Next Article in Journal
Opinions Related to the Potential Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by the Responsible in Charge of the Administrative Management Related to the Logistics and Supply Chain of Medical Stock in Health Centers in North of Chile
Next Article in Special Issue
The Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown on Adults with Major Depressive Disorder from Catalonia: A Decentralized Longitudinal Study
Previous Article in Journal
Strengthening Urban Informal Trading and Improving the Health of Vendors: An Integrated Management Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Assessment of Austrian School Students’ Mental Health and Their Wish for Support: A Mixed Methods Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 6
10.3390/ijerph20064837
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Distress following the COVID-19 Pandemic among Schools’ Stakeholders: Psychosocial Aspects and Communication

by
Arielle Kaim
1,2,3,
Shahar Lev-Ari
3,4,*,† and
Bruria Adini
1,3,*,†
1
Department of Emergency and Disaster Management, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6139001, Israel
2
Israel National Center for Trauma & Emergency Medicine Research, The Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat-Gan 5266202, Israel
3
ResWell Research Collaboration, School of Public Health, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6139001, Israel
4
Department of Health Promotion, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6139001, Israel
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(6), 4837; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064837
Submission received: 31 January 2023 / Revised: 3 March 2023 / Accepted: 7 March 2023 / Published: 9 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Psychological Distress in the Aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments ordered school closures as a containment measure, with Israel being among over 100 countries to do so. This resulted in the abrupt shift to online and remote education for many students. Despite attempts to minimize the effects of disrupted education and create a dynamic virtual learning environment, the literature highlights various challenges including lack of communication with implications of distress faced by key stakeholders (students and their parents, teachers, and principals). In this cross-sectional study, we assess the perceived levels of communication and psychosocial aspects during both distance and frontal learning, as well as the long-term impacts (following over two and a half years of an ongoing pandemic) on distress among the key stakeholders of the Israeli education system— high school students, parents, teachers, and principals. The study findings demonstrate severe implications of distance learning on communication and psychosocial aspects, with lingering long-term impacts on distress, among all stakeholders (particularly among students). This reveals the need for tailored capacity building and resilience intervention programs to be integrated in the long-term response to the current ongoing pandemic to improve well-being and reduce distress among the various stakeholders, with particular attention to those that are most vulnerable and were hit the hardest.

1. Introduction

As part of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic containment measures, school closures were among the commonest governmental responses, with Israel joining over 100 countries in instituting this measure [1]. Governments had ordered institutions to cease face-to-face instruction for most of their students, requiring them to switch, almost overnight, to online teaching and remote education [2,3]. In the context of Israel, 15 March 2020, marked the official frontal closure of classrooms, where over 2.3 million pupils at all education levels were affected [4]. Since the initial closure of schools, the last (approaching) three years have seen a wax and wane trajectory in implemented measures as a response to the pandemic. Recurrent national or local lockdowns following additional waves of COVID-19 and the emergence of new and more infectious COVID-19 variants, resulted in additional school closures and distance learning. The estimated impact of these measures affects over 90 percent of the world’s school children (1.6 billion), according to UNESCO (2020). By the end of 2022, the weeks of school closure in some countries had extended to over 80 weeks [5]. The World Bank estimated that a school shutdown of 5 months could be worth 10 trillion USD in terms of learning losses [6], where on average, learning losses amount to 0.17 of a standard deviation, equivalent to roughly a one-half year’s worth of learning [7].
Beyond the impact on pupil academics, the closure of schools and the movement to distance learning limited the opportunities for peer-to-peer and student–teacher socialization, which is typically enhanced by in-person interactions [8]. Intricately tied, as contributing factors, to a lack of socialization and loneliness, are poorer mental health and higher levels of distress for both children and adults alike [9,10,11,12,13]. Despite efforts to mitigate and address the impact of disrupted education and create an engaging learning environment through virtual platforms, the literature has discussed various challenges that were encountered, presenting the conclusion that not all needs were fully met through this modality [12,13,14,15].
The implementation of distance learning, however, had much broader consequences on society than just on pupils. Pivotal impacts were observed among school staff and administration (principals), teachers, and parents [16,17,18]. Teachers and administrators were unable to carry out their teaching and facilitation process as usual and had to adapt to an online setting [19]. Many previously had no pedagogical experience in online teaching, where modalities needed to be adapted to digital platforms. These changes resulted in teachers reporting significant increases in workload, being burdened by the work, and socially isolated from fellow colleagues and students, resulting in high levels of distress [20,21,22]. Similarly, principals of schools also reported significant increases in workload [23]. In the context of the family, schools often provide safeguarding and supervision of children, allowing parents to work. When schools are closed, parents in some cases had to remain at home, with inevitable economic consequences, or they had to leave children unsupervised, similarly with implications for elevated parental mental distress [24]. As a result of COVID-19, school closures have shifted education from the classroom to the home, where parents had to fill an educational role as well (at least partially) [25]. It has previously been widely discussed in the scientific literature that communication between various stakeholders of school systems promotes improved well-being for all [26,27,28,29]. The findings of Lv et al., {2016} indicate that parent–teacher/ school communication plays an important moderating role in student emotional well-being and academic achievement, and Kuusimaki and Uusitalo-Malmivaara (2019) found that interactions between parents and teachers improve the well-being of teachers [26,27].
The global school closures due to COVID-19 have shown the fragility of education systems [30,31,32]. The uprooting and the reintegration of the global schooling system and its stakeholders because of the pandemic emphasize the need to ensure that school systems are resilient through all adversities. Functional resilience is defined as a system’s ability to resist, absorb, and respond to the shock of disturbances while maintaining its critical functions, and then recover to its original state or adapt to a new one [33,34]. Among the elements that functional resilience consists of are psychosocial aspects, communication between the varied stakeholders of the school system, digital literacy, pedagogic support, resources, and infrastructure (Kaim et al., under review). The ability to handle disruptions and maintain learning, teaching, and the support of the above activities is improved when all stakeholders are healthy (both physically and mentally). The capacities of education systems to respond to the crisis by delivering distance learning to support children, families, teachers, and administrators have been diverse and uneven [7]. The existing literature has predominantly focused on the adverse impacts of distance learning on the psychosocial aspects of all four key stakeholders, highlighting shared experiences of feelings such as isolation, disconnection, overwhelming, stress, and reduced motivation [8,9,10,11,12,13]. A lack of effective communication among these stakeholders has been a notable obstacle throughout the pandemic [12,13,14,15]. The long-term consequences of distance learning during the COVID-19 era remain largely uncertain, but there are indications that the negative effects may endure beyond the pandemic’s conclusion, including in the sphere of mental health [20,21,22,23,24,25]. The current study was targeted to cover this gap.
The aim of this study is to assess the perceived levels of communication and psychosocial aspects during both distance and frontal learning, as well as the long-term impacts (following over two and a half years of an ongoing pandemic) on distress among the key stakeholders of the education system—high school students, parents, teachers, and principals. As such, the study strives to contribute in its practicality, with direct and tangible policy implications for where the need is most apparent for capacity building and implementation of interventions targeted to improve the functional resilience of schools.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

