training Workgroup View Description for Committee Member - Develop a policy training for field instructors.
• Committee Member 2016 - Sonia Implementation View Description for Committee Member - Implementation of new information management system for field system and department.

Memberships

• National Association of Social Workers 2017 to 2019
• Social Work Distance Education Field Consortium 2016 to Present
• Council on Social Work Education 2014 to Present

Professional Services

As Secretary responsibilities include documenting meeting minutes and publishing them. Drafting and publishing announcements, newsletters, and other brief updates via social media.

Become familiar with leadership models being used with IN Dept of Child Service Middle Managers. Schedule regular meetings with assigned mentee to discuss leadership project.

Assist with planning and facilitation of monthly meetings of leadership team, consortium meetings (virtual and in person), and survey of membership

Public Services

I serve as the Secretary for my community homeowner's association board of directors. I attend monthly meetings, plan the agenda, and write minutes. Disseminate minutes to the community and communicate other events and activities taking place in the community as well.

• Colleges & Degrees
• Academic Calendar
• International Education
• Graduate Studies
• Accreditation
• Tuition and Fees
• Parking & Maps
• Careers with CSULB
• Alumni Home
• Alumni Volunteering
• Alumni Giving

Campus Life

• Centers & Organizations
• Commencement
• Student Life
• Office of the President
• Office of the Provost
• Administration & Finance
• Student Affairs
• University Relations & Development
• Information Technology
• Beach Shops
• Campus Directory
• Enrollment Services
• Financial Aid
• Schedule of Classes
• Student Records
• 49er Foundation
• Research Foundation

1250 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90840 562.985.4111

MSW Program

Course sequence.

The MSW Program is taken in one of the following four sequences:

2-Year Program:

• Term 1: SW 500, 503A, 505, 594A, 596A (Fall)
• Term 2: SW 503B, 570, 592, 594B, 596B (Spring)
• Term 3: SW 620 or 630 or 650, 680A, 698A/C, TWO 600-level electives (Fall)
• Term 4: SW 605, 670, 680B, 699A/C, 600-level elective (Spring)

3-Year Program:

• Term 1: SW 503A, 505 (Fall)
• Term 2: SW 503B, 594A (Spring)
• Term 3: SW 500, 594B (Summer)
• Term 4: SW 570, 596A, 600-level elective (Fall)
• Term 5: SW 592, 596B, 600-level elective (Spring)
• Term 6: SW 605, 600-level elective (Summer)
• Term 7: SW 620 or 630 or 650, 680A, 698A/C (Fall)
• Term 8: SW 670, 680B, 699A/C (Spring)

Advanced Standing Program

Summer Bridge Modules:

• Human Behavior & Social Environment
• Practice (Micro & Macro)
• Fieldwork – 16 hours per week for 10 weeks (160 hours total) plus 2 hours of seminar per wk

Advanced Coursework:

• SW 620 or 630 or 650, 680A, 698A/C, TWO 600-level electives (Fall)
• SW 605, 670, 680B, 699A/C, 600-level elective (Spring)

Distance Education Program (Child and Family Wellbeing specialization only):

• Term 7: SW 620, 680A, 698A/C (Fall)

Master of Social Work Specialization Areas

The Master of Social Work degree offers opportunity for study in one of three areas of specialization:

• Child and Family Wellbeing
• Adulthood and Aging
• Integrated Health

Students rank their choice of specialization in the first semester of the foundation year. The second-year courses and field placement will be determined by this choice of specialization. While students are not required to designate a specialization, program stipend recipients and students who choose to complete the Pupil Personnel Services Credential are required to choose a specific specialization. 

Child and Family Wellbeing Specialization

The Child and Family Wellbeing specialization prepares students to use strength-based and evidence-based approaches to promote positive child and family functioning across diverse populations. Through coursework and field placements, students will acquire and enhance their skills to effectively engage, assess and intervene with children and families both preventively and with those experiencing challenges.  Students will also gain knowledge of the policies most salient to the lives of children and families and skills to effectively influence such policies. This specialization provides a solid framework for students interested in working in child protective services, schools and other public agencies or community-based non-profits.

