Education in Emergencies: Mapping the Global Education Research Landscape in the Context of the COVID-19 Crisis

Abstract

This study uses an education in emergencies (EiE) lens and a scientometric approach to examine the educational research landscape during the COVID-19 pandemic by analyzing 95,628 publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection database from 2020 to February 2023. It employed descriptive and network approaches to map growth trajectory, productivity, social structure, conceptual structure, and research methodologies used in the retrieved sources. The findings reveal a steady increase in publications on education and COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic. However, the majority of productive countries and institutions are in the Global North, with limited representation from the Global South, except for China. English is the dominant language in publications, and funding agencies from English-speaking countries are the most active. The most frequently occurring keywords revolve around performativity, institutions, teaching methodologies, attitudes, and experiences, while keywords related to social justice are a peripheral focus. Publications mainly focus on technical and methodological aspects of education, such as online teaching and learning. Most productive journals represent a mix of foci and are not limited to distance learning. The extracted literature showcases diversity in research methodologies used. Future studies should use systematic reviews on narrow topics to evaluate the effects of the pandemic, inform decision-making, enhance education system resilience, and envision a more equitable education system. The study’s contributions are notable for its unique EiE perspective, comprehensive scope, extensive data extraction, and meticulous examination of research design, effectively addressing limitations in bibliometric software.

Plain Language Summary

Understanding education during COVID-19: mapping global research in emergency situations

This study looked at 95,628 research papers about education during the COVID-19 pandemic indexed in the World of Science Core Collection Data Base published since the onset of the pandemic until February 2023. The researchers found that there has been a steady increase in these papers since the start of the pandemic. However, most of the countries and institutions that produce these papers are in northern high-income countries, with limited representation from southern countries (for example, Africa and most of Asia), except for China. The papers are mostly written in English, and the funding for the research comes mostly from English-speaking countries. The most common topics in the papers are about how schools and teachers are performing, different teaching methods, and people’s experiences with education during the pandemic. The focus on fairness and social justice is not as strong. The papers cover a variety of research methods and topics, showing a lot of diversity. The large number of papers shows the need for more focused reviews to understand the effects of the pandemic on education and to make decisions that will make the education system stronger and fairer. The study’s contributions are notable for its unique perspective, comprehensive scope, extensive data extraction, and examination of research design.

Keywords

education in emergencies COVID-19 distance education remote education bibliometrics

Introduction

Education is often the most affected sector during emergencies, as education systems lack sufficient fail-safe features to withstand recurrent crises (Chabbott & Sinclair, 2020). The field of education in emergencies (EiE), that is, the provision of schooling and other structured educational activities in emergency situations, emerged in the 1990s as a response to the recognition of the need for providing education in emergencies (Burde et al., 2017; Kagawa, 2005; Lopez Cardozo & Novelli, 2018; Sinclair, 2002). Past crises and emergencies primarily affected school systems in the Global South (Lopez Cardozo & Novelli, 2018; Smith & Vaux, 2003), whether because of war, conflict and displacement, natural disasters or health crises such as Ebola and HIV. In contrast, the COVID-19 pandemic affected education systems worldwide (Meinck et al., 2022; Naidu, 2023; Selvanathan et al., 2020), affecting learners at all levels (United Nations [UN], 2020). At its peak, the pandemic affected 94% of learners globally, impacting 1.58 billion children and youth across 200 countries (UN, 2020). Despite the passage of 21 months, many educational institutions remained closed, putting millions of children “at risk of never returning to education” (UNESCO et al., 2021, p. 5).

To examine the ongoing impact of COVID-19 on different sectors of society, there has been a significant increase in research publications related to COVID-19 across different disciplines (Aviv-Reuven & Rosenfeld, 2021; Karakose, Polat, & Papadakis, 2021; Torres-Salinas et al., 2020), including education. This study aims to map out the publication output on education during the COVID-19 emergency, utilizing a scientometric approach to understand the research landscape of EiE in the context of the pandemic. The objective is to examine how the pandemic has impacted research trends in the field to identify gaps in topic areas. This understanding provides researchers, policymakers, educators, and funding bodies with a comprehensive view of the existing knowledge and areas that require further research (Donthu et al., 2021). Additionally, analyzing citation patterns and publication outlets enables the identification of influential studies on EiE that can inform future research endeavors (Mukherjee et al., 2022) and help authors target appropriate outlets (Donthu et al., 2021). Reviewing this knowledge is crucial to enhancing the preparedness of education systems for future emergencies (Zhao & Watterston, 2021).

The present study has several advantages over existing bibliometric research on education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Firstly, it takes a unique approach by analyzing the literature through an EiE perspective, which is broader than the commonly used “online distance education” lens in previous studies (e.g., Fauzi, 2022; Mishra et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022). Secondly, it has a comprehensive scope, encompassing all education sectors and disciplines, unlike previous studies that focus on specific sectors (e.g., Fauzi, 2022; Su et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022), disciplines (e.g., Jatmiko et al., 2021; Peng & Hu, 2022), or regions (e.g., Pathak & Singh, 2023). This provides a broader understanding of the subject matter. Thirdly, the study extracts data on a larger scale compared to previous research, allowing for a more comprehensive analysis. Fourthly, it provides developments within the EiE field, explaining key terminology and challenges in education delivery during the pandemic. Lastly, it goes beyond the limitations of bibliometric software by manually examining the research design dimension.

Following this introduction, the subsequent two sections employ a literature review. The “Overview of the EiE Field” briefly discusses the evolution of the EiE as a field of practice and research. The subsequent section, “Education during the COVID-19 Emergency,” summarizes the emerging issues specific to EiE within the context of the COVID-19 crisis. The “Methodology” section outlines the search strategy, the data extracted and the analysis used. The “Findings” section presents the analysis of data around six themes: the growth trajectory of publications, the productivity of countries and institutions, the social structure, the intellectual structure, and the conceptual structure of the field and the methodology and methods utilized within the literature. Lastly, the “Discussion and Conclusion” section summarizes the key findings, discusses them in relation to existing studies, and offers insights into the study’s limitations and implications.

Overview of the EiE Field

“Emergencies” can be divided into natural disasters (e.g., floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, and pandemics) and human-caused disasters (e.g., armed conflict, genocide, terrorism, industrial accidents, and civil unrest) (Pigozzi, 1999). Nonetheless, this distinction is not always straightforward, as Kagawa (2005) points out that “natural” disasters can also be influenced by human factors (p. 493). Furthermore, natural disasters may overlap with human-caused disasters, compounding their disruption (Nicolai, 2003). The term “complex emergencies” emerged to describe long-lasting conflicts and emergencies, which often lead to forced migration and displacement. Chronic emergencies, such as persistent poverty and the HIV pandemic, also exist (Pigozzi, 1999). Each emergency requires a unique response to protect the right to education (Sinclair, 2002).

Lopez Cardozo and Novelli (2018) attribute the emergence of EiE as a distinct and coherent field to the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s. This period marked a shift in development and education policies, with a greater focus on addressing the needs of the least-developed countries and marginalized populations. This shift was reflected in the 1990 “Education for All” (EFA) commitments that emerged from a high-profile meeting in Jomtien, Thailand. Ten ears later, when the EFA progress was assessed at Dakar in 2000, the Framework for Action adopted required countries to expedite progress toward EFA, including the pledge to address the needs of education systems impacted by conflict, natural disasters, and instability (Sinclair, 2002).

The adoption of the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) (2000–2015) following the Millenium Summit of the UN in 2000 highlighted the significant impact of conflict on international development objectives, particularly in education, as global statistics indicated that 82% of the reported 113 million out-of-school children lived in crisis and post-crisis countries (Smith & Vaux, 2003). While the yearly statistics on out-of-school children fluctuated, the prevalence of such children in countries affected by conflict remained constant (Winthrop & Mendenhall, 2006). It became increasingly evident at the level of policy and funding that education is crucial in crisis and post-crisis contexts for saving and sustaining lives, achieving international development targets and fostering lasting peace and development (Smith & Vaux, 2003; Winthrop & Mendenhall, 2006).

The Inter-Agency Network on Education in Emergencies (INEE) was established as a result of the “Interagency Consultation on Education in Situations of Emergency and Crisis” hosted by UNESCO, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in November 2000 (Smith & Vaux, 2003). INEE aims to enhance communication and collaboration among different agencies, minimize duplication of efforts, and advocate for supporting education in crisis contexts (Winthrop & Mendenhall, 2006). While funding for EiE still lags behind other sectors, prominent bilateral donor agencies now earmark funds for education as part of their humanitarian aid, with INEE playing a positive role (Burde et al., 2017). Since its formation, INEE has emerged as a significant actor involved in developing minimum standards for EiE and training staff involved in EiE (Lopez Cardozo & Novelli, 2018; Shah et al., 2020).

