Next Article in Journal
Effects of Restoration Years on Vegetation and Soil Characteristics under Different Artificial Measures in Alpine Mining Areas, West China
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Online Learning Environment and Student Engagement on International Students’ Sustainable Chinese Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Selection of Landfill Cover Materials Based on Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)—A Case Study on Four Typical Covering Materials
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Online Learning Support Services on University Students’ Learning Satisfaction under the Impact of COVID-19
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 17
10.3390/su141710886
sustainability-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:
Review

Research on Higher Education during the COVID-19 in the Gulf Cooperation Council: An Overview of Publications in the Journal Sustainability

by
Igor Jacky Dimitri Michaleczek
1,*,
Fatma Kayan-Fadlelmula
2 and
Abdel Latif Sellami
1
1
Education Research Center, College of Education, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar
2
Core Curriculum Program, Deanship of General Studies, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(17), 10886; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710886
Submission received: 30 June 2022 / Revised: 18 August 2022 / Accepted: 22 August 2022 / Published: 31 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impact of Covid-19 on Students and Teachers in Higher Education Institutions. Proposals and Policies for Improvement)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study analyzes the research associated with higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, offering an overview of papers published in Sustainability by utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). The analysis comprised a total of 17 papers, illuminating a number of common features, thematic foci, and prevailing issues as well as recommendations for rethinking higher education delivery in the future. Briefly, the analysis of common features revealed that most of the papers were published in 2021, researchers were mostly affiliated with higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia, data were mostly collected from undergraduate students, and papers were mostly quantitative. Regarding thematic focus, papers were generally related to teaching, learning, and assessment. As for prevailing issues, results highlighted a lack of practical studies in higher education research in the GCC region and a need for extending the conducted research to further context including other countries and populations. Finally, the key recommendations included improvement in the use of information technology and distance learning tools, as well as the design of policies and regulations to ensure more relevant academic intervention and guidelines for utilizing the tools and technologies.

1. Introduction

Higher education institutions (HEIs) have historically played a significant role in the social, economic and, cultural transformation of many societies. For centuries, they have been an especially important player in the progress and development of nations [1]. Over the years, HEIs have witnessed drastic changes and their crucial role, as agents of change, has of late come under close scrutiny, calling for a rethinking and reimagining of their function. In more recent years, however, the purpose of HEIs in general, and universities in particular, has been revisited, with specific emphasis on higher education for sustainable development [1]. Concerted efforts have, therefore, focused on the integration of sustainable development in HEIs [2]. More specifically, European HEIs have taken the lead in this direction, surpassing their counterparts internationally [3,4].
Universities are key catalysts in nurturing the skills and knowledge for their importance in the transition to sustainable societies. As such, they “have a unique role in deepening and expanding human knowledge (through learning and research)” [5] (p. 607). However, their role in effecting and spearheading change for sustainable development is still in its nascent stages [6]. As Koehn and Uitto [7] noted, the impact of HEIs in promoting sustainability lies in effecting “real-world changes in ecological sustainability, policies, and people’s well-being.” (p. 624). A similar view is echoed in work conducted by Findler and colleagues [8] who emphasized the leading role universities play in driving sustainable development.
The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive overview of scholarly papers published in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic, identifying common features, thematic focus, and issues encountered, along with the possible recommendations made for rethinking higher education in the future.
The main research problems are as follows:
  • What are the common features and thematic foci that dominate higher education research during the COVID-19 pandemic in the GCC region?
  • What are the main gaps and issues characterizing higher education research during the COVID-19 pandemic in the region?
  • What are the proposed recommendations for rethinking and adapting higher education delivery in the future?
In presenting a detailed overview of research on higher education in the GCC, this study addresses an important area that is of key significance in a region that aspires to transform to sustainable education, a topic that remains largely under-studied.
Existing literature points to a host of factors that affect research production [9], including the researcher’s individual characteristics, institutional factors, and previous output or accumulative advantage. Indeed, a positive association has been found between these factors and research output. The “accumulative advantage” or researchers’ previous experience is identified as a determinant of research output. That is, productive researchers tend to be more productive in their future careers compared to those with low research output, meaning that researchers build on their previous publications [10,11,12]. For the purpose of our study, we examined research publications produced in the GCC from 2020 to 2022 through the lens of the accumulative advantage.

