View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teaching, Fast and Slow: Student Perceptions of Emergency Remote Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teaching, Fast and Slow: Student Perceptions of Emergency Remote Education
Language: English
Authors: Robson, Karen, Mills, Adam J. (ORCID 0000-0002-2924-0150)
Source: Journal of Marketing Education. Aug 2022 44(2):203-216.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Web Based Instruction, Student Attitudes, Distance Education, COVID-19, Pandemics, Emergency Programs, Soft Skills, College Students
DOI: 10.1177/02734753221084585
ISSN: 0273-4753
1552-6550
Abstract: This research explores emergency remote education, defined as a rapid, system-wide pivot to remote education in response to emergencies that disrupt normal institutional processes. To do so, we explore student perceptions of the successes and failures of the pivot to online learning at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. A mixed-methods survey was distributed to a large sample of university students to explore satisfaction, challenges, opportunities, and instructional needs. Results highlight the importance of faculty hard skills (e.g., technical skills) and soft skills (e.g., compassion), although soft skills were noted more frequently, suggesting that soft skills may be critically important in the context of emergency remote education. Results also reveal that online education in general suffers from a perception as being inherently lower quality than in-person education, and highlight the importance of providing faculty with proper training and support to set them up for success. Based on these results, we provide a number of suggestions for approaching the development, delivery, and support of emergency education and online marketing education in the future.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1347577
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHlawYodYaJ8RB3vL7QVOT4AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBeMwaeBhVeMPQEJxQIBEICBmgNPGiAmiKVoyPrA2pJZIOUPhaAGkyoDkKA9v4yeqzNvoabCesMm3-f3a4sWcci6pXGW8-GJv1R7rer-pb2yo7tjGm6LImI--ZP-NKxzATJbdhbHTLiVpiU-cFQ1ucuabvXoOogYnc6l2JksinmeKtGKqlyjtYyhFH4fRB8dWQRPisTR7OGbc_1Bf6awMN7eWmlm2a_47CjFZ1E=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0157872706;mke01aug.22;2022Jul11.04:34;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0157872706-1">Teaching, Fast and Slow: Student Perceptions of Emergency Remote Education </title> <p>This research explores emergency remote education, defined as a rapid, system-wide pivot to remote education in response to emergencies that disrupt normal institutional processes. To do so, we explore student perceptions of the successes and failures of the pivot to online learning at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. A mixed-methods survey was distributed to a large sample of university students to explore satisfaction, challenges, opportunities, and instructional needs. Results highlight the importance of faculty hard skills (e.g., technical skills) and soft skills (e.g., compassion), although soft skills were noted more frequently, suggesting that soft skills may be critically important in the context of emergency remote education. Results also reveal that online education in general suffers from a perception as being inherently lower quality than in-person education, and highlight the importance of providing faculty with proper training and support to set them up for success. Based on these results, we provide a number of suggestions for approaching the development, delivery, and support of emergency education and online marketing education in the future.</p> <p>Keywords: emergency remote teaching; emergency higher education; pandemic pedagogy; COVID-19 higher education; marketing education</p> <p>When the COVID-19 pandemic was declared, many higher education institutions were unprepared to roll out and execute online education institutionally, and many faculty and students were thrust into a course delivery model they were unfamiliar with and unprepared for. Thus, in March 2020, higher education institutions—which lag behind other types of industries in embracing digital business models ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>])—were in an emergency-response scenario, forced to adapt to remote digital delivery in ways that far surpassed their experience and capabilities. The objective of the present research is to offer an evidence-based and informed perspective on emergency remote education in marketing, with the intention of informing future practice and progress. To accomplish these research goals, the current research bypasses top-down prescriptive inference and institutional talking points, and instead investigates the rapid transition to online learning from the consumer's perspective (cf. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref2">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref3">24</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref4">25</reflink>]), exploring student perceptions of the key successes and failures of higher education institutions during the pivot to online learning that occurred subsequently to the World Health Organization declaring COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref5">68</reflink>]). Specifically, we seek to uncover the elements of emergency remote education students deem critically important to success.</p> <p>Research that fosters understanding of successful (and unsuccessful) approaches to emergency remote education is important, as there is strong evidence that the rate at which emergencies occur is increasing. Emergencies are unanticipated, significant events that disrupt the normal service operations of an educational institution: natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes), major weather events (e.g., blizzards), public health crises (e.g., pandemics), physical plant disruptions (e.g., fires or power outages on campus), or other types of detrimentally impactful accidents, technological interruptions, or human incidents. Numerous studies suggest that future pandemics, the most recent and significant global emergency, are a question of "when" rather than "if" ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref7">30</reflink>]) and that the rate at which emergencies occur due to infectious diseases is increasing ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]). The frequency of climate emergencies is also increasing: recent reports reveal that children born in the 2020s and beyond will experience up to seven times more climate disasters than the generations before them ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref10">64</reflink>]) and that extreme climate events are "the new norm" ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref11">69</reflink>]). Future emergencies are inevitable, and with this in mind, higher education institutions around the world would be well advised to engage in emergency-response planning, the success of which hinges on having a strong understanding of key success factors in emergency remote education settings.</p> <p>In what follows, we begin by reviewing the literature on higher education delivered in emergency-response settings. Subsequently, we present the methods and results of an original research study in which a large sample of university students reflected on the pivot to online learning that occurred in March 2020. We organize the results of our survey into dominant themes, and discuss these in terms of their implications for the future of higher education in marketing. We conclude by highlighting directions for future research that emerge from our data; specifically, the need to adopt a process-oriented strategy (as opposed to a product-oriented strategy) in emergency remote education, the potential benefit in mass-customizing the student learning experience, the need to focus on development of faculty soft skills in emergency remote education settings, and a general need to address the branding problem online education has as being perceived as inferior to face-to-face education.</p> <hd id="AN0157872706-2">Emergency Remote Education</hd> <p>The present research focuses on a specific type of online higher education: that which occurs in suddenly remote settings in response to disruptive emergencies. Existing research offers several names for this type of education, including <emph>emergency remote teaching</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref12">27</reflink>]) and <emph>emergency eLearning</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref13">49</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref14">57</reflink>] use the term <emph>pandemic pedagogy</emph> to refer to the educational approaches employed during the emergency environment created by the COVID-19 pandemic. All of these names capture the essence of a "temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to crisis circumstances" ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref15">27</reflink>], n.p.), yet the nomenclature used is more restrictive than this definition: <emph>emergency remote teaching</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref16">27</reflink>]) focuses only on course delivery, whereas <emph>emergency eLearning</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref17">49</reflink>]) focuses on student outcomes, and pandemic pedagogy ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref18">57</reflink>]) anchors specifically to one type of emergency. Herein, we propose the term <emph>emergency remote education</emph> to refer to rapid, system-wide pivots to remote education in response to emergencies sufficient to disrupt normal institutional processes.</p> <p>Emergency remote education is a very different type of education than is generally delivered by higher educational institutions, even online. The objective of emergency remote education is not to create a robust online educational ecosystem, but rather to effectively provide temporary access to education during emergency scenarios characterized by (a) uncertain and unpredictable access to necessary resources including time and technology access for all stakeholders (teachers, learners, and administrators) and (b) predictably unpredictable operating environments requiring agility and adaptation and by all stakeholders.</p> <p>Research on emergency remote education existed many years before the COVID-19 pandemic. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>] produced some of the earliest work on emergency education, and explains that emergency situations in education can be characterized based on the major types of emergencies (see also [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref20">51</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref21">54</reflink>]). Specifically, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>] suggests that emergencies in education consist of human-made emergencies (e.g., wars, violence); natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, floods, hurricanes); chronic emergencies (e.g., poverty, pandemics); or complex emergencies which involve some combination of human-made emergencies, natural disasters, and chronic emergencies. Depending on the nature of the emergency, a range of initiatives may be required related to physical infrastructure, psychological interventions, policy, curriculum, administration, among others ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref23">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, research on emergency education extracted insights from a wide range of specific emergencies, including shootings at Virginia Tech ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref24">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref25">12</reflink>]), earthquakes in New Zealand ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref27">11</reflink>]), hurricanes Katrina ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref28">13</reflink>]) and Ivan ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref29">55</reflink>]), and the SARS (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref30">17</reflink>]) and H1N1 pandemics (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref32">35</reflink>]). Much of this research focuses on the concept of resilience (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref34">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref35">32</reflink>]) or preparedness ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref36">63</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref37">65</reflink>]) and, as [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref38">57</reflink>] note, examines emergency remote teaching through case studies. Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic is driving an influx of research on emergency education. In what follows, we review literature pertaining to the COVID-19 period of emergency remote teaching.</p> <p>Students transitioning to online learning during the COVID-19 pivot faced numerous challenges. First, all students who transitioned from in-person to online learning did not self-enroll into online learning—rather, online learning was imposed on them. Research conducted on students undertaking online higher education prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., non-emergency online higher education) reveals that students who self-enroll in online learning have important differences in traits and educational needs from those who do not ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref39">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref40">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref41">53</reflink>]). Students cite self-regulation as an important reason for both preferring and avoiding online learning, with some students avoiding online courses due to difficulties concentrating in them and others pursuing online courses due to the freedom of learning that they provide ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref42">45</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref43">40</reflink>] find that online students benefit from awareness of the self-motivation required to be successful in an online setting. Research also suggests that many students experienced their first ever online class as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref44">41</reflink>]), and—just like faculty—students entering into online learning for the first time require support and face a technical learning curve ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref45">53</reflink>]). Thus, many—if not most—students who transitioned from offline to online learning in early 2020 would not have been ideally suited to online learning. It is quite possible that students intending to participate only in face-to-face education lacked the technical skills and/or self-drive of students who opt-in to online learning.</p> <p>The overall context of the 2020 pivot—the extreme uncertainty, fear, and rapid pace of change—necessarily added to the challenges to the educational environment. The emergency context of the 2020 pivot was linked to negative emotions such as fear for personal health and safety, anxiety regarding economic livelihoods, among others ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref46">46</reflink>]). Research suggests that during the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly three-quarters of university students in the United States experienced increased stress and anxiety and nearly half experienced moderate to severe depression ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref47">66</reflink>]). Importantly, mental health issues such as stress, anxiety, and depression are known to adversely impact academic achievement ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref48">62</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref49">70</reflink>]). Students at the time of the COVID-19 pivot faced a state of life which would have enhanced difficulties in any type of education. In particular, the negative experiences of isolation and disconnectedness that had been previously documented among online students in non-emergency settings ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref50">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref51">50</reflink>]) may have been particularly salient during the online learning imposed on students during COVID-19 ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref52">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>The challenges faced by students during the COVID-19 pivot to emergency remote teaching were inevitably impacted by instructor- and administrator-related challenges. A vast majority of instructors report that online teaching in non-emergency contexts is more difficult ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref53">26</reflink>]) and more time consuming ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref54">44</reflink>]) than offline teaching, and many instructors are simply not interested in teaching online ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref55">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref56">52</reflink>]). Furthermore, at the institutional level, most instructors who transition from offline to online delivery do so without sufficient training and adequate support ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref57">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref58">39</reflink>]), and most also lack clear online teaching expectations from their institutions ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>]). Beyond these baseline challenges to online teaching in general, recent research identifies creating social, emotional, and cognitive engagement while also addressing the needs of a diverse student body as some of the main challenges instructors faced during the COVID-19 pivot to online learning ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref60">49</reflink>]). These factors inevitably impacted not only instructor experiences but also those of students.</p> <p>The emergency pivot required faculty to compress completion of incredibly time-consuming work (i.e., online content development) into mere days. Due to the need to pivot quickly, we suggest that many faculty likely simply repackaged existing content into an online format because they perceived doing so as the quickest path or the path of least resistance, and perhaps also because they did not know that this was not a preferred approach to online content development. That is, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref61">21</reflink>] suggest that repacking in-person content is not an effective approach to online instruction. Online instructional videos, for example, are not recommended to exceed 20 min in length per video, otherwise student concentration diminishes alongside the effectiveness of the instructional video ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref62">23</reflink>]). However, without adequate time and preparation, faculty can hardly be blamed for repacking course content in an emergency setting. Quite simply, the conditions necessary for a more scrupulous approach were conspicuously absent.</p> <p>The emergency remote teaching undertaken in early 2020 was indeed fraught with challenges, and as described in the preceding literature review, the emerging research on COVID-19 emergency education measures provides many strong insights. Yet, further understanding of emergency remote learning would be beneficial in preparing educators and administrators for the future, both in terms of preparedness for future emergencies as well as in terms of evolving into modern, technology-driven higher education institutions. That is, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref63">38</reflink>] suggests that the emergency remote teaching undertaken during COVID-19 will lead to a lengthy and technology-driven transformation of business higher education; we share this perspective, and suggest that the COVID-19 emergency pivot and ensuing online course delivery represents a watershed moment in higher education, and that a true digital disruption is now underway. Thus, the rapid pivot presents a phenomenal learning opportunity: with the strengths and weaknesses of current systemic practices exposed, we are in a fortunate position to examine them with the goal of better informing future pedagogical practice and progress.</p> <p>As we move forward into the post-COVID-19 era of higher education, institutions will benefit from extracting insight from the recent tumultuous period. The literature discussed in the preceding review provides a strong foundation from which to extract insight. Yet, an important—and unaddressed—question is what students perceived as critical success factors for emergency remote education, and, equally importantly, what they perceived as critical failures. We believe that understanding of these will provide critically important insight for marketing educators and administrators that can be leveraged should future emergency settings occur. To that end, we now present the methods and results of our exploratory research on emergency remote teaching during the pivot to online higher education at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The specific research question we seek to answer is as follows:</p> <p>What do students view as the key successes and failures of the emergency pivot to online learning in early 2020?</p> <p>In the subsequent section, we explore student perceptions of the successes and failures of our pivot to online learning and subsequently the elements of the online learning experience essential to success.