Adulthood and Aging Specialization

The Adulthood and Aging specialization prepares students to use strength-based and evidence-based approaches to promote positive adult, older adult, and family functioning across diverse populations. Through coursework and field placements, students will acquire and enhance their skills to effectively engage, assess, and intervene with adults  and older adults. Students will gain knowledge of the unique psychosocial needs facing adults, older adults, and their families. Students will examine adulthood and the aging processes from multiple perspectives: biomedical, psychological, socioeconomic, spiritual and cultural while examining contemporary trends that are shaping aging policy, practice, and theory.  This specialization provides a solid framework for students interested in working in the areas of adult protective services, supportive services for family caregivers, Alzheimer’s and dementia care services, hospice services, the prison system and community corrections, promotion of healthy aging, long-term care, and health care collaborations.

Integrated Health Specialization

The Integrated Health specialization prepares students to use strength-based and evidence-based approaches to meeting the changing needs of people from diverse populations with physical, behavioral health, and substance use challenges. Through coursework and field placements, students will acquire and enhance their skills to effectively engage, assess, and intervene with individuals who face chronic diseases and co-occuring conditions of mental health challenges and/or substance use. Students will learn to utilize prevention and brief intervention models critical to integrated care and how to work effectively on an interdisciplinary team.  Students will learn how evidence-based practice, along with recovery-oriented and strengths-based care philosophies, can foster changes in practice settings and policies. This specialization provides a solid framework for students interested in working to deliver services in outpatient or primary care facilities, community-based behavioral health agencies, hospitals, and acute, chronic and long-term care settings.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Mini review article, distance learning in higher education during covid-19.

• 1 Department of Pedagogy of Higher Education, Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia
• 2 Department of Jurisprudence, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow, Russia
• 3 Department of English for Professional Communication, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia
• 4 Department of Foreign Languages, RUDN University, Moscow, Russia
• 5 Department of Medical and Social Assessment, Emergency, and Ambulatory Therapy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia

COVID-19’s pandemic has hastened the expansion of online learning across all levels of education. Countries have pushed to expand their use of distant education and make it mandatory in view of the danger of being unable to resume face-to-face education. The most frequently reported disadvantages are technological challenges and the resulting inability to open the system. Prior to the pandemic, interest in distance learning was burgeoning, as it was a unique style of instruction. The mini-review aims to ascertain students’ attitudes about distant learning during COVID-19. To accomplish the objective, articles were retrieved from the ERIC database. We utilize the search phrases “Distance learning” AND “University” AND “COVID.” We compiled a list of 139 articles. We chose papers with “full text” and “peer reviewed only” sections. Following the exclusion, 58 articles persisted. Then, using content analysis, publications relating to students’ perspectives on distance learning were identified. There were 27 articles in the final list. Students’ perspectives on distant education are classified into four categories: perception and attitudes, advantages of distance learning, disadvantages of distance learning, and challenges for distance learning. In all studies, due of pandemic constraints, online data gathering methods were selected. Surveys and questionnaires were utilized as data collection tools. When students are asked to compare face-to-face and online learning techniques, they assert that online learning has the potential to compensate for any limitations caused by pandemic conditions. Students’ perspectives and degrees of satisfaction range widely, from good to negative. Distance learning is advantageous since it allows for learning at any time and from any location. Distance education benefits both accomplishment and learning. Staying at home is safer and less stressful for students during pandemics. Distance education contributes to a variety of physical and psychological health concerns, including fear, anxiety, stress, and attention problems. Many schools lack enough infrastructure as a result of the pandemic’s rapid transition to online schooling. Future researchers can study what kind of online education methods could be used to eliminate student concerns.

Introduction

The pandemic of COVID-19 has accelerated the spread of online learning at all stages of education, from kindergarten to higher education. Prior to the epidemic, several colleges offered online education. However, as a result of the epidemic, several governments discontinued face-to-face schooling in favor of compulsory distance education.

The COVID-19 problem had a detrimental effect on the world’s educational system. As a result, educational institutions around the world developed a new technique for delivering instructional programs ( Graham et al., 2020 ; Akhmadieva et al., 2021 ; Gaba et al., 2021 ; Insorio and Macandog, 2022 ; Tal et al., 2022 ). Distance education has been the sole choice in the majority of countries throughout this period, and these countries have sought to increase their use of distance education and make it mandatory in light of the risk of not being able to restart face-to-face schooling ( Falode et al., 2020 ; Gonçalves et al., 2020 ; Tugun et al., 2020 ; Altun et al., 2021 ; Valeeva and Kalimullin, 2021 ; Zagkos et al., 2022 ).

