Abstract
This dataset provides an insight into the reality and experiences of online learning as perceived by secondary school students in Vietnam during COVID-related school closures. The dataset addresses four main aspects of online learning, namely (a) students’ access to learning devices, (b) their digital skill readiness, (c) their experience with online learning and assessment activities, and (d) their overall evaluation of the effectiveness of online learning. The survey was administered online via Google Form from September to December 2021 with responses received from 5,327 secondary school students in 5 provinces of Vietnam. The dataset is expected to benefit local educators, administrators, and teachers who are interested in COVID educational practices and pedagogical interventions. The dataset can also benefit international researchers who wish to conduct comparative studies on student online learning or who wish to seek further insight into the responsiveness of an educational system to pandemic situations.
Keywords: Online education, Responsive education, COVID-19 education, Online learning platforms, School closure, Student perceptions
Specifications Table
| Subject | Social sciences |
| Specific subject area | Education Online learning Education during COVID-19 |
| Type of data | Tables Figures Excel file Sav file |
| How the data were acquired | The data was collected using a Google Forms online survey. The survey link was distributed to students via their class teachers. Student responses were imported into an Excel spreadsheet and analysed using SPSS Version 25. |
| Data format | Raw Analysed |
| Description of data collection | The cluster sampling method was used to collect the data. Participating schools were located in 5 provinces, namely Hanoi, Nam Dinh, Quang Binh, Daklak and Can Tho. Targeted respondents for the survey were Grade 6-to-Grade 9 students from 50 secondary schools. A total of 5,327 valid responses were received. |
| Data source location | Institution: The Vietnam National Institute of Educational Sciences City/Town/Region: Hanoi, Nam Dinh, Quang Binh, Dak Lak and Can Tho Country: Vietnam Latitude and longitude (and GPS coordinates, if possible) for collected samples/data: Hanoi: 21°1′28.2″N, 105°50′28.21″E Nam Dinh: 20° 16′ 45.048″ N 106° 12′ 18.533″ E Quang Binh: 17° 27′ 57.38″ N 106° 35′ 54.226″ E Daklak: 12° 42′ 36.043″ N 108° 14′ 15.907″ E Can Tho: 10°2′13.6″N, 105°47′17.7″E |
| Data accessibility | Repository name: Mendeley Data Data identification number: 10.17632/cn7vtxdm97.1 Direct URL to data: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/cn7vtxdm97/1 |
Value of the Data
The dataset is expected to have methodological and practical contributions to the topic of online learning.
-
•
In practical terms, the dataset provides a large-scale database of online learning experiences of secondary school students in Vietnam. This can inform Vietnamese educators, administrators, and teachers of the reality and effectiveness of online learning from students’ perspectives, which then can inform the development of action plans, pedagogies, adjustments, or interventions to best support online teaching and learning.
-
•
In methodological terms, the dataset provides a survey tool that local educators and researchers can use to evaluate the effectiveness of online learning or seek means to enhance students' online learning experience. The survey tool in particular and the dataset, in general, can benefit international educators and researchers interested in online education and in the responsiveness of an educational system, particularly in relation to the context of COVID-19 or similar pandemic situations.
1. Data Description
The dataset uploaded and referenced at Mendeley data [5] informs the online learning reality of secondary school students in Vietnam during school closures due to COVID-19. It comprises a student questionnaire with 64 items and a raw datafile with 5,327 responses. The questionnaire is structured into four groups, namely (a) demographic information of participating students (3 items), (b) their online learning conditions (16 items), (c) their experience with online learning and assessment activities (37 items), and (d) their overall perception of the effectiveness of online learning (8 items). Demographic items were in the form of selected responses and the remaining items were in the form of 5-point Likert statements.
The first group of information collected was concerned with students’ gender, school grade, and location of residence (Table 1). This demographic information was used to explore correlation with other items in the questionnaire.
Table 1.
Distribution of student participants by gender, grade, and location.
| Gender |
Grade |
Location type* |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total 5327 | Male | Female | Grade 6 | Grage 7 | Grade 8 | Grade 9 | Urban areas | Rural areas | Mountainous areas |
| 2429 | 2898 | 1069 | 1563 | 1398 | 1297 | 2234 | 2675 | 418 | |
Note.
Location types are defined in the Vietnamese Government's Decision No. 1211/2016/UBTCQH13 and Decision No. 33/2-2-QĐ-TTg based on localities’ population size and economic indicators. Mountainous areas refer to localities with significant socio-economic disadvantages, with at least 15% of the population belonging to ethnic minority groups and at least 10% of the households living under the national poverty line.