UNESCO’s annual monitoring of global targets of MDGs and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) also focuses on the provision of EiE. For example, UNESCO’s annual report on EFA and MDGs, titled The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education, focused exclusively on the interrelationship between education and conflict (UNESCO, 2011). The report emphasized the need for increased allocation of education resources in humanitarian aid, with equitable distribution across conflict-affected countries. It also advocated for integrating education into broader peacebuilding strategies. The report emphasizes the importance of considering emergency risks in education sector plans and strengthening government capacity at all levels to minimize disruptions to education services during all phases, from emergency response to recovery. The 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report titled Migration, Displacement and Education – Building Bridges, Not Walls highlighted the detrimental impact of conflict, as well as natural disasters, on education. (UNESCO, 2018).

During the COVID-19 emergency, UNESCO played a crucial role in guiding countries and ministries to protect the right to education. In 2020, in response to the global disruption of education systems caused by the pandemic, UNESCO created the Global Education Coalition (GEC), which aims to ensure continuity in education, provide demand-driven interventions, support teachers, promote connectivity and gender equality, and strengthen data, knowledge production and advocacy (UNESCO, 2023).

Education During the COVID-19 Emergency

Before presenting key highlights of the literature, it is important to note that bibliometric reviews, unlike systematic reviews, do not provide a comprehensive examination of all studies in a particular field (Linnenluecke et al., 2020). As this study is a bibliometric review, the synthesis of the literature presented does not claim to be systematic or exhaustive.

The COVID-19 pandemic can be described as a “complex emergency” due to its scale, duration, and multidimensional impacts on the economy, society, and education in both the short and long term (UNESCO, 2022). As educational institutions shuttered and quarantine measures were implemented, many education systems shifted to remote teaching and learning, raising equity and access concerns as well as the well-being of stakeholders. Various terminologies emerged for education delivery during the pandemic, which would benefit from clarity. Furthermore, access, quality, learning loss, and well-being emerged as critical issues in education delivery during the pandemic, warranting further discussion.

Terminology

Emergency remote education is a sudden and temporary shift of education delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to a crisis, often using online platforms for real-time interaction (Barbour et al., 2020). Distance schooling provides educational materials to students, either digitally or physically, without a set class schedule or in-person teacher interactions (Bokayev et al., 2021). Online schooling involves students using information technologies and communications to work from home, with lessons being synchronous, asynchronous, or blended (Basilaia & Kvavadze, 2020). Synchronous teaching occurs in real-time with a teacher by video or audio conferencing, while asynchronous teaching involves regular content delivery through emails, forums, and discussion media (Basilaia & Kvavadze, 2020; Fiş Erümit, 2021). Blended lessons involve combining online teaching with in-person teaching.

Globally, 83% of countries used internet-based remote education, but its usage decreased with lower grade levels (UNICEF, 2020). TV-based remote education was provided by 72% of countries worldwide, while radio-based remote education was accessible in 48% of countries. While middle-income countries predominantly used digital media or television, low-income countries primarily used radio-based instruction (UNICEF, 2020).

Equitable Access

Although most countries provided remote learning opportunities, the extent and quality of these initiatives varied significantly (Akabayashi et al., 2023; Betthäuser et al., 2023). The impact of school closures on access to quality education during the shift to home-based learning was unevenly distributed and associated with the national wealth of countries and households (Betthäuser et al., 2023; UNESCO, 2021a; UNICEF, 2020), as well as a range of contextually relevant markers of disadvantage including gender (UNESCO, 2021b, 2022) and rurality (UNICEF, 2020).

In response to school closures, over 90% of education ministries swiftly implemented remote education policies, reaching over a billion students worldwide (UNICEF, 2020). However, an estimated 31% of children were left behind due to a lack of household infrastructure or supportive policies, with exclusion rates varying by region, location and country income (UNICEF, 2020). For example, 48% of students in West and Central Africa and 49% in Eastern and Southern Africa could not access digital or broadcast learning options. Likewise, only 30% of rural students worldwide had access to remote technologies. The share of excluded children was much higher in low-income and fragile countries experiencing humanitarian crises pre-COVID-19 (UNICEF, 2020). Overall, girls and boys were equally affected, but in some countries, parents were reluctant to allow daughters to use smartphones, resulting in boys having greater digital access (United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative [UNGEI], 2022). UNESCO (2021a) notes that prolonged school closures have derailed efforts to achieve universal schooling.

Equitable Quality of Remote Education

A growing number of studies suggest several challenges limited the quality of distance education, with such challenges amplified for students in disadvantaged contexts marked by rurality (Landa et al., 2021), the digital divide, family circumstances (Akabayashi et al., 2023), school types, teachers’ digital literacy and the availability and use of interactive digital platforms (Durrani et al., 2023).

Teacher Capacity for Digital Instruction

Many studies report that at the beginning of the pandemic, teachers were unprepared for online teaching and struggled with selecting and using digital tools (Azhari & Fajri, 2022; König et al., 2020; Palau et al., 2021; Timotheou et al., 2023; Trust & Whalen, 2020). Stakeholders generally viewed distance education negatively due to the limited use of communicative and interactive practices (Durrani et al., 2023; Kumar & Verma, 2021; Orhan & Beyhan, 2020; Vikas & Mathur, 2022). Teachers from less developed countries faced challenges in creating quality online resources (Tsui et al., 2020), and public school teachers had lower digital literacy compared to private school teachers (Parker et al., 2020). Older teachers and female teachers with domestic responsibilities faced additional difficulties (Durrani et al., 2023; Parker et al., 2020). Several countries offered online professional development programs to help teachers develop their digital competence (Karakose, Yirci et al., 2021; Kosaretsky et al., 2022), but their availability varied across countries and locations (Demeshkant et al., 2022).

Home Environment

The impact of remote teaching on student academic achievement and learning outcomes varied due to differences in home environments. Remote education posed significant challenges for less advantaged parents in terms of access to digital infrastructure, study space, and parental supervision (Durrani et al., 2023; Palau et al., 2021; Parker et al., 2020). Families with limited access to quiet study spaces, such as those with multiple children or larger families, faced challenges in providing a conducive learning environment (Andrew et al., 2020; Easterbrook et al., 2023; Tate & Warschauer, 2022; Trinidad, 2021). Parental struggles in supervising their children’s learning during school closures also varied based on income, academic and digital literacy, and the ability to work remotely. Homeschooling posed particular challenges for various groups of parents, including those with primary school children, parents in blue-collar jobs or lacking academic skills, rural parents, and single mothers (Durrani et al., 2023; Ewing & Cooper, 2021; Sosa Díaz, 2021; Trinidad, 2021). Furthermore, studies indicate that parental engagement and support varied based on a child’s gender, with boys being disadvantaged in some contexts (Easterbrook et al., 2023) and girls in others (Jones et al., 2021).

Equity Oriented Leadership

During the COVID-19 pandemic, education leaders prioritized the expansion of digital access and the enhancement of teachers’ skills in remote teaching to tackle the disparities in digital infrastructure and literacy (du Plessis, 2021; Harris & Jones, 2020; McLeod & Dulsky, 2021; Netolicky, 2020; Okilwa & Barnett, 2021). Numerous studies indicate the emergence of equity-oriented (Elomaa et al., 2022; Heffernan & Mills, 2023; Magill & Rodriguez, 2022; Wharton-Beck et al., 2024), compassionate, and caring (Fernandes et al., 2023; Stone-Johnson & Miles Weiner, 2020) leadership as crucial in dealing with the educational disruptions caused by the pandemic. Education leaders dedicated significant time to providing pastoral care and support to students, teachers, and families (Harris & Jones, 2023).

Learning Loss and Equity

School closure is expected to have long-term effects on student learning, widening achievement gaps based on school socioeconomic status (UNESCO, 2021a). The differential access to technology and remote instruction will further widen the achievement gaps (Kuhfeld et al., 2020; Schuurman et al., 2023; Timotheou et al., 2023). Patrinos (2023) found that for every week of school closure, “learning levels declined by almost 1% of a standard deviation” (p. 1). There is substantial evidence indicating a learning crisis globally due to the inadequate quality of remote teaching (Angrist et al., 2021; Azevedo et al., 2022; Engzell et al., 2021; Monroy-Gómez-Franco et al., 2022; Reimer et al., 2021), although the impact on student academic achievement and learning outcomes varies. Parental education and household income have been reported as key markers of disadvantage and privilege (Engzell et al., 2021; Haelermans et al., 2022; Haser et al., 2022). Furthermore, van Cappelle et al. (2021) found that public school and younger students perceived that they were learning less or significantly less than private school students and older students.