What Is Distance Learning

Britannica defines distance learning as “form of education in which the main elements include physical separation of teachers and students during instruction and the use of various technologies to facilitate student-teacher and student-student communication” ( Simonson and Berg, 2016 ). The subject of distant learning has been studied extensively in the fields of pedagogics and psychology for quite some time ( Palatovska et al., 2021 ).

The primary distinction is that early in the history of distant education, the majority of interactions between professors and students were asynchronous. With the advent of the Internet, synchronous work prospects expanded to include anything from chat rooms to videoconferencing services. Additionally, asynchronous material exchange was substantially relocated to digital settings and communication channels ( Virtič et al., 2021 ).

Distance learning is a fundamentally different way to communication as well as a different learning framework. An instructor may not meet with pupils in live broadcasts at all in distance learning, but merely follow them in a chat if required ( Bozkurt and Sharma, 2020 ). Audio podcasts, films, numerous simulators, and online quizzes are just a few of the technological tools available for distance learning. The major aspect of distance learning, on the other hand, is the detailed tracking of a student’s performance, which helps to develop his or her own trajectory. While online learning attempts to replicate classroom learning methods, distant learning employs a computer game format, with new levels available only after the previous ones have been completed ( Bakhov et al., 2021 ).

In recent years, increased attention has been placed on eLearning in educational institutions because to the numerous benefits that have been discovered via study. These advantages include the absence of physical and temporal limits, the ease of accessing material and scheduling flexibility, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the solution. A number of other studies have demonstrated that eLearning is beneficial to both student gains and student performance. However, in order to achieve the optimum results from eLearning, students must be actively participating in the learning process — a notion that is commonly referred to as active learning — throughout the whole process ( Aldossary, 2021 ; Altun et al., 2021 ).

The most commonly mentioned negatives include technological difficulties and the inability to open the system as a result, low teaching quality, inability to teach applicable disciplines, and a lack of courses, contact, communication, and internet ( Altun et al., 2021 ). Also, misuse of technology, adaptation of successful technology-based training to effective teaching methods, and bad practices in managing the assessment and evaluation process of learning are all downsides of distance learning ( Debeş, 2021 ).

Distance Learning in a Pandemic Context

The epidemic forced schools, colleges, and institutions throughout the world to close their doors so that students might practice social isolation ( Toquero, 2020 ). Prior to the pandemic, demand for distance learning was nascent, as it was a novel mode of education, the benefits and quality of which were difficult to judge due to a dearth of statistics. But, in 2020, humanity faced a coronavirus pandemic, which accelerated the shift to distant learning to the point that it became the only viable mode of education and communication ( Viktoria and Aida, 2020 ). Due to the advancements in digital technology, educators and lecturers have been obliged to use E-learning platforms ( Benadla and Hadji, 2021 ).

In remote education settings for higher education, activities are often divided into synchronous course sessions and asynchronous activities and tasks. In synchronous courses, learners participate in interactive and targeted experiences that help them develop a fundamental grasp of technology-enhanced education, course design, and successful online instruction. Asynchronous activities and tasks, on the other hand, include tests, group work assignments, group discussion, feedback, and projects. Additionally, asynchronous activities and tasks are carried out via interactive video-based activities, facilitator meetings, live webinars, and keynote speakers ( Debeş, 2021 ).

According to Lamanauskas and Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė (2021) , ICT should be attractive for learners. Additionally, student satisfaction with ODL has a statistically significant effect on their future choices for online learning ( Virtič et al., 2021 ). According to Avsheniuk et al. (2021) , the majority of research is undertaken to categorize students’ views and attitudes about online learning, and studies examining students’ perspectives of online learning during the COVID-19 epidemic are uncommon and few. There is presently a dearth of research on the impact on students when schools are forced to close abruptly and indefinitely and transition to online learning communities ( Unger and Meiran, 2020 ). So that, the mini-review is aimed to examining the students’ views on using distance learning during COVID-19.