The second group of information was concerned with students’ conditions for online learning. Students were asked whether or not they had access to learning devices, such as tablets, smartphones, or computers connected to the Internet. They were also asked to self-assess their ICT skills, for example, their ability to use online learning platforms and apps to participate in online activities. The data collected was presented in Fig. 1 and in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4. Table 5 presents the data on barriers to students’ online learning.
Fig. 1.
Students’ self-rated ICT skills by location type.
Table 2.
Students’ access to learning devices by location type.
| Urban areas |
Rural areas |
Mountainous areas |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| An Ipad/Tablet with Internet connection | 772 | 34.6 | 378 | 14.1 | 64 | 15.3 |
| A smart TV with Internet connection | 329 | 14.7 | 543 | 20.3 | 88 | 21.1 |
| A smartphone with Internet connection | 1650 | 73.9 | 2390 | 89.3 | 356 | 85.2 |
| A laptop with Internet connection | 1318 | 59.0 | 716 | 26.8 | 164 | 39.2 |
| A PC (with camera and microphone) with Internet connection | 505 | 22.6 | 326 | 12.2 | 60 | 14.4 |
| A PC (without camera and microphone) with Internet connection | 255 | 11.4 | 259 | 9.7 | 62 | 14.8 |
Table 3.
Statistical differences in self-rated IT skills of male and female students.
| Group Statistics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
| Self-rated IT skills | Male | 2429 | 3.19 | 1.028 | .021 |
| Female | 2898 | 3.05 | .982 | .018 | |
| Independent Samples Test | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levene's Test for Equality of Variances |
t-test for Equality of Means |
|||||||||
| F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
|||
| Lower | Upper | |||||||||
| Self-rated IT skills | Equal variances assumed | 24.537 | .000 | 5.098 | 5325 | .000 | .141 | .028 | .087 | .195 |
| Equal variances not assumed | 5.077 | 5074.987 | .000 | .141 | .028 | .086 | .195 | |||
Table 4.
Students’ proficiency in online learning platforms and applications.
| Novice |
Advanced Beginner |
Intermediate |
Proficient |
Expert |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| Navigating through online learning platforms (e.g., Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, etc.) | 272 | 5.1 | 211 | 4.0 | 1321 | 24.8 | 2672 | 50.1 | 851 | 16 |
| Using learning platforms or software (e.g., Shub, Kahoot, Menti, etc.) to complete assigned activities | 328 | 6.1 | 914 | 17.2 | 1519 | 28.5 | 2019 | 37.9 | 547 | 10.3 |
| Using social networking sites and applications to communicate and interact with teachers and peers | 304 | 5.7 | 197 | 3.7 | 1061 | 19.9 | 2684 | 50.4 | 1081 | 20.3 |
Table 5.
Barriers to online learning by location type.
| M (Mean ratings on a 5-point Likert scale) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Urban areas | Rural areas | Mountainous areas | |
| Poor Internet connection | 2.23 | 2.19 | 2.29 |
| Lack of online learning facilities | 1.55 | 1.87 | 2.01 |
| Lack of ICT skills | 1.57 | 2.00 | 2.07 |
| Lack of (teacher/ school/ parent) support | 1.56 | 1.94 | 1.96 |
| Health issues | 1.42 | 1.51 | 1.56 |
| Psychological issues | 1.60 | 1.56 | 1.66 |
The third group of information was concerned with students’ online learning experiences, such as their participation in class activities, their interaction with teachers and peers, their experience with assessments, and the forms of teacher support they received. The fourth group of information informed students’ overall perception of the effectiveness of online learning. Statistical analyses showed strong positive correlations between students’ online learning experiences, the level of teacher support, and students’ overall satisfaction of online learning (Table 6).
Table 6.
Correlations between students' online learning experiences, the level of teacher support, and students' overall satisfaction of online learning.
| Self-rating of IT skills | Barriers to online learning | Online learning experiences | Teacher support for online learning | Overall perception of the effectiveness of online learning | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-rating of IT skills | Pearson Correlation | 1 | -.253⁎⁎ | .151⁎⁎ | .135⁎⁎ | .154⁎⁎ |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| N | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | |
| Barriers to online learning | Pearson Correlation | -.253⁎⁎ | 1 | -.098⁎⁎ | -.099⁎⁎ | -.117⁎⁎ |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| N | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | |
| Online learning experiences | Pearson Correlation | .151⁎⁎ | -.098⁎⁎ | 1 | .826⁎⁎ | .788⁎⁎ |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| N | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | |
| Teacher support for online learning | Pearson Correlation | .135⁎⁎ | -.099⁎⁎ | .826⁎⁎ | 1 | .787⁎⁎ |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| N | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | |
| Overall perception of the effectiveness of online learning | Pearson Correlation | .154⁎⁎ | -.117⁎⁎ | .788⁎⁎ | .787⁎⁎ | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| N | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | 5327 | |
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Statistical differences were found in the level of student participation, teacher support, and overall satisfaction for students from different grades. In particular, Tables 7 and 8 show that students in junior grades (Grade 6 and Grade 7) were more engaged in online learning activities and received more teacher support than those in senior grades (Grade 8 and Grade 9). In the same manner, Table 9 shows that junior students rated more positively their overall experience with online learning than senior peers.
