Page 12 - IJSA, Vol. 3, No 2, 2020

International Journal of Science Annals, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020

Introduction
Novel coronavirus infection (CoVID-19) has affected educators’ 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
th
consists in responding to the crisis with “emergency platform. It was a part of the program of the 6
eLearning protocols” (Murphy, 2020). International Academic Conference “Psychological and
It is clear that the pandemic politics will be the object of Pedagogical Problems of Modern Specialist Formation”
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 “emergency remote teaching”, 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 “the biggest educational technology experiment Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows (SPSS
in history” (Anderson, 2020; Daniel, 2020). One aspect Statistics 26). The data were validated using Pearson
2
of such an experiment is the use of modern digital method χ , which produced statistically significant
2
technologies in education (Melnyk & Pypenko, 2020). results (df=4, χ 2=22.083, р<0.01; df=4, χ 3=44.389,
2
Educators across the globe had to adapt quickly to the р<0.01; df=4, χ 4=29.666, р<0.01).
2
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 respondents’ answers according to the scale (n)
Very positive/ Positive/ Negative/ Very negative/ Undecided/
Question very high high low very low neutral Total
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 institutions’ 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 “very
pandemic: 30.8% – very high and 28.1% – high. In low”, and 4.0% said it was “low”. 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% – very bad, and second question (3.9%).
23.7% – 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