In order to perform the aim, the articles were searched through ERIC database. We use “Distance learning” AND “University” AND “COVID” as search terms. We obtained 139 articles. We selected “full text” and “Peer reviewed only” articles. After the exclusion, 58 articles endured. Then content analyses were used to determine articles related to students’ voices about distance learning. In the final list, there were 27 articles ( Table 1 ).

Table 1. Countries and data collection tools.

In the study, a qualitative approach and content analyses were preferred. Firstly, the findings related to students’ attitudes and opinions on distance learning were determined. The research team read selected sections independently. Researchers have come to a consensus on the themes of perception and attitudes, advantages of distance learning, disadvantages of distance learning, and challenges for distance learning. It was decided which study would be included in which theme/s. Finally, the findings were synthesized under themes.

Only 3 studies ( Lassoued et al., 2020 ; Viktoria and Aida, 2020 ; Todri et al., 2021 ) were conducted to cover more than one country. Other studies include only one country. Surveys and questionnaires were mostly used as measurement tools in the study. Due to pandemic restrictions, online data collection approaches were preferred in the data collection process.

Students’ views on distance learning are grouped under four themes. These themes are perception and attitudes, advantages of distance learning, disadvantages of distance learning, and challenges for distance learning.

Perception and Attitudes Toward Distance Learning

Students’ attitudes toward distance learning differ according to the studies. In some studies ( Mathew and Chung, 2020 ; Avsheniuk et al., 2021 ), it is stated that especially the students’ attitudes are positive, while in some studies ( Bozavlı, 2021 ; Yurdal et al., 2021 ) it is clearly stated that their attitudes are negative. In addition, there are also studies ( Akcil and Bastas, 2021 ) that indicate that students’ attitudes are at a moderate level. The transition to distance learning has been a source of anxiety for some students ( Unger and Meiran, 2020 ).

When the students’ satisfaction levels are analyzed, it is obvious from the research ( Gonçalves et al., 2020 ; Avsheniuk et al., 2021 ; Bakhov et al., 2021 ; Glebov et al., 2021 ; Todri et al., 2021 ) that the students’ satisfaction levels are high. In some studies, it is pronounced that the general satisfaction level of the participants is moderate ( Viktoria and Aida, 2020 ; Aldossary, 2021 ; Didenko et al., 2021 ) and low ( Taşkaya, 2021 ).

When students compare face-to-face and online learning methods, they state that online learning has opportunities to compensate for their deficiencies due to the pandemic conditions ( Abrosimova, 2020 ) and but they prefer face-to-face learning ( Gonçalves et al., 2020 ; Kaisar and Chowdhury, 2020 ; Bakhov et al., 2021 ). Distance learning is not sufficiently motivating ( Altun et al., 2021 ; Bozavlı, 2021 ), effective ( Beltekin and Kuyulu, 2020 ; Bozavlı, 2021 ), and does not have a contribution to students’ knowledge ( Taşkaya, 2021 ). Distance education cannot be used in place of face-to-face instruction ( Aldossary, 2021 ; Altun et al., 2021 ).

Advantages of Distance Learning

It is mostly cited advantages that distance learning has a positive effect on achievement and learning ( Gonçalves et al., 2020 ; Lin and Gao, 2020 ; Aldossary, 2021 ; Altun et al., 2021 ; Şahin, 2021 ). In addition, in distance learning, students can have more resources and reuse resources such as re-watching video ( Önöral and Kurtulmus-Yilmaz, 2020 ; Lamanauskas and Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė, 2021 ; Martha et al., 2021 ).

Distance learning for the reason any time and everywhere learning ( Adnan and Anwar, 2020 ; Lamanauskas and Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė, 2021 ; Todri et al., 2021 ). There is no need to spend money on transportation to and from the institution ( Lamanauskas and Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė, 2021 ; Nenakhova, 2021 ). Also, staying at home is safe during pandemics and less stressful for students ( Lamanauskas and Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė, 2021 ).

