Barriers in online education for displaced universities: Insights from faculty and students
-
Received December 11, 2024;Accepted January 28, 2025;Published February 3, 2025
-
Author(s)Iryna GlazkovaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5280-5471
,
Natalia FalkoLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9475-6770
,
Olena KhomenkoLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9341-6192
,
Svitlana KhatuntsevaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9123-6366
,
Nataliya RulaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1004-5603
,
Anzhelika ShulzhenkoLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4767-8049
,
Volodymyr TatarinLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8812-4389
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.23(2-si).2025.10
-
Article InfoVolume 23 2025, Issue #2 (spec. issue), pp. 136-150
- TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
-
Cited by5 articlesJournal title: Problems of Engineering Pedagogic EducationArticle title: THE CONCEPT OF GROWTH MINDSET AS A TOOL FOR OVERCOMING STUDENTS’ EMOTIONAL-VOLITIONAL BARRIERS IN THE PROCESS OF LEARNING ENGLISHDOI: 10.26565/2074-8922-2025-85-06Volume: / Issue: 85 / First page: 71 / Year: 2025Contributors: V. TATARINJournal title: Scientific journal of Khortytsia National AcademyArticle title: THE ROLE OF PARTNER LANGUAGE IN PREPARING FUTURE ENGLISH TEACHERS TO OVERCOME EMOTIONAL-VOLITIONAL BARRIERSDOI: 10.51706/2707-3076-2025-13-9Volume: / Issue: / First page: 88 / Year: 2025Contributors: Volodymyr Tatarin, Iryna GlazkovaJournal title: Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary JournalArticle title: Virtual Hangul Journeys: A Phenomenological Study of Learner Engagement and Social Interaction in Online Language LearningDOI: 10.70838/pemj.550903Volume: 55 / Issue: 9 / First page: 1129 / Year: 2026Contributors: Dolly Ann Caraca, Clarita PangandoyonJournal title: Problems of Engineering Pedagogic EducationArticle title: COMPETENCE OF FUTURE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHERS IN OVERCOMING EMOTIONAL-VOLITIONAL BARRIERS IN PARTNERSHIP INTERACTION: ESSENCE AND STRUCTUREDOI: 10.26565/2074-8922-2025-84-22Volume: / Issue: 84 / First page: 258 / Year: 2025Contributors: V. TATARINJournal title: Knowledge and Performance ManagementArticle title: Relocated universities of Ukraine: Spatial-temporal mapping, trajectories, and lessons from two waves of displacement (2014–2025)DOI: 10.21511/kpm.09(2).2025.11Volume: 9 / Issue: 2 / First page: 142 / Year: 2025Contributors: Taras Finikov, Igor Lyman, Serhii Kovachov, Yana Suchikova
- 1697 Views
-
555 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
The relevance of this study lies in the growing shift to online education for displaced universities due to war-related disruptions. The aim is to identify barriers faculty and students face in such institutions and propose strategies for creating a barrier-free educational environment. The study employs a survey-based method, analyzing responses from 224 students and 71 faculty members of a displaced Ukrainian university.
Results highlight significant economic barriers, with 79% of students reporting financial difficulties affecting access to stable Internet, modern devices, and essential resources. Virtual isolation was noted by 79% of students as a challenge in maintaining social connections, while 78% cited reduced motivation characterized by the dominance of avoidance motives. Faculty reported psychological stress (85.6%), including anxiety (75%), tremors (54%), and sleep disturbances (45%). Organizational barriers, such as adapting practical courses to online formats and increased workloads due to asynchronous learning, were also prominent.
These findings underscore the need for targeted strategies to address the barriers and promote inclusivity and effectiveness in online education. A comprehensive approach integrating institutional, pedagogical, and policy-level interventions is critical for overcoming these challenges.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)I21, I23, J24
-
References40
-
Tables1
-
Figures5
-
- Figure 1. Faculty educational barriers
- Figure 2. Educational barriers for faculty members
- Figure 3. Educational barriers for students
- Figure 4. Educational barriers for students in higher education
- Figure 5. Tactics for preventing and overcoming barriers
-
- Table 1. Faculty and student questionnaires on educational barriers
-
- Afzal, A., Khan, S., Daud, S., Ahmad, Z., & Butt, A. (2023). Addressing the digital divide: access and use of technology in education. Spring, 3(2), 883-895.