</p> <hd id="AN0157872706-3">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157872706-4">Participants</hd> <p>This research used a convenience sample of students who were enrolled in higher education at two large private universities in the southeast United States during the pivot to online learning (i.e., during the Winter/Spring semester of 2020). Participants were given course credit in exchange for their participation in the research. A total of 414 participants completed the survey. Refining the dataset to eliminate non-usable responses (i.e., comments such as "I don't know" or "everything" or responses in which a participant chose to skip the question or nonsensical responses in which participants typed random letters into the survey to achieve completion and receive course credit) resulted in responses from a total of 385 participants. Respondents' ages ranged from 18 to 54, with the majority (86.84%) in the 18 to 24 age category. Most respondents (92.48%) were undergraduate students, with the largest representative group being Seniors (31.95%).</p> <hd id="AN0157872706-5">Measures and Procedure</hd> <p>Students were asked to complete a brief survey related to the impact of COVID-19 on their lives. The survey was administered in August and September of 2020, and included questions about experiences of being students in the time of the COVID-19 pivot to online learning in early 2020 as well as about basic demographic information. Specifically, the survey asked about the lived experience of being a student during the rapid transition to online-only course delivery at the outset of the pandemic. Respondents were allowed to skip individual questions.</p> <p>The first question asked about students' satisfaction levels with the current state of education, considering current global events. Responses to this question were recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale from Extremely Satisfied (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>) to Extremely Dissatisfied (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref65">7</reflink>). The remaining questions were open-ended. Of the open-ended questions, two questions asked students to reflect on the most successful and least successful elements of the quick pivot to online course delivery in the Spring 2020 semester. Specifically, these asked, "Thinking back to the quick pivot to online course delivery in the Spring 2020 semester, what would you say were the most successful elements of that transition?" and "Thinking back to the quick pivot to online course delivery in the Spring 2020 semester, what would you say were the least successful elements of that transition?" The final question asked students to list the most important skills required of their professors in the transition to online and hybrid course delivery ("What do you think have been the most important skills required of your professors/teachers with the transition to online and hybrid course delivery? List as many as you can think of in the space below").</p> <hd id="AN0157872706-6">Coding and Analysis</hd> <p>Text data was analyzed in a five-step process using the methodological coding protocol for content analysis ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref66">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref67">36</reflink>]). A grounded approach was taken to code development ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref68">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref69">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref70">60</reflink>]) to allow themes to emerge organically from the data and best capture the voice of the respondents. All open-response questions were coded using the same five-step process. First, the authors engaged in open coding of the first 50 responses; this involved going through the survey responses line-by-line and labeling components of the text. Most marketing research using content analysis on textual data uses the whole item as the unit of analysis ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref71">33</reflink>]), so in the first stage of coding for each question, individual responses were coded using descriptive codes to best represent the thematic content of each unique response. Discussion and comparison of the labels allowed the researchers to refine codes and develop higher order labels which were subsequently used for axial coding. The two authors then independently coded the remainder of the response data using the predetermined coding protocol, with the flexibility to expand and refine codes as necessary. In instances where a respondent made more than one thematic reference in their responses, only the dominant or primary comment theme was coded, to ensure representativeness across the sample.</p> <p>Interrater reliability checks were calculated for each question between the second and third round of data analysis. For the first open-response question (most successful element of pivot), there was 91.78% interrater agreement between the two authors across 249 responses. For the second open-response question (least successful element of pivot), there was 95.14% interrater agreement across 297 responses. For the third open-response question (professor skills), there was 94.12% interrater agreement across 373 responses.</p> <p>In the third stage of analysis, the authors compared codes for the entirety of the dataset, highlighting and subsequently discussing areas of disagreement or divergence as highlighted by the reliability check conducted after the second stage of analysis. Each instance of disagreement or divergence was discussed individually to determine the most suitable code to represent the text. The final two rounds of analysis followed [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref72">37</reflink>] prescriptions for content analysis code development specifically. In the fourth round of analysis, descriptive code counts were calculated for each code in the axial map across the dataset and codes were consolidated to eliminate thematic redundancy and/or consolidate codes with disproportionately small representation, to satisfy [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref73">37</reflink>] first requirement of content analysis, that coded categories be exhaustive and represent all possible units in the sample. In the final stage of analysis, a fifth round of coding was undertaken to organize the individual codes into thematic categories to meet [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref74">37</reflink>] second requirement of content analysis, that coded categories be mutually exclusive and divisions between categories clear. Throughout this process, the researchers consulted existing literature for guidance on code labels and process.</p> <hd id="AN0157872706-7">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157872706-8">Students' Satisfaction With the State of Education, Mid-Pandemic</hd> <p>The first question in the survey asked students to self-report levels of satisfaction with the state of their pandemic education following the transition to online learning. This question was measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from Extremely Satisfied to Extremely Dissatisfied. Results suggest a wide variety of levels of satisfaction across the sample, with two-thirds of respondents answering between Slightly Dissatisfied and Moderately Satisfied. Slightly more students overall responded with degrees of satisfaction (44.42%, <emph>N</emph> = 171) than degrees of dissatisfaction (40.26%, <emph>N</emph> = 155), but the number of Extremely Dissatisfied students was higher (11.43%, <emph>N</emph> = 44) than the number of Extremely Satisfied students (7.53%, <emph>N</emph> = 29). The closest scale point to the mean (3.96) was "Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied," and the standard deviation was 1.83.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Results of Student Satisfaction Ratings.</p> <hd id="AN0157872706-9">Most Successful Elements of Transition</hd> <p>The second question ("Thinking back to the quick pivot to online course delivery in the Spring 2020 semester, what would you say were the most successful elements of that transition?") led to 249 usable responses that were clustered into seven distinct code categories (see Table 1). Non-usable responses included comments such as "I don't know" or "everything" or responses in which a participant chose to skip the question.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Themes Related to Most Successful Element of Pivot.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Theme</th><th align="center">Illustrative quote</th><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center">%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Accommodating and flexible</td><td>"I would say how flexible all of the teachers were. Teachers helped create class environments where accommodations can be made to certain people based on their situation."</td><td>77</td><td>26.55</td></tr><tr><td>Speed</td><td>"The most successful element was the rapid rate of change from in-class to online, I feel like barely no time was wasted and the transition was smooth."</td><td>69</td><td>23.79</td></tr><tr><td>Empathy and understanding</td><td>"The teachers having an understanding for students and more empathy for students."</td><td>42</td><td>14.48</td></tr><tr><td>Communication and accessibility</td><td>"The most successful elements were the professors and their capability to be accessible at all times"</td><td>41</td><td>14.14</td></tr><tr><td>Engagement by design</td><td>"The way the online classes were designed allowed for more student engagement in the discussion boards."</td><td>28</td><td>9.66</td></tr><tr><td>School-life balance</td><td>"It was a little easier taking class and not to go to many places and waking up at a reasonable time knowing that I was going to be in my house."</td><td>19</td><td>6.55</td></tr><tr><td>Professors' technical skill</td><td>"Professors that knew how to use the new technology, like zoom and adding voice to slides, etc. were way more helpful than ones that did not."