╤Аrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa IJSA SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES. Education ORIGINAL RESEARCH The Impact of Social Distancing Measures on Higher Education Stakeholders AuthorsтАЩ Contribution: Pypenko I. S.1,2,3 ACDG, Maslov Yu. V.4 ABDEFG, Melnyk Yu. B.2,3 ABDEFG A тАУ Study design; B тАУ Data collection; 1 Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics, Ukraine C тАУ Statistical analysis; 2 Kharkiv Regional Public Organization тАЬCulture of HealthтАЭ (KRPOCH), Ukraine D тАУ Data interpretation; 3 Scientific Research Institute KRPOCH, Ukraine E тАУ Manuscript preparation; 4 Belarusian State Economic University, Belarus F тАУ Literature search; G тАУ Funds collection Received: 25.10.2020; Accepted: 07.12.2020; Published: 20.12.2020 Abstract Background and The global CoVID-19 pandemic has affected education systems dramatically. Remote Aim of Study: teaching/learning practices have become everyday reality across the globe. The aim of the study: to assess the level of readiness of higher education stakeholders for distance learning/remote teaching, and to evaluate the role of social distancing measures. Material and Methods: 594 stakeholders (216 teachers and 378 students) provided anonymous responses to a questionnaire. Teacher did so during the round table discussion during the 6th International Academic Conference тАЬPsychological and Pedagogical Problems of Modern Specialist FormationтАЭ (June 2020). Students responded using Viber, WhatsApp, and Telegram. Validation by Pearson method ╧З2 produced statistically significant results (df=4, ╧З22=22.083, ╤А<0.01; df=4, ╧З23=44.389, ╤А<0.01; df=4, ╧З24=29.666, ╤А<0.01). Results: 62.9% of teachers and 56.6% of students consider educational institutions ready for distance learning. The majority of teachers/students seem to be prepared for it (81.0% and 93.4% respectively). 68.5% of teachers are positive about educational outcomes (contrasted with 90.0% of students). Only 37.0% of teachers and 21.7% of students assess the impact of social distancing measures on physical and mental health positively. Conclusions: The survey results prove that social distancing measures impact on higher education is significant. The respondents assess highly their individual levels of preparedness and of satisfaction, students displaying higher levels of both. However, the view on social distancing measures impact on physical and mental health is more negative, the trend being more visible in student responses. Keywords: higher education, stakeholders, social distancing, emergency remote teaching/learning, physical and mental health Copyright: ┬й 2020 Pypenko I. S., Maslov Yu. V., Melnyk Yu. B. Published by Archives of International Journal of Science Annals DOI and UDC DOI 10.26697/ijsa.2020.2.2; UDC 37.014.5:614.461 Conflict of interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests Peer review: Double-blind review Source of support: This research did not receive any outside funding or support Information about Pypenko Iryna Sergiivna (Corresponding Author) тАУ https://orcid.org/0000-0001- the authors: 5083-540X; iryna.pypenko@hneu.net; Doctor of Philosophy in Economics, Associate Professor, Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics; Co-Director, Scientific Research Institute KRPOCH; Kharkiv, Ukraine. Maslov Yuri Vsevolodovich тАУ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5715-6546; Doctor of Philosophy in Pedagogy, Associate Professor, Belarusian State Economic University, Minsk, Belarus. Melnyk Yuriy Borysovych тАУ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8527-4638; Doctor of Philosophy in Pedagogy, Associate Professor; Founder and Chairman of the Board, Kharkiv Regional Public Organization тАЬCulture of HealthтАЭ; Director, Scientific Research Institute KRPOCH; Kharkiv, Ukraine. 9 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 Introduction Novel coronavirus infection (CoVID-19) has affected educatorsтАЩ resilience and stress-resistance, i.e. their all spheres of societal life. The first reported illness onset psychological readiness for teaching under stress date was 1 December 2019, and the first hospital intake (Melnyk & Stadnik, 2020), as well as the policy of followed on 16 December 2019; in just two months, the individual health protection and the development of World Health Organization declared a Public Health student health culture (Melnyk, 2019). Emergency of International Concern (Huang et al., The aim of the study. To assess the level of readiness of 2020; Lai, Shih, Ko, Tang, & Hsueh, 2020). The higher education stakeholders for distance pandemic left very little time, if any at all, for strategic learning/remote teaching, and to evaluate the role of planning or operational deliberation. Transformations