4.5 Article

Obstacle Comparisons to Achieving Distance Learning and Applying Electronic Exams during COVID-19 Pandemic

期刊

SYMMETRY-BASEL
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/sym13010099

关键词

obstacles comparison; distance learning; electronic testing (e-exams); professors and students; COVID-19 pandemic

资金

  1. Lund University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated obstacles and barriers in distance learning and electronic exams, based on evaluations from professors and students in universities in the Arab world. The findings revealed 27 barriers and recommendations for improvement in future distance learning and e-exams.
This study aims to identify obstacles and barriers to achieving quality distance learning and the use of electronic exams, comparing them to pursue success in the distance education system during the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). It also aimed to determine the similarity and differences between the two main components of distance education. This is based on a sample of evaluations from professors and students at universities in the Arab world, i.e., Algerian, Egyptian, Iraqi, and Palestinian universities. We used a descriptive approach using questionnaires (open question) with conveniently selected samples from two different groups: (1) 400 professors and student's feedback from 600 distributed (i.e., Algerian, Egyptian, Palestinian, and Iraqi) and (2) 152 professors and student's feedback from 300 distributed (i.e., Palestinian universities in the governorates of Gaza). The results indicated that professors and students faced 27 barriers in both distance learning and electronic exams, which are divided into four groups (categories) according to the sample. Recommendations to understand and overcome these obstacles will also be presented to improve distance learning and e-exams in the future. It is important to coordinate efforts in the development of distance education, especially concerning universities using distance learning and e-exams.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据