</td><td>14</td><td>4.83</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Accommodating and Flexible</emph> was the most frequently mentioned successful element of the transition at 30.92% of all responses (<emph>N</emph> = 77). This code refers to the lenience of professors with regard to attendance policies, due dates, and individual and group work. Closely following in frequency was <emph>Speed</emph> at 27.71% (<emph>N</emph> = 69) of all responses. Speed refers to student perceptions that faculty and administration were agile and expeditious in the transition from traditional to remote course delivery. The third most prominent response was <emph>Empathy and Understanding</emph> at 14.48% of responses (<emph>N</emph> = 42), which captures the value derived from faculty members being compassionate and patient during turbulent times, and impressions of being "in this together." The fourth most prominent response was <emph>Communication and Accessibility</emph>, representing 14.14% of responses (<emph>N</emph> = 41), which refers to the positive experiences resulting from constant and detailed communication from both administration and faculty (communication to students), as well as the perceptions that faculty were accessible and responsive to emails (communication from students). The fifth most prominent response was the code <emph>Engagement by Design</emph> (9.66%, <emph>N</emph> = 28) which refers to the essentiality of online courses being engaging. For both synchronous and asynchronous formats, student comments highlighted that engagement needed to be by design rather than left to chance. The remaining most prominent themes in response to what students perceived to be the most successful elements of the transition to online learning were <emph>School-Life Balance</emph>, which refers to the conductivity of remote learning to non-school life balance, including commute times, accommodating work schedules, leaving more time for family, and physical safety; and <emph>Professors</emph>' <emph>Technical Skill</emph>, which refers to professors' general familiarity and proficiency with technologies like LMS platforms and Zoom.</p> <hd id="AN0157872706-10">Least Successful Elements of Transition</hd> <p>The third question asked, "Thinking back to the quick pivot to online course delivery in the Spring 2020 semester, what would you say were the least successful elements of that transition?" In total, 297 usable responses to this question were clustered into nine distinct code categories (see Table 2). Non-usable responses included comments such as "I don't know" or "everything" or responses in which a participant chose to skip the question.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Themes Related to Least Successful Element of Pivot.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Theme</th><th align="center">Illustrative quote</th><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center">%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Impersonal and disconnected</td><td>"It was hard to recreate the same intimate and welcoming feeling through a computer screen that one would get while in a classroom with a teacher."</td><td>44</td><td>14.81</td></tr><tr><td>It is just not the same</td><td>"online classes are less in depth so they feel like a waste after a while"</td><td>40</td><td>13.47</td></tr><tr><td>Adjusting to being an online student</td><td>"I definitely feel like I suffer has a student learning wise. I'm more of an in-person learner so this transition, while still continuing schooling, I feel less motivated to learn and feel more exhausted."</td><td>38</td><td>12.79</td></tr><tr><td>Remote learning highlights inequities</td><td>"the least successful part of spring 2020 was that there were no resources for students who online courses were not a fit for their learning needs."</td><td>35</td><td>11.78</td></tr><tr><td>Inconsistency in the Student experience</td><td>"professors should have similar schedule, such as discussion boards due on wednesday for every class and assignment due on sunday for example, it is hard to stay up to date when each professor has a different requirement or deadline for their Discussion board or assignment"</td><td>32</td><td>10.77</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of commitment and responsiveness</td><td>"The least successful element was the decreased sense of support and help from teachers due to communication issues."</td><td>31</td><td>10.44</td></tr><tr><td>Professors' lack of technological skill</td><td>"I think this should be a future reminder for schools to always have resources available and to make sure teachers are trained to at least use a computer."</td><td>30</td><td>10.10</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional quality: Adaptation</td><td>"Many of my professors decided to change the syllabus in objectively unnecessary ways. This left many students with much poorer grades than they had in early March. Many of my Spring professors decided to not to lectures, and just posted their slides with no advice or additional information like we had in class on campus."</td><td>28</td><td>9.43</td></tr><tr><td>Confusing, frustrating experience</td><td>"The least successful element was the uncertainty. I had many classes that had to change different aspects of evaluation and class participation. It. was very stressful keeping up with so many changes and it seemed like every week I was just receiving email after email with changes to syllabi, new plans and so on. It just never felt like I could be certain that my classes would stay to the plan I was receiving that week."</td><td>19</td><td>6.40</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Impersonal and Disconnected</emph> refers to the lack of interpersonal connection, contact, and interaction, and was the most frequently mentioned least successful element of the transition at 14.81% of all responses (<emph>N</emph> = 44). The second most prominent thematic code was <emph>It</emph>'<emph>s Just Not the Same</emph>, which captures the general feeling that online learning is inherently not as valuable or high quality as face-to-face instruction, particularly with respect to hands-on courses and labs, at 13.47% of the responses (<emph>N</emph> = 40). The third most prominent code was <emph>Adjusting to Being an Online Student</emph> at 12.79% (<emph>N</emph> = 35) of responses, reflecting the need to re-learn how to learn in a remote environment, and difficulties staying engaged. The next most prominent code, at 11.78% (<emph>N</emph> = 35), was <emph>Remote Learning Highlights Inequities</emph>, which included mentions of socioeconomic differences in access to technology and resources, as well as physical safety, time zone differences, and individual learning needs or accommodations.</p> <p>The next four codes all relate to service delivery: <emph>Inconsistency in the Student Experience</emph> (10.77%, <emph>N</emph> = 32) refers to the lack of standardization between professors, courses, learning management system (LMS) design and workload; <emph>Lack of Commitment and Responsiveness</emph> (10.44%, <emph>N</emph> = 31) refers to a perceived lack of communications, effort, and commitment from faculty and administrators; <emph>Professors</emph>' <emph>Lack of Technological Skill</emph> (10.10%, <emph>N</emph> = 28) refers to the lack of faculty know-how in operating technologies and platforms to effectively deliver the educational experience; and <emph>Instructional Quality: Adaptation</emph> (9.43%, <emph>N</emph> = 28) refers to the notion that faculty cannot simply digitize existing content to create an online course, but rather should adapt materials and approaches to a different pedagogical model. The final thematic code, <emph>Confusing, Frustrating Experience</emph> at 6.40% (<emph>N</emph> = 19) comprises the general remorse for a lack of guidance and structure with the transition to online, and in particular, the overwhelming volume of assigned work. Student responses in this category noted that faculty who were less skilled in creating online courses and content simply piled on busywork as a way around having to create new, engaging content specifically tailored to online course delivery.</p> <hd id="AN0157872706-11">Student Perceptions of Critical Professor Skills</hd> <p>The final question asked, "What do you think have been the most important skills required of your professors/teachers with the transition to online and hybrid course delivery?" Respondents were asked to list as many as they could think of, and 373 responding participants provided 880 usable responses. Non-usable responses included comments such as "I don't know" or "everything" or responses in which a participant chose to skip the question. The lists of skills provided by respondents ranged from one to six items, with an average number of 2.36 items per respondent (±1.22). The responses comprised 15 unique codes representing both technical and interpersonal skills, which were then clustered into the following six thematic categories: <emph>Leadership, Communication, Flexibility and Resilience, Course Design, Technological Skill</emph>, and <emph>Engagement</emph> (see Table 3).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 3. Themes Related to Desired Instructional Skills.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Theme</th><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center">%<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>313</td><td>35.57</td></tr><tr><td> Character</td><td>194</td><td>22.05</td></tr><tr><td> Emotional empathy</td><td>108</td><td>12.27</td></tr><tr><td> Cognitive empathy</td><td>47</td><td>5.34</td></tr><tr><td> Authenticity</td><td>39</td><td>4.43</td></tr><tr><td> Attitude</td><td>69</td><td>7.84</td></tr><tr><td> Patience</td><td>48</td><td>5.45</td></tr><tr><td> Positivity</td><td>21</td><td>2.39</td></tr><tr><td> Behavior</td><td>50</td><td>5.68</td></tr><tr><td> Commitment</td><td>35</td><td>3.98</td></tr><tr><td> Persistence</td><td>15</td><td>1.70</td></tr><tr><td>Communication</td><td>164</td><td>18.64</td></tr><tr><td> Accessible and responsive correspondence</td><td>83</td><td>9.43</td></tr><tr><td> Frequent, clear messaging</td><td>81</td><td>9.20</td></tr><tr><td>Flexibility and resilience</td><td>135</td><td>15.34</td></tr><tr><td> Adaptability and agility</td><td>105</td><td>11.93</td></tr><tr><td> Accommodating</td><td>30</td><td>3.41</td></tr><tr><td>Course design skills</td><td>105</td><td>11.93</td></tr><tr><td> Organization and clarity</td><td>64</td><td>7.27</td></tr><tr><td> Content quality</td><td>41</td><td>4.66</td></tr><tr><td>Technological skill</td><td>101</td><td>11.48</td></tr><tr><td>Engagement</td><td>62</td><td>7.05</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Terms and percentages presented in bold showcase major theme categories and percentage of theme within entire response set. Themes and percentages presented in regular font showcase sub-themes and percentages within major theme categories.