Considering the importance of achieving an understanding of the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the stakeholders of the educational system, a cross-sectional study was conducted in October–November 2022, approximately two and half years after the initial closure of the frontal learning in the school system in Israel on 15 March 2022. A total sample of 1802 participants were recruited for this study, divided into the four key stakeholders of the education system: 10th–12th grade students (N = 1000), parents (N = 301), teachers (N = 449), and principals (N = 52) from 890 Israeli Jewish high schools. To partake in the study, the participants had to confirm their willingness to participate voluntarily in the study. The data was collected by the largest Israeli internet panel company which consists of over 140,000 panelists representing all demographic and geographic sectors (http://www.ipanel.co.il). This internet panel provides an online platform that adheres to the stringent standards of the European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research (ESOMAR). The data was collected anonymously, following approval of the Ethics Committee of the Tel Aviv University (number 0004549-1 from 13 February 2022) and the Ministry of Education (number 12379 from 28 April 2022).

2.2. The Study Tool

The survey contained a brief introduction, which provided information on the background, objective, procedure, voluntary nature of participation, and declarations of anonymity and confidentiality. The four questionnaires were tailored to each of the stakeholders’ groups and consisted of six parts, based on items and indices that were developed specifically for this study, except for the perceived stress scale (PSS), which was based on a validated tool (PSS-4) [35] (See Appendix A). The number of items were not identical for the four tools, as to reflect the relevant relationships between stakeholders and the roles/functions that each stakeholder plays. The four questionnaires were validated by twenty content experts and pilot-tested on 25 individuals prior to their dissemination. The components of each of the questionnaires consisted of the following: Communication during distance learning, communication during frontal learning, psychosocial aspects during distance learning, psychosocial aspects in frontal learning, and PSS-4.

2.2.1. Communication during Distance Learning

Communication during distance learning was measured by 3 items among students, 5 items among parents, and 7 items among teachers and principals. These components of the questionnaire encompassed attitudes of how well the communication was managed throughout the distance learning among all the stakeholders. Some of the questions were identical (though adapted to each specific population). The reliability of the scale was measured by Alpha Cronbach and results for each of the four stakeholders were (α = 0.833) among students, (α = 0.887) among parents (α = 0.861), among teachers and (α = 0.764), and among principals.

2.2.2. Communication during Frontal Learning

Communication during frontal learning was measured by 1 item among students, 2 items among parents, and 4 items among teachers and principals. The components of this questionnaire encompassed attitudes of how well the communication was managed throughout the frontal learning among all the stakeholders, whereas all stakeholders were asked to what extent they agree or disagree with the following sentences relating to when the school teaching was conducted through frontal learning, on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = Disagree to a very great extent, to 5 = Agree to a very great extent. The reliability of the scale was measured by Alpha Cronbach and results for parents were (α = 0.612), (α = 0.812) among teachers, and (α = 0.797) among principals.

2.2.3. Psychosocial Aspects during Distance Learning

Psychosocial aspects during distance learning were measured by 3 items among students and parents, and 5 items among teachers and principals. The components of this questionnaire encompassed attitudes towards distance learning among all the stakeholders, whereas they were asked to what extent they agree or disagree with the following sentences relating to when the school teaching was conducted through distance learning, on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = Disagree to a very great extent, to 5 =Agree to a very great extent. The reliability of the scale was measured by Alpha Cronbach and results for each of the four stakeholders were (α = 0.819) among students, (α = 0.612) among parents, (α = 0.746) among teachers, and (α = 0.615) among principals.

2.2.4. Psychosocial Aspects during Frontal Learning

Psychosocial aspects during frontal learning were measured by 2 items among students and parents, and 5 items among teachers and principals. The components of this questionnaire encompassed characteristics of attitudes towards frontal learning among all the stakeholders where they were asked to what extent they agree or disagree with the following sentences relating to when the school teaching was conducted frontally, on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = Disagree to a very great extent, to 5 =Agree to a very great extent. The reliability of the scale was measured by Alpha Cronbach as well as by Pearson correlation of items where only two items were used. The results for each of the four stakeholders are (r = 0.339) among students, (r = 0.357) among parents (α = 0.746), among teachers, and (α = 0.883) among principals.