- Alenezi, A. (2018). Barriers to participation in learning management systems in Saudi Arabian universities. Education Research International, 1-8.
- Aljaraideh, Y., & Al Bataineh, K. (2019). Jordanian students’ barriers of utilizing online learning: A survey study. International Education Studies, 12(5), 99.
- Alkharang, M. M., & Ghinea, G. (2013). E-learning in higher educational institutions in Kuwait: Experiences and challenges. E-learning, 4(4).
- Al-Naabi, I., & Al-Abri, A. (2021). E-learning implementation barriers during COVID-19: A cross-sectional survey design. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(8), 176-193.
- Assareh, A., & Hosseini, B. M. (2011). Barriers to e-teaching and e-learning. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 791-795.
- Azab, E., & Aboalshamat, K. (2021). Attitudes, barriers, and experiences regarding e-learning and dental education during COVID-19 pandemic. The Open Dentistry Journal, 15(1), 464-472.
- Barvinok, V., & Pudło, T. (2023). Formation of online content patterns of higher education based on trends to preserve intellectual capital quality decreasing in Ukraine during wartime. Business Ethics and Leadership, 7(2), 109-127.
- Basir, M., Ali, S., & Gulliver, S. R. (2021). Validating learner-based e-learning barriers: Developing an instrument to aid e-learning implementation management and leadership. International Journal of Educational Management.
- Becker, K., Newton, C., & Sawang, S. (2013). A learner perspective on barriers to e-learning. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 53(2), 212-233.
- Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Lillejord, S. (2020). Barriers to student active learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-19.
- Cheok, M., Wong, S., Ayub, A., & Mahmud, R. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of e-Learning in Malaysian secondary schools. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 20-33.
- Ciroma, Z. I. (2014). Learning barriers: Challenges and concerns. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies.
- Dabaj, F. (2009). The role of gender and age on students’ perceptions towards online education case study: Sakarya University, vocational high school. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 120-123.
- Glazkova, I., Khatuntseva, S., Sychikova, Ya., & Hurenko, O. (2024). Breaking down barriers: Inclusiveness and accessibility for sustainable development. In Redefining higher education: Innovation, inclusion, and sustainable development during wartime (pp. 44-80). Kharkiv: TECHNOLOGY CENTER PC.
- Glazkova, I., Khatuntseva, S., Vaseiko, Y., Shymanovych, I., & Yaroshchuk, L. (2022). Future teachers’ training to application of cognitive barriers in professional activities during the Covid-19 pandemic. Amazonia Investiga, 1(50), 66-78.
- Gunawardena, M., & Dhanapala, K. V. (2023). Barriers to removing barriers of online learning. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 52, 264-280.
- Gusmao, V. G., & Fasone, G. S. R. (2020). Mobilidade operacional online [Online operational mobility]. Rio Oil and Gas Expo and Conference, 20(2020), 443-444. (In Spanish).
- Hamilton, L. G., & Petty, S. (2023). Compassionate pedagogy for neurodiversity in higher education: A conceptual analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14.
- Hartmann, S., Braae, L., Pedersen, S., & Khalid, M. (2017). The potentials of using cloud computing in schools: A systematic literature review. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 190-202.
- Hechter, R., & Vermette, L. (2013). Technology integration in K-12 science classrooms: An analysis of barriers and implications. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(2), 73-90.
- Hillage, J., & Aston, J. (2001, July). Attracting new learners ± a literature review. London, UK: Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA).
- Intan, N.N.P. (2021). Combination of synchronous and asynchronous models in online learning. Jurnal Pendidikan Islam Indonesia, 5(2), 198-217.
- Janke, S., Messerer, L. A. S., Merkle, B., & Rudert, S. C. (2023). Why do minority students feel they don’t fit in? Migration background and parental education differentially predict social ostracism and belongingness. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations.
- Karalis, T. (2020). Planning and evaluation during educational disruption: Lessons learned from Covid-19 pandemic for treatment of emergencies in education. European Journal of Education Studies, 7(4).