social distancing measures on the stakeholders in have occurred in most sectors of the economy. conditions of the global pandemic. Education systems have also experienced the impact of the pandemic, one of the major changes being the Materials and Methods implementation of remote teaching/learning practices. Participants and Research Organization In simple words, both students and the faculty are now The present study involved 594 stakeholders (216 staying away from university premises in many faculty members and 378 university students) who countries, teaching/learning taking place in virtual participated in the survey during the pandemic-related environments be means of using modern software and/or lockdown. Faculty members provided anonymous messaging systems. Most authors underline the common responses to a questionnaire introduced during the round trend in education systems around the world that table discussion on the Zoom Video Communications consists in responding to the crisis with тАЬemergency platform. It was a part of the program of the 6th eLearning protocolsтАЭ (Murphy, 2020). International Academic Conference тАЬPsychological and It is clear that the pandemic politics will be the object of Pedagogical Problems of Modern Specialist FormationтАЭ research for scholars for years and years to come held in June 2020. University students responded to the (Williamson, Eynon, & Potter, 2020). So far, they have questionnaire using messenger apps such as Viber, focused more on тАЬemergency remote teachingтАЭ, not WhatsApp, and Telegram. learning (Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust, & Bond 2020). Statistical Analysis Many authors agree that the current crisis may well The statistical analysis was conducted using Statistical become тАЬthe biggest educational technology experiment Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows (SPSS in historyтАЭ (Anderson, 2020; Daniel, 2020). One aspect Statistics 26). The data were validated using Pearson of such an experiment is the use of modern digital method ╧З2, which produced statistically significant technologies in education (Melnyk & Pypenko, 2020). results (df=4, ╧З22=22.083, ╤А<0.01; df=4, ╧З23=44.389, Educators across the globe had to adapt quickly to the ╤А<0.01; df=4, ╧З24=29.666, ╤А<0.01). new forms of actual teaching (Daniel, 2020; Morgan, 2020). However, smooth such adaptation went, it was Results (and still is) quite a stressful situation for both teachers Overall results of the survey (4 questions) are given in and students. The crucial factor in organizing the Table 1. As Question 5 presupposed an extended written educational process in conditions of the pandemic is the answer, no scale is applied to analyze it. Table 1. Overall results of the survey. Number of respondentsтАЩ answers according to the scale (n) Very positive/ Positive/ Negative/ Very negative/ Undecided/ Question Total very high high low very low neutral n % n % n % n % n % n % 1 183 30.8 167 28.1 141 23.7 48 8.1 55 9.3 594 100.0 2 177 29.8 351 59.1 24 4.0 19 3.2 23 3.9 594 100.0 3 173 29.1 315 53.0 61 10.3 24 4.0 21 3.5 594 100.0 4 33 5.6 129 21.7 244 41.1 78 13.1 110 18.5 594 100.0 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - The Table 1 data show that 58.9% of respondents, when with institutional ones (30.0% higher). Specifically, answering the first question, evaluated highly the level 29.8% were very well prepared, and 59.1% were well of their respective educational institutionsтАЩ preparedness prepared. In contrast, 7.2% rated their level of for emergency remote teaching caused by CoVID-19 preparedness as inadequate: 3.2% said it was тАЬvery pandemic: 30.8% тАУ very high and 28.1% тАУ high. In lowтАЭ, and 4.0% said it was тАЬlowтАЭ. A group of contrast, 31.8% of respondents consider the above- respondents was unable to provide the answer to the mentioned level inadequate: 8.1% тАУ very bad, and second question (3.9%). 23.7% тАУ bad. However, 9.3% of respondents were The answers to the third question show that the majority unable to evaluate the above-mentioned level. of educators (82.1%) are satisfied with the educational The answers to the second question show that 88.9% of outcomes of emergency remote teaching practices respondents are prepared, as individuals, to conduct (29.1% highly satisfied, and 53.0% just satisfied). A emergency remote teaching, which suggests a higher smaller fraction of respondents (14.4%) are not content level of individual levels of readiness in comparison with the educational outcomes during the pandemic 10 ╤Аrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa IJSA (10.3% of respondents rated the satisfaction level as respondents (5.6% said it was тАЬvery positiveтАЭ, and тАЬlowтАЭ, and 4.1% as тАЬvery lowтАЭ). Only 3.5% of 21.7% said it was