Challenges and Disadvantages of Distance Learning

Distance learning cannot guarantee effective learning, the persistence of learning, or success ( Altun et al., 2021 ; Benadla and Hadji, 2021 ). Students state that they have more works, tasks, and study loads in the distance learning process ( Mathew and Chung, 2020 ; Bakhov et al., 2021 ; Didenko et al., 2021 ; Nenakhova, 2021 ). Group working and socialization difficulties are experienced in distance learning ( Adnan and Anwar, 2020 ; Bozavlı, 2021 ; Lamanauskas and Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė, 2021 ). The absence of communication and face-to-face interaction is seen a disadvantage ( Didenko et al., 2021 ; Nenakhova, 2021 ).

It is difficult to keep attention on the computer screen for a long time, so distance-learning negatively affects concentration ( Bakhov et al., 2021 ; Lamanauskas and Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė, 2021 ). In addition, distance education prompts some physical and psychological health problems ( Kaisar and Chowdhury, 2020 ; Taşkaya, 2021 ).

Devices and internet connection, technical problems are mainly stated as challenges for distance learning ( Abrosimova, 2020 ; Adnan and Anwar, 2020 ; Mathew and Chung, 2020 ; Bakhov et al., 2021 ; Benadla and Hadji, 2021 ; Didenko et al., 2021 ; Lamanauskas and Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė, 2021 ; Nenakhova, 2021 ; Taşkaya, 2021 ; Şahin, 2021 ). In addition, some students have difficulties in finding a quiet and suitable environment where they can follow distance education courses ( Taşkaya, 2021 ). It is a disadvantage that students have not the knowledge and skills to use the technological tools used in distance education ( Lassoued et al., 2020 ; Bakhov et al., 2021 ; Didenko et al., 2021 ).

The purpose of this study is to ascertain university students’ perceptions about distant education during COVID-19. The study’s findings are intended to give context for developers of distant curriculum and higher education institutions.

According to Toquero (2020) , academic institutions have an increased need to enhance their curricula, and the incorporation of innovative teaching methods and tactics should be a priority. COVID-19’s lockout has shown the reality of higher education’s current state: Progressive universities operating in the twenty-first century did not appear to be prepared to implement digital teaching and learning tools; existing online learning platforms were not universal solutions; teaching staff were not prepared to teach remotely; their understanding of online teaching was sometimes limited to sending handbooks, slides, sample tasks, and assignments to students via email and setting deadlines for submission of completed tasks ( Didenko et al., 2021 ).

It is a key factor that student satisfaction to identify the influencers that emerged in online higher education settings ( Parahoo et al., 2016 ). Also, there was a significant positive relationship between online learning, social presence and satisfaction with online courses ( Stankovska et al., 2021 ). According to the findings, the attitudes and satisfaction levels of the students differ according to the studies and vary in a wide range from positive to negative attitudes.

According to the study’s findings, students responded that while online learning is beneficial for compensating for deficiencies during the pandemic, they would prefer face-to-face education in the future. This is a significant outcome for institutions. It is not desirable for all students to take their courses entirely online. According to Samat et al. (2020) , the one-size-fits-all approach to ODL implementation is inapplicable since it not only impedes the flow of information delivery inside the virtual classroom, but it also has an impact on psychological well-being because users are prone to become disturbed.

In distance learning, students can have more resources and reuse resources such as re-watching videos. So, distance learning has a positive effect on achievement and learning. Alghamdi (2021) stated that over the last two decades, research on the influence of technology on students’ academic success has revealed a range of good and negative impacts and relationships, as well as zero effects and relationship.

The result also shows that distance education prompts some physical and psychological health problems. Due to the difficulty of maintaining focus on a computer screen for an extended period of time, remote education has a detrimental effect on concentration. There is some evidence that students are fearful of online learning in compared to more traditional, or in-person, in-class learning environments, as well as media representations of emergencies ( Müller-Seitz and Macpherson, 2014 ).

Unsatisfactory equipment and internet connection, technical difficulties, and a lack of expertise about remote learning technology are frequently cited as distance learning issues. Due to the pandemic’s quick move to online education, many schools have an insufficient infrastructure. Infrastructure deficiency is more evident in fields that require laboratory work such as engineering ( Andrzej, 2020 ) and medicine ( Yurdal et al., 2021 ).