- Khoiruman, M. A. (2021). Online learning problems; Students’ English learning barriers. Darussalam English Journal (DEJ), 1(1).
- Kenworthy, A. L., & Opatska, S. (2023). Teaching during war in Ukraine: Service-learning as a tool for facilitating student learning and engagement during times of uncertainty and crisis. Journal of Management Education.
- Manesis, D. (2020). Barriers to the use of games-based learning in pre-school settings. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 10(3), 47-61.
- Marcial, D. E., Caballero, R.D. B., Rendal, J. B., & Patrimonio, G. A. (2015). “I am offline”: Measuring barriers to open online learning in the Philippines. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 45(1).
- Muhammad, M. F. M. D. Ghalib, Ahmad, F., Naveed, Q. N., & Shah, A. (2016). A study to investigate state of ethical development in e-learning. Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 7(4).
- Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29-48.
- Navarro, P. (2000). The promise – and potential pitfalls – of cyberlearning. In R. A. Cole (Ed.), Issues in web-based pedagogy: A critical primer (pp. 281-297).
- Patra, S., Mason, J., Ghallab, M., Nau, D., & Traverso, P. (2021). Deliberative acting, planning and learning with hierarchical operational models. Artificial Intelligence, 299, 103523.
- Quadri, N. N., Muhammed, A., Sanober, S., Qureshi, M. R. N., & Shah, A. (2017). Barriers effecting successful implementation of e-learning in Saudi Arabian universities. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 12(06).
- Rabin, E., Henderikx, M., Kalman, Y. M., & Kalz, M. (2020). What are the barriers to learners’ satisfaction in MOOCs and what predicts them? The role of age, intention, self-regulation, self-efficacy and motivation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 119-131.
- Sims, R. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding planning and design through proactive education. Distance Education, 23(2), 135-148.
- Suchikova, Y. (2023). A year of war. Science, 379(6634).
- Suchikova, Y., & Tsybuliak, N. (2023). Universities without walls: global trend v. Ukraine’s reality. Nature, 614(7948).
- Van Vliet, D. (2002). Language barrier was a learning experience. The Hearing Journal, 55(8), 72.
- Willis, J., Davis, K., & Chaplin, S. (2013). Sociocultural affordances of online peer engagement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(1), 34-45.
-
-
Conceptualization
Iryna Glazkova, Natalia Falko, Olena Khomenko, Svitlana Khatuntseva, Nataliya Rula, Anzhelika Shulzhenko, Volodymyr Tatarin
-
Data curation
Iryna Glazkova, Olena Khomenko
-
Investigation
Iryna Glazkova, Natalia Falko, Olena Khomenko, Svitlana Khatuntseva, Nataliya Rula, Anzhelika Shulzhenko, Volodymyr Tatarin
-
Methodology
Iryna Glazkova, Svitlana Khatuntseva
-
Project administration
Iryna Glazkova, Natalia Falko, Olena Khomenko
-
Resources
Iryna Glazkova, Natalia Falko, Olena Khomenko, Svitlana Khatuntseva, Nataliya Rula, Anzhelika Shulzhenko, Volodymyr Tatarin
-
Writing – original draft
Iryna Glazkova, Natalia Falko, Olena Khomenko, Svitlana Khatuntseva, Nataliya Rula, Anzhelika Shulzhenko, Volodymyr Tatarin
-
Writing – review & editing
Iryna Glazkova, Natalia Falko, Olena Khomenko, Svitlana Khatuntseva, Nataliya Rula, Anzhelika Shulzhenko, Volodymyr Tatarin
-
Validation
Natalia Falko, Svitlana Khatuntseva
-
Supervision
Olena Khomenko, Svitlana Khatuntseva
-
Formal Analysis
Nataliya Rula, Anzhelika Shulzhenko, Volodymyr Tatarin
-
Visualization
Nataliya Rula, Anzhelika Shulzhenko, Volodymyr Tatarin
-
Conceptualization
-
Comparison of the digital economy development parameters in the EU countries in the context of bridging the digital divide
Vladimir Bilozubenko
,
Olha Yatchuk
,
Elżbieta Wolanin ,
Tetiana Serediuk
,
Maxim Korneyev
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(2).2020.18
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 18, 2020 Issue #2 pp. 206-218 Views: 3324 Downloads: 872 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe widespread use of information and communication technologies and subsequent transformations have led to the formation of a digital economy (DE). The European Union, as an international organization, has become the subject of building such an economy, striving to bring member countries closer in the field of digitalization.