тАЬpositiveтАЭ). However, 54.2 % of respondents are unable to evaluate the level of their respondents evaluated the effect as тАЬnegativeтАЭ (13.1% satisfaction with emergency remote teaching outcomes. said it was тАЬvery negativeтАЭ, 41.1% said it was The answers to the fourth question dealing with the тАЬnegativeтАЭ, and 18.5% were undecided). effect of social distancing measures on physical and Table 2 contains statistical data concerning the mental health demonstrate a different trend. The positive differences between two groups of stakeholders тАУ evaluation of the effect was given by 27.3% of teachers and students. Table 2. Data on the individual level of preparedness for emergency remote teaching during CoVID-19 pandemic according to teachers/students. Data grouped according to Stakeholders and Level of preparedness (people/%) Total Very positive/ Positive/ Negative/ Very negative/ Undecided/ (people) Question very high high low very low neutral teachers students teachers students teachers students teachers students teachers students teachers students 1 72/33.3 111/29.4 64/29.6 103/27.2 45/20.8 96/25.4 13/6.0 35/9.3 22/10.2 33/8.7 216/100 378/100 2 56/25.9 121/32.0 119/55.1 232/61.4 16/7.4 8/2.1 12/5.6 7/1.9 13/6.0 10/2.6 216/100 378/100 3 48/22.2 125/33.1 100/46.3 215/56.9 40/18.5 21/5.6 16/7.4 8/2.1 12/5.6 9/2.4 216/100 378/100 4 16/7.4 17/4.5 64/29.6 65/17.2 74/34.3 170/45.0 14/6.5 64/16.9 48/22.2 62/16.4 216/100 378/100 When responding to the first question, 62.9% of teachers above effect negatively: low тАУ 34.3% of teachers and and 56.6% of students assessed positively the level of 45.0% of students, very low тАУ 6.5% of teachers and institutional preparedness for remote teaching/learning 16.9% of students. Characteristically, 22.2% of teachers conditions caused by the pandemic: very high тАУ 33.3% and 16.4% students failed to assess the effect of the of teachers and 29.4% of students; high тАУ 29.6% of pandemic-caused social distancing measures. It can be teachers and 27.2% of students. However, 26.8% of emphasized that the negative attitude is more teachers and 34.7% of students assessed the level of pronounced in student responses (21.1% more such institutional preparedness negatively: low тАУ 20.8% of responses compared with those given by teachers). teachers and 25.4% of students, very low тАУ 6.0% of Thus, the trends observed in the survey testify to the teachers and 9.3% of students. Notably, 10.2% of absence of marked differences in responses of teachers teachers and 8.7% of students were unable to assess the and students to the first question only, which means that level of institutional preparedness. both categories of stakeholders are prepared well for the When responding to the second question, 81.0% of educational тАЬemergencyтАЭ. In contrast, the responses to teachers and 93.4% of students assessed positively their the second, third and fourth question demonstrate own level of preparedness for teaching/learning in marked differences in attitudes. Moreover, one can draw conditions of the pandemic: very high тАУ 25.9% and a conclusion that it is the faculty but the student body 32.0%, high тАУ 55.1% and 61.4% respectively. that is affected more negatively by the social distancing Nevertheless, 13.0% of teachers and 4.0% of students measures introduced during the pandemic. assessed their own level negatively: low тАУ 7.4% and To estimate the discrepancy validity, we have used the 2.1%, very low тАУ 5.6% and 1.9% respectively. Pearson method ╧З2 in this research. The study sample Moreover, no responses came from 6.0% of teachers and consisted of 594 responses obtained from 216 teachers 2.6% of students, which shows their lack of certainty. and 378 students. The differences were analyzed When responding to the third question, 68.5% of between the observed values (the existing ones) and the teachers and 90.0% of students were positive about expected values (the mathematically predicted as a being satisfied with teaching/learning outcomes: 22.2% hypothesis) that follow the square distribution. The of teachers and 33.1% of students reported тАЬvery highтАЭ expected values were determined based on group values level of satisfaction, and 46.3% of teachers and 56.9% according to the null hypothesis. The statistical analysis of students reported тАЬhighтАЭ level of satisfaction. At the was conducted using SPSS Statistics 26. same time, 25.9% of teachers and 7.7% of students Tables 3тАУ6 show the results of the calculations of the responded negatively: low level тАУ18.5% and 5.6%, and expected values based on the observed ones, according very low level тАУ 7.4% and 2.1% respectively. Notably, to each of the four questions. 