2.2.5. Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4)

PSS-4 [35] was measured by four items among students, parents, teachers, and principals. The components of this questionnaire assess how often certain feelings and thoughts relate to the respondent in the past month for each stakeholder, on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = never, to 5 =very often. The reliability of the scale was measured by Alpha Cronbach and results for each of the four stakeholders were (α = 0.668) among students, (α = 0.726) among parents, (α = 0.655) among teachers, and (α = 0.683) among principals.

2.2.6. Demographics

Demographics for students were assessed by 11 items including gender, year of birth, place of residence, number of children living in the same home under the age of 18, number of dependents over the age of 18 living with you in the same home, religion, degree of religiosity, school type, school location, grade, and class size. For parents, teachers, and principals, demographics assessed included 12 items including gender, year of birth, place of residence, marital status, number of children under the age of 18 living with you at home, number of dependent adults living at home, education level, religion, level of religiosity, income level, school type, and location of the school.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the participants’ demographic characteristics (frequency, mean, and standard deviation) of all four stakeholders. In addition, descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics of the schools sampled (%), and to determine the spread tendency and central tendency in the five indexes. A one-way ANOVA test was used to assess variability between stakeholders. A post hoc test (Bonferroni) was further conducted to enable the identification of the differences among the varied groups. Pearson correlation tests were conducted to analyze the associations between all variable indexes. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 28. p-values lower than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Respondents and School Sample Characteristics

The sample of the study included 1802 participants, including 1000 students, 301 parents, 449 teachers, and 52 principals. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of all four stakeholders of the surveyed population. The average age of the students sampled was 16.7, with the majority (52.5%) being male. The average age of parents sampled was 48.0, with the majority being female (68.4%). The average age of teachers sampled was 41.6, with the majority being female (80.8%). Lastly, the average age of principals was 46.7, with the majority being female (55.8%). Among students, parents, and principals, the majority (54.4%, 59.1%, and 53.8%, respectively) considered themselves secular. Among teachers, the largest mass of the sampled population (43.0%) similarly considered themselves secular. The majority of parents, teachers, and principals (85.4%, 71.7%, and 88.6%, respectively) were in a relationship, with children. In addition, the majority of parents, teachers, and principals had received a bachelor’s degree and above.
A total of 890 Jewish schools within Israel were sampled, where 67.1 % were state schools, and 32.9% were religious. The largest number of schools sampled geographically were from the central region of Israel (29.6%). Table 2 presents the characteristics of the schools sampled in this study.

3.2. Mean Levels of Communication, Psychosocial Aspects and PSS

The mean level for the communication index during distance learning among all the stakeholders was found to be 3.51 ± 0.88, as compared to 3.91 ± 0.87 during frontal learning. With regard to psychosocial aspects indices, during distance learning the mean level was 2.92 ± 1.04 as compared to frontal learning—3.72 ± 0.92. Furthermore, the mean PSS score among all participants was 3.46 ± 0.72. (See Table 3).

3.3. Correlation between Variables

A positive, significant correlation was found between communication during distance learning and communication during frontal learning (r = 0.297), PSS (r = 0.264), psychosocial aspects during distance learning (r = 0.28), as well as psychosocial aspects during frontal learning (r = 0.211). Communication during frontal learning was found to be positively and significantly correlated with PSS (r = 0.285) and psychosocial aspects during frontal learning (r = 0.47). Lastly, PSS was found to be positively and significantly correlated with psychosocial aspects during both distance (r = 0.106) and frontal learning (r = 0.344). (See Table 4).

3.4. Differences by Stakeholder and Distance Versus Frontal Learning

Differences by stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, and principals) with respect to communication levels both during distance learning (DL) and frontal learning (FL) are displayed in Figure 1. During DL, students on average, display the lowest levels of the communication index (3.3), as compared to the other stakeholders, while parents display the highest levels (4.06). With regard to communication during FL, parents display the lowest mean levels of the index, while teachers indicate the highest levels. With regard to communication DL, significant differences are observed between students and parents (p < 0.001), students and teachers (p < 0.001), parents and principals (p = 0.001), and parents and teachers (p < 0.001). With respect to communication FL, significant differences are observed between students and teachers (p < 0.001), parents and principals (p < 0.01), and parents and teachers (p < 0.001).
The results also suggest that each stakeholder during distance learning perceived the communication to be less effective as compared to frontal learning (students—3.3 DL versus 3.83 FL; teachers—3.61 DL versus 4.18 FL; principals—3.57 DL versus 4.15 FL), with the exception of parents (4.06 DL versus 3.7 FL). The differences were all significant according to the repeated measures test (F = 72.54, p < 0.001).
Differences by stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, and principals) with respect to psychosocial aspect levels, during both distance (DL) and frontal learning (FL) are displayed in Figure 2. During DL, parents on average display the lowest levels of the psychosocial aspects index (2.57 ± 1.04), as compared to the other stakeholders (students—2.87 ± 1.10, teachers—3.26 ± 0.83, principals—3.06 ± 0.64), with teachers displaying the highest levels. With regard to the psychosocial aspects during FL, students display the lowest mean levels of the index (3.41 ± 0.85), while principals indicate the highest levels (4.45 ± 0.1.14). With regard to psychosocial aspects during DL, significant differences are observed between students and parents (p < 0.001), students and teachers (p < 0.001), parents and teachers (p < 0.001), and principals and parents (p < 0.01). With respect to psychosocial aspects during FL, significant differences are observed between students and parents (p < 0.001), students and teachers (p < 0.001), students and principals (p < 0.001), parents and teachers (p < 0.001), parents and principals (p < 0.01), and principals and teachers (p < 0.01).
The results also suggest that each stakeholder during distance learning perceived psychosocial aspects to be less effective as compared to frontal learning (students—2.87 DL versus 3.41 FL, parents—2.57 versus 3.64, teachers—3.26 DL versus 4.03 FL, principals—3.06 DL versus 4.45 FL). The differences were all significant according to the repeated measures test (F = 29.91, p < 0.001).
Lastly, the mean PSS-4 scores were 3.35 ± 0.72 for students, 3.65 ± 0.68 for parents, 3.57 ± 0.70 among teachers, and 3.50 ± 0.73 among principals. Significant differences were observed between students and parents (p < 0.001), as well as between students and teachers (p < 0.001). The lower the score, the higher the level of perceived stress, whereas the highest level of stress is exhibited among students (See Figure 3).