</p> <p> <emph>Leadership</emph> was by a large margin the most prominent theme, comprising 35.57% (<emph>N</emph> = 313) of responses. This thematic group includes codes related to respondent comments related to professors as individuals—such as who they were and how they carried themselves as people. Because of the size of this thematic category, it was further subcategorized into <emph>Character</emph> (61.98% of the <emph>Leadership</emph> theme, <emph>N</emph> = 194), <emph>Attitude</emph> (22.04% of theme, <emph>N</emph> = 69) and <emph>Behavior</emph> (15.97% of theme, <emph>N</emph> = 50). The <emph>Character</emph> subcategory deals with responses related to the personality and persona of the professor. This code group includes clusters related to emotional empathy (being sympathetic, compassionate and understanding), cognitive empathy (being respectful of individual circumstance, perspective, and needs), and authenticity (being transparent, honest, and trustworthy). The <emph>Attitude</emph> subcategory deals with the professor's outlook and how they appear to carry themselves. This code group includes elements of patience (being calm and appearing relaxed) and positivity (having fun and showing enthusiasm despite the unprecedented situation). The <emph>Behavior</emph> subcategory contains codes related to how the instructor acts, particularly toward students. This code group includes code clusters related to the professor's levels of commitment (demonstrating attentiveness, alertness, and determination) and persistence (determination and actions that go above and beyond). <emph>Communication</emph> was the second most prominent theme (18.64% of responses, <emph>N</emph> = 164), and contained two individual code groups, each representing about half of responses in this category. <emph>Accessible and Responsive Correspondence</emph> refers to students' perceptions that their professors are always "on" to be open to questions, willing to help, and timely with correspondence. <emph>Frequent, Clear Messaging</emph> refers to both the amount of communication and the quality of it in terms of clarity of the message. An important distinction here is that <emph>Frequent, Clear Messaging</emph> refers to instructor-initiated communications like course announcements and class emails, whereas <emph>Accessible and Responsive Correspondence</emph> refers to responsiveness to student-initiated communications. The <emph>Flexibility</emph> theme represented 15.24% of the responses (<emph>N</emph> = 135) and contains two individual code groups. <emph>Adaptability and Agility</emph> is the most prominent of the two, and refers to the skill and proficiency of being able to adjust nimbly and rapidly to changing conditions. This code group refers to both faculty and administration.</p> <p> <emph>Accommodating</emph> is the second code cluster in this category, and refers to lenience with coursework, including due dates. The fourth most prominent theme was <emph>Course Design Skills</emph> (11.93%, <emph>N</emph> = 105). This category deals with the structural elements of how the instructor executed the online course. The most prominent code cluster in this category was <emph>Organization and Clarity</emph>, which refers to the LMS environment created by the instructor, ideally a user-friendly and easy-to-navigate course with straightforward schedules, deadlines, expectations, and rubrics. <emph>Content Quality</emph> refers to content created by the instructor, including instructional media (slides, readings, and video lectures) and assignments that seem unique, thoughtful, and creative.</p> <p> <emph>Technological Skill</emph> was a unilaterally consistent theme that refers to the ability of faculty to have, use, and troubleshoot educational technology. This singular code represented 11.48% of all responses (<emph>N</emph> = 101). The sixth and final theme was <emph>Engagement</emph> (7.05%, <emph>N</emph> = 62). This theme represents the skills of faculty to keep online classes, both synchronous and asynchronous, as engaging and interesting as face-to-face courses.</p> <hd id="AN0157872706-12">Discussion and Implications</hd> <p>The objective of this research is to offer an evidence-based perspective on what students found to be the strengths and weaknesses of the rapid and unexpected transition to online learning in early 2020, with the intention of informing future practice and progress related to emergency higher education. One important finding in our research is the crucial role of professors' soft skills in an emergency setting. With the exception of professors' technical skills, which was a theme present in less than 5% of responses, all of the themes that emerged from student reflections on the most successful elements of the transition to emergency remote teaching were related to soft skills. These included empathy, creating a sense of togetherness, approaching traditionally strict course rules with generosity, among others. We thus suggest that faculty soft skills—something rarely discussed at a structural level in higher education—are especially critical in emergency contexts to compensate for both the emergency setting and the online setting which students perceive to be impersonal and disconnected. Moving forward, this is an area of opportunity for our discipline, which traditionally has prioritized product over process, focusing on course design at an institutional or departmental level but leaving course delivery largely up to instructor discretion. This finding presents an opportunity for faculty development courses to integrate soft skills awareness and training into their curricula, rather than simply orienting around technological and administrative processes.</p> <p>Related to the finding that soft skills are critically important are our findings about students' general state of mind during the COVID-19 pivot. Our research supports the finding from others (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref75">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref76">66</reflink>]) that students experienced problems related to mental health, loneliness, and feelings of isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was evidenced by the dominant theme in response to what the least successful element of the transition to online learning, which was the perceived impersonal and disconnected nature of online learning, including a perceived lack of connections and contact. Recent research by [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref77">57</reflink>] reveals that in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, giving students control over their educational experiences reduces student perceptions of loneliness and isolation. While respondents in our research did not directly note the desire for control over their educational experiences, they made numerous references to control-giving techniques identified by [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref78">57</reflink>]. For instance, the dominant theme in responses to what was the most successful element of the transition to online learning was that of Accommodation and Flexibility, or the lenience of professors with regard to attendance and deadlines—which share overlap with what [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref79">57</reflink>] refer to as Adaptability. Here again, the findings of our research highlight that there are more structural opportunities for the discipline of marketing education to expand its understanding and subsequently execution of emergency education by placing an intentional focus on the need to leverage benefits of self-regulated and self-directed learning which to this point (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref80">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref81">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref82">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref83">42</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref84">58</reflink>]) have been considered primarily in the context of student engagement, not student mental health.</p> <p>Unsurprisingly, we found that technological ability is an essential baseline skill for faculty and students alike in emergency remote education. Technological fluency and skills, as well as supporting systems like information technology and LMS, are not secondary elements of emergency remote education but are central and critical elements of it. Institutional investment in ongoing skill development workshops tailored for all major groups of stakeholders—students, faculty, and administrators—will likely be a key determinant of future success in responding to future emergencies. Best practices for training faculty in online higher education include improving faculty technology skills prior to training, providing training specific to the learning management system faculty are expected to use, and offering ongoing institutional support ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref85">67</reflink>]), all of which could provide faculty with strong baseline skills for using technology in emergency education settings. The wide diversity in responses to questions about technological skill underscore the notion that faculty training and skill levels are remarkably inconsistent across the industry and even within institutions. This further underscores our assertion of the need to expand thinking from a content-centric orientation to one that focuses on process. As the proverb goes, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link; faculty technical skills simply must be better and more consistent. We suggest that best practices also include similar ongoing training programs for students; in particular, prominent student themes related to general confusion and needing to re-learn how to learn in the online environment are evidence that the "how to" roadmap for online learning is substantially different from traditional face-to-face learning. Prior research suggests that effective online learning experiences depend in large part on students' proficiency with technology and time management skills ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref86">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our findings have further process-oriented implications for institutional strategy and planning, with respect to course design and development. In addition to inconsistencies in faculty skill levels, survey results revealed student frustrations with an extreme lack of consistency across online course design, a theme identified by others as well (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref87">9</reflink>]). This finding may be especially important for administrators, as it suggests that higher educational institutions, or at least departments within them, would benefit from standardizing some elements of online courses; for example, consistency in common elements like LMS layout and nomenclature, discussion forum practices, and group work policies. We also recommend that such standardization also include institutional oversight and training specifically regarding consistency in assigned workload. Our research is consistent with findings from research on non-emergency online higher education (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref88">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref89">16</reflink>]) in which online courses are perceived to involve an inconsistent, often excessive, assignment of "busy work." Exemplified by the rapid transition to online education in early 2020, our findings suggest that some faculty conflate student busyness with student learning which, unfortunately, actually has a detrimental effect on student learning outcomes and satisfaction ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref90">48</reflink>]). Future research integrating faculty, student, and administrator perspectives would help inform policy on potential ways to standardize online course delivery without suppressing instructor creativity.