Table 7.
Online learning experiences of students by grade.
| Descriptives | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
||||||||
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Minimum | Maximum | |
| Grade 6 | 1069 | 3.8722 | .82493 | .02523 | 3.8227 | 3.9217 | 1 | 5 |
| Grade 7 | 1563 | 3.8489 | .84363 | .02134 | 3.8071 | 3.8908 | 1 | 5 |
| Grade 8 | 1398 | 3.7964 | .82884 | .02217 | 3.7530 | 3.8399 | 1 | 5 |
| Grade 9 | 1297 | 3.7683 | .74387 | .02066 | 3.7278 | 3.8088 | 1 | 5 |
| Total | 5327 | 3.8202 | .81340 | .01114 | 3.7983 | 3.8420 | 1 | 5 |
| Test of Homogeneity of Variances | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levene Statistic | df1 | df2 | Sig. | ||
| Online learning experiences | Based on Mean | 2.715 | 3 | 5323 | .043 |
| ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| Between Groups | 8.458 | 3 | 2.819 | 4.269 | .005 |
| Within Groups | 3515.308 | 5323 | .660 | ||
| Total | 3523.766 | 5326 | |||
| Robust Tests of Equality of Means | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistica | df1 | df2 | Sig. | |
| Welch | 4.477 | 3 | 2863.933 | .004 |
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
Table 8.
Level of teacher support for online learning by grade.
| Descriptives | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
||||||||
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Minimum | Maximum | |
| Grade 6 | 1069 | 3.7825 | .81342 | .02488 | 3.7337 | 3.8313 | 1 | 5 |
| Grade 7 | 1563 | 3.7910 | .82684 | .02091 | 3.7500 | 3.8320 | 1 | 5 |
| Grade 8 | 1398 | 3.7400 | .80596 | .02156 | 3.6978 | 3.7823 | 1 | 5 |
| Grade 9 | 1297 | 3.6960 | .75069 | .02084 | 3.6551 | 3.7369 | 1 | 5 |
| Total | 5327 | 3.7528 | .80133 | .01098 | 3.7313 | 3.7743 | 1 | 5 |
| Test of Homogeneity of Variances | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levene Statistic | df1 | df2 | Sig. | ||
| Teacher support for online learning | Based on Mean | 1.809 | 3 | 5323 | .143 |
| ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| Between Groups | 7.632 | 3 | 2.544 | 3.968 | .008 |
| Within Groups | 3412.320 | 5323 | .641 | ||
| Total | 3419.951 | 5326 | |||
| Robust Tests of Equality of Means | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistica | df1 | df2 | Sig. | |
| Welch | 4.154 | 3 | 2862.605 | .006 |
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
Table 9.
Students’ overall perception of the effectiveness of online learning by grade.
| Descriptives | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
||||||||
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Minimum | Maximum | |
| Grade 6 | 1069 | 3.8182 | .78447 | .02399 | 3.7711 | 3.8653 | 1 | 5 |
| Grade 7 | 1563 | 3.7935 | .81971 | .02073 | 3.7528 | 3.8342 | 1 | 5 |
| Grade 8 | 1398 | 3.6999 | .81613 | .02183 | 3.6571 | 3.7427 | 1 | 5 |
| Grade 9 | 1297 | 3.6347 | .74045 | .02056 | 3.5944 | 3.6751 | 1 | 5 |
| Total | 5327 | 3.7352 | .79608 | .01091 | 3.7139 | 3.7566 | 1 | 5 |
| Test of Homogeneity of Variances | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levene Statistic | df1 | df2 | Sig. | ||
| Overall perception of the effectiveness of online learning | Based on Mean | 1.307 | 3 | 5323 | .270 |
| ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| Between Groups | 27.503 | 3 | 9.168 | 14.577 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 3347.821 | 5323 | .629 | ||
| Total | 3375.324 | 5326 | |||
| Robust Tests of Equality of Means | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistica | df1 | df2 | Sig. | |
| Welch | 15.405 | 3 | 2870.246 | .000 |
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
When location types were factored in, statistical differences were also found in the level of teacher support, student participation, and students’ overall satisfaction with online learning, as shown in Table 10, Table 11, Table 12.