Stakeholders’ Well-Being

Emergencies present substantial risks to individuals’ psychosocial and physical well-being. Therefore, it is crucial to prioritize well-being in order to cope with the crisis effectively (Shohel et al., 2021). Social isolation, remote work, lack of physical exercise, seeing loved ones, friends and relatives contracting the infection and experiences of loss of life all took a heavy toll on students, teachers, families and school leaders (Mendoza et al., 2023).

School closures disrupted the provision of critical services such as “school feeding, protection, and psychosocial support,” severely affecting “the overall well-being and mental health of children” (UNESCO, World Bank, & UNICEF, 2021, p. 7). Past emergencies led to an increasing recognition that emergencies impact men and women differently because of gender norms, gender hierarchies and roles (Kirk, 2006) and evidence in the context of school closures points to gendered outcomes on stakeholders’ well-being. Both boys and girls have reported experiencing adverse effects on their mental health (UNESCO, 2021b). However, girls, in particular, have reported higher levels of mental health issues, which can be attributed to pre-existing gender norms that restrict girls’ mobility and socialization opportunities, resulting in increased social isolation (UNESCO, 2021b). A study of four African countries concluded that the protracted trauma experienced by girls during COVID-19 is likely to have a long-lasting effect on their psychological and emotional health, making their return challenging without sustained care for their overall well-being (Oulo et al., 2021). Additionally, headteachers in Ethiopia expressed concerns about the difficulty of reaching girls through distance learning provisions.

Studies across high-, middle-, and low-income countries highlighted increased stress within families, with mothers experiencing profound stress due to the closures of childcare services and the disproportionate burden of homeschooling (UNESCO, 2022).

Similarly, research indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated depression, stress, anxiety, and burnout among teachers, significantly affecting their well-being (Bianchi & Caso, 2022; Billett et al., 2022; Karakose, Yirci, & Papadakis, 2022; Kim et al., 2022; Mendoza et al., 2023; Sigursteinsdottir & Rafnsdottir, 2022; Weißenfels et al., 2022). This increase in stress levels has also heightened the risk of teacher attrition (Lücker et al., 2022; Marshall et al., 2022), with female teachers being particularly susceptible to elevated stress levels (Arruti et al., 2022). Furthermore, due to COVID-19′s impact on quality of life, teachers experienced increased loneliness, leading to internet addiction (Karakose, Yirci, & Papadakis, 2022).

During school closures, school leaders were tasked with supporting the well-being of students and teachers. However, they faced immense stress navigating a rapidly changing and uncertain educational landscape. Recent research indicates that school leaders experienced high levels of stress (Anderson et al., 2020; Arnold et al., 2021; Bellemans et al., 2023; Doyle Fosco et al., 2023; Lien et al., 2023), with female leaders who are also mothers finding it particularly challenging to balance work and familial responsibilities and find time for self-care (Crosslin & Bailey, 2021). Research further indicates that the psychological distress school leaders faced due to COVID-19 strongly predicted their burnout and that leaders’ burnout significantly and positively predicted their levels of depression (Karakose, Ozdemir et al., 2022).

Methodology

Study Questions and Design

This study utilized a bibliometric design to map the literature on education and COVID-19, with a focus on understanding the landscape of EiE since the outbreak of the pandemic in 2020.

Specific research questions guided the analysis and provided a focused approach to analyzing the retrieved literature on education and COVID-19:

How has the literature in this field grown over time?

Which countries and institutions have produced the most research in this field?

What is the extent of research collaboration between countries and institutions in this field?

What is the intellectual landscape of this field in terms of language, funding agencies, and the most influential journals?

What is the conceptual structure of the field with respect to keywords, topic foci and most cited papers?

What research designs, data collection methods, and analytical approaches are commonly used in the literature?

Data Search and Identification

This study analyzed metadata extracted from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database. According to Ivanović and Ho (2019), the WoS is the most often used database for bibliometric review in various research areas, including education.

The data was extracted on Feb 12, 2023. Since the WoS is an interdisciplinary database, data was gradually narrowed down to the area of focus, and only relevant literature was retained (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Data extraction strategy.

In the first stage, extraction was performed on all research fields through a set of word threads, Education OR School AND COVID OR COVID-19 OR Coronavirus, through which 1,774,162 publications were retrieved. In the second stage, document types were limited to articles, book chapters, and books. As a result, the total number of literature sources decreased to 1,438,803. Finally, publications from the Education and Educational Research journal category were retrieved, yielding 95,628 publications. Given that there exist different types of Coronaviruses, and this analysis focuses on the latest pandemic related to COVID-19, only publications since 2020, the year the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the pandemic, were considered. The final metadata extracted from the WoS contained 95,628 publications, including titles, years of publication, countries, institution names, journal publications, affiliated institutions, languages, funding agencies, publishers and keywords. Among the extracted 95,628 publications, journal articles were predominant at 91.4%, while 7.4% and 1.2% were book chapters and books, respectively.

Data Cleaning

Before conducting the bibliometric analysis, we cleaned the data to ensure accuracy. We started by extracting the metadata from the WoS in plain text format (.txt) and transferred it to a Microsoft Excel file (.xls). In this process, we removed duplications, errors, and inconsistencies. As a result, the final dataset contained 95,628 publications, a reduction from the original 96,469.

Data Analysis

This review applied a methodological framework constituting two analytical approaches, descriptive (performative) and network (scientific), allowing us to have an in-depth understanding of the field, both from quantitative and qualitative perspectives (Figure 2). Under the two overarching approaches, the extracted dataset was analyzed through six dimensions: growth trajectory, productivity, social structure, intellectual structure, conceptual structure and research design and methods.

Figure 2.

Analytical framework.

We utilized descriptive bibliometric analysis with the WoS display features to track the growth trajectory and productivity of countries and institutions in the field of education and COVID-19. Additionally, we employed network analysis to identify overall trends in co-authorship and thematic focus of existing publications. The analysis was facilitated by the use of VOSViewer (https://www.vosviewer.com/), a bibliometric software that organized data and provided visual mappings. It is important to highlight the significance of our approach, as bibliometric analyses often neglect the research design dimension due to limitations in available software capabilities (Donthu et al., 2021; Hernández-Torrano et al., 2021). However, in this study, we addressed this limitation by manually examining the research dimension while utilizing VOSViewer for network analysis to explore all other dimensions.

Findings and Discussions

Growth Trajectory of the Field

The descriptive analysis revealed a slight but steady increase in publications on education and COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Publication growth of literature on education and COVID-19.

Productivity Analysis of Countries and Institutions

Most Productive Countries

The research area of education and COVID-19 since 2020 has seen the highest productivity from countries primarily located in the Global North. Among the top 20 most productive countries, the USA, UK, Australia, and Spain stand out, collectively contributing approximately 48% (n = 47,799) of the total publications (Table 1). On the other hand, China, Brazil, Turkey, and South Africa have been the most productive countries in the Global South, collectively contributing 17% (n = 16,719) to the literature. This highlights a notable discrepancy in knowledge production between the Global South and the Global North.

Table 1.

The 20 Most Productive Countries Between 2020 – 2022.

Country	Publication
USA	25,957
UK	9,204
Australia	6,483
Spain	6,155
China	6,143
Brazil	4,492
Canada	4,100
Turkey	3,843
Germany	3,139
South Africa	2,241
Netherlands	1,813
Sweden	1,812
Norway	1,704
Russia	1,567
Taiwan	1,510
Finland	1,501
Israel	1,328
Indonesia	1,282
New Zealand	1,254
Japan	1,174

Note. Figures for England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland were combined to create a unified dataset for the United Kingdom. This was necessary because the Vosviewer software had counted separate figures for each constituent part of the UK.

We found a relationship between a country’s productivity and its number of COVID-19 cases, indicating that countries with higher case numbers tended to be more productive (Table 2). However, despite significant case numbers, some countries in the Global South (e.g., India and Viet Nam) and the Global North (e.g., France and Italy) were absent from the list of 20 most productive countries. Notably, all those excluded countries were non-English speaking, except India, where English is one of the official languages (Maxwell et al., 2023). This suggests that the knowledge production gap may be influenced not only by the divide between the Global South and North but also by linguistic differences. It’s worth mentioning that most publications on education and COVID-19 are primarily in English, which we will discuss in more detail in the “Language of Publications” section.