The aim of this paper is to compare the DE development parameters of the EU countries based on cluster analysis and determine the most significant of them to solve the problems of bridging the digital divide between countries. For clustering, a feature DE vector of 20 indicators was created and the k-means algorithm and the Euclidean distance metric were used. For classification, the decision tree method was applied.
Three clusters of EU countries were identified by the level of DE development (leaders, followers and outsiders), which allowed assessing their positions relative to each other. Key parameters that determine countries’ positions in the general rating are identified. A parameter chart is generated to control the establishment of DE in the EU countries, which, in addition to key parameters, includes maximum, minimum and harmonic mean values of these parameters by cluster. This characterizes the landscape of DE development in the EU countries, assesses the digital divide and is the basis for decision-making in the area of bridging this divide. -
What drives economics students to use generative artificial intelligence?
Mariia Balytska
,
Martina Rašticová
,
Nataliia Versal
,
Ihor Honchar
,
Nataliia Prykaziuk
,
Nataliia Tkalenko
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/kpm.08(2).2024.05
Knowledge and Performance Management Volume 8, 2024 Issue #2 pp. 51-64 Views: 3314 Downloads: 718 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe increasing integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into education requires studying the motives for its use among students. This study aims to identify the key motivations for economics students to use AI and compare these motivations by grade level and gender. The study examines satisfaction with the use of AI and analyzes the number of AI tools used.
An anonymous empirical study was conducted among 264 students from the Faculty of Economics at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine. Data analysis included descriptive statistical methods, non-parametric statistical methods, and exploratory factor analysis.
The study found that students’ main motivations for using AI are the automation of routine tasks (34.2%) and the need to save time (21.5%), while 18.7% use AI to compensate for lack of experience. Among Bachelor’s students, motivations such as automating routine tasks and saving time increased from 53% to 58% over the course of their studies, while lack of experience decreased from 22% to 15%. In contrast, Master’s students showed a decrease in routine automation (from 36% to 28%) but an increase in the need to compensate for lack of experience (from 15% to 28%) and to save time (from 18% to 25%). In terms of gender, men are more likely to use AI for learning and personal development, while women are slightly more likely to use AI for work. More than 38% of respondents say they need to use at least 2 AIs to achieve their goals.
Acknowledgment
This publication is based upon work from 24-PKVV-UM-002, ‘Strengthening the Resilience of Universities: Czech-Ukrainian Partnership for Digital Education, Research Cooperation, and Diversity Management,’ supported by the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the initiative ‘Capacity Building of Public Universities in Ukraine 2024.’ -
Determinants of audit quality: Role of time budget pressure
Khoirul Aswar
,
Fahmi Givari Akbar ,
Meilda Wiguna
,
Eka Hariyani
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.25
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 19, 2021 Issue #2 pp. 308-319 Views: 3046 Downloads: 2210 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThere are many problems related to audit quality, which are often associated with audit failures. Internal government auditors in Indonesia also have issues with audit quality. Therefore, this study aims to present empirical evidence on the relationship between independence, competence, motivation, and audit quality. It will also determine the moderating effect of time budget pressure on the relationship between factors and audit quality. Data of this study were collected through a google form, in which 57 questionnaires were sent to internal auditors of government within the Principal Inspectorate of Indonesia’s Supreme Audit Institution for at least two years. The study adopted a quantitative approach using purposive sampling. Data were analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with PLS version 3.0. The result findings of this study revealed that competence and motivation have a significantly positive effect on the quality of audit while independence does not. Time budget pressure does not significantly moderate such a relationship. In addition, these results have several significant implications for internal auditors as an object of consideration and evaluation relating to audits in the government sector, and information for government internal auditors to improve and maintain the quality of audit.