Table 10.
Online learning experiences of students by location type.
| Descriptives | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Online learning experiences | ||||||||
| 95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
||||||||
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Minimum | Maximum | |
| Urban | 2234 | 3.8789 | .77573 | .01641 | 3.8467 | 3.9111 | 1 | 5 |
| Rural | 2675 | 3.8022 | .81920 | .01584 | 3.7712 | 3.8333 | 1 | 5 |
| Mountainous | 418 | 3.6213 | .92975 | .04548 | 3.5319 | 3.7107 | 1 | 5 |
| Total | 5327 | 3.8202 | .81340 | .01114 | 3.7983 | 3.8420 | 1 | 5 |
| Test of Homogeneity of Variances | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levene Statistic | df1 | df2 | Sig. | ||
| Online learning experiences | Based on Mean | 11.188 | 2 | 5324 | .000 |
| ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| Between Groups | 25.088 | 2 | 12.544 | 19.089 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 3498.678 | 5324 | .657 | ||
| Total | 3523.766 | 5326 | |||
| Robust Tests of Equality of Means | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistica | df1 | df2 | Sig. | |
| Welch | 16.435 | 2 | 1132.344 | .000 |
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
Table 11.
Level of teacher support for online learning by location type.
| Descriptives | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
||||||||
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Minimum | Maximum | |
| Urban | 2234 | 3.8133 | .77882 | .01648 | 3.7810 | 3.8456 | 1 | 5 |
| Rural | 2675 | 3.7353 | .79647 | .01540 | 3.7051 | 3.7655 | 1 | 5 |
| Mountainous | 418 | 3.5415 | .90500 | .04426 | 3.4545 | 3.6285 | 1 | 5 |
| Total | 5327 | 3.7528 | .80133 | .01098 | 3.7313 | 3.7743 | 1 | 5 |
| Test of Homogeneity of Variances | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levene Statistic | df1 | df2 | Sig. | ||
| Teacher support for online learning | Based on Mean | 9.723 | 2 | 5324 | .000 |
| ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| Between Groups | 27.653 | 2 | 13.826 | 21.700 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 3392.299 | 5324 | .637 | ||
| Total | 3419.951 | 5326 | |||
| Robust Tests of Equality of Means | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistica | df1 | df2 | Sig. | |
| Welch | 18.661 | 2 | 1134.599 | .000 |
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
Table 12.
Students’ overall perception of the effectiveness of online learning by location type.
| Descriptives | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
||||||||
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Minimum | Maximum | |
| Urban | 2234 | 3.7405 | .79603 | .01684 | 3.7075 | 3.7735 | 1 | 5 |
| Rural | 2675 | 3.7562 | .78188 | .01512 | 3.7266 | 3.7859 | 1 | 5 |
| Mountainous | 418 | 3.5730 | .86688 | .04240 | 3.4896 | 3.6563 | 1 | 5 |
| Total | 5327 | 3.7352 | .79608 | .01091 | 3.7139 | 3.7566 | 1 | 5 |
| Test of Homogeneity of Variances | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Levene Statistic | df1 | df2 | Sig. | ||
| Overall perception of the effectiveness of online learning | Based on Mean | 10.264 | 2 | 5324 | .000 |
| ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| Between Groups | 12.245 | 2 | 6.123 | 9.693 | .000 |
| Within Groups | 3363.078 | 5324 | .632 | ||
| Total | 3375.324 | 5326 | |||
| Robust Tests of Equality of Means | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistica | df1 | df2 | Sig. | |
| Welch | 8.306 | 2 | 1143.310 | .000 |
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
2. Experimental Design, Materials and Methods
The COVID-19 pandemic has globally affected all aspects of life, including education [10]. Many countries have had to change their education strategies and plans, including shifting from face-to-face learning to online learning to ensure safety for students, educators as well as wider communities [11]. The large-scale, long-term implications of online learning are unprecedented. This highlights the significance of data on online learning to help define appropriate steps to respond to the pandemic and similar situations in the future [2,7].
This dataset was one outcome of a research project conducted to propose an adaptive educational model for schools in the context of a pandemic. The main data collection tool was a questionnaire developed by the research team based on the Online Education Framework and Theories [9] and an extensive review of studies on online education and influencing factors in the context of education in the pandemic (such as [1,3,4,6,8,11,12]). The questionnaire considered Vietnam's practical school settings and was validated with expert judgements and piloted before being implemented on a large scale. It focused on the practical experience of Vietnamese students in online learning, factors influencing their online learning conditions, and teachers’ pedagogical and assessment modalities used in online teaching strategies. The targeted research participants were school students in Grades 6 to 9 – These grades are the last level of compulsory education in the Vietnamese educational system and serve as an important learning period before students decide to pursue further education or work. To ensure the currency and validity of the data collection tool, the questionnaire was informed by a literature review and consulted with experts. It was then adapted into the format of an online survey with a combination of mandatory and optional questions to be administered on Google Forms. The questionnaire was piloted on 80 students and revised for wording and number of items before being distributed to local Departments of Education and Training to seek approval for being administered on a large scale. The questionnaire has high internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.954.
Five provinces were chosen for the survey, namely Ha Noi, Nam Dinh, Quang Binh, Dak Lak, and Can Tho. These provinces are representative of Northern, Central, and Southern Vietnam and experienced heavy school closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 50 public schools from the provinces participated in the survey, representing schools with different closure and online teaching policies and schools from different locality types, namely rural, urban, and mountainous schools. Participation from each school, on average, was about 100 students in Grade 6 to Grade 9. The project information and consent forms were sent to students’ parents via class teachers. After parents’ consent was received, the online link to the survey was distributed directly to students. Reminders were sent one week later via class teachers who acted as a communication channel between the research team, students, and parents. A total of 6,380 responses were collected, 1,053 of which were removed due to systemic missing data. The response rate was 83.4%, which was a good response rate considering the survey was conducted online and on a voluntary basis. 5,327 responses were analysed using IBM SPSS Version 25.
Ethics Statements
The procedure for conducting this research was approved and monitored by the Ethics Committee of the Vietnam National Institute of Educational Sciences (the ethics approval number- B2021-VKG-01.GRANTED).The procedure for collecting data strictly adhered to the ethical guidelines and regulations of the committee in charge. Students, class teachers, and parents were informed of the research and provided parents’ consent before students’ responses were collected.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dien Thi Bui: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Supervision. Thuy Thi Nhan: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Hue Thi Thu Dang: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Trang Thi Thu Phung: Software, Data curation, Validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
We sincerely thank all the educational managers, teachers, and students who participated in this research.
This article is part of Project “A responsive educational model for schools in Vietnam”, Code: B2021-VKG-01 funded by the Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training according to Decision 3813/QD-BGDĐT.
Data Availability
References
- 1.Adedoyin O.B., Soykan E. Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020:1–13. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ahmed S., Taqi H.M., Farabi Y.I., Sarker M., Ali S.M., Sankaranarayanan B. Evaluation of flexible strategies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in the education sector. Glob. J. Flexible Syst. Manag. 2021;22(2):81–105. doi: 10.1007/s40171-021-00267-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bahasoan A.N., Ayuandiani W., Mukhram M., Rahmat A. Effectiveness of online learning in pandemic COVID-19. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Manag. 2020;1(2):100–106. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Besser A., Flett G.L., Zeigler-Hill V. Adaptability to a sudden transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Understanding the challenges for students. Scholarship Teach. Learn. Psychol. 2020;8(2):85–105. doi: 10.1037/stl0000198. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bui D., Dang T.T.H. Online learning during COVID-19 Pandemic- Dataset from Vietnam. Mendeley Data, V1. 2022 doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2022.108662. https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/cn7vtxdm97/1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Firmansyah R., Putri D., Wicaksono M., Putri S., Widianto A., Palil M. Educational transformation: An evaluation of online learning due to COVID-19. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 2021;16(7):61–76. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v16i07.21201. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Gouëdard P., Pont B., Viennet R. OCED; 2020. Education responses to COVID-19: Implementing a way forward. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lestari P.A.S., Gunawan G. The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on learning implementation of primary and secondary school levels. Ind. J. Elemen. Childhood Educ. 2020;1(2):58–63. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Picciano A.G. Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learn. 2021;21(3):166–190. doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Pokhrel S., Chhetri R. A literature review on the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Educ. Future. 2021;8(1):133–141. doi: 10.1177/2F2347631120983481. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Reuge N., Jenkins R., Brossard M., Soobrayan B., Mizunoya S., Ackers J.…Taulo W.G. Education response to COVID 19 pandemic, a special issue proposed by UNICEF: Editorial review. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2021;87 doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Tang Y.M., Chen P.C., Law K.M., Wu C.H., Lau Y.Y., Guan J.…Ho G.T. Comparative analysis of student's live online learning readiness during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in the higher education sector. Comput. Educ. 2021;168 doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.