Table 2.

The 20 Most Covid-19 Affected Countries.

Note. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard, WHO (2022) . Retrieved on February 12, 2023. https://covid19.who.int/table. Countries absent from the 20 most productive countries are circled in orange.

Most Productive Institutions

The institution-wise productivity analysis also underlined the Global South/North discrepancies in knowledge production since publications were dominated by Western institutions with no institutions from the Global South (Table 3).

Table 3.

The 20 Most Leading Institutions in Educational Research on Covid-19.

Institution	Publication
University of London	1,322
State University System of Florida	1,313
University of California	1,274
University System of Ohio	1,115
University System of Georgia	1,043
University of North Carolina	1,002
University of Texas System	913
California State University	901
University College London (UCL)	877
Ministry of Science of Ukraine	835
Pennsylvania Commonwealth System of Higher Education (PASSHE)	831
Monash University	819
Education University of Hong Kong	718
UCL Institute of Education	654
University of Wisconsin System	621
Michigan State University	614
University of Hong Kong	612
State University of New York (SUNY)	610
University of Toronto	596
Deakin University	561

Social Structure: Collaborative Network Analysis Between Countries and Institutions

Collaboration Between Countries

Following the descriptive analysis, a co-authorship analysis was conducted to examine the patterns of intellectual collaborations between countries and institutions. Only countries with five or more co-authored publications were retained (n = 147). The size of the nodes indicates the level of publication activity, with larger nodes representing more active publications. The proximity of nodes reflects the strength of the co-authorship relationship, with closer nodes indicating a tighter relationship.

The analysis revealed several distinct collaborative clusters, as shown in different colors, mainly formed around geographical proximities, including Africa, South America, Euro-Central Asia, South East Asia, East Asia and Oceania, Europe, and Africa (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Global scientific collaborative networks. Country co-authorship networks for all countries with five or more publications in the dataset (n = 147).

The network analysis revealed four key findings. First, the Global North countries, predominantly Western, displayed a higher level of global connectivity, particularly the USA, England, and Australia. The USA stood out with its prominent position in global scientific collaborative networks, as indicated by the largest-sized nod (Figure 5a).

Figure 5.

(a) Well-connected western countries’ collaborative networks: USA. (b) Global North Asian countries’ collaborative networks: Japan. (c) South Africa’s collaborative networks. (d) China’s collaborative networks. (e) South American countries’ collaborative networks: Brazil. (f) Russia’s collaborative networks.

Second, non-Western Global North countries had localized and less visible collaborative networks compared to Western countries, which had extensive global collaborations. For example, Japan, despite being a top country, had relatively small and localized networks in Asia despite worldwide collaborations (Figure 5b).

Third, the collaborative networks of Southern countries were generally smaller than those of the Global North, with South Africa and China being exceptions. This suggests a discrepancy in knowledge production between the Global South and North, reflecting the asymmetries already indicated through the productivity analysis.

South Africa stood out as a productive state in Africa, with active collaborative networks both within and outside the continent (Figure 5c).

China also presented an exceptional pattern within Southern countries as it had wider worldwide networks than other Asian countries (Figure 5d).

Fourth, collaborative networks were influenced by geographical and linguistic proximities, and political alliances. For example, Brazil had collaborative networks mainly within South America and with Spain (Figure 5e).

Likewise, Russia, the top knowledge producer in its region (Hernández-Torrano et al., 2021; Kataeva et al., 2023), had active collaborations with post-socialist states, highlighting the influence of political factors and geographic and linguistic proximities (Figure 5f).

Collaboration Between Institutions

The study examined collaborative networks based on co-authorship between institutions, specifically focusing on institutions with 15 or more co-authored publications (n = 1,795). The size of the nodes in the network indicates publication activity, while the proximity of nodes reflects the strength of the co-authorship relationship. Bigger nodes represent more active publications, and closer nodes indicate tighter co-authorship relationships. The analysis indicated frequent collaborations among institutions, particularly at the country and regional levels, as shown by differently colored clusters (Figure 6). The institutions with the largest collaborative networks, mostly located in the Global North, tended to have networks concentrated within the same country, such as in the United States, Australia or China.

Figure 6.

Institutional collaborative networks. Institutional co-authorship networks for all institutions with 15 or more publications in the dataset (n = 1,795).

Intellectual Structure Analysis

Language of Publications

The analysis of the intellectual structure of the data set revealed disparities in knowledge production between the Global South and North, as well as within the North, as English dominated the existing literature on education and COVID-19 (Table 4).

Table 4.

Languages of Publications.

Language	Publication
English	86,009
Spanish	5,383
Portuguese	3,149
Russian	359
Turkish	312
French	295
German	279
Bulgarian	232
Ukrainian	108
Chinese	96
Slovenian	59
Dutch	37
Polish	25
Icelandic	23
Arabic	20
Italian	19
Croatian	17

Funding Agencies

Similarly, the top 20 funding agencies were all from the Global North (Table 5), with the most active ones being from English-speaking countries like the USA, UK, Australia, and Canada (Table 6).

Table 5.

Funding Agencies.

Funding agency	Publication
National Science Foundation (NSF)	1,644
European Commission	974
US Department Of Education	644
US Department of Health Human Services	524
Ministry of Science and Technology Taiwan	504
Australian Research Council	481
National Institute of Health (NIH)	466
UK Research Innovation (UKRI)	445
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)	428
Spanish Government	424
National Science Foundation of China (NSFC)	402
Projekt Deal	382
Ministry of Education Culture Sports Science and Technology (MEXT) Japan	345
Economic Social Research Council (ESRC), UK	335
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science	316
Federal Ministry of Education Research (BMBF)	303
German Research Foundation (DFG)	266
Swedish Research Council	254
Academy of Finland	250
Spencer Foundation	245

Table 6.

Countries of the 20 Most Active Funding Agencies.

Country	Number of agency	Country	Number of agency
USA	4	EU	1
Germany	3	Finland	1
UK	2	Portugal	1
Japan	2	Spain	1
Australia	1	Sweden	1
Canada	1	Taiwan	1
China	1

Journals With Highest Level of Productivity

Table 7 ranks the most productive journals. The top three journals are Education Sciences (n = 1,960), BMC Medical Education (n = 1,888) and Frontiers in Education. All three are Open Access journals, and overall, nine journals are open-access for users. The journals are mixed in terms of focus. Seven journals are broader in thematic scope and education sectors (#1, 3, 6, 10, 12, 15 and 16), four focus on technologies (#4, 5, 8 and 9) and two each on health (# 2 and 19), teaching and teacher education (# 7 & 11), and higher education (#14 and 18). The remaining three journals focused on one or another specialized area (#13 and 17) or sector (# 20).

Table 7.

Top 20 Journals for the Published Articles.

	Journal	# of Publication	Publication Model
1	Education Sciences	1,960	OA
2	BMC Medical Education	1,888	OA
3	Frontiers in Education	1,607	OA
4	Education and Information Technologies	1,361	Hybrid
5	International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning	771	OA
6	Revista Conrado	742	OA
7	Teaching and Teacher Education	657	Hybrid
8	Interactive Learning Environments	571	Hybrid
9	Computers & Education	545	Hybrid
10	International Journal of Instruction	507	OA
11	Teaching in Higher Education	493	Hybrid
12	Revista Ibero-Americana De Estudos Em Educacao	484	OA
13	International Journal of Inclusive Education	483	Hybrid
14	Higher Education	481	Hybrid
15	Revista On Line De Politica E Gestao Educacional	478	OA
16	Cogent Education	463	OA
17	International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism	437	Hybrid
18	Higher Education Research & Development	427	Hybrid
19	Journal of American College Health	417	Hybrid
20	Early Childhood Education Journal	413	Hybrid

Note. Out of 95,700 articles on Mar 26. Please note that as of Mar 26, the total number of extracted articles, books and book chapters was 97,657 compared to 95,628 on Feb 12.

Conceptual Structure Analysis: Trends in Thematic Foci

To explore the themes in the literature on education and COVID-19, a co-occurrence analysis of keywords in the titles, abstracts, and keyword lists of publications was conducted. Only keywords with 50 or more co-occurrences were included (n = 1,726). The analysis found that the majority of keywords were related to performativity, institutions, teaching methodologies, attitudes and experiences. However, keywords related to equity and social justice were largely absent, except for gender (Table 8).

Table 8.

The 20 Most Frequently Occurred Keywords.

