Ibero-American higher education institutions facing COVID-19

ABSTRACT

The article aims to identify the variables associated with the perception that the members of the educational community (professors and students) from higher education institutions in Ibero-America during, the first weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study based on an Internet applied survey from April 6th to 20th of 2020, with 771 respondents (1-α = 95% and e = 3,5) from Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Spain, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. The main results reveal how the positive assessment of higher institutions depends on how professors and students perceived the risk of infection and other external variables (non-institutional) such as their previous experience in virtual environments. To a lesser degree, during the study period, professors and students with the most negative states of mind expressed more significant difficulties in managing academic activities. Therefore, it recommends that higher education institutions in Ibero-American work improve communication channels and implement programs of accompaniment that foster resiliency, starting from the construction of institutional bonds and strengthening the socioemotional skills of both professors and students.

KEYWORDS:

• Higher education
• perceptions
• social support
• students
• professors
• COVID-19

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge all professors and student who helped us complete the survey at the Ibero-America level.

Notes

1. The State of Mind variable built from the sum of options given by the survey respondents regarding questions related to feelings of nervousness, worry, ability to control problems, level of irritability, fear, or depression that they could have been feeling during the confinement period. This variable was categorized in range (through a Likert 5-point scale, with one being very positive and five being very negative) from the sum of the set of answers given to all questions considered mentioned.

2. The Academic Space variable made up of issues like the size of the space, organization of this workspace, soundproofing to other areas cohabitated during confinement, lighting, humidity, ventilation, and air quality, among others which group under a new variable categorized through a 5 point Likert scale (1 being very low and five being very high.

3. The Academic Barriers variable was made up of questions, assessed in a dichotomous way (0 and 1), that aimed to measure the presence or not of situations that hampered academic responsibilities during confinement, like for example, constant interruptions by children, the number of domestic tasks under their obligation, the difficulty in keeping the schedule established for these activities, and the experienced lack of concentration, among other measured traits. The sum of the results of all these questions was useful for the creation of a new variable with a Likert 5 point scale, where 1 was a very little presence of academic barriers, and 5 was a high presence of obstacles, during the fulfillment of the educational activities under the responsibility of those surveyed.

4. The Perception of social support variable measured on a 3 point Likert scale (always, sometimes, never), as a result of the sum of the answers given by survey-takers to questions associated to the number of times they had experienced feelings of sadness, loneliness, happiness, as well as having felt loved, among other aspects that take into consideration. Following the scenario posed to each survey taker, the scale’s rating order rotated to correctly create the variable considered in addressing this subject in the present article.

5. The healthy guidelines variable is the result of the sum of the answers given by the survey takers to questions related to the following of routines, talking with friends and family, doing physical activity, having a healthy and varied diet, and undertaking hobbies, among others. The sum of the answers given grouped under Likert 5 options (with 1 being no day and 5 Almost every day)

6. The academic area was the one that had the best assessment by survey takers, with a mean score of 4/5 points, followed by the administrative area (3.98/5 points) and the institutional leadership area (3.57/5 points)