4. Discussion

The transition to distance learning for education systems posed a major challenge in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. With schools forced to close their doors, education leaders, teachers, students, and parents had to quickly pivot to a remote learning model in order to maintain educational continuity. The shift highlighted the need for functional resilience in the education system, specifically the system’s ability to adapt to unexpected disruptions and ensure the delivery of quality education. Through the prioritization of functional resilience, education systems and their stakeholders can not only overcome current adversities but be better prepared for future disruptions. Several of the key aspects identified as crucial to the functional resilience of a system are communication between relevant stakeholders and attitudes towards psychosocial aspects among stakeholders.
The findings of this investigation demonstrate several interesting phenomena with regard to these two elements, as well as the long-term implications of the interaction between these aspects. First, students perceived levels of communication most critically during distance learning as compared to the other stakeholders, with parents expressing the highest levels. In contrast, when referring to perceived communication levels during frontal learning, parents indicate the lowest levels across all the stakeholders. This finding may be a reflection of the high home-based involvement of parents in supporting their children’s learning throughout the school closures, as compared to routine patterns of interaction in the home. The literature similarly suggests that parent involvement in children’s learning increased throughout distance learning, where the home-learning context improved relationships with teachers, with sentiments reciprocated by teachers [36,37]. The more critical attitudes of students toward distance learning match findings in the literature, where students have expressed decreased communication between them and their instructors and their increased feelings of isolation [38]. Teachers and principals report higher levels of communication during in-person learning, consistent with the challenges that education encountered while adapting to remote classes, with poor communication and low interaction as key hurdles faced [39,40].
Interestingly, psychosocial attitudes during distance learning were perceived lowest among parents regarding their children, indicating that parents’ perceptions of their children’s attitudes towards the learning experience during distance learning are worse than the children’s own perception. Parents consistently have been found in the context of health-related quality of life to rate their child’s health as worse than the child’s reporting, related to unresolved concerns regarding the influence of parental distress [41,42,43]. Furthermore, teachers expressed the best psychosocial attitudes toward distance learning (feeling more motivated and less burdened by the transition), as compared to the other stakeholders. Despite this, across all four stakeholders, the implications of distance learning on motivation, and attitudes towards the transition’s burdensome nature are clear, supporting previous findings [44,45,46].
The most pertinent implications of this study indicate the long-lasting impacts of distance learning, as reflected in the findings regarding the PSS-4 index, as the measurement assesses distress feelings and thoughts in the past month. The findings suggest that beyond the distance and frontal learning experiences, students exhibit the highest persisting levels of distress, potentially an indication of being hit hardest by frontal school disruptions, among the four stakeholder groups. Despite the fact that no previous assessment of PSS-4 was found in the literature on adolescents to assess differences with pre-pandemic PSS-4 scores, previous studies have discussed long-term lingering (extension into long-term even after the end of the pandemic) distress impacts among adults [47,48,49]. In the context of the current study, parents display among all the stakeholders, the lowest levels of distress according to the PSS-4 measurement, potentially indicating that this sample of the population, may be less vulnerable after their return to a work–balance routine and is thus able to better cope and bounce back following return to normalcy. Furthermore, a positive relationship between higher perceived levels of communication during distance learning, and higher perceived levels of psychosocial aspects was found in this study. In addition, a higher PSS index (in the context of this study, a lower level of stress), is correlated with higher perceived communication and psychosocial levels. The relationship between perceived levels of communication, psychosocial aspects, and perceived stress were found to be positively correlated in this study. Communication has previously been established as a protective factor from distress among school children, and improved well-being across the various stakeholders [26,29,50].
Interventions previously examined among high school students offer various solutions, including the integration of meditation apps which have been shown to improve perceived stress among adolescents, as well inquiry-based stress reduction among teachers [16,51]. Furthermore, the integration of tailored interventions in the context and in the midst of future scenarios among stakeholders should be considered in order to prevent lingering long-term repercussions and foster lasting resilience. At a broader level of functional resilience, the measures adapted by schools during the pandemic include the establishment and implementation of virtual learning infrastructures, provision of technical, pedagogic and psychosocial support, as well as provision of required resources [52].
The current study has shed light on the important role of psychosocial aspects and communication in the functional resilience of the education system. By examining the attitudes of four key stakeholders towards distance learning, the study has uncovered significant relationships between these attitudes and long-term distress. Additionally, this research work has pinpointed possible vulnerabilities that exist within the educational system, and where special dedicated attention may be warranted. To the best of our knowledge, few studies have been carried out to evaluate the impacts of COVID-19 distance learning on four key stakeholders, especially investigating the relationship between attitudes towards communications levels, psychosocial aspects, and long-term distress.

Limitations

The study has several limitations. First, the study utilized an online panel to collect responses. While this methodology ensured a rapid turnover of information and provided a large sample of the Israeli Jewish population, the study conclusions are limited to individuals who have access to a source of internet and high computing skills. It should also be noted that though a very large sample of schools were included in the study, there is variability among schools concerning their technological, psychosocial and educational resources. Moreover, the study’s cross-sectional design limits its findings on attitudes towards distance learning, as they were not assessed during a school closure, but rather after. Furthermore, the findings of this study must be carefully considered, as generalizability and transferability to other societies may be limited; to support or refute the findings of this study, it is recommended that similar studies be carried out in additional schools in varied countries.