Keyword	Keyword occurrence
Education	13,192
Students	7,957
Higher Education	8,290
Knowledge	4,243
Impact	4,139
Teachers	3,939
Performance	3,551
Perceptions	3,282
Science	3,123
Achievement	3,103
COVID-19	3,001
Children	2,985
Motivation	2,965
Higher-education	2,708
Model	2,699
School	2,680
Gender	2,603
Technology	2,471
Engagement	2,217
Experiences	2,206
Self-efficacy	2,075

The mapping of co-occurring keywords also indicated similar trends. The analysis identified six thematic clusters of the publications based on the co-occurred keywords: (1) language and literacy; (2) cognition; (3) competency and performance; (4) teaching and learning methods; (5) well-being; and (6) pedagogy and inclusiveness (Figure 7). However, only the pedagogy and inclusiveness cluster (in red color) was related to the concept of equity and social justice. Other clusters focused more on the practical and technical aspects of education. Many keywords related to equity and social justice had low co-occurrences (Table 9).

Figure 7.

Thematic foci of the existing publications on education and covid-19. Co-occurrence networks for all keywords with 50 or more publications in the dataset (n = 1,726).

Table 9.

Keywords Related to Equity and Social Justice.

Keyword	Occurrences	Keyword	Occurrences
Gender	2,603	Neoliberalism	576
Diversity	1,155	Inequality/ies	506/101
Inclusion	978	Disability/ies	487/374
Equity	946	Racism	388
Women	888	Rural education	241
Inclusive education	747	Disparities	142
Social justice	672	Digital divide	111

To understand trends in the thematic foci of publications, keywords were analyzed biannually (Figure 8a–c). This analysis did not reveal a significant change in thematic foci. The “social justice cluster” has remained a peripheral focus, gradually becoming a distinct cluster separate from other clusters, suggesting a decrease in its relation to other clusters, including the central keyword “education.”

Figure 8.

(a) Keywords related to equity and social justice – 2020 January – December, (b) keywords related to equity and social justice – 2021 January – December, (c) keywords related to equity and social justice – 2022 January – December.

The most cited publications on education and COVID-19 primarily focused on the technical and methodical aspects of education (Table 10), such as online teaching-learning, confirming the trends observed through co-occurrence analysis (Table 8). However, there was a surprising lack of emphasis on equity and social justice, despite reports from organizations like UNESCO (2021a) and UNICEF (2020) highlighting the inequitable access to education during the pandemic.

Table 10.

The Five Most Cited Publications on Education and COVID-19.

Rank	Paper title	Citations
1	Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany	365
2	Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement	331
3	Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the e-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic	329
4	COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration	328
5	The sudden transition to synchronized online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: A qualitative study exploring medical students’ perspectives	277
6	Distance learning in clinical medical education amid COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan: current situation, challenges, and perspectives	234
7	The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on final year medical students in the United Kingdom: A national survey	208
8	U.S. faculty and administrators’ experiences and approaches in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic	201
9	Factors contributing to teacher burnout during COVID-19	159
10	Adaptations to a face-to-face initial teacher education course “forced” online due to the COVID-19 pandemic	159
11	E-learning critical success factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives	157
12	COVID-19 and schooling: evaluation, assessment and accountability in times of crises-reacting quickly to explore key issues for policy, practice and research with the school barometer	155
13	Student perspective of classroom and distance learning during COVID-19 pandemic in the undergraduate dental study program Universitas Indonesia	149
14	Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic	142
15	Teacher education in times of COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal: national, institutional and pedagogical responses	137
16	Learning and teaching online during Covid-19: Experiences of student teachers in an early childhood education practicum	133
17	The COVID-19 pandemic and e-learning: Challenges and opportunities from the perspective of students and instructors	132
18	Comparative analysis of student’s live online learning readiness during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in the higher education sector	130
19	Faculty readiness for online crisis teaching: transitioning to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic	129
20	Social isolation and acceptance of the learning management system (LMS) in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: An expansion of the UTAUT Model	125

Research Design and Methods

The research designs employed in the publications were manually examined to understand how the field was studied. This was necessary as the WoS database does not provide information on the specific research methods utilized in the studies. The most frequently used designs were qualitative (60%; n = 13,720), followed by quantitative (25%; n = 5,745), and mixed-methods (15%; n = 3,318). In terms of data collection methods, surveys or questionnaires were the most frequently used method, followed by interviews and observations (Table 11).

Table 11.

Data Collection Methods

	2020	2021	2022	Total	Percentage
Survey/Questionnaire	6,621	7,354	7,065	21,040	47.1
Interview	5,242	5,475	5,019	15,736	35.2
Observation	1,725	1,769	1,444	4,938	11.1
Focus group	932	986	909	2,827	6.3
Oral history	25	31	31	87	0.2
Photo elicitation	21	24	14	59	0.1

The most frequently utilized methods were content analysis, thematic analysis, and discourse analysis (Table 12).

Table 12.

Data Analysis Methods.

	2020	2021	2022	Total
Content analysis	824	986	806	2,616
Thematic analysis	503	632	740	1,875
Discourse analysis	291	287	238	816
Grounded theory	209	189	179	577
Document analysis	187	190	177	554
Narrative analysis	46	48	39	133
Text analysis	29	32	26	87
Exploratory analysis	19	15	25	59
SWOT analysis	8	13	18	39
Inferential analysis	9	12	11	32
Descriptive analysis	11	11	13	35
Trend analysis	5	9	8	22
Gap analysis	4	5	3	12
Conjoint analysis	6	4	5	15
Predictive analysis	3	4	6	13
Causal analysis	2	1	3	6
Cross-tabulation	2	2	5	9
Mechanistic analysis	0	0	1	1

Discussion and Conclusion

This study used a bibliometric approach to map the literature on education during COVID-19 from the lens of EiE. Unlike previous emergencies such as conflict, natural disasters or infectious diseases, which mainly affected education systems in specific geographic locations, particularly in the Global South, the COVID-19 pandemic had a worldwide impact. This global influence is evident in the research productivity on the topic. A total of 95,628 publications were retrieved from the Education and Educational Research journal category indexed in the WoS Core Collection database from 2020 to February 2023. There was a slight but steady growth in publications over time, as well as the spread of publications across countries and institutions showcasing the global nature of knowledge production in the field.

The study found that the Global North countries were dominant in knowledge production, with a larger share of the literature and all the most productive institutions located there. Interestingly, some countries with high numbers of COVID-19 cases were not among the top productive countries. All of these countries, except India, are non-English speaking countries. This dominance of the Global North countries was also reported by Zhang et al. (2022), who noted that 62% (n = 808) of the literature represented the Global North countries, while the share of scholars from the Global North accounted for 38% (n = 496). Likewise, Su et al. (2022) found that all six of the top productive countries in their analysis of the literature on early childhood education during COVID-19 were from the Global North, except for China. However, Mishra et al. (2021) found a more optimistic picture in their study on online distance education during the pandemic, with several Global South countries, including India, Pakistan, Malaysia, and the Philippines, among the top 20 most productive countries. It is worth noting that Mishra et al.’s (2021) study focused on post-compulsory education and had a smaller scale.

The analysis of the field’s social structure shows substantial global collaboration, which aligns with the expectation that the widespread use of technology, social media, and virtual research during the COVID-19 pandemic (Kobakhidze et al., 2021; Sah et al., 2020) would enable broader participation from underrepresented countries. However, while most countries in the Global North had strong global collaborations, South Korea and Japan had a relatively smaller share of global collaboration and their collaborative networks were predominantly localized in Asia.

In contrast to the Global North countries, collaborative networks among Global South countries tend to be localized and influenced by geography, language, and political alliances, except for China, which has broader worldwide collaborations. China’s unique position as the origin of the COVID-19 outbreak (WHO, 2020) and its large number of cases may explain this (Table 2). However, China’s research productivity is increasing. In 2018, China surpassed the USA in the number of original research articles in the WoS Core Collection’s Science Citation Index Expanded database (Zhu & Liu, 2020). Additionally, China’s international research collaborations, particularly with the USA, are growing stronger (Lee & Haupt, 2020).

This study observed disparities in the intellectual structure of the publications across and within northern and southern countries. The majority (89%) of the publications were in English, highlighting the importance of English in knowledge hierarchies. The current study provides a valuable contribution to the literature by examining the role of funding agencies in the creation of knowledge hierarchies. Unlike previous bibliometric papers, this study focused on the involvement of funding agencies. The findings revealed that the funding agencies supporting the studies were exclusively from the Global North, with a significant presence from English-speaking countries like the USA, UK, Australia, and Canada. This highlights the importance of funding agencies in these countries in shaping the knowledge landscape and raises questions about the potential biases and limitations in the dissemination of research.