5.6% of teachers and 2.3% of students failed to identify The statistical analysis of responses to question one their level of satisfaction. reveals an insignificant difference between the expected The effect of the pandemic-caused social distancing and the observed values (╧З2 values are not at a critical measures on teachers and studentsтАЩ physical and mental level). The null hypothesis stating the absence of health is reflected in the fact that 37.0% of teachers and differences has been confirmed. When dealing with the 21.7% of students assessed those positively: very high тАУ responses to questions 2-4, marked differences have 7.4% of teachers and 4.5% of students, high тАУ 29.6% of been observed (╧З2 values have achieved a critical level teachers and 17.2% of students. That means teachers for a fixed number of degrees of freedom df = (2-1) ├Ч seem to enjoy a greater measure of physical and ├Ч (5-1) = 4, so the null hypothesis has been rejected, psychological comfort that students do, the teachersтАЩ which leads to the conclusion that statistically level of satisfaction being 15.3% higher. However, significant differences have been observed. 40.8% of teachers and 61.9% of students assess the 11 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 Table 3. Data on expected values based on the observed distributions in the levels of institutional preparedness for emergency remote teaching in conditions of the CoVID-19 pandemic. Observed and expected values grouped according to respondentsтАЩ answering scale Very positive/ Positive/ Negative/ Very negative/ Undecided/ Total Parameter very high high low very low neutral Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- ved ted ved ted ved ted ved ted ved ted Teachers 72 67 64 61 45 51 13 17 22 20 216 Students 111 116 103 106 96 90 35 31 33 35 378 Total 183 183 167 167 141 141 48 48 55 55 594 H0-hypo- 31 28 24 8 9 100 thesis, % Table 4. Data on expected values based on the observed distributions in the levels of individual preparedness for emergency remote teaching in conditions of the CoVID-19 pandemic. Observed and expected values grouped according to respondentsтАЩ answering scale Very positive/ Positive/ Negative/ Very negative/ Undecided/ Total Parameter very high high low very low neutral Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- ved ted ved ted ved ted ved ted ved ted Teachers 56 64 119 128 16 9 12 7 13 8 216 Students 121 113 232 223 8 15 7 12 10 15 378 Total 177 177 351 351 24 24 19 19 23 23 594 H0-hypo- 30 59 4 3 4 100 thesis, % Table 5. Data on expected values based on the observed distributions in the levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with individual educational outcomes in conditions of the CoVID-19 pandemic. Observed and expected values grouped according to respondentsтАЩ answering scale Very positive/ Positive/ Negative/ Very negative/ Undecided/ Total Parameter very high high low very low neutral Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- ved ted ved ted ved ted ved ted ved ted Teachers 48 63 100 115 40 22 16 9 12 8 216 Students 125 110 215 200 21 39 8 15 9 13 378 Total 173 173 315 315 61 61 24 24 21 21 594 H0-hypo- 29 53 10 4 4 100 thesis, % Table 6. Data on expected values based on the observed distributions in the measure of the impact of social distancing procedures caused by the CoVID-19 pandemic on the respondentsтАЩ self-assessment of physical and mental health. Observed and expected values grouped according to respondentsтАЩ answering scale Very positive/ Positive/ Negative/ Very negative/ Undecided/ Total Parameter very high high low very low neutral Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- Obser- Expec- ved ted ved ted ved ted ved ted ved ted Teachers 16 12 64 47 74 89 14 28 48 40 216 Students 17 21 65 82 170 155 64 50 62 70 378 Total 33 33 129 129 244 244 78 78 110 110 594 H0-hypo- 5.6 21.7 41.1 13.1 18.5 100 thesis, % The critical value ╧З2cr for df=4: ╧З2cr=9.448 by p=0.05; emergency remote teaching in conditions of the CoVID- ╧З2cr=13.277 by p=0.01. The calculated value ╧З2 is bigger 19 pandemic. than the critical value (>13.277) in responses to the Both categories of stakeholders reported high levels of second question (22.083), to the third question (44.389), individual preparedness for emergency remote and to the fourth question (29.666). It confirms that the teaching/learning, the students displaying a slightly differences in the compared aggregates of data are higher level of self-confidence in dealing with the statistically significant (df=4, ╧З2 =22.083, ╤А<0.01; df=4, situation. In contrast, the marked differences in ╧З2 =44.389, ╤А<0.01; df=4, ╧З2 =29.666, ╤А<0.01). responses observed during the survey suggest the idea Thus, the statistical analysis has proved that responses that the students are affected more by the social from teachers and students demonstrate no difference of distancing measures, which testifies to the negative opinion when answering the questions dealing with the effect of social distancing on the physical and mental level of institutional/individual preparedness for health of this category of stakeholders. 