5. Conclusions

Our findings have valuable implications as we show the relationship between attitudes toward communications levels, psychosocial aspects, and long-term distress among four key stakeholders of the education system. The findings of the study reveal the need for tailored intervention programs to be integrated in the long-term response to the current ongoing pandemic to improve the well-being and reduce distress among the various stakeholders, with particular attention to those that are most vulnerable and were hit the hardest, (in the context of the current findings, the students). Future research should explore the longitudinal impacts of various interventions on changing long-term distress patterns among the various stakeholder participants. It is also recommended to expand the study beyond the Jewish schools context to include, for example, Arab or ultra-religious schools (in the Israeli context), as well as beyond Israeli borders.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.K., S.L.-A. and B.A.; methodology A.K., S.L.-A. and B.A.; validation, A.K.; formal analysis, A.K.; investigation, A.K.; resources, S.L.-A. and B.A.; data curation, A.K. writing—original draft preparation, A.K.; writing—review and editing, B.A and S.L.-A.; supervision, B.A. and S.L.-A.; project administration, A.K., B.A. and S.L.-A.; funding acquisition, A.K., S.L.-A. and B.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Education, Israel, grant number 26/11.21.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Tel Aviv University (number 0004549-1 from 13 February 2022) and the Ministry of Education (number 12379 from 28 April 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data collected in this study is not available in any public repository due to the regulations of the funder. The analyzed data will be made available to requesting researchers upon a reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to sincerely thank the Ministry of Education for providing the funding for this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Communication during distance learning: The items in the index for students included: one item which assessed “I had the opportunity to make personal contact with teachers and school staff”; one item “My teachers kept in touch with me on an ongoing basis”; and one item “The teachers monitored my progress to the extent required”. For parents, one item assessed “My child had the opportunity to make personal contact with the teachers and school staff; one item “My children’s teachers kept in touch with them on an ongoing basis”; one item “My children’s teachers kept in touch with me on an ongoing basis”; one item “Teachers monitored my child’s academic status and progress to the extent required”; and one item “A mutual update was made between me and my children’s teachers about their situation to a sufficient extent”. In both the teacher and principal questionnaire, one item assessed “I had the necessary means to maintain personal contact with students, parents, teachers and school management/ administration staff ” respectfully; one item “I maintained regular contact with the students”; one item “I maintained regular contact with the students’ parents”; one item “I kept in regular contact with the teachers”; one item “I kept in regular contact with the school’s management team”; one item “I/ Teachers was/were able to track the status and progress of the students to the extent required” respectfully; and one item “A mutual update was made between me/ the teachers and the parents of the students regarding the situation of the students to a sufficient extent”.
Communication during frontal learning: The item concerning communication during frontal learning for students assessed “In classroom learning, I maintain ongoing contact with my teachers”; For parents, one item assessed “In classroom learning, the teachers maintain ongoing contact with my children; and one item “In classroom learning, my children’s teachers keep in touch with me on an ongoing basis”. In both the teacher and principal questionnaire, one item assessed “I maintain ongoing contact with the students”; one item “I maintain ongoing contact with the students’ parents”; one item “I maintain regular contact with the teachers”; and one item “I maintain regular contact with the school’s management team”.
Psychosocial aspects during distance learning: The items in the index for students included one item which assessed “I enjoy distance learning”; one item “I am highly motivated to learn remotely”; and one item “Distance learning wears me out”. For parents, one item assessed “My child enjoys learning remotely”; one item “My child is highly motivated to learn remotely”; and one item “Distance learning has worn out my child”. In both the teacher and principal questionnaire, one item assessed “I am highly motivated to teach remotely/ manage while teaching remotely” respectfully; one item “Remote teaching/Managing the school remotely wears me out” respectfully; one item “I have confidence in my teaching/ management abilities and skills when teaching/ managing remotely” respectfully; one item “I receive sufficient support I need while teaching/ managing remotely to succeed in my work” respectfully. In addition, teachers were asked “I enjoy distance instruction”, while principals were asked “I benefit from school management while teaching remotely”. One item “wears me out/ wore out” was recoded to present the same directionality as the other questions.
Psychosocial aspects during frontal learning: The items in the index for students include one item which assessed “In classroom learning, I am highly motivated to learn” and one item “Learning in the classroom constitutes a heavy burden”. For parents, one item assessed “When learning in class, my child is highly motivated to learn”; and one item “Learning in the classroom constitutes a heavy burden”. In both the teacher and principal questionnaires, one item assessed “I am highly motivated to teach/manage” respectfully; and one item “Teaching/Managing frontally constitutes a heavy burden” respectfully. One item “heavy burden” was recoded to present the same directionality as the other questions.
Perceived stress scale-4: The items in the index include: “In the last month, how often have you felt out of control over the important things in your life”; “In the last month, how often have you felt confident in your ability to address your personal problems”; “In the last month, how often have you felt that things are developing according to your wishes?”; and “In the last month, how often have you felt that the difficulties are accumulating to such an extent that you cannot overcome them?” For analysis purposes, the answers of items 1 and 4 were recoded to present the same direction as the other two questions.