2. Methods

This study provides a comprehensive overview of all scholarly papers on higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic in the GCC region in the journal Sustainability. A systematic methodology was utilized for all the published papers in the identified journal. The selection of articles published in Sustainability was made on the occasion of a publication by Sustainability of a special issue Impact of COVID-19 on Students and Teachers in Higher Education Institutions. Proposals and Policies for Improvement. To fulfill this goal, it employed “explicit, pre-specified methods to identify, select, assess, and synthesize scientific evidence [and thus] increase the transparency, objectivity, and rigor in the review process” [13] (p. 619). By following this explicit and systematic process, the researchers sought to also ascertain consistency and ensure the credibility of systematic reviews [14,15,16,17].
Whereas traditional reviews focus on describing and explaining literature [18,19], systematic reviews focus on specific topics [19]. Indeed, systematic reviews allow for the synthesis and critical appraisal of existing research [20,21,22,23] while resorting to a priori protocol, a comprehensive literature review search, selected studies critical appraisal, and synthesis of findings [23]. A systematic review is replicable and transparent [24,25,26], synthesizing existing knowledge related to a specific field [26]. It also makes it possible to identify existing gaps in the literature [26]. It involves selecting literature with a crucial analysis in relation to a clear research question [27].
This review was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [28]. This process provided a detailed and comprehensive frame for evaluating quality and the risk of bias associated with the studies selected for this research [29], thus yielding an evidence-based foundation for enhancing accuracy, objectivity and transparency of the review and meta-analysis [30]. More specifically, the PRISMA allows for a “systematic review, providing an evidence-based foundation for transparency in identifying, selecting, appraising, and synthesizing the studies being reviewed” [31] (p. 7).

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

In assessing the quality of the literature, reviews have to “ensure that only the most appropriate, trustworthy and relevant studies are used to develop the conclusions” [32] (p. 154). In line with the rigorous process governing published work in academia [33], the eligible studies in this review encompass all article types published in Sustainability, searching the texts “higher education” and “COVID” or “pandemic” either in the title or keywords. The papers were filtered by the year (2020, 2021, and 2022) and countries (GCC countries namely Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia).

2.2. Information Sources

In 19 May 2022, the researchers visited the website of Sustainability and accessed all the papers in the archives, as it is an open-access journal. Particularly, Sustainability is a peer-reviewed journal, publishing international and cross-disciplinary papers related to a wide variety of subjects in natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities.

2.3. Study Selection

Figure 1 shows the flow of the study selection process, with the identification, screening, eligibility, and included studies. Briefly, using the journal’s website, the advanced search results revealed that, a total of 1489 papers were published in this journal, searching the texts “higher education” and “COVID” or “pandemic” either in the title or keywords. Among these studies, 87 papers were having a GCC country affiliation. After a detailed analysis, 17 papers were included in the data analysis. In particular, 70 papers were excluded from the analysis because either data were collected from non-GCC participants or they were not related to education. The retained papers [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] are marked with an asterisk in the references list and are also listed in the Appendix A.

2.4. Data Extraction Process

Data were extracted about publication year, country, participants/data source, article type and research method, thematic focus, issues, and resolutions. Prior to analyzing the data, the researchers established a coding protocol for publication year, country, participants/data source, article type, and research method, and thematic focus to review the data systematically. For the issues and resolutions, the researchers did not establish prior coding as the data evolved while examining the information in the selected papers. The variables and the codes are listed in Table 1.

3. Results

3.1. What Are the Common Features and Thematic Themes That Dominate Higher Education Research during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the GCC Region?

The analysis of common features and thematic focus consisted of examining a number of demographic and methodological characteristics, including publication year, country, participants/data source, article type, research method, and focus of the study. As for publication year, the results showed that 3 papers were published in 2020 (17.7%), 8 papers in 2021 (47%), and 6 papers in 2022 (35.3%), the highest number of publications year being 2021.
As for country, with regard to the affiliations of the researchers, most were affiliated to centers or higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia (n = 15, 88.2%), followed by Qatar (n = 1, 5.9%) and the United Arab Emirates (n = 1, 5.9%). This implies that, in selected research, papers from Oman, Kuwait, and Bahrain did not emerge.
Regarding participants/data source (Figure 2), the majority of the data were collected from undergraduate students (n = 13, 76.5%), followed by graduate students (n = 6, 35.3%), faculty members (n = 3, 17.7%), published papers/reports (n = 2, 11.8%), as well as administrators (n = 1, 5.9%) and employers (n = 1, 5.9%).
Regarding the type of paper, all the papers were articles (n = 17, 100%). There were no papers in the form of reviews, perspectives, editorial, or communication, which are among the top five types of articles published in this journal, in addition to articles.
Regarding research method, the majority of the papers were quantitative (n = 15, 88.2%), followed by qualitative (n = 1, 5.9%) and mixed (n = 1, 5.9%). Among the quantitative papers, six studies took the design of structural equation modelling (40%), six studies used a survey design (40%), two studies adopted a correlational design (13.3%), and one study used a causal comparative design (6.7%). The qualitative paper was a case study. There was no paper having a conceptual research method (e.g., literature review, systematic review, opinion, field notes) or other methods.
Lastly, as for the thematic focus of higher education research published during the COVID-19 pandemic in the GCC region, the majority of the papers were related to teaching, learning, and assessment in higher education during the pandemic. In addition, there was a paper about graduate attributes (n = 1, 5.9%) and policy, management, and governance (n = 1, 5.9%).