12 ╤Аrint ISSN: 2617-2682; online ISSN: 2707-3637; DOI:10.26697/ijsa IJSA Discussion Conclusions In general, the results comply with a number of findings The survey results demonstrate that the impact of social obtained previously. In the first months of the pandemic, distancing measures on higher education practices is remote teaching practices were analyzed by researchers quite significant. The majority of participants have (Liguori & Winkler, 2020; Maslov, 2020; Ozer, 2020). assessed highly their individual levels of both It has been emphasized that the global-scale emergency preparedness for teaching/learning and of satisfaction called for the creation of a crisis-driven with the educational outcomes. Interestingly, students teaching/learning environment rather than complex have displayed higher levels of preparedness and institutional planning. As such, it may have become тАЬthe satisfaction. However, the assessment of the impact of biggest educational technology experiment in historyтАЭ social distancing measures on physical and mental (Anderson, 2020; Daniel, 2020). It seems that health is generally more negative, the trend being more humankind has been presented with an opportunity to visible in student responses. view the world more holistically and realistically (Xafis, Schaefer, Labude, Zhu, & Hsu, 2020). The authors have Funding source also described various aspects of using modern digital This research received no specific grant from any technologies in education (Melnyk & Pypenko, 2020). funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for- In the present paper, we focus on the crisis response by profit sectors. institutions of higher education that varied from country to country. In the digitally advanced countries, the References transition was swift. For instance, top-25 U.S. Alsafi, Z., Abbas, A.-R., Hassan, A., & Ali, M. A. universities discontinued face-to-face schooling at about (2020). The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: the same time in March 2020, and every university Adaptations in medical education. International declared emergency eLearning policies (Murphy, 2020). Journal of Surgery, 78, 64тАУ65. Consequently, educators had to adapt quickly to the new doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.03.083 forms of actual teaching (Daniel, 2020; Morgan, 2020). Anderson, J. (2020, March 30). Re: The coronavirus In most countries, medical education was affected to a pandemic is reshaping education [Web edition great extent, which can be viewed both as a positive message]. Retrieved from influence (a rare opportunity for professional https://qz.com/1826369/how-coronavirus-is- development) and a disruptive one (Alsaf, Abbas, changing-education Hassan, & Ali, 2020; McMaste, Veremu, & Santucci, Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 2020; Ting, Carin, Dzau, & Wong, 2020). Economics pandemic. Prospects, 49, 91тАУ96. education was affected, too. Interestingly, some authors doi:10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3 find a lot of positivity in such education practices Hodges, Ch., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & because educators were made to practice what they Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference typically preach, that is, to adapt to market conditions, between emergency remote teaching and online to remain agile, and to innovate (Lugiori & Winkler, learning. Educause Review. Retrieved from 2020). However, new concerns have emerged at once. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the- Among many, some are connected with the pitfalls in difference-between-emergency-remote- the use of advanced technology: for instance, тАЬzoom- teaching-and-online-learning bombingтАЭ etc. (Reich et al., 2020). But it is obvious that, Huang, C., Wang, Y., Li, X., Ren, L., Zhao, J., Hu, Y., nevertheless, the crucial factor in organizing the тАж Cao, B. (2020). Clinical features of patients educational process in conditions of the pandemic is the infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, stress-resistance level of the teachers (Melnyk & China. The Lancet, 395(10223), 497тАУ506. Stadnik, 2020), as well as the policy of individual health doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5 protection and the development of student health culture Lai, C.-C., Shih, T.-P., Ko, W.-C., Tang, H.-J., & Hsueh, (Melnyk, 2019). P.