Conclusion and Recommendation

To sum up, students’ opinions and levels of satisfaction vary significantly, ranging from positive to negative. Distance learning for the reason any time and everywhere learning. Distance learning has a positive effect on achievement and learning. Staying at home is safe during pandemics and less stressful for students. Distance education prompts some physical and psychological health problems such as fear, anxiety, stress, and losing concentration. Due to the pandemic’s quick move to online education, many schools have an insufficient infrastructure. Future researchers can investigate what distance education models can be that will eliminate the complaints of students. Students’ positive attitudes and levels of satisfaction with their distant education programs have an impact on their ability to profit from the program. Consequently, schools wishing to implement distant education should begin by developing a structure, content, and pedagogical approach that would improve the satisfaction of their students. According to the findings of the study, there is no universally applicable magic formula since student satisfaction differs depending on the country, course content, and external factors.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

This manuscript has been supported by the Kazan Federal University Strategic Academic Leadership Program.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abrosimova, G. A. (2020). Digital literacy and digital skills in university study. Int. J. High. Educ. 9, 52–58. doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v9n8p52

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adnan, M., and Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: students perspectives. J. Pedagog. Soc. Psychol. 1, 45–51. doi: 10.33902/JPSP.2020261309

Akhmadieva, R. S., Mikhaylovsky, M. N., Simonova, M. M., Nizamutdinova, S. M., Prokopyev, A. I., and Ostanina, S. S. (2021). Public relations in organizations in sportsman students view: development of management tools or healthy and friendly relations formation. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 16, 1272–1279. doi: 10.14198/jhse.2021.16.Proc3.43

Akcil, U., and Bastas, M. (2021). Examination of university students’ attitudes towards e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic process and the relationship of digital citizenship. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 13:e291. doi: 10.30935/CEDTECH/9341

Aldossary, K. (2021). Online distance learning for translation subjects: tertiary level instructors’ and students’ perceptions in Saudi Arabia. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 22:6.

Google Scholar

Alghamdi, A. (2021). COVID-19 mandated self-directed distance learning: experiences of Saudi female postgraduate students. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 18:014. doi: 10.53761/1.18.3.14

Altun, T., Akyıldız, S., Gülay, A., and Özdemir, C. (2021). Investigating education faculty students’ views about asynchronous distance education practices during COVID-19. Psycho Educ. Res. Rev. 10, 34–45.

Andrzej, O. (2020). Modified blended learning in engineering higher education during the COVID-19 lockdown — building automation courses case study. Educ. Sci. 10:292.

Avsheniuk, N., Seminikhyna, N., Svyrydiuk, T., and Lutsenko, O. (2021). ESP students’ satisfaction with online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in ukraine. Arab World Engl. J. 1, 222–234. doi: 10.24093/awej/covid.17

Bakhov, I., Opolska, N., Bogus, M., Anishchenko, V., and Biryukova, Y. (2021). Emergency distance education in the conditions of COVID-19 pandemic: experience of Ukrainian universities. Educ. Sci. 11:364. doi: 10.3390/educsci11070364

Beltekin, E., and Kuyulu, İ (2020). The effect of coronavirus (COVID19) outbreak on education systems: evaluation of distance learning system in Turkey. J. Educ. Learn. 9:1. doi: 10.5539/jel.v9n4p1

Benadla, D., and Hadji, M. (2021). EFL students affective attitudes towards distance e-learning based on moodle platform during the COVID-19 the pandemic: perspectives from Dr. Moulaytahar university of Saida, Algeria. Arab World Engl. J. 1, 55–67. doi: 10.24093/awej/covid.4

Bozavlı, E. (2021). Is foreign language teaching possible without school? Distance learning experiences of foreign language students at Ataturk university during the COVID-19 pandemic. Arab World Engl. J. 12, 3–18. doi: 10.24093/awej/vol12no1.1

Bozkurt, A., and Sharma, R. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian J. Distance Educ. 15:2020.

Debeş, G. (2021). Distance learning in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: advantages and disadvantages. Int. J. Curr. Instr. 13, 1109–1118.