3.2. What Are the Main Gaps and Issues Characterizing Higher Education Research during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Region?

The main gaps in higher education research during COVID-19 in the GCC are distributed between gaps leading to the existing research addressed in the selected paper and gaps emerging from it (Figure 3).
Practical studies focused on the identified lack of research in the relation to the design of a virtual course (articles 2, 4, 7, and 10) in replacement of a physical one. Four of the research identified the lack of research on the specificities of the GCC region, such as negative perception of GCC students (10), or local context not taken into consideration into current researches (6,9). Besides local context, focus on the gender issue, as related to gender-segregated society, figures in three pieces of research. Most of the research focuses on the lack of transition to online learning, but only four identify the lack of research on COVID context as the specific gap in research. technology acceptance model (TAM) and Learning Management System (LMS) model implementation in Higher Education has identified gaps in three papers. Finally, two papers explore the implementation of models in a specific specialty, medical sciences or technology (Figure 4).
The articles identify present gaps emerging from present research. The majority of the gaps relate to either extension of the present research to other institutions or countries, eight studies, or to the addition of other factors, such as social or cultural dynamics, for five studies. Four studies identify further research in the implementation of the identified model as potential research. Finally, as several studies are quantitative, there is an identified need for the inclusion of a qualitative approach to complement the current research (Figure 5).
Research in the GCC suffers from one main challenge and limitation, which relates to sampling. Most of the selected research during the pandemic focus on a specific university or department within the university. They revolve around a population sample limited to the university itself and, even within the university, to a limited population. The choice of the sample may be constrained to limited institutional or contextual factors. The other main issue in research is the limitation in factors integrated into the chosen model that may overlook socio-cultural aspects. Two studies identify the full relevance of the chosen model or theoretical framework as an issue. Finally, the replicability of the model to other contexts or research can be seen as disputable.
Additionally, we can highlight the diverse fields of higher education analyzed in the selected papers. There is a high diversity of fields represented in the selected papers from engineering (electrical and mechanical), with one paper for each, accounting (one paper), health science (one paper), educational technologies (one paper), IT (one paper), and STEM (two papers). This diversity is further reinforced by the bulk of research focusing on general education (three papers) or cross-sectional within the university (six papers).

3.3. What Are the Recommendations Proposed for Rethinking and Adapting Higher Education Delivery in the Future?

The COVID-19 period and its transition to distance learning had an unprecedented impact on education delivery in HE and research associated to this transition and situation has identified areas proposition for improvement (Figure 6).
Researchers while exploring HE service organization and delivery drew conclusions identifying the potential area of improvement. As the main area of investigation was eLearning and the use of new technologies, the main recommendation relates to an improvement in the use of IT and distance learning tools. One of the first recommendations is for universities in managing the use of IT to take into consideration factors influencing its utilization by faculty and students (perceived ease of use, perceived effectiveness, and accessibility among others). Besides the integration of these factors with reference to LMS models, training, through the design of IT-related or more qualitative and relevant topic-related training, could benefit from the experience of distance learning and associated research. In these, integration of virtual alongside physical training could be beneficial and virtual training could contribute to improved practical modules. Model-based management of social media could also be used to increase the university’s impact and improve access to courses and HE related information. Another key recommendation and a potential contributor to HE improvement is the design of policies and regulations ensuring more relevant academic intervention and providing guidelines for the use of IT.
Research also advocates for the promotion of equality in access to HI courses in relation to gender and special needs. Indeed, as distance learning appears more favorable for women, universities should attempt to guarantee the same in physical learning.
Finally, these researches expose the importance of student to student and faculty member to student relationships. Hence, there is a need for the university to ensure that students have space to communicate and exchange between them and with faculty members as well. Along with these different recommendations, this research also underlines the necessity to implement monitoring and evaluation while delivering HE services so HE institutions can guarantee qualitative and equal access to services.