This study found that the focus of the most productive journals extended beyond technology-focused ones. Mishra et al. (2021) also noted a similar trend, where none of the top journals publishing studies on online distance learning during COVID-19 were included in pre-COVID bibliometric analyses on e-learning. This suggests that a wide range of issues beyond technology emerged, which explains the interest of non-digital learning-focused journals in publishing education studies in the context of the COVID-19 emergency. The top three most productive journals were Education Sciences, BMC Medical Education and Frontiers in Education. Notably, Education Sciences and Frontiers in Education were also among the top 10 most productive journals in Mishra et al.’s (2021) study. Nine out of the 20 most productive journals were open-access. This suggests a preference for open-access outlets among authors or funders, or it could indicate more efficient peer-review processes used by open-access journals.

The analysis of the conceptual structure of the literature, conducted by examining keywords and co-occurring keywords, revealed a predominant emphasis on performativity and teaching methodologies with limited attention to equity and social justice, except for gender. In the co-occurrence analysis, equity and social justice were not among the top keywords. Social justice and equity were also not among the top 10 keywords in the co-occurrence analysis of Fauzi’s (2022) study. The current study expands on previous research by examining the evolution of the literature’s conceptual structure over time. The findings reveal that there has been a persistent marginalization of the thematic focus on social justice since 2020. However, it is promising that gender is considered in the context of education and emergencies during the pandemic since pre-pandemic research on EiE has consistently argued for a greater focus on gender in examining the relationship between education and emergencies (Datzberger & Le Mat, 2018; Durrani & Halai, 2018; Kirk, 2006).

The current study significantly builds upon previous bibliometric research conducted in the field of education during the COVID-19 pandemic by mapping and categorizing the research designs, data collection methods and analytical procedures used within the retrieved literature. A variety of research designs were used in the studies, with qualitative designs being the most prevalent, accounting for 60% of the total. Quantitative designs were used next, followed by mixed-methods designs. Surveys or questionnaires were the most frequently used data collection method, followed by interviews and observation. The most commonly used data analysis methods included content, thematic, and discourse analysis. Interestingly, there is an under-representation of analytical methods related to surveys, possibly due to a lack of explicit mention in abstracts, titles or keywords.

Limitations

The study’s fundamental limitation pertains to the over-dominance of English within the extracted datasets, which underscores the limitations of databases like the WoS, which do not include major world languages, a limitation well-noted by other scholars (Hernández-Torrano et al., 2021; Kataeva et al., 2023). Furthermore, the current lack of representation of scholars from the Global South in databases like the WoS fails to fully acknowledge the valuable contributions made by these scholars. This is due to various barriers, such as language, which may lead them to publish their research in non-indexed journals, commissioned studies, research reports, and gray literature. Finally, the extracted data was narrowed down to the Education and Educational Research Journal category, and thus, papers published in other disciplines but with some focus on education might have been excluded.

Implications

Research

The extensive volume of literature generated on education and the COVID-19 emergency highlights the need for systematic reviews that involve a structured approach to gathering, organizing, and evaluating existing research using content and thematic analyses and are particularly well-suited for narrow or specialized research areas (Donthu et al., 2021). These methods are necessary to assess the immediate and long-term effects of the pandemic on education and stakeholders (e.g., what is the impact of school closures on teacher burnout in the short- and long-term?). Additionally, systematic reviews offer an opportunity to learn valuable lessons on how to enhance the resilience of education systems to global emergencies and explore possibilities for envisioning a more equitable education system. Understanding this information is vital in improving the readiness of education systems for future crises and leveraging the knowledge gained to reimagine education (Zhao & Watterston, 2021). Moreover, researchers should also broaden their thematic focus to include social justice in education during emergencies and post-emergency reconstruction of education systems.

Policy

Given the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education systems, policymakers should prioritize international collaboration and knowledge-sharing to address common challenges and develop effective strategies. Efforts should be made to promote equitable funding distribution and support research from underrepresented countries. Supporting accessibility and open-access publications will ensure research findings are readily available to all for improving policy and practice and identifying under-researched areas. Furthermore, efforts and investments should be made to translate and distribute research findings in multiple languages to ensure broader accessibility.

Practice

Education practitioners should consider the diverse range of issues that have emerged in the context of the pandemic beyond a focus on technology. Additionally, practitioners should pay attention to equity and social justice, particularly in relation to gender, and work toward integrating these themes into institutional policies and practices.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is funded by Nazarbayev University via Grant no. 021220CRP1122 awarded to Naureen Durrani and the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) via the Arts and Humanities Research Council (grant number AH/T008075/1).

ORCID iDs

Naureen Durrani

Vanessa Ozawa

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper.

References

Akabayashi

Taguchi

Zvedelikova

(2023). Access to and demand for online school education during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. International Journal of Educational Development, 96, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102687

Anderson

Hayers

Carpenter

(2020). Principal as caregiver of all: Responding to needs of others and self [CPRE Policy Briefs]. https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_policybriefs/92

Andrew

Cattan

Costa Dias

Farquharson

Kraftman

Krutikova

Phimister

Sevilla

(2020). Learning during the lockdown: Real-time data on children’s experiences during home learning. https://ifs.org.uk/publications/learning-during-lockdown-real-time-data-childrens-experiences-during-home-learning

Angrist

de Barros

Bhula

Chakera

Cummiskey

DeStefano

Floretta

Kaffenberger

Piper

Stern

(2021). Building back better to avert a learning catastrophe: Estimating learning loss from COVID-19 school shutdowns in Africa and facilitating short-term and long-term learning recovery. International Journal of Educational Development, 84, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102397

Arnold

Rahimi

Riley

(2021). Working through the first year of the pandemic: A snapshot of Australian school leaders’ work roles and responsibilities and health and wellbeing during COVID-19. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 53(3-4), 301–309.

Arruti

Korres

Paños-Castro

(2022). Psychological impact of COVID-19 on primary education teachers in the Basque country. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.921647

Aviv-Reuven

Rosenfeld

(2021). Publication patterns’ changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal and short-term scientometric analysis. Scientometrics, 126(8), 6761–6784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04059-x

Azevedo

J. P.

Gutierrez

Hoyos

R. D.

Saavedra

(2022). The unequal impacts of COVID-19 on student learning. In Reimers

F. M.

(Ed.), Primary and secondary education during COVID-19: Disruptions to educational opportunity during a pandemic (pp. 421–459). Springer.

Azhari

Fajri

(2022). Distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: School closure in Indonesia. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(7), 1934–1954. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739x.2021.1875072

10.

Barbour

M. K.

LaBonte

Hodges

C. B.

Moore

Lockee

B. B.

Trust

Kelly

(2020). Understanding pandemic pedagogy: Differences between emergency remote, remote, and online teaching. State of the Nation: K-12 e-Learning in Canada. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/101905

11.

Basilaia

Kvavadze

(2020). Transition to online education in schools during a SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in Georgia. Pedagogical Research, 5(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/7937

12.

Bellemans

Devos

Tuytens

Vekeman

(2023). The role of self-efficacy on feelings of burnout among Flemish school principals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Educational Administration, 61(6), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-09-2022-0138

13.

Betthäuser

B. A.

Bach-Mortensen

A. M.

Engzell

(2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(3), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01506-4 Article 3.

14.

Bianchi

Caso

(2022). Distance learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Italian teachers’ well-being and the role of age on ICT adoption. Statistica Applicata - Italian Journal of Applied Statistics, 33(2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.26398/IJAS.0033-010

15.

Billett

Turner

(2022). Australian teacher stress, well-being, self-efficacy, and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychology in the Schools, 60(5), 1394–1414. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22713

16.

Bokayev

Torebekova

Davletbayeva

Zhakypova

(2021). Distance learning in Kazakhstan: Estimating parents’ satisfaction of educational quality during the coronavirus. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2020.1865192

17.

Burde

Kapit

Wahl

R. L.

Guven

Skarpeteig

M. I.

(2017). Education in emergencies: A Review of Theory and Research. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 619–658. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316671594

18.

Chabbott

Sinclair

(2020). SDG 4 and the COVID-19 emergency: Textbooks, tutoring, and teachers. Prospects, 49(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09485-y

19.

Crosslin

Bailey

(2021). Mother school leaders negotiate ‘blurred lines’ between work and home during COVID-19. Planning and Changing, 50(3–4), 165–289.

20.

Datzberger

Le Mat

M. L.

(2018). Just add women and stir? Education, gender and peacebuilding in Uganda. International Journal of Educational Development, 59, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.09.006

21.

Demeshkant

Schultheis

Hiebl

(2022). School sustainability and school leadership during crisis remote education: Polish and German experience. Computers in the Schools, 39(2), 120–136.

22.

Donthu

Kumar

Mukherjee

Pandey

Lim

W. M.

(2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

23.

Doyle Fosco

S. L.

Brown

M. A.

Schussler

D. L.

(2023). Factors affecting educational leader wellbeing: Sources of stress and self-care. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432231184601

24.

du Plessis

(2021). COVID-19: Leading in disruptive times – Challenges for school leaders. Alternation Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of the Arts and Humanities in Southern Africa, 28(1), 316–337. https://doi.org/10.29086/2519-5476/2021/v28n1a12

25.

Durrani

Halai

(2018). Dynamics of gender justice, conflict and social cohesion: Analysing educational reforms in Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Development, 61, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.11.010

26.

Durrani

Qanay

Mir

Helmer

Polat

Karimova

Temirbekova

(2023). Achieving SDG 4, equitable quality education after COVID-19: Global evidence and a case study of kazakhstan. Sustainability, 15(20), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014725

27.

Easterbrook

M. J.

Doyle

Grozev

V. H.

Kosakowska-Berezecka

Harris

P. R.

Phalet

(2023). Socioeconomic and gender inequalities in home learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining the roles of the home environment, parent supervision, and educational provisions. Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 40(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/20590776.2021.2014281

28.

Elomaa

Eskelä-Haapanen

Pakarinen

Halttunen

Lerkkanen

M.-K.

(2022). Elementary school principals’ work from the ecological systems perspective: Evidence from Finland. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221125999

29.

Engzell

Frey

Verhagen

M. D.

(2021). Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022376118

30.

Ewing

L. A.

Cooper

H. B.

(2021). Technology-enabled remote learning during COVID-19: Perspectives of Australian teachers, students and parents. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 30, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1868562

31.

Fauzi

M. A.

(2022). E-learning in higher education institutions during COVID-19 pandemic: Current and future trends through bibliometric analysis. Heliyon, 8(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09433

32.

Fernandes

Wong

Noonan

(2023). Developing adaptability and agility in leadership amidst the COVID-19 crisis: Experiences of early-career school principals. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(2), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-02-2022-0076

33.

Fiş Erümit

(2021). The distance education process in K–12 schools during the pandemic period: Evaluation of implementations in Turkey from the student perspective. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2020.1856178

34.

Haelermans

Korthals

Jacobs

de Leeuw

Vermeulen

van Vugt

Aarts

Prokic-Breuer

van der Velden

van Wetten

de Wolf

(2022). Sharp increase in inequality in education in times of the covid-19-pandemic. PLoS One, 17(2), 1–37, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261114

35.

Harris

Jones

(2020). COVID 19 – School leadership in disruptive times. School Leadership and Management, 40(4), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479

36.

Harris

Jones

(2023). Compassionate leadership. School Leadership and Management, 43(3), 185–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2023.2235540

37.

Haser

Ç.

Doğan

Kurt Erhan

(2022). Tracing students’ mathematics learning loss during school closures in teachers’ self-reported practices. International Journal of Educational Development, 88(102536) 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102536

38.

Heffernan

Mills

(2023). Love, care, and solidarity: Understanding the emotional and affective labour of school leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 53(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2022.2103099

39.

Hernández-Torrano

Karabassova

Izekenova

Courtney

M. G. R.

(2021). Mapping education research in post-Soviet countries: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Educational Development, 87, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102502

40.

Ivanović

Y. S.

(2019). Highly cited articles in the education and educational research category in the social science citation Index: A bibliometric analysis. Educational Review, 71(3), 277–286.

41.

Jatmiko

Prahani

B. K.

Suprapto

Admoko

Deta

U. A.

Lestari

N. A.

Jauhariyah

M. N. R.

Yantidewi

Muliyati

(2021). Bibliometric analysis on online physics learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Contribution to physics education undergraduate program. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 2110(1), 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2110/1/012018

42.

Jones

Sanchez Tapia

Baird

Guglielmi

Oakley

Yadete

W. A.

Sultan

Pincock

(2021). Intersecting barriers to adolescents’ educational access during COVID-19: Exploring the role of gender, disability and poverty. International Journal of Educational Development, 85, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102428

43.

Kagawa

(2005). Emergency education: A critical review of the field. Comparative Education, 41(4), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060500317620

44.

Karakose

Ozdemir

T. Y.

Papadakis

Yirci

Ozkayran

S. E.

Polat

(2022). Investigating the relationships between COVID-19 quality of life, loneliness, happiness, and internet addiction among K-12 teachers and school administrators-A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031052 Article 3.

45.

Karakose

Polat

Papadakis

(2021). Examining teachers’ perspectives on school principals’ digital leadership roles and technology capabilities during the covid-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 13(23), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313448

46.

Karakose

Yirci

Papadakis

(2022). Examining the associations between COVID-19-related psychological distress, social media addiction, COVID-19-related burnout, and depression among school principals and teachers through structural equation modeling. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4), 1951. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041951

47.

Karakose

Yirci

Papadakis

Ozdemir

T. Y.

Demirkol

Polat

(2021). Science mapping of the global knowledge base on management, leadership, and administration related to COVID-19 for promoting the sustainability of scientific research. Sustainability, 13(17), 9631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179631

48.

Kataeva

Durrani

Izekenova

Rakhimzhanova

(2023). Evolution of gender research in the social sciences in post-Soviet countries: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 128(3), 1639–1666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04619-9

49.

Kim

L. E.

Oxley

Asbury

(2022). “My brain feels like a browser with 100 tabs open”: A longitudinal study of teachers’ mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12450

50.

Kirk

(2006). Education in emergencies: The gender implications. Advocacy brief. UNESCO. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496357.pdf

51.

Kobakhidze

M. N.

Hui

Chui

González

(2021). Research disruptions, new opportunities: Re-imagining qualitative interview study during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211051576

52.

König

Jäger-Biela

D. J.

Glutsch

(2020). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650

53.

Kosaretsky

Zair-Bek

Kersha

Zvyagintsev

(2022). General education in Russia during COVID-19: Readiness, policy response, and lessons learned. In Reimers

F. M.

(Ed.), Primary and secondary education during COVID-19: Disruptions to educational opportunity during a pandemic (pp. 227–263). Springer.

54.

Kuhfeld

Soland

Tarasawa

Johnson

Ruzek

Liu

(2020). Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x20965918

55.

Kumar

Verma

(2021). An exploratory assessment of the educational practices during COVID-19. Quality Assurance in Education, 29(4), 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-12-2020-0170

56.

Landa

Zhou

Marongwe

(2021). Education in emergencies: Lessons from COVID-19 in South Africa. International Review of Education, 67(1–2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-021-09903-z

57.

Lee

J. J.

Haupt

J. P.

(2020). Winners and losers in US-China scientific research collaborations. Higher Education, 80(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00464-7

58.

Lien

C. M.

Khan

Eid

(2023). School principals’ experiences and learning from the covid-19 pandemic in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(5), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2043430

59.

Linnenluecke

M. K.

Marrone

Singh

A. K.

(2020). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877678

60.

Lopez Cardozo

Novelli

(2018). Education in emergencies: Tracing the emergence of a field. In Verger

Novelli

Altinyelken

H. K.

(Eds.), Global education policy and international development: New agendas, issues and policies (pp. 234–254). Bloomsbury.

61.

Lücker

Kästner

Hannich

Schmeyers

Lücker

Hoffmann

(2022). Stress, coping and considerations of leaving the Profession-A cross-sectional online survey of teachers and school principals after two years of the pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 1–17, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316122

62.

Magill

K. R.

Rodriguez

(2022). Intellectual leadership for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2022.2153111

63.

Marshall

D. T.

Pressley

Neugebauer

N. M.

Shannon

D. M.

(2022). Why teachers are leaving and what we can do about it. Phi Delta Kappan, 104(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217221123642

64.

Maxwell

Diskin-Holdaway

Loakes

(2023). Attitudes towards Indian English among young urban professionals in Hyderabad, India. World Englishes, 42(2), 272–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12550

65.

McLeod

Dulsky

(2021). Resilience, reorientation, and reinvention: School leadership during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Education, 6, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.637075

66.

Meinck

Fraillon

Strietholt

(2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education: International evidence from the responses to Educational Disruption Survey (REDS). International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

67.

Mendoza

N. B.

King

R. B.

Haw

J. Y.

(2023). The mental health and well-being of students and teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Combining classical statistics and machine learning approaches. Educational Psychologist, 43(5), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2023.2226846

68.

Mishra

Sahoo

Pandey

(2021). Research trends in online distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Distance Education, 42(4), 494–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.1986373

69.

Monroy-Gómez-Franco

Vélez-Grajales

López-Calva

L. F.

(2022). The potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on learnings. International Journal of Educational Development, 91, 102581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102581

70.

Mukherjee

Lim

W. M.

Kumar

Donthu

(2022). Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research, 148, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.042

71.

Naidu

(2023). In the wake of COVID-19—A time to rethink and reengineer education systems. Distance Education, 44(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2023.2165432

72.

Netolicky

D. M.

(2020). School leadership during a pandemic: Navigating tensions. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 391–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpcc-05-2020-0017

73.

Nicolai

(2003). Education in emergencies: A tool kit for starting and managing education in emergencies. Save the Children. https://migrantcentres.iom.int/system/files/import/toolkit/stc_toolkit_education_in_emergency.pdf

74.

Okilwa

N. S. A.

Barnett

B. G.

(2021). Strategies and practices of leading schools during the current COVID-19 crisis. International Studies in Educational Administration, 49(3), 61–81.

75.

Orhan

Beyhan

(2020). Teachers’ perceptions and teaching experiences on distance education through synchronous video conferencing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences and Education Research Review, 1(7), 8–44.

76.

Oulo

Sidle

A. A.

Kintzi

Mwangi

Akello

(2021). Understanding the barriers to girls’ school return: Girls’ voices from the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic in East Africa. AMPLIFY Girls.

77.

Palau

Fuentes

Mogas

Cebrián

(2021). Analysis of the implementation of teaching and learning processes at Catalan schools during the COVID-19 lockdown. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2020.1863855

78.

Parker

Morris

Hofmeyr

(2020). Education, inequality, and innovation in the time of COVID-19. JET Education Services. https://www.jet.org.za/resources/theme-9-final-july-2020-parker-et-al.pdf

79.

Pathak

Singh

(2023). Trends in e-learning research: Bibliometric analysis on Scopus publications post COVID-19 in Asian context. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeas-03-2022-0072

80.

Patrinos

H. A.

(2023). The longer students were out of school, the less they learned. Journal of School Choice, 17, 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2023.2210941

81.

Peng

(2022). A bibliometric analysis of linguistic research on COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1005487

82.

Pigozzi

M. J.

(1999). Education in emergencies and for reconstruction: A developmental approach. UNICEF.

83.

Reimer

Smith

Andersen

I. G.

Sortkær

(2021). What happens when schools shut down? Investigating inequality in students’ reading behavior during covid-19 in Denmark. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 71, 100568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2020.100568

84.

Sah

L. K.

Singh

D. R.

Sah

R. K.

(2020). Conducting qualitative interviews using virtual communication tools amid COVID-19 pandemic: A learning opportunity for future research. JNMA, 58(232), 1103–1106. https://doi.org/10.31729/jnma.5738

85.

Schuurman

T. M.

Henrichs

L. F.

Schuurman

N. K.

Polderdijk

Hornstra

(2023). Learning loss in vulnerable student populations after the first Covid-19 school closure in the Netherlands. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(2), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.2006307

86.

Selvanathan

Hussin

N. A.

Azazi

N. A.

(2020). Students learning experiences during COVID-19: Work from home period in Malaysian higher learning institutions. Teaching Public Administration, 41(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739420977900

87.

Shah

Paulson

Couch

(2020). The rise of resilience in education in emergencies. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 14(3), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2019.1694390

88.

Shohel

M. M. C.

Mahmud

Urmee

M. A.

Anwar

M. N.

Rahman

M. M.

Acharya

Ashrafuzzaman

(2021). Education in emergencies, mental wellbeing and e-learning. In Shohel

M. M. C.

(Ed.), E-learning and digital education in the twenty-first century. 165–178. IntechOpen.

89.

Sigursteinsdottir

Rafnsdottir

G. L.

(2022). The well-being of primary school teachers during COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811177

90.

Sinclair

(2002). Planning education in and after emergencies. UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.

91.

Smith

Vaux

(2003). Education, conflict and international development. Department for International Development. http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/sd29.pdf

92.

Sosa Díaz

M. J.

(2021). Emergency remote education, family support and the digital divide in the context of the COVID-19 lockdown. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15), 7956. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157956

93.

Stone-Johnson

Miles Weiner

(2020). Principal professionalism in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 367–374. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpcc-05-2020-0020

94.

D. T. K.

Yang

(2022). Global trends in the research on early childhood education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A bibliometric analysis. Education Sciences, 12(5), 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050331 Article 5.

95.

Tate

Warschauer

(2022). Equity in online learning. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2062597

96.

Timotheou

Miliou

Dimitriadis

Sobrino

S. V.

Giannoutsou

Cachia

Monés

A. M.

Ioannou

(2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools’ digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8

97.

Torres-Salinas

Robinson-Garcia

Castillo-Valdivieso

P. A.

(2020). Open access and altmetrics in the pandemic age: Forecast analysis on COVID-19 literature. Scientific Communication and Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.23.057307

98.

Trinidad

J. E.

(2021). Equity, engagement, and health: School organisational issues and priorities during COVID-19. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 53(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2020.1858764

99.

Trust

Whalen

(2020). Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 189–199.

100.

Tsui

A. B. M.

Chan

C. K. K.

Harfitt

Leung

(2020). Crisis and opportunity in teacher preparation in the pandemic: Exploring the “adjacent possible”. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 237–245.

101.

UNESCO. (2011). The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000191186?posInSet=1&queryId=f15e96b1-41b9-48f4-9052-e270eac7fda0

102.

UNESCO. (2018). Global education monitoring report 2019: Migration, displacement and education–building bridges, not walls. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000372322?posInSet=1&queryId=a8e953ff-f16e-4af3-8474-fa398f3e4766

103.

UNESCO. (2021a). Global education monitoring report, 2021/2: Non-state actors in education: Who chooses? Who loses?UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379875_eng

104.

UNESCO. (2021b). When schools shut: Gendered impacts of COVID-19 school closures. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379270

105.

UNESCO. (2022). Evidence on the gendered impacts of extended school closures. A systematic review. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380935

106.

UNESCO. (2023, April 20). UNESCO responds to the global crisis in education due to COVID-19. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-responds-global-crisis-education-due-COVID-19

107.

UNESCO, World Bank & UNICEF. (2021). The state of the global education crisis: A path to recovery. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380128

108.

UNICEF. (2020). COVID-19: Are children able to continue learning during school closures?UNICEF. https://data.unicef.org/resources/remote-learning-reachability-factsheet/

109.

United Nations. (2020). Policy brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf

110.

United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative. (2022). G7 global objectives on girls’ education: Baseline report. https://www.ungei.org/publication/g7-global-objectives-girls-education

111.

van Cappelle

Chopra

Ackers

Gochyyev

(2021). An analysis of the reach and effectiveness of distance learning in India during school closures due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Development, 85, 102439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102439

112.

Vikas

Mathur

(2022). An empirical study of student perception towards pedagogy, teaching style and effectiveness of online classes. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 589–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10793-9

113.

Weißenfels

Benick

Perels

(2022). Teachers’ prerequisites for online teaching and learning: Individual differences and relations to well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Psychologist, 42, 1283–1300. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2034747

114.

Wharton-Beck

Chou

C. C.

Gilbert

Johnson

Beck

M. A.

(2024). K-12 school leadership perspectives from the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy Futures in Education, 22 (1) 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103221135620

115.

Winthrop

Mendenhall

(2006). Education in emergencies: A critical factor in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The Commonwealth Ministers Reference Book. https://inee.org/sites/default/files/resources/doc_1_48_Commonwealth_Article_Final_Proof.pdf

116.

World Health Organization. (2020). Archived: WHO timeline – COVID-19. https://www.who.int/news/item/27-04-2020-who-timeline—covid-19

117.

Zhang

Carter Ra Jr Qian

Yang

Rujimora

Wen

(2022). Academia’s responses to crisis: A bibliometric analysis of literature on online learning in higher education during COVID-19. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(3), 620–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13191

118.

Zhao

Watterston

(2021). The changes we need: Education post COVID-19. Journal of Educational Change, 22(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09417-3

119.

Zhu

Liu

(2020). Comparing like with like: China ranks first in SCI-indexed research articles since 2018. Scientometrics, 124(2), 1691–1700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03525-2