Didenko, I., Filatova, O., and Anisimova, L. (2021). COVID-19 lockdown challenges or new era for higher education. Propós. Represent. 9:e914. doi: 10.20511/pyr2021.v9nspe1.914

Falode, O. C., Chukwuemeka, E. J., Bello, A., and Baderinwa, T. (2020). Relationship between flexibility of learning, support services and students’ attitude towards distance learning programme in Nigeria. Eur. J. Interact. Multimed. Educ. 1:e02003. doi: 10.30935/ejimed/8320

Gaba, A. K., Bhushan, B., and Kant Rao, D. (2021). Factors influencing the preference of distance learners to study through online during COVID-19 pandemic. Asian J. Distance Educ. 16:2021.

Glebov, V. A., Popov, S. I., Lagusev, Y. M., Krivova, A. L., and Sadekova, S. R. (2021). Distance learning in the humanitarian field amid the coronavirus pandemic: risks of creating barriers and innovative benefits. Propós. Represent. 9:e1258. doi: 10.20511/pyr2021.v9nspe3.1258

Gonçalves, S. P., Sousa, M. J., and Pereira, F. S. (2020). Distance learning perceptions from higher education students—the case of Portugal. Educ. Sci. 10:374. doi: 10.3390/educsci10120374

Graham, S. R., Tolar, A., and Hokayem, H. (2020). Teaching preservice teachers about COVID-19 through distance learning. Electron. J. Res. Sci. Math. Educ. 24, 29–37.

Insorio, A. O., and Macandog, D. M. (2022). Video lessons via youtube channel as mathematics interventions in modular distance learning. Contemp. Math. Sci. Educ. 3:e22001. doi: 10.30935/conmaths/11468

Kaisar, M. T., and Chowdhury, S. Y. (2020). Foreign language virtual class room: anxiety creator or healer? Engl. Lang. Teach. 13:130. doi: 10.5539/elt.v13n11p130

Lamanauskas, V., and Makarskaitė-Petkevičienė, R. (2021). Distance lectures in university studies: advantages, disadvantages, improvement. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 13:e309. doi: 10.30935/cedtech/10887

Lassoued, Z., Alhendawi, M., and Bashitialshaaer, R. (2020). An exploratory study of the obstacles for achieving quality in distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. Sci. 10:232. doi: 10.3390/educsci10090232

Lin, X., and Gao, L. (2020). Students’ sense of community and perspectives of taking synchronous and asynchronous online courses. Asian J. Distance Educ. 15, 169–179. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3881614

Martha, A. S. D., Junus, K., Santoso, H. B., and Suhartanto, H. (2021). Assessing undergraduate students’ e-learning competencies: a case study of higher education context in Indonesia. Educ. Sci. 11:189. doi: 10.3390/educsci11040189

Mathew, V. N., and Chung, E. (2020). University students’ perspectives on open and distance learning (ODL) implementation amidst COVID-19. Asian J. Univ. Educ. 16, 152–160. doi: 10.24191/ajue.v16i4.11964

Müller-Seitz, G., and Macpherson, A. (2014). Learning during crisis as a ‘war for meaning’: the case of the German Escherichia coli outbreak in 2011. Manag. Learn. 45, 593–608.

Nenakhova, E. (2021). Distance learning practices on the example of second language learning during coronavirus epidemic in Russia. Int. J. Instr. 14, 807–826. doi: 10.29333/iji.2021.14347a

Önöral, Ö, and Kurtulmus-Yilmaz, S. (2020). Influence of COVID-19 pandemic on dental education in cyprus: preclinical and clinical implications with E-learning strategies. Adv. Educ. 7, 69–77.

Palatovska, O., Bondar, M., Syniavska, O., and Muntian, O. (2021). Virtual mini-lecture in distance learning space. Arab World Engl. J. 1, 199–208. doi: 10.24093/awej/covid.15

Parahoo, S. K., Santally, M. I., Rajabalee, Y., and Harvey, H. L. (2016). Designing a predictive model of student satisfaction in online learning. J. Market. High. Educ. 26, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/08841241.2015.1083511

Samat, M. F., Awang, N. A., Hussin, S. N. A., and Nawi, F. A. M. (2020). Online distance learning amidst COVID-19 pandemic among university students: a practicality of partial least squares structural equation modelling approach. Asian J. Univ. Educ. 16, 220–233.

Simonson, M., and Berg, G. A. (2016). Distance Learning. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Available online at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/distance-learning (accessed November 14, 2011).