4. Discussion

The present research draws attention to interesting aspects of academic research on higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic in the GCC, aspects that can also highlight some specificities of the research landscape in the region. Among the 17 studies kept for this study, 15 (n = 88.24%) were conducted in a HE institution of Saudi Arabia. This predominance within the academic institution in Saudi Arabia supports the findings from Mukerji and Jammel [51] highlighting that Saudi has the highest number of public HE institutions, followed by the UAE. In terms of total number of HE institutions, while including private colleges and universities, UAE overtakes SA [52]. However, when looking at the number of researches in this review, the results are consistent with the data from PwC [52,53] publications where Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE produce the vast majority of publications in the GCC. Thematics of research conducted during COVID-19 primarily relate to teaching, learning, and assessment (15, n = 88.24%). Then, policy, management and governance (1, n = 5%), and students transition rank at equal value. This repartition joins the MacFarlane [50] framework of research in higher education, between the two main domains of teaching and learning, to which students’ transition can be associated, and then policy research. In the GCC during COVID-19, teaching and learning research was the primary research agenda, followed by policy. Liu et al. [54] ranked teaching and learning, student experience, and policy respectively at the 15th, 16th, and 12th positions in their review of existing research trends on Higher Education. The specific context of COVID-19 transition to online learning may explain this concern for teaching and learning rather than assessment, feedback, or diversity ranked by Liu et al. among the five most recurrent research topics in higher education [54,55].
Another interesting point identified in this review is both the predominance of quantitative research in adopted methodologies and the assumed intention to address the gaps in the application of models or hypotheses to a specific context, being gender-related, local GCC culture, or COVID context (Figure 3, the total number of studies for this is ten, n = 59%). While we can understand the intention in testing and validating practices and theories through the use of quantitative methods as the best ways to confirm theories, in reality [56], qualitative approaches are generally more adapted for better understanding and appreciation of practices in a more specific and local context [57]. This is supported by the fact that a high proportion of the 17 studies identified the need to integrate qualitative methods (n = 17.5%) as a research gap as well as the integration of additional factors or context (n = 47%). At the same time use of solely quantitative methodology was identified as a limitation for the research in several articles (n = 17.5%) as not allowing to provide a full reflection and analysis of the studied phenomenon.
Trends in the development of Higher Education institutions in Europe tend to focus on the acceptance of information and knowledge as a basis for social interaction [58]. This focus on information sharing is a key component within the identified research and can be explained by the contextual influence of the COVID-19 period. However, the social aspect of information sharing and interaction between students as well as between students and faculty stands as an important finding and recommendation for further research as well as policy development in the research. Further, another key trend in the development of higher education lies in the opening of higher education to its environment, both through dialogue and collaboration locally and internationally [59,60].
In light of these trends, an avenue for future research could be exploring if Higher Education research in the GCC undergoes a similar evolution to other regions of the world. We can look at Higher Education research in Asia, which has seen similar trends in its evolution to the present one in the Middle East in its development earlier from the 1990s [61]. As seen in this paper, the majority of the identified studies focus on teaching and learning, similar to the evolution in Asia, where there has also been a growing focus on pedagogy, teaching and learning [61]. However, research on policies in Asia was more prominent in the 1990s, before a shift in focus towards teaching and learning [62]. Meanwhile, current research in the GCC remains focused on policies and continues to recommend further research on policies. It could be interesting to explore if higher education research in the GCC during its early evolution has comparative characteristics to research in Asia in the 1990s, such as limitation by the absence of theory [61], as underlined in one of the studies within this review.