References

  1. Paltiel, O.; Hochner, H.; Chinitz, D.; Clarfield, A.M.; Gileles-Hillel, A.; Lahad, A.; Manor, O.; Nir-Paz, R.; Paltiel, A.; Stein-Zamir, C.; et al. Academic activism on behalf of children during the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel; beyond public health advocacy. Isr. J. Health Policy Res. 2021, 10, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Stein-Zamir, C.; Abramson, N.; Shoob, H.; Libal, E.; Bitan, M.; Cardash, T.; Cayam, R.; Miskin, I. A large COVID-19 outbreak in a high school 10 days after schools’ reopening, Israel, May 2020. Eurosurveillance 2020, 25, 2001352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Donitsa-Schmidt, S.; Ramot, R. Opportunities and challenges: Teacher education in Israel in the Covid-19 pandemic. J. Educ. Teach. 2020, 46, 586–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. UNESCO. UN Secretary-General Warns of Education Catastrophe, Pointing to UNESCO Estimate of 24 Million Learners at Risk of Dropping Out. 7 August 2020. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/news/secretary-general-warns-education-catastrophe-pointing-unesco-estimate-24-million-learners-0 (accessed on 4 December 2021).
  5. Buchholz, K. The Longest School Closures of the Pandemic; Statista, Statista Inc.: Hamburg, Germany, 2022; Available online: https://www.statista.com/chart/26670/school-closures-covid-19/ (accessed on 15 December 2022).
  6. Psacharopoulos, G.; Collis, V.; Patrinos, H.A.; Vegas, E. The COVID-19 Cost of School Closures in Earnings and Income across the World. Comp. Educ. Rev. 2021, 65, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Patrinos, H.A.; Vegas, E.; Carter-Rau, R. An Analysis of COVID-19 Student Learning Loss; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alsubaie, M.A. Distance education and the social literacy of elementary school students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fegert, J.M.; Vitiello, B.; Plener, P.L.; Clemens, V. Challenges and burden of the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for child and adolescent mental health: A narrative review to highlight clinical and research needs in the acute phase and the long return to normality. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry Ment. Health 2020, 14, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ravens-Sieberer, U.; Kaman, A.; Otto, C.; Adedeji, A.; Devine, J.; Erhart, M.; Napp, A.K.; Becker, M.; Blanck-Stellmacher, U.; Löffler, C.; et al. Mental health and quality of life in children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic—Results of the COPSY study. Dtsch. Ärzteblatt Int. 2020, 117, 828. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lee, C.M.; Cadigan, J.M.; Rhew, I.C. Increases in loneliness among young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic and association with increases in mental health problems. J. Adolesc. Health 2020, 67, 714–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dabrowski, A.; Mitchell, P. Effects of remote learning on mental health and socialisation. Lit. Rev. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Barrot, J.S.; Llenares, I.I.; Del Rosario, L.S. Students’ online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 7321–7338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Singh, S.; Roy, D.; Sinha, K.; Parveen, S.; Sharma, G.; Joshi, G. Impact of COVID-19 and lockdown on mental health of children and adolescents: A narrative review with recommendations. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 293, 113429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Constantini, K.; Markus, I.; Epel, N.; Jakobovich, R.; Gepner, Y.; Lev-Ari, S. Continued participation of Israeli adolescents in online sports programs during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with higher resilience. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zadok-Gurman, T.; Jakobovich, R.; Dvash, E.; Zafrani, K.; Rolnik, B.; Ganz, A.; Lev-Ari, S. Effect of inquiry-based stress reduction (IBSR) intervention on well-being, resilience and burnout of teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Grooms, A.A.; Childs, J. “We need to do better by kids”: Changing routines in US schools in response to COVID-19 school closures. J. Educ. Stud. Placed Risk (JESPAR) 2021, 26, 135–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lugo, D. The Effects of Virtual Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic on Teachers and Students in Grades K-12 within the United States: A Systematic Review. Ph.D. Thesis, Cedar Crest College, Allentown, PA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  19. Pollock, K. School leaders’ work during the COVID-19 pandemic: A two-pronged approach. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. 2020, 48, 38. [Google Scholar]
  20. Flack, C.B.; Walker, L.; Bickerstaff, A.; Earle, H.; Margetts, C. Educator Perspectives on the Impact of COVID-19 on Teaching and Learning in Australia and New Zealand; Pivot Professional Learning: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kaden, U. COVID-19 school closure-related changes to the professional life of a K–12 teacher. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Stapleton, P.; Garby, S.; Sabot, D. Psychological distress and coping styles in teachers: A preliminary study. Aust. J. Educ. 2020, 64, 127–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Flack, C.B.; Walker, L.; Bickerstaff, A.; Earle, H.; Johnson, C.L. Principal Perspectives on the Impact of COVID-19: Pathways Toward Equity in Australian Schools; Pivot Professional Learning: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  24. Davis, C.R.; Grooms, J.; Ortega, A.; Rubalcaba, J.A.-A.; Vargas, E. Distance learning and parental mental health during COVID-19. Educ. Res. 2021, 50, 61–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Doyle, O. COVID-19: Exacerbating educational inequalities. Public Policy 2020, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lv, B.; Zhou, H.; Guo, X.; Liu, C.; Liu, Z.; Luo, L. The Relationship between Academic Achievement and the Emotional Well-Being of Elementary School Children in China: The Moderating Role of Parent-School Communication. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Kuusimäki, A.-M.; Uusitalo-Malmivaara, L.; Tirri, K. The Role of Digital School-Home Communication in Teacher Well-Being. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Wang, M.T.; Sheikh-Khalil, S. Does parental involvement matter for student achievement and mental health in high school? Child Dev. 2014, 85, 610–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Al-Hail, M.; Al-Fagih, L.; Koç, M. Partnering for Sustainability: Parent-Teacher-School (PTS) Interactions in the Qatar Education System. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Leo, S.; Alsharari, N.M.; Abbas, J.; Alshurideh, M.T. From Offline to Online Learning: A Qualitative Study of Challenges and Opportunities as a Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UAE Higher Education Context. In The Effect of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) on Business Intelligence; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 203–217. [Google Scholar]