Stankovska, G., Dimitrovski, D., and Ibraimi, Z. (2021). “Online learning, social presence and satisfaction among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic,” in Paper Presented at the Annual International Conference of the Bulgarian Comparative Education Society (BCES) , (Sofia), 181–188.

Şahin, M. (2021). Opinions of university students on effects of distance learning in Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic. Afr. Educ. Res. J. 9, 526–543. doi: 10.30918/aerj.92.21.082

Tal, C., Tish, S., and Tal, P. (2022). Parental perceptions of their preschool and elementary school children with respect to teacher-family relations and teaching methods during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Pedagog. Res. 7:em0114. doi: 10.29333/pr/11518

Taşkaya, S. M. (2021). Teacher candidates’ evaluation of the emergency remote teaching practices in turkey during COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Progress. Educ. 17, 63–78. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.366.5

Todri, A., Papajorgji, P., Moskowitz, H., and Scalera, F. (2021). Perceptions regarding distance learning in higher education, smoothing the transition. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 13:e287. doi: 10.30935/cedtech/9274

Toquero, C. M. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for higher education amid the COVID-19 pandemic: the Philippine context. Pedagog. Res. 5:em0063. doi: 10.29333/pr/7947

Tugun, V., Bayanova, A. R., Erdyneeva, K. G., Mashkin, N. A., Sakhipova, Z. M., and Zasova, L. V. (2020). The opinions of technology supported education of university students. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 15, 4–14. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v15i23.18779

Unger, S., and Meiran, W. (2020). Student attitudes towards online education during the COVID-19 viral outbreak of 2020: distance learning in a time of social distance. Int. J. Technol. Educ. Sci. 4, 256–266. doi: 10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.107

Valeeva, R., and Kalimullin, A. (2021). Adapting or changing: the COVID-19 pandemic and teacher education in Russia. Educ. Sci. 11:408. doi: 10.3390/educsci11080408

Viktoria, V., and Aida, M. (2020). comparative analysis on the impact of distance learning between Russian and Japanese university students, during the pandemic of COVID-19. Educ. Q. Rev. 3:438–446. doi: 10.31014/aior.1993.03.04.151

Virtič, M. P., Dolenc, K., and Šorgo, A. (2021). Changes in online distance learning behaviour of university students during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak, and development of the model of forced distance online learning preferences. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 10, 393–411. doi: 10.12973/EU-JER.10.1.393

Yurdal, M. O., Sahin, E. M., Kosan, A. M. A., and Toraman, C. (2021). Development of medical school students’ attitudes towards online learning scale and its relationship with E-learning styles. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 22, 310–325. doi: 10.17718/tojde.961855

Zagkos, C., Kyridis, A., Kamarianos, I., Dragouni, K E., Katsanou, A., Kouroumichaki, E., et al. (2022). Emergency remote teaching and learning in greek universities during the COVID-19 pandemic: the attitudes of university students. Eur. J. Interact. Multimed. Educ. 3:e02207. doi: 10.30935/ejimed/11494

Keywords : ICT, distance learning, COVID-19, higher education, online learning

Citation: Masalimova AR, Khvatova MA, Chikileva LS, Zvyagintseva EP, Stepanova VV and Melnik MV (2022) Distance Learning in Higher Education During Covid-19. Front. Educ. 7:822958. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.822958

Received: 26 November 2021; Accepted: 14 February 2022; Published: 03 March 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Masalimova, Khvatova, Chikileva, Zvyagintseva, Stepanova and Melnik. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Alfiya R. Masalimova, [email protected]

† ORCID: Alfiya R. Masalimova, orcid.org/0000-0003-3711-2527 ; Maria A. Khvatova, orcid.org/0000-0002-2156-8805 ; Lyudmila S. Chikileva, orcid.org/0000-0002-4737-9041 ; Elena P. Zvyagintseva, orcid.org/0000-0001-7078-0805 ; Valentina V. Stepanova, orcid.org/0000-0003-0495-0962 ; Mariya V. Melnik, orcid.org/0000-0001-8800-4628

This article is part of the Research Topic

The State of E-Learning in Higher Education in the Era of the Pandemic: How do we move Forward?