4.1. Limitations Found in the Analyzed Literature

One of the main limitations identified in the present research relates to the definition and identification of the samples. Given our study’s theoretical framework, it appears that the accumulative advantage is missing in the selected publications. Sampling is key in the reliability and repeatability of a research [63] and as such raise question on the reliability and repeatability of research in the GCC. For quantitative research to be reliable in representing reality, the sample needs to be representative of an overall group for which the study results should be valid. Henceforth, sampling size and selection should be sufficient for this purpose [63,64,65,66]. Several studies from this review highlight the difficulty to access a high number of students in comparison to the total university population. At the same time, 13 studies explore only undergraduate experience (n = 76.5%). Even if undergraduates represent the majority of the student population in the region, i.e., 79.5% for Saudi Arabia [52], this focus may lead to neglecting the rest of HE population. Many pieces of research underline the need to extend the research to other members of the HE actors, mainly faculty.
The other identified limitation in sampling identification is the fact that participants have been identified because they are part of a course or a specific department or because they were the most accessible population. This can be seen as a convenience sampling approach, where the participants are selected because of their accessibility. However, in the approach, several researches resort to purposive sampling, the selection of samples based on what needs to be known and their assumed knowledge of this issue [66]. This sampling approach is usually more present in qualitative research. However, due to contextual constraints, such as limited access to students, faculty, or university, and low response to survey, the sample size and qualities are pre-identified to ease its access.
It also raises the question of knowing if the research topic is identified as a result of the available population or if the population is identified to serve the purpose of the research. Besides the limitation in the sample, research during COVID-19 is also limited by theoretical framework and limitation to a set number of factors. The reason for this limitation is not clearly defined, however it is identified as an issue and an alley for further research. Research, during COVID-19, can be said to be a constraint in the access to research subject and data, relevance of the theoretical framework as well as replicability. These factors are recurrent and it needs to be explored whether they are structural, inherent to GCC HE institutions, or contextual, resulting from the particular experience during COVID-19 pandemic.