-R. (2020). Severe acute respiratory syndrome The present survey results have proved that the target coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus group of educators from 20 countries was/is well disease-2019 (COVID-19): The epidemic and the prepared for the pandemic-driven emergency remote challenges. International Journal of teaching, which includes the flexibility of institutional Antimicrobial Agents, 55(3). Retrieved from support. The lower level of satisfaction with the https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi educational outcomes can be viewed as a manifestation i/S0924857920300674 of teacher-specific neuroticism that works against doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105924 overestimating the gains rather than an indicator of a Liguori, E., & Winkler, Ch. (2020). From offline to decline in the quality of teaching. online: Challenges and opportunities for It has been suggested that the pandemic may be a factor entrepreneurship education following the of тАШrevolutionizingтАЩ teaching/learning practices, the COVID-19 pandemic. Entrepreneurship main impact being on the system of professional values Education and Pedagogy, 3(4), 346тАУ351. shared by educators worldwide (Melnyk, Pypenko, & doi:10.1177/2515127420916738 Maslov, 2020). The survey participants reported Maslov, Y. (2020). Lessons learned from emergency increased opportunities for research work, familiarizing remote teaching during the COVID-19 with educational management activities and wider pandemic. International Journal of Education contacts with the international educational community. 13 International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 and Science, 3(2), 30. Murphy, M. P. A. (2020). COVID-19 and emergency doi:10.26697/ijes.2020.2.17 eLearning: Consequences of the securitization of McMaster, D., Veremu, M., & Santucci, C. (2020). higher education for post-pandemic pedagogy. COVID-19: opportunities for professional Contemporary Security Policy, 41(3), 492тАУ505, development and disruptive innovation. The doi:10.1080/13523260.2020.1761749 Clinical Teacher, 17(3), 238тАУ240. ├Цzer, M. (2020). Vocational education and training as doi:10.1111/tct.13175 тАЬA friend in needтАЭ during coronavirus pandemic Melnyk, Yu. B., & Pypenko, I. S. (2020). How will in Turkey. Bart─▒n University Journal of Faculty blockchain technology change education future?! of Education, 9(2). Retrieved from International Journal of Science Annals, 3(1), 5тАУ https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/buefad/issue/530 6. doi:10.26697/ijsa.2020.1.1 32/713574 doi:10.14686/buefad.713574 Melnyk, Yu. B., Pypenko, I. S., & Maslov, Yu. V. Reich, J., Buttimer, C. J., Fang, A., Hillaire, G., (2020). CoVID-19 pandemic as a factor Hirsch, K., Larke, L. R., тАж Slama, R. (2020). revolutionizing the industry of higher education. Remote learning guidance from state education Rupkatha Journal, 12(5). agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic: A first doi:10.21659/rupkatha.v12n5.rioc1s19n2 look. Retrieved from https://edarxiv.org/437e2/ Melnyk, Yu. B., & Stadnik, A. V. (2020). Medical and doi:10.35542/osf.io/437e2 psychological support to specialists under Ting, D. S. W., Carin, L., Dzau, V., & Wong, T. Y. conditions of pandemic COVID-19. Minerva (2020). Digital technology and COVID-19. Psichiatrica, 61(3), 109тАУ112. Nature Medicine, 26, 459тАУ461. doi:10.23736/s0391-1772.20.02083-X doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0824-5 Melnyk, Yu. (2019). The influence of educational, Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). physical cultural and healthy work on the Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: formation of the health culture of masterтАЩs Digital technologies and distance education students. Journal of Physical Education and during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Sport, 19(1), 219тАУ226. Media and Technology, 45(2), 107тАУ114. doi:10.7752/jpes.2019.s1033 doi:10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641 Morgan, H. (2020). Best practices for implementing Xafis, V., Schaefer, G. O., Labude, M. K., Zhu, Y., & remote learning during a pandemic. The Clearing Hsu, I. Y. (2020). The perfect moral storm: House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Diverse ethical considerations in the COVID-19 Issues and Ideas, 93(3), 135тАУ141. pandemic. Asian Bioethics Review, 12(2), 65тАУ83. doi:10.1080/00098655.2020.1751480 doi:10.1007/s41649-020-00125-3 Cite this article as: Pypenko, I. S., Maslov, Yu. V., & Melnyk, Yu. B. (2020). The Impact of Social Distancing Measures on Higher Education Stakeholders. International Journal of Science Annals, 3(2), 9тАУ14. doi:10.26697/ijsa.2020.2.2 The electronic version of this article is complete. It can be found online in the IJSA Archive https://ijsa.culturehealth.org/en/arhiv and in the KRPOCH Publishing Repository https://ekrpoch.culturehealth.org/handle/lib/71 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en). 14