  31. Manivannan, M.; Jogalekar, M.P.; Kavitha, M.S.; Maran, B.A.V.; Gangadaran, P. A mini-review on the effects of COVID-19 on younger individuals. Exp. Biol. Med. 2021, 246, 293–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Krishnamoorthy, R.; Keating, K. Education crisis, workforce preparedness, and COVID-19: Reflections and recommendations. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 2021, 80, 253–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Biggs, R.; Schlüter, M.; Biggs, D.; Bohensky, E.L.; BurnSilver, S.; Cundill, G.; Dakos, V.; Daw, T.M.; Evans, L.S.; Kotschy, K.; et al. Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012, 37, 421–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Zhong, S.; Clark, M.; Hou, X.Y.; Zang, Y.; FitzGerald, G. Development of key indicators of hospital resilience: A modified Delphi study. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 2015, 20, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Warttig, S.L.; Forshaw, M.J.; South, J.; White, A.K. New, normative, English-sample data for the Short Form Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4). J. Health Psychol. 2013, 18, 1617–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bubb, S.; Jones, M.A. Learning from the COVID-19 home-schooling experience: Listening to pupils, parents/carers and teachers. Improv. Sch. 2020, 23, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dong, C.; Cao, S.; Li, H. Young children’s online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Chinese parents’ beliefs and attitudes. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2020, 118, 105440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alawamleh, M.; Al-Twait, L.M.; Al-Saht, G.R. The effect of online learning on communication between instructors and students during Covid-19 pandemic. Asian Educ. Dev. Stud. 2020, 11, 380–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Orhan, G.; Beyhan, Ö. Teachers’ perceptions and teaching experiences on distance education through synchronous video conferencing during Covid-19 pandemic. Soc. Sci. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 7, 8–44. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pressley, T.; Ha, C.; Learn, E. Teacher stress and anxiety during COVID-19: An empirical study. Sch. Psychol. 2021, 36, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Varni, J.W.; Limbers, C.A.; Burwinkle, T.M. How young can children reliably and validly self-report their health-related quality of life?: An analysis of 8,591 children across age subgroups with the PedsQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2007, 5, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Eiser, C.; Morse, R. Can parents rate their child’s health-related quality of life? Results of a systematic review. Qual. Life Res. 2001, 10, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Berg-Nielsen, T.S.; Vika, A.; Dahl, A.A. When adolescents disagree with their mothers: CBCL-YSR discrepancies related to maternal depression and adolescent self-esteem. Child Care Health Dev. 2003, 29, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Duraku, Z.H.; Hoxha, N. The impact of COVID-19, school closure, and social isolation on gifted students’ wellbeing and attitudes toward remote (online) learning. In Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Education and Wellbeing; Duraku, Z.H., Ed.; University of Prishtina “Hasan Prishtina”: Pristina, Kosovo, 2020; pp. 130–169. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rasmitadila, R.; Aliyyah, R.R.; Rachmadtullah, R.; Samsudin, A.; Syaodih, E.; Nurtanto, M.; Tambunan, A.R.S. The Perceptions of Primary School Teachers of Online Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period: A Case Study in Indonesia. J. Ethn. Cult. Stud. 2020, 7, 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lase, D.; Zega, T.G.C.; Daeli, D.O.; Zaluchu, S.E. Parents’ perceptions of distance learning during COVID-19 in rural Indonesia. J. Educ. Learn. (EduLearn) 2022, 16, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Borgatti, A.C.; Crockett, K.B.; Jacob, A.E.; Davis, A.L.; Dutton, G.R. Correlates of psychological distress among adults with obesity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol. Health 2022, 37, 1547–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dhaliwal, A. The Lingering Effects: Examining mental health in India during a period of COVID-19 regression. Asia Pac. J. Health Manag. 2022, 17, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ramírez Vera, Y.E.; Navarro Chaya, H.Y.; Ortiz Cáceres, D.C. Effects of COVID-19 on women’s mental health: A systematic review. Gac. Médica Caracas 2022, 130. Available online: http://saber.ucv.ve/ojs/index.php/rev_gmc/article/view/24166 (accessed on 30 January 2023). [CrossRef]
  50. Tang, S.; Xiang, M.; Cheung, T.; Xiang, Y.-T. Mental health and its correlates among children and adolescents during COVID-19 school closure: The importance of parent-child discussion. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 279, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Kaskons, E. Simple but not Easy: An Examination of the Test-Retest Reliability of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) and Exploration of a Meditation App for Stress Management with High School Students. Ph.D. Thesis, Lesley University, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zengulaaru, J.; Nyamekye, E. Ensuring Future Resilience beyond ICT and Online Teaching and Learning of Social Studies in Ghanaian Senior High Schools: Lessons from COVID-19 Pandemic. Soc. Educ. Res. 2022, 14, 23–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 20 04837 g001 550