</p> <p>This research provides support for the notion that social issues, particularly in the education system, are important to today's undergraduate students (cf. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref91">56</reflink>]) and are salient in emergency settings. Specifically, this was evidenced through student survey responses which highlighted that inequalities were underscored and/or brought forth by online education. Approximately 12% of respondents identified inequalities between students as a key problem during the COVID-19 pivot to online learning, highlighting several important areas of inequality. These include access to resources (financial, technological) underscoring socioeconomic differences between students that is less apparent in face-to-face environments; lack, or loss, of support for accommodations and accessibility for individual learning needs; time constraints for students needing to balance work and family obligations; physical safety; and particularly novel to synchronous online courses, accommodating students in different time zones. Given the relative volume of unprimed responses of this nature, these findings suggest that social issues that highlight inequalities between students or that discriminate against certain cohorts of students by virtue of structural requirements are worthy of critical assessment. These findings support the need for ongoing university efforts to understand and address inequalities among students, especially in emergency settings.</p> <p>Our research revealed student perceptions that online higher education is inherently lower quality than traditional, in-person higher education. That is, our results reveal that online higher education suffers from a branding problem, with students taking a comparative approach when judging online higher education and viewing it as necessarily lower quality than in-person learning, simply because it is different. While some university educational experiences may indeed be inherently better suited to classrooms due to the need for specific supplies, equipment, or space requirements (e.g., chemistry labs and dance studios), we argue that this is not the case for the higher education in marketing. In fact, as the post-pandemic marketing workforce increases its online and work-from-home presence, it may well be the case that online higher education in marketing is, in some ways, <emph>better</emph> suited to prepare students for what they will encounter in their careers.</p> <p>Compounding, or perhaps the cause of, the diversity in student satisfaction rates is that there is polarity built into emergency remote teaching. Our results reveal this polarity though student perceptions of seemingly incompatible desirable elements of emergency remote teaching. Faculty must be immediately responsive and agile, but take extra time and care to deliver the course. Faculty must have infallibly clear and detailed rubrics and instructions, but be flexible with rules related to assignments, deadlines, and attendance. Faculty must be consistent across courses and organizations, but treat each student as a unique individual. We do not recommend approaching emergency education with an eye to achieving these incompatible goals, as this would seem to place faculty and staff in even more of a "can't win" situation than an emergency already places them in. Yet, our results reveal a range of important factors that university faculty and administrators would benefit from considering when developing, supporting, and delivering emergency education in the future. These considerations are related to the development of necessary faculty skills and practices related to online course development.</p> <p>The seemingly incompatible needs of students in emergency settings underscores the potential value in engaging in mass customization of emergency education, and perhaps online education in general. Higher education is indeed modeled around a "bulk processing" model, grouping students primarily by age and then advancing them through the administration of predetermined information in sequence ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref92">61</reflink>]). While efficient to administer, the system inherently treats learners as a homogeneous group by prioritizing content, and its transmission, over individual learning experiences. These issues may be magnified by an emergency remote teaching context, and may also be addressed through mass customization efforts.</p> <p>Finally, at the time of writing, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted university education for nearly two years. Globally, pandemic restrictions, physical distancing efforts, and both government and university policies have ebbed and flowed throughout this period. However, many students, faculty, and administrators have experienced remote education throughout this entire period. As experienced is gained, perceptions of emergency remote education likely change. It may well be the case that students, faculty, and administrators gain confidence in their approach to online higher education, and it also may be that as people become accustomed to university experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic that the context in which their education is delivered begins to be less impactful on their university experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0157872706-13">Limitations</hd> <p>Our research focuses on emergency remote learning—not online higher education in general. As such, our findings should not be generalized to non-emergency settings. While it may be the case that student perspectives on online education in general are changed as a result of being forced into online higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is not necessarily the case that student perspectives of strengths and weaknesses of education during the emergency pivot are the same as more general perspectives of online higher education. In addition, our research sample consisted of students at private universities in the United States; perspectives of students at other types of institutions or in other areas of the world may well differ from those found in our research.</p> <p>Our research does not provide insight on how factors such as socioeconomic status, race, student major, among others, impacted student perceptions of the pivot to online learning. As we discuss below, these remain potential avenues for further research. We also note that our survey did not explicitly ask students to identify whether their emergency remote classes were delivered synchronously, asynchronously, or through some hybrid thereof. In addition, our survey did not ask students about their prior experience with online classes. There may or may not be implications related to systematic differences of student perceptions based on the modality of delivery and/or their prior experience with online higher education and this is very much worthy of future investigation.</p> <hd id="AN0157872706-14">Emergency Remote Education: A Research Agenda</hd> <p>Emergency remote education is emerging as fruitful area within education literature, yet it has important and significant differences from online higher education in general, and much remains to be learned about this form of online education. In the following section, we provide an agenda for future research on emergency higher education. To do so, we adapt the framework developed by [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref93">34</reflink>] through their review of literature discussing challenges in online education in higher education over a 25-year period, which identifies issues related to learners, teaching, and content delivery ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref94">34</reflink>]). Our focus is on these aspects in emergency setting, and we also adopt a focus on the larger processes at play rather than individual agency (i.e., learn<emph>ing</emph> vs learn<emph>ers</emph>) and on whole courses rather than only course content (i.e., <emph>course</emph> delivery vs <emph>content</emph> delivery). Thus, we identify key research questions related to three critical and inter-related aspects of emergency remote education: course delivery (i.e., the modality of the course, course content, technology use, etc.), learning (i.e., engagement, student expectations and perceptions, skills, etc.), and teaching (i.e., styles, responsibilities, etc.). Specific research questions under each category are presented in Table 4.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 4. Emergency Higher Education Research Agenda.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Research area</th><th align="center">Research questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Course delivery in emergency settings</td><td>• How do the tradeoffs between synchronous and asynchronous online course delivery (e.g., tradeoffs in flexibility and interaction) impact outcomes (e.g., learning, satisfaction) in emergency remote teaching? Are the tradeoffs experienced the same as in non-emergency online classes?• Is there an "ideal" emergency course structure? For example, how do the tradeoffs of different modalities (e.g., flexibility in asynchronous delivery vs the structure and interaction of synchronous delivery) impact student perceptions and outcomes?• What opportunities and challenges are there in the mass customization of courses delivered in emergency settings?• How can university policies address issues related to inequalities (e.g., as related to access to necessary equipment or other resources) faced by students?</td></tr><tr><td>Teaching in emergency settings</td><td>• What theoretical mechanisms explain the role of instructor soft skills in student perceptions of emergency remote teaching?• What training related to soft skills can be provided to instructors to compensate for feelings of anxiety, isolation, and/or disconnectedness?• What policies or practices can be used to balance instructor creativity with institutional standardization in emergency settings?• Are instructor perspectives of the key successes and failures of emergency remote teaching aligned with student perspectives?• How does the role of an instructor change in emergency settings?</td></tr><tr><td>Learning in emergency settings</td><td>• To what extent do student perspectives of emergency remote teaching differ based on factors such as the type of institution they attend (e.g., private vs public; large vs small) or demographics (e.g., socioeconomic status, age, ethnicity, cultural background)?• Does student experience with non-emergency online education have a positive, negative, or non-impact on student perspectives of emergency online education?• Do student perceptions of online higher education change after prolonged experience with emergency remote education? To what extent does an "experience curve" impact student experiences?