4.2. Conclusions

As was pointed out above, available research reveals that individual factors, institutional characteristics, and accumulative advantage are essential components that determine research output in HE. An important implication of this for our current study is the need for existing research to draw upon common features, thematic foci, and relevant issues derived from previous studies. This will help in consolidating efforts to establish a common and shared knowledge of the role of higher education in times of crises in the GCC and elsewhere.
Finally, in terms of recommendations for the future and evolution of HE in the post-COVID period, the main aspect relates to the use of IT in teaching and learning as well as in communication, management, and interpersonal relation in university. Improvement in the effectiveness and capacity to use IT is recommended but in complement to physical learning and interaction. This supports the finding of Eringfeld [67] that students and faculty hope for better use of IT as a complement to physical experience in the university.
The second aspect that can result from COVID-19 period is both an improvement in practices through training of both staff and students, and an improvement in the policy and regulation framework to allow better practices and the ability to act from HE institutions. It also suggests that COVID-19 period was an opportunity to demonstrate the importance of student to students and students to faculty interaction and relation, and the key perceived contribution of physical interaction. This is supported by previous research such as Tinto [68] or Kuh and Hu [69] who highlight the importance of both these interactions on students’ motivation and attainment.
For this research, the proposition for improving and exploring factors contributing to developing these relations would benefit from the use of IT and virtual COVID-19 experience. Another recommendation lies in the design of courses and policies taking into consideration the use of IT and abilities to do so as well as the elaboration of policies encouraging and validating changes initiated during COVID-19 and responses to challenges, such as gender specificities, that became more salient during this period. Course design and implementation of relevant policies can increase student outcomes in teaching and learning or other skill development, such as social ability [70].
The present research has one main limitation as a result of the research selection of articles restricted to the Sustainability journal. It does provide an insight into academic research trends in the GCC but would benefit from expanding its systematic methodology to a wider corpus by expanding searches on research databases, such as SCOPUS and Web of Science, as well as on other publishers’ websites such as Springer.
This research provided an insight into academic research in Higher Education during the COVID-19 period and offers an opportunity to name potential for further research. It identified several characteristics in this regard, such as the predominance of Saudi Arabia in research and publication. It could be interesting to explore if this predominance is valid across subjects, and identify factors, apart from the number of institutions, that favor this lead. The higher number of quantitative over qualitative studies was also flagrant. Further research in identifying the respective proportional value of quantitative and qualitative research as well as their impact factor through the number of citations would allow for the identification of potential regional specificities. Further, exploring the convergence of methodological choices with an extended set of objectives for the research through the analysis of sampling quantitative research would allow for a greater scope. The expressed need for qualitative research may indicate the need to grasp the process rather than the outcomes, the meaning attributed locally by local actors to outside theories and concepts, as well as the need for an inductive construction of concepts and abstractions [66,71].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, all authors; methodology, A.L.S. and F.K.-F.; software, N/A; validation, all authors; formal analysis, F.K.-F. and I.J.D.M.; investigation, all authors; resources, I.J.D.M.; data curation, I.J.D.M.; writing—original draft preparation, all authors; writing—review and editing, A.L.S. and I.J.D.M.; visualization, F.K.-F.; supervision, A.L.S.; project administration, I.J.D.M.; funding acquisition, N/A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data is stored on a password-protected computer in the possetion of the first author and will be available upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the managing editor and anonymous referees for their constructive comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no known competing financial interests or personal relation that could have appeared to influence the study reported.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Details of publications selected for the comprehensive overview.
Table A1. Details of publications selected for the comprehensive overview.
#AuthorsYearRef.CountryParticipants/Data sourceArticleTypeResearch MethodThematic FocusIssues/GapsRecommendations
1Alturki & Aldraiweesh2021[34]Saudi ArabiaUndergraduate students
Graduate students		ArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning and AssessmentSample limitation/optimizing LMS to enhance sustainability in educationRemodel use of LMS by lecturers
2Khandakar et al.2022[35]QatarUndergraduate studentsArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning and AssessmentTheoretical framework and associated activities/use of MPL to improve students’ competencesImproving MPL courses implementation/using online courses for senior students
3Alyahya et al.2022[36]Saudi ArabiaUndergraduate studentsArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning, and AssessmentLimited factors, quantitative. longitudinal research elearning outcomesAvoid generalization, positive learning experience for all
4Mohammed2021[37]Saudi ArabiaUndergraduate studentsArticleQualitativeTeaching, Learning and AssessmentGender issue (specific cultural dimension)Plan hybrid learning, mixed physical/virtual
5Omar, Ali & Belbase2021[38]United Arab EmiratesGraduate studentsArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning and AssessmentSample randomisation, questionnaire limitation, factors, qualitative studiesCreate virtual space for students to students interaction by faculty
6Alshaikh et al.2021[39]Saudi ArabiaUndergraduate students
Graduate students		ArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning and AssessmentLimited sample to one public university, no qualitative/teacher perceptions, include other institutions—countriesFacilitate communication with/between students, class teaching use of MOOC tools, inspire students use MOOC
7Alamri2022[40]Saudi ArabiaUndergraduate students
Graduate Article students		ArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning and AssessmentLimitation in sample and factors. Use of LMS management in various context.Optimize investment in LMS for Higher Education,
8Pilotti, El-Moussa & Abdelsalam2022[41]Saudi ArabiaUndergraduate studentsArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning, and AssessmentContent limitation
educators are concerns for students learning		Analyze factors influencing participation/success in online learning in relation to genders
9Alturki & Aldraiweesh2022[42]Saudi ArabiaUndergraduate students
Graduate students		ArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning and AssessmentLimitation in sample and factors
Faculty, instructors/other stakeholders perspective		Encourage universities to use PU, PEU and PI to encourage use of online learning
10Pilotti & Al Ghazo2020[43]Saudi ArabiaUndergraduate studentsArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning and AssessmentSample limited to women
compulsory participation		Sustain learning of scientific reasoning
11AbdelSalam, Pilotti & El-Moussa2021[44]Saudi ArabiaUndergraduate studentsArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning and AssessmentLimited sample, convenience choice. women education measurementQuality modules to ensure quality education in online courses
12Meccawy, Meccawy &Alsobhi2021[45]Saudi ArabiaUndergraduate students
Faculty members
Reports		ArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning, and Assessmentlimitation in sample and factors
need to search on perception		Address technical and nontechnical aspect to improve satisfaction. Provide training and use tools, respond to special needs.
13Alblihed et al.2022[46]Saudi ArabiaUndergraduate studentsArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning and AssessmentLimited sample and factors
perception of online learning and in medical science		Regular evaluation/monitoring, policy for academic interventions
14AI-Youbi et al.2020[47]Saudi ArabiaReports
Others		ArticleMixedPolicy, Management and GovernanceNo international benchmark. Social media performance factorsSocial media management framework, decision-making tool.
15Mujalli, Khan &Almgrashi2022[48]Saudi ArabiaUndergraduate students
Graduate students
Faculty Members		ArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning and AssessmentLimitation of sample, restriction to quantitative method. quantitative & qualitative data, research to other institutions withBetter usage of Blackboard functionalities, improvement integrating socially, user-friendly aspects
16Almulla2022[49]Saudi ArabiaFaculty MembersArticleQuantitativeTeaching, Learning, and AssessmentSample size limitation, more institutions, qualitative data. student and faculty perspectivesIdentify factors influencing student/faculty use of technologies
17Al-Youbi et al.2020[50]Saudi ArabiaOtherArticleQuantitativeStudent transition and graduate attributesQuantitative study.
Gap: context-specific research		Flexibility of institutions, development of virtual skills.