Figure 1. Communication Index (Distance Learning and Frontal Learning) according to the four stakeholders (Students, Parents, Teachers, Principals). Note: F = 72.54, p < 0.001 for differences for distance and frontal learning according to stakeholder as a result of repeated measure test. Statistical significance denoted as * (p-value less than 0.05 (*); p-value less than 0.01 (**), p-value less than 0.001 (***) according to Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test.
Figure 1. Communication Index (Distance Learning and Frontal Learning) according to the four stakeholders (Students, Parents, Teachers, Principals). Note: F = 72.54, p < 0.001 for differences for distance and frontal learning according to stakeholder as a result of repeated measure test. Statistical significance denoted as * (p-value less than 0.05 (*); p-value less than 0.01 (**), p-value less than 0.001 (***) according to Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test.
Ijerph 20 04837 g001
Ijerph 20 04837 g002 550
Figure 2. Psychosocial Aspects Index (Distance Learning and Frontal Learning) according to the four stakeholders (Students, Parents, Teachers, Principals) Note: F = 29.91, p < 0.001 for differences for distance and frontal learning according to stakeholder as a result of repeated measure test. Statistical significance denoted as * (p-value less than 0.05 (*); p-value less than 0.01 (**), p-value less than 0.001 (***) according to Bonferroni multiple comparisons test.
Figure 2. Psychosocial Aspects Index (Distance Learning and Frontal Learning) according to the four stakeholders (Students, Parents, Teachers, Principals) Note: F = 29.91, p < 0.001 for differences for distance and frontal learning according to stakeholder as a result of repeated measure test. Statistical significance denoted as * (p-value less than 0.05 (*); p-value less than 0.01 (**), p-value less than 0.001 (***) according to Bonferroni multiple comparisons test.
Ijerph 20 04837 g002
Ijerph 20 04837 g003 550
Figure 3. Perceived stress scale (PSS)-4 Index according to the four stakeholders (Students, Parents, Teachers, Principals). Note: 1 = Higher PSS, 5 = Lower PSS. Statistical significance denoted as * (p-value less than 0.05 (*); p-value less than 0.01 (**), p-value less than 0.001 (***) according to Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test.
Figure 3. Perceived stress scale (PSS)-4 Index according to the four stakeholders (Students, Parents, Teachers, Principals). Note: 1 = Higher PSS, 5 = Lower PSS. Statistical significance denoted as * (p-value less than 0.05 (*); p-value less than 0.01 (**), p-value less than 0.001 (***) according to Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test.
Ijerph 20 04837 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics according to the four stakeholder groups (Students, Parents, Teachers, and Principals).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics according to the four stakeholder groups (Students, Parents, Teachers, and Principals).
Total
N = 1802		Students
N = 1000		Parents
N = 301		Teachers
N = 449		Principals
N = 52		p-Value
Gender
Male40.452.531.619.244.2<0.001
Female59.647.568.480.855.8
Age (Mean ± SD)29.4 ± 15.416. 7± 0.848.0 ± 5.141.6 ± 11.846.7 ± 8.9<0.001 *
Level of Religiosity
Secular52.454.459.143.053.8<0.001
Traditional21.822.125.919.411.5
Religious 25.923.515.037.634.7
Family Status
In a relationship,
without children		5.1 08.73.8<0.001 *
In a relationship,
with children 		77.9 85.471.788.6
No relationship,
no children 		5.7 09.63.8
No relationship,
with children 		11.3 14.610.03.8
Level of Education
Below high school
school education		9.7 28.300<0.001 *
Teacher seminar3.2 05.03.9
B.A.46.9 44.650.229.4
M.S or above40.2 27.144.866.7
Level of Income
Below mean40.0 36.944.914.5<0.001 *
Mean30.7 25.534.229.2
Above mean29.3 37.620.956.3
Note: Data presented by percentage (%) or Mean ± SD. * Comparing only between parents, teachers, and principals. Missing data: Gender = 1, Level of education = 53, Level of religiosity = 5, Income level = 55.
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of schools sampled (N = 890).
Table 2. Characteristics of schools sampled (N = 890).
Total
N = 890		Percent
(%)
Type of school
State school59767.1
Religious school 29332.9
School region
North11513.1
Haifa9310.6
Tel Aviv 12013.6
Center26129.6
Jerusalem879.9
South14015.9
West Bank657.4
Number of students in school
100 and below16121.5
101–20018724.9
201–50025133.5
500 and above15120.1
Table
Table 3. Spread tendency and central tendency of the index.
Table 3. Spread tendency and central tendency of the index.
Index Mean ± SDMedian25th Percentile75th Percentile
Communication Distance Learning (DL)3.51 ± 0.882.401.863.0
Communication Frontal Learning (FL)3.91 ± 0.872.001.253.00
Psychosocial Aspects Distance Learning (DL)2.92 ± 1.043.002.333.80
Psychosocial Aspects
Frontal Learning (FL)		3.72 ± 0.922.001.503.00
Perceived stress scale (PSS)3.46 ± 0.723.53.004.00
Note: Minimum of every scale was 1 and maximum was 5.
Table
Table 4. Correlation matrix between all variable indices.
Table 4. Correlation matrix between all variable indices.
Communication: Distance LearningCommunication: Frontal LearningPerceived Stress ScalePsychosocial Aspects: Distance LearningPsychosocial Aspects: Frontal Learning
Communication: Distance Learning1
Communication: Frontal Learning0.297 **1
Perceived Stress Scale0.264 **0.285 **1
Psychosocial Aspects: Distance Learning0.28 **0.0290.106 **1
Psychosocial Aspects: Frontal Learning0.211 **0.47 **0.344 **0.0021
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kaim, A.; Lev-Ari, S.; Adini, B. Distress following the COVID-19 Pandemic among Schools’ Stakeholders: Psychosocial Aspects and Communication. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 4837. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064837

AMA Style

Kaim A, Lev-Ari S, Adini B. Distress following the COVID-19 Pandemic among Schools’ Stakeholders: Psychosocial Aspects and Communication. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(6):4837. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064837

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kaim, Arielle, Shahar Lev-Ari, and Bruria Adini. 2023. "Distress following the COVID-19 Pandemic among Schools’ Stakeholders: Psychosocial Aspects and Communication" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 6: 4837. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064837

APA Style

Kaim, A., Lev-Ari, S., & Adini, B. (2023). Distress following the COVID-19 Pandemic among Schools’ Stakeholders: Psychosocial Aspects and Communication. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6), 4837. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064837

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop