The Impact of COVID-19 on Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Pedagogical Approaches and Challenges

Abstract

By March 2020 most Higher Education institutions across the world had been forced to move all learning and teaching activities onto digital platforms, abandoning face-to-face classroom practices as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic. How did the response to this emergency manifest itself in changes to pedagogy and practice for staff and students in Higher Education? The authors completed a systematic literature review to gain insight into the challenges and pedagogic practices that emerged at this time. To represent the complexities of the ‘activity’, the writers sought a theoretical framework that would help identify the key themes and tensions that the empirical studies had identified. Drawing on the work of Vygotsky, Leont’ev and Engeström, the authors created a theoretical framework to analyse how learning and teaching activities within Higher Education were practised because of COVID-19. In total, 206 papers were reviewed under four categories; theoretical, narrative, empirical and blended (which consists of two or more categories). For example, some articles provided an empirical study alongside their authors’ narrative reflections about their own experiences of handling the challenges that were created by Covid -19 pandemic. Then a more detailed review of 23 papers that met the empirical research criteria were explored for their data with coding categories drawn from the theoretical framework. These papers, in varying degrees, illuminated the tensions and the complexities of how those involved in Higher Education globally, were affected by COVID-19. Confined by the digital knowledge capabilities of both staff and students, universities were challenged to find ways to maintain their programme provision, manage expectations, support students’ wellbeing, and enable staff to balance the challenges as they directly interfaced with students. It is clear that while this emergency offered possibilities for staff and students to harness the productive capabilities of adaptive teaching by moving beyond fixed pedagogical frameworks, many struggled and felt constrained by the complexities of the activities required during the pandemic.

Appendices

Appendix (i): List of the 23 Empirical Research papers that met our criteria, grouped by who were the “subjects” (participant/s) of the research

Empirical Research from review focusing on Staff and Students as the subject
Peimani and Kamalipour [54]
2. Naik et al. [50]
3. Devkota [19]
4. Huang [37]
5. Debeş [18]
6. Dietrich et al. [21]
7. Karademir et al. [40]
8. He and Wei [34]
Empirical Research from review focusing on Staff as subject
9. Almazova et al. [1]
10. Singh-Pillay and Naidoo [61]
11. Johnson et al. [39]
12. Khoza [41]
13. Thumvichit [65]
14. Quezada et al. [56]
15. Xie et al. [71]
16. Longhurst et al. [48]
17. Bonk [10]
18. Choate et al. [62]
Empirical Research from review focusing on students as subject
19. Scruggs et al. [59]
20. Carmody [13]
21. Krause et al. [42]
22. Agormedah et al. [2]
23. Cahyadi [15]

Appendix (ii) Shared themes for 23 papers (between 2 or more papers) The numbers used below link to papers in Appendix (i)

Sub-Themes	He (staff & students)	Tutor	Student	Total papers
Connection issues: internet access, cost, data packages	3, 6, 7, 22, 18	7, 8	1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 23	18
Need for training in online teaching and learning skills	5, 15, 17, 10	1, 4, 5, 6, 7,8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19	8	16
Limited communication with and between students		1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 16, 23	1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 16	13
Inequality of access	3, 14, 15, 22, 18	7	1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15	13
Issues around accessing electronic learning devices eg smart phone, laptop tablet	3, 7, 22, 18	7	1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 23	12
Recommendations	1, 4, 5, 6 7, 11, 14, 15 23	5, 14		11
Changing types of assessment, including implications of fairness	6, 11, 12, 14, 16	1, 5, 12, 13	1	10
Online learning caused wellbeing issues	10, 14, 15	7, 8	7, 8, 15, 20	9
Pressure of balancing work-home life	18	1, 4, 7, 10	1, 4, 7	8
Online teaching and learning less effective than f2f		5, 9	3, 4, 6, 7, 19, 20	8
Challenge for tutors to adjust teaching methods to digital functionality		4, 6, 7, 10, 19, 13, 14		7
Synchronous and asynchronous online lectures	14, 15	1, 6, 13, 19	1	7
Students lack of motivation to study online	14, 15	9	6, 15, 16, 20	7
Lack of f2f communication with teachers		4, 16	4, 8, 16	5
Preparing for online teaching is very time-consuming		6, 9, 10, 12, 19		5
Changing assessment deadlines	11, 14, 16, 1	15		5
Economical disadvantages	22, 17		1, 7, 10	5
Lack of practical, hands on, lab-based learning	18	8	1, 3, 19	5
Interactive possibilities that online learning offers	10, 17	4, 9	21	5
Increased workload	10, 18	7, 13	6	5
Opportunities for collaborative work	18		6, 19, 21	4
Student’ negative perception towards e-learning			3, 6, 19, 23	4
Fatigue—working online long hours e.g., Zoom fatigue	10, 18	6, 14		4
Student’ positive perception towards e-learning	22		20, 21	3
No formal e-learning training offered to students	22		7, 23	3
Tutors have preference for teaching in classrooms f2f		4, 5	1	3
Opportunities to try new technologies	17	9, 13		3
Lack of pedagogical training		7, 10, 19		3
Opportunities / benefits e.g., Academic collaboration, working remotely		8, 13, 16		3
Focus on uploading content rather than interactive teaching		7, 9		2
Students lacked skills/confidence to engage in online learning activities	22		20	2
Textbooks left on campus, digital library access	4		4	2
Not curious in online teaching			1, 20	2
Institutions lacking basic infrastructure	3, 7			2
Technical training received		7, 10		2
Multimodal approach (flipped learning, live online sessions, pre-recorded videos, group work)		13, 19		2
Distance learning is economic and flexible	18	5		2