References

  1. Findler, F.; Schönherr, N.; Lozano, R.; Stacherl, B. Assessing the impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable development—An analysis of tools and indicators. Sustainability 2018, 11, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Friman, M.; Schreiber, D.; Syrjänen, R.; Kokkonen, E.; Mutanen, A.; Salminen, J. Steering sustainable development in higher education—Outcomes from Brazil and Finland. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lozano, R.; Barreiro-Gen, M. Analysing the factors affecting the incorporation of sustainable development into European Higher Education Institutions’ curricula. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 965–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sepasi, S.; Rahdari, A.; Rexhepi, G. Developing a sustainability reporting assessment tool for higher education institutions: The University of California. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 672–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ferrer-Balas, D.; Lozano, R.; Huisingh, D.; Buckland, H.; Ysern, P.; Zilahy, G. Going beyond the rhetoric: System-wide changes in universities for sustainable societies. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lozano, R.; Lozano, F.J.; Mulder, K.; Huisingh, D.; Waas, T. Advancing higher education for sustainable development: International insights and critical reflections. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Koehn, P.H.; Uitto, J.I. Evaluating sustainability education: Lessons from international development experience. High. Educ. 2014, 67, 621–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Findler, F.; Schönherr, N.; Lozano, R.; Reider, D.; Martinuzzi, A. The impacts of higher education institutions on sustainable development: A review and conceptualization. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2019, 20, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Heng, K.; Hamid, M.O.; Khan, A. Factors influencing academics’ research engagement and productivity: A developing countries perspective. Issues Educ. Res. 2020, 30, 965–987. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gaus, N.; Malago, J.D.; Basri, M.; Mustaking, M.; Paramma, M.A.; Maharani, N.; Angraeni, R. Why are academics of science more productive than those of social science? Evidence from Indonesia. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2020, 13, 369–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kwiek, M. The European research elite: A cross national-study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. High. Educ. 2016, 71, 379–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Salinas-Ávila, J.; Abreu-Ledón, R.; Tamayo-Arias, J. Intellectual capital and knowledge generation: An empirical study from Colombian public universities. J. Intellect. Cap. 2020, 21, 1053–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rooney, A.A.; Cooper, G.S.; Jahnke, G.D.; Lam, J.; Morgan, R.L.; Boyles, A.L.; Ratcliffe, J.M.; Kraft, A.D.; Schünemann, H.J.; Schwingl, P.; et al. How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards. Environ. Int. 2016, 92, 617–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Daniels, K. Guidance on conducting and reviewing systematic reviews (and meta-analyses) in work and organizational psychology. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2019, 28, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mayo-Wilson, E.; Grant, S.; Supplee, L.; Kianersi, S.; Amin, A.; DeHaven, A.; Mellor, D. Evaluating implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines: The TRUST process for rating journal policies, procedures, and practices. Res. Integr. Peer Rev. 2021, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. O’Dea, R.E.; Lagisz, M.; Jennions, M.D.; Koricheva, J.; Noble, D.W.; Parker, T.H.; Gurevitch, J.; Page, M.J.; Stewart, G.; Moher, D.; et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: A PRISMA extension. Biol. Rev. 2021, 96, 1695–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rowe, F. What literature review is not: Diversity, boundaries and recommendations. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2014, 23, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Paré, G.; Trudel, M.C.; Jaana, M.; Kitsiou, S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Inf. Manag. 2015, 52, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Buccheri, R.K.; Sharifi, C. Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines for evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid. -Based Nurs. 2017, 14, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pace, R.; Pluye, P.; Bartlett, G.; Macaulay, A.C.; Salsberg, J.; Jagosh, J.; Seller, R. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2012, 49, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Roberts, A.H.; Greenwood, D.A.; Stanley, M.; Humberstone, C.; Iredale, F.; Raynor, A. Coach knowledge in talent identification: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2019, 22, 1163–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Romanelli, J.P.; Meli, P.; Naves, R.P.; Alves, M.C.; Rodrigues, R.R. Reliability of evidence-review methods in restoration ecology. Conserv. Biol. 2021, 35, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gough, D.; Oliver, S.; Thomas, J. Introducing systematic reviews. In An Introduction to Systematic Reviews; Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2012; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rethlefsen, M.L.; Kirtley, S.; Waffenschmidt, S.; Ayala, A.P.; Moher, D.; Page, M.J.; Koffel, J.B. PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Møller, A.M.; Myles, P.S. What makes a good systematic review and meta-analysis? BJA Br. J. Anaesth. 2016, 117, 428–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Siddaway, A.P.; Wood, A.M.; Hedges, L.V. How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2019, 70, 747–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sarkis-Onofre, R.; Catalá-López, F.; Aromataris, E.; Lockwood, C. How to properly use the PRISMA Statement. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Moher, D. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 134, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaf, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kayan-Fadlelmula, F.; Sellami, A.; Abdelkader, N.; Umer, S. A systematic review of STEM education research in the GCC countries: Trends, gaps and barriers. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2022, 9, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Harden, A.; Gough, D. Quality and relevance appraisal. In An Introduction to Systematic Reviews; Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2012; pp. 153–178. [Google Scholar]
  33. Nicholas, D.; Watkinson, A.; Jamali, H.R.; Herman, E.; Tenopir, C.; Volentine, R.; Levine, K. Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learn. Publ. 2015, 28, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Alturki, U.; Aldraiweesh, A. Application of Learning Management System (LMS) during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Sustainable Acceptance Model of the Expansion Technology Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Khandakar, A.; Chowdhury, M.E.H.; Khalid, M.S.; Zorba, N. Case Study of Multi-Course Project-Based Learning and Online Assessment in Electrical Engineering Courses during COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Alyahya, M.A.; Elshaer, I.A.; Abunasser, F.; Hassan, O.H.M.; Sobaih, A.E.E. E-Learning Experience in Higher Education amid COVID-19: Does Gender Really Matter in A Gender-Segregated Culture? Sustainability 2022, 14, 3298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mohammed, A.S. Experience Sharing on Virtual COOP Training to Mechanical Engineering Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Omar, H.A.; Ali, E.M.; Belbase, S. Graduate Students’ Experience and Academic Achievements with Online Learning during COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Alshaikh, K.; Maasher, S.; Bayazed, A.; Saleem, F.; Badri, S.; Fakieh, B. Impact of COVID-19 on the Educational Process in Saudi Arabia: A Technology—Organization—Environment Framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Alamri, M.M. Investigating Students’ Adoption of MOOCs during COVID-19 Pandemic: Students’ Academic Self-Efficacy, Learning Engagement, and Learning Persistence. Sustainability 2022, 14, 714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pilotti, M.A.E.; El-Moussa, O.J.; Abdelsalam, H.M. Measuring the Impact of the Pandemic on Female and Male Students’ Learning in a Society in Transition: A Must for Sustainable Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Alturki, U.; Aldraiweesh, A. Students’ Perceptions of the Actual Use of Mobile Learning during COVID-19 Pandemic in Higher Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pilotti, M.A.E.; Al Ghazo, R. Sustainable Education Starts in the Classroom. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. AbdelSalam, H.M.; Pilotti, M.A.E.; El-Moussa, O.J. Sustainable Math Education of Female Students during a Pandemic: Online versus Face-to-Face Instruction. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Meccawy, M.; Meccawy, Z.; Alsobhi, A. Teaching and Learning in Survival Mode: Students and Faculty Perceptions of Distance Education during the COVID-19 Lockdown. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Alblihed, M.A.; Aly, S.M.; Albrakati, A.; Eldehn, A.F.; Ali, S.A.A.; Al-Hazani, T.; Albarakati, M.H.; Abdel Daim, M.; Al-sharif, A.; Albarakati, A.J.A.; et al. The Effectiveness of Online Education in Basic Medical Sciences Courses during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Saudi Arabia: Cross-Sectional Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. AI-Youbi, A.O.; Al-Hayani, A.; Bardesi, H.J.; Basheri, M.; Lytras, M.D.; Aljohani, N.R. The King Abdulaziz University (KAU) Pandemic Framework: A Methodological Approach to Leverage Social Media for the Sustainable Management of Higher Education in Crisis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mujalli, A.; Khan, T.; Almgrashi, A. University Accounting Students and Faculty Members Using the Blackboard Platform during COVID-19; Proposed Modification of the UTAUT Model and an Empirical Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Almulla, M.A. Using Digital