• What long-term learning consequences are there to having the majority of ones university education (e.g., members of the class of 2023) delivered during a global pandemic?• To what extent has emergency remote education in high school prepared students entering into university for continued remote education?</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0157872706-15">Looking Forward by Looking Back: A Call for Change</hd> <p>The COVID-19 pandemic had an immediate and radical influence on higher education, forcing our proverbial hand and requiring higher education to shift fully online in a matter of days or weeks. As a result, structural issues and areas of opportunity in the system were uniquely revealed, and we join [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref95">38</reflink>] in suggesting that COVID-19 marks the beginning of a true digital shift in the delivery of business higher education.</p> <p>Moving forward, our research suggests that <emph>process</emph> is a critical strategic priority in emergency education. Soft skills come to the fore as being of critical importance to the online experience, and students require a multiplicity of experience. Students need widespread standardization and individual personalization; they need a rigidly structured and predictable path that also leaves room for lenience and flexibility. Faculty must teach fast and slow, with and without structure, serving mass cohorts of students while respecting them individually. Perhaps the most intriguing opportunity to emerge from our survey results is that of mass customization in online marketing education. One-on-one interaction between faculty and students—either to review assessment results, answer student questions, or simply for the purpose of interpersonal connection itself—may well be a path forward to personalize student experiences in online higher education. We suggest that mass customization may be an approach to simultaneously raise student satisfaction with online education and reposition online higher education as on par with the quality of in-person higher education.</p> <ref id="AN0157872706-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref31" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Akan H., Gurol Y., Izbirak G., Ozdatlı S., Yilmaz G., Vitrinel A., Hayran O. (2010). Knowledge and attitudes of university students toward pandemic influenza: A cross-sectional study from Turkey. BMC Public health, 10(1), 1–8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref59" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson D., Imdieke S., Standerford N. S. (2011). Feedback please: Studying self in the online classroom. Online Submission, 4(1), 3–15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref26" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ayebi-Arthur K. (2017). E-learning and emergency management in tertiary educational settings—The case of University of Canterbury. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 12(2), 75–80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref24" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barker G. G., Yoder M. E. (2012). The Virginia Tech shootings: Implications for crisis communication in educational settings. Journal of School Public Relations, 33(2), 78–101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref80" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boekaerts M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161–186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref57" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chang C., Shen H. Y., Liu E. Z. F. (2014). University faculty's perspectives on the roles of e-instructors and their online instruction practice. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3), 72–92.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref65" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chonko L. B. (2003). A look to the future of marketing education: Observations of one teacher-researcher curmudgeon. Marketing Education Review, 13(1), 1–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref2" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Clayson D. E., Haley D. A. (2005). Marketing models in education: Students as customers, products, or partners. Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 1–10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref87" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cochran J. D., Baker H. M., Benson D., Rhea W. (2016). Business student perceptions of online learning: Using focus groups for richer understanding of student perspectives. Organization Management Journal, 13(3), 149–166.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbin J., Strauss A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques 3e. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dabner N. (2012). "Breaking ground" in the use of social media: A case study of a university earthquake response to inform educational design with Facebook. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 69–78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies G. K. (2008). Connecting the dots: Lessons from the Virginia Tech shootings. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(1), 8–15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DiCarlo C. F., Burts D. C., Buchanan T. K., Aghayan C., Benedict J. (2007). "Making Lemonade from Lemons:" Early Childhood Teacher Educators' Programmatic Responses to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28(1), 61–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dodds W. (2019). Disease now and potential future pandemics. In Dodds W. (Ed.), The World's worst problems (pp. 31–44). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dohaney J., de Róiste M., Salmon R. A., Sutherland K. (2020). Benefits, barriers, and incentives for improved resilience to disruption in university teaching. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50, Article 101691.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyment J., Stone C., Milthorpe N. (2020). Beyond busy work: Rethinking the measurement of online student engagement. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7), 1440–1453.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feast V., Bretag T. (2005). Responding to crises in transnational education: New challenges for higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), 63–78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fein A. D., Logan M. C. (2003). Preparing instructors for online instruction. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 45–55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frieden T. R., Buissonnière M., McClelland A. (2021). The world must prepare now for the next pandemic. BMJ Global Health, 6(3), Article e005184.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallagher S., Palmer J. (2020, September 29). The pandemic pushed universities online. The change was long overdue. Harvard Business Review. <ulink href="http://www.hbr.org">www.hbr.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallien T., Oomen-Early J. (2008). Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the online courseroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor? International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 463–476.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaser B. S., Strauss A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Weidenfeld and Nicolson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorissen P., Van Bruggen J., Jochems W. (2012). Students and recorded lectures: Survey on current use and demands for higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 20(3), Article 17299.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilbault M. (2016). Students as customers in higher education: Reframing the debate. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(2), 132–142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guilbault M. (2018). Students as customers in higher education: The (controversial) debate needs to end. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 295–298.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartman J., Dziuban C., Moskal P. (2000). Faculty satisfaction in ALNs: A dependent or independent variable. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(3), 155–179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hodges C., Moore S., Lockee B., Trust T., Bond A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honigsbaum M. (2020). The pandemic century: A history of global contagion from the Spanish flu to Covid-19. Random House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hung M. L., Chou C., Chen C. H., Own Z. Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080–1090.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kain T., Fowler R. (2019). Preparing intensive care for the next pandemic influenza. Critical Care, 23(1), 1–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kagawa F. (2005). Emergency education: A critical review of the field. Comparative Education, 41(4), 487–503.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kapucu N., Khosa S. (2013). Disaster resiliency and culture of preparedness for university and college campuses. Administration & Society, 45(1), 3–37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kassarjian H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 8–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kebritchi M., Lipschuetz A., Santiague L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4–29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim H. K., Niederdeppe J. (2013). Exploring optimistic bias and the integrative model of behavioral prediction in the context of a campus influenza outbreak. Journal of Health Communication, 18(2), 206–222.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolbe R. H., Burnett M. S. (1991). Content-analysis research: An examination of applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 243–250.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krippendorff K. (2012). Design research, an oxymoron?. In Design research now (pp. 67–80). Birkhäuser.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krishnamurthy S. (2020). The future of business education: A commentary in the shadow of the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Research, 117, 1–5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyei-Blankson L., Keengwe J. (2013). Faculty-faculty interactions in online learning environments. In Tomei L. (Ed.), Learning tools and teaching approaches through ICT advancements (pp. 127–135). IGI Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lauver K. J., Drum D. M., Windsor J. M., Miller S. M. (2013). Preference of education mode: Examining the reasons for choosing and perspectives of courses delivered entirely online. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 5(1), 113–128.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee S. H., Deale C. S. (2021). Moving to online education virtually overnight due to a pandemic: Perceptions of hospitality and tourism students and faculty members. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 33(4), 223–241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin B., Hsieh C. T. (2001). Web-based teaching and learner control: A research review. Computers & Education, 37(3–4), 377–386.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McInnerney J. M., Roberts T. S. (2004). Online learning: Social interaction and the creation of a sense of community. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 73–81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenzie B., Mims N., Bennett E., Waugh M. (2000, Winter). Needs, concerns, and practices of online instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, III. <ulink href="http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/browsearticles.php">http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/browsearticles.php</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McPartlan P., Rutherford T., Rodriguez F., Shaffer J. F., Holton A. (2021). Modality motivation: Selection effects and motivational differences in students who choose to take courses online. The Internet and Higher Education, 49, Article 100793.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mertens G., Gerritsen L., Duijndam S., Salemink E., Engelhard I. M. (2020). Fear of the coronavirus (COVID-19): Predictors in an online study conducted in March 2020. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 74, Article 102258.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mosanya M. (2020). Buffering academic stress during the COVID-19 pandemic related social isolation: Grit and growth mindset as protective factors against the impact of loneliness. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 6(2), 159–174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Motz B. A., Quick J. D., Wernert J. A., Miles T. A. (2021). A pandemic of busywork: Increased online coursework following the transition to remote instruction is associated with reduced academic achievement. Online Learning, 25(1), 70–85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Müller A. M., Goh C., Lim L. Z., Gao X. (2021). COVID-19 emergency elearning and beyond: Experiences and perspectives of university educators. Education Sciences, 11(1), Article 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nyysti K., Walters K. (2018). Out of isolation: Building online higher education engagement. In Nyysti K., Walters K. (Eds.), Fostering effective student communication in online graduate courses (pp. 179–192). IGI Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Obura A. (2003). Never again, educational reconstruction in Rwanda. UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osika E., Johnson R., Butea R. (2009). Factors influencing faculty use of technology in online instruction: A case study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(1).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peng H., Tsai C. C., Wu Y. T. (2006). University students' self-efficacy and their attitudes toward the Internet: The role of students' perceptions of the Internet. Educational Studies, 32(1), 73–86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pigozzi M. (1999). Education in emergencies and for reconstruction: A developmental approach. UNICEF.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piotrowski C., Vodanovich S. J. (2008). Hurricane Ivan: A case study of university faculty in crisis management. Organization Development Journal, 26(2), 25–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rippé C. B. (2020). Engaging generation Z and helping hurricane victims with a marketing project. Marketing Education Review, 30(2), 82–88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rippé C. B., Weisfeld-Spolter S., Yurova Y., Kemp A. (2021). Pandemic pedagogy for the new normal: Fostering perceived Control during COVID-19. Journal of Marketing Education, 43(2), 260–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475320987287</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Serdyukov P., Hill R. (2013). Flying with clipped wings: Are students independent in online college classes. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 6(1), 54–67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Song L., Singleton E. S., Hill J. R., Koh M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss A., Corbin J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss V. (2015, October 10). American schools are modeled after factories and treat students like widgets. Right? Wrong. The Washington Post. https://<ulink href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/10/10/american-schools-are-modeled-after-factories-and-treat-students-like-widgets-right-wrong/">www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/10/10/american-schools-are-modeled-after-factories-and-treat-students-like-widgets-right-wrong/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Talib N., Zia-ur-Rehman M. (2012). Academic performance and perceived stress among university students. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(5), 127–132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanner A., Doberstein B. (2015). Emergency preparedness amongst university students. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13, 409–413.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thiery B. W., Lange S., Rogelj J., Schleussner C. F., Gudmundsson L., Seneviratne S. I., Andrijevic M., Frieler K., Emanuel K., Geiger T., Bresch D. T., Zhao F., Willner S., Büchner M., Volkholz J., Bauer N., Chang J., Ciais P., Dury M., Wada Y. (2021). Intergenerational inequities in exposure to climate extremes. Science, 374(6564), 158–160.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tkachuck M. A., Schulenberg S. E., Lair E. C. (2018). Natural disaster preparedness in college students: Implications for institutions of higher learning. Journal of American College Health, 66(4), 269–279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang X., Hegde S., Son C., Keller B., Smith A., Sasangohar F. (2020). Investigating mental health of US college students during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9), Article e22817.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf P. D. (2006). Best practices in the training of faculty to teach online. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 17(2), 47–78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organization. (2020, June 29). Listings of WHO's response to COVID-19. <ulink href="http://www.who.int">www.who.int</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Meteorological Organization. (2021, October 1). State of the global climate observing system 2021. https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/state-of-global-climate-observing-system-2021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wyatt T. J., Oswalt S. B., Ochoa Y. (2017). Mental health and academic performance of first-year college students. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(3), 178–187.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0157872706-17"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Adam J. Mills</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2924-0150</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Karen Robson and Adam J. Mills</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref93"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1347577
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teaching, Fast and Slow: Student Perceptions of Emergency Remote Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Robson%2C+Karen%22">Robson, Karen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mills%2C+Adam+J%2E%22">Mills, Adam J.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2924-0150">0000-0002-2924-0150</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Marketing+Education%22"><i>Journal of Marketing Education</i></searchLink>. Aug 2022 44(2):203-216.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Web+Based+Instruction%22">Web Based Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Distance+Education%22">Distance Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22COVID-19%22">COVID-19</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pandemics%22">Pandemics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emergency+Programs%22">Emergency Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Soft+Skills%22">Soft Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/02734753221084585
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0273-4753<br />1552-6550
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This research explores emergency remote education, defined as a rapid, system-wide pivot to remote education in response to emergencies that disrupt normal institutional processes. To do so, we explore student perceptions of the successes and failures of the pivot to online learning at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. A mixed-methods survey was distributed to a large sample of university students to explore satisfaction, challenges, opportunities, and instructional needs. Results highlight the importance of faculty hard skills (e.g., technical skills) and soft skills (e.g., compassion), although soft skills were noted more frequently, suggesting that soft skills may be critically important in the context of emergency remote education. Results also reveal that online education in general suffers from a perception as being inherently lower quality than in-person education, and highlight the importance of providing faculty with proper training and support to set them up for success. Based on these results, we provide a number of suggestions for approaching the development, delivery, and support of emergency education and online marketing education in the future.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1347577
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1347577
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/02734753221084585
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 203
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Web Based Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Distance Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: COVID-19
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pandemics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emergency Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Soft Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teaching, Fast and Slow: Student Perceptions of Emergency Remote Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Robson, Karen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mills, Adam J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0273-4753
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1552-6550
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Marketing Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1