Open Access
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 258, 2021
Ural Environmental Science Forum “Sustainable Development of Industrial Region” (UESF-2021)
Article Number 07072
Number of page(s) 11
Section Psychology of Environmentally Responsible Behavior
Published online 20 May 2021
  1. S. Chiappini, A. Guirguis, A. John, J. M. Corkery, F. Schifano, COVID-19: The hidden impact on mental health and drug addiction. Frontiers in Psychiatry (2020) [Google Scholar]
  2. S. Zammi, E. Marinelli, M. R. Vari, New trends of substance abuse during COVID-19 pandemic: An international perspective. Frontiers in Psychiatry (2020) [Google Scholar]
  3. A. Anurudran, L. Yared, C. Comrie, K. Harrison, T. Burke, Domestic violence amid COVID‐19. Gynecology & Obstetrics, 150(2), 255–256 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  4. R. N. Bradbury-Jones, L. Isham, The pandemic paradox: The consequences of COVID‐19 on domestic violence. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(13-14), 2047–2049 (2020) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. E. Leslie, R. Wilson, Sheltering in place and domestic violence: Evidence from calls for service during COVID-19. Journal of Public Economics, 189, 104241 (2020) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. R. S. McIntyre, Y. Lee, Projected increases in suicide in Canada as a consequence of COVID-19. Psychiatry Research, 290, 113104 (2020) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. M. A. Reger, I. H. Stanley, T. E. Joiner, Suicide mortality and coronavirus disease 2019—A perfect storm? JAMA Psychiatry, 77(11), 1093–1094 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  8. M. La Torra, F. Pata, G. Gallo, Delayed benign surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: The other side of the coin. British Journal of Surgery, 107(8), e258 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  9. D. Negopdiev, E. Hoste, Elective surgery cancellations due to the COVID-19 pandemic: Global predictive modelling to inform surgical recovery plans. British Journal of Surgery, 107(11), 1440–1449 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  10. R. M. Bernard, P.C. Abrami, Y. Lou, E. Borokhovski, A. Wade, L. Wozney, P. Andrew, M. F. Wallet, B. Huang, How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 3(74), 379–439 (2004) [Google Scholar]
  11. D. Keegan, Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.) Routledge (1996) [Google Scholar]
  12. S. Dryden-Peterson, Refugee education: A global review. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (2011) (Last accessed 2021/02/02) [Google Scholar]
  13. K. Harry, M. John, D. Keegan, Refugees and distance education (Distance Education: New Perspectives, Routledge, 1993) [Google Scholar]
  14. A. Hirsh, The changing landscape of homeschooling in the United States. Center on Reinventing Public Education (2019) (Last accessed 2021/02/02) [Google Scholar]
  15. M. A. Wixom, State homeschool policies: A patchwork of provisions. 50-State reviews. Education Commission of the States (2015) (Last accessed 2021/02/03) [Google Scholar]
  16. T. M. Crea, N. Sparnon, Democratizing education at the margins: faculty and practitioner perspectives on delivering online tertiary education for refugees. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14 (2017) [Google Scholar]
  17. N. Dahya, S. Dryden-Peterson, Tracing pathways to higher education for refugees: the role of virtual support networks and mobile phones for women in refugee camps. Comparative Education, 53(2), 284–301 (2017) [Google Scholar]
  18. B. Mann, Homeschooling 2.0: An overview of online learning in K–12 education across the United States. In M. Gaither (Ed.), The Wiley Handbook of Home Education, 11, 246–267 (2017) [Google Scholar]
  19. A. Saiger, Homeschooling, virtual learning, and the eroding public/private binary. Journal of School Choice, 10(3), 297–319 (2016) [Google Scholar]
  20. Z. Cai, X. Fan, J. Du, Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1–13 (2017) [Google Scholar]
  21. R. H. Kay, Exploring gender differences in computer-related behavior: Past, present, and future. In T. T. Kidd & I. Chen (Eds.). Social information technology: Connecting society and cultural issues. Information Science Reference12–-30 (2008) [Google Scholar]
  22. E. Borokhovski, D. I. Pickup, L. El Saadi, J. Rabah, R. M. Tamim, Gender and ICT: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Commonwealth of Learning (2018) (Last accessed 2021/02/03) [Google Scholar]
  23. Canadian Press: Students upset as some Canadian universities hike tuition fees. CTV News. (2020) (Last accessed 2021/02/03) [Google Scholar]
  24. Study International. Can international students expect tuition fee hikes at Canadian universities? (2020) (Last accessed 2021/02/03) [Google Scholar]
  25. S. Aydin, A. Öztürk, G. T. Büyükköse, F. Er, H. Sönmez, An investigation of drop-out in open and distance education. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 19(2), (2019) [Google Scholar]
  26. K. Jordan, Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment, length and attrition. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 16(3), 341–358 (2015) [Google Scholar]
  27. L. Peck, J. E. Stefaniak, S. J. Shah, The correlation of self-regulation and motivation with retention and attrition in distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 19(3), 1–15, 79–80 (2018) [Google Scholar]
  28. R. M. Bernard, P. C. Abrami, E. Borokhovski, C. A. Wade, R. M. Tamim, M. Surkes, E. C. Bethel, A meta-analysis of three interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1243–1289 (2009) [Google Scholar]
  29. E. Borokhovski, R. M. Tamim, R. M. Bernard, P. C. Abrami, A. Sokolovskaya, Are contextual and design student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education? A follow-up meta-analysis of comparative empirical studies. Distance Education, 33(3), 311–329 (2012) [Google Scholar]
  30. T. Anderson, Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 9–14 (2003) [Google Scholar]
  31. M. G. Moore, Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6 (1989) [Google Scholar]
  32. C. Hodges, S. Moore, B. Lockee, T. Trust, A. Bond, The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review (2020) (Last accessed 2021/02/03) [Google Scholar]
  33. R. F. Schmid, R. M. Bernard, E. Borokhovski, R. M. Tamim, P. C. Abrami, M. Surkes, A., C. A. Wade, J. Woods, The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271–291 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  34. R. M. Tamim, E. Borokhovski, D. Pickup, R. M. Bernard, L. El Saadi, Tablets for teaching and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Commonwealth of Learning (2015) (Last accessed 2021/02/13) [Google Scholar]
  35. R. E. Clark, Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29 (1994) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. R. B. Kozma, Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19 (1994) [Google Scholar]
  37. M. McLuhan, Understanding media: The extensions of man (McGraw-Hill, 1964) [Google Scholar]
  38. D. A. Cook, A. J. Levinson, S. Garside, D. M. Dupras, P. J. Erwin, V. M. Montori, Internet-based learning in the health professions: A meta-analysis. JAMA, 300(10), 1181–1196 (2008) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. R. Wutoh, S. A. Boren, A. B. Balas, eLearning: A review of Internet‐based continuing medical education. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 24(1), 20–30 (2004) [Google Scholar]
  40. E. C. Bethel, A systematic review of one-to-one access to laptop computing in K-12 classrooms: An investigation of factors that influence program impact (2014) (Last accessed 2021/02/13) [Google Scholar]
  41. B. Zheng, M. Warschauer, C.-H. Lin, C. Chang, Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1056–1084 (2016) [Google Scholar]
  42. D. B. Clark, E. E. Tanner-Smith, S. S. Killingsworth, Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 86(1), 79–122 (2016) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. C. Girard, J. Ecalle, A. Magnan, Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta‐analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 207–219 (2013) [Google Scholar]
  44. R. L. Lamb, L. Annetta, J. Firestone, E. Etopio, A meta-analysis with examination of moderators of student cognition, affect, and learning outcomes while using serious educational games, serious games, and simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 158–167 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  45. Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D.: A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249–265 (2013) [Google Scholar]
  46. Y.-T. Sung, K.-E. Chang, T.-C. Liu, The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252–275 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  47. W.-H. Wu, Y.-C. J. Wu, C.-Y. Chen, H.-Y. Kao, C.-H. Lin, S.-H. Huang, Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817–827 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  48. M. Chassignol, A. Khoroshavin, A. Klimova, A. Bilyadinova, Artificial Intelligence trends in education: A narrative overview. Procedia Computer Science, 136, 16–24 (2018) [Google Scholar]
  49. C. D’Angelo, D. Rutstein, C. Harris, R. Bernard, E. Borokhovski, G. Haertel, Simulations for STEM learning: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SRI International (2013) (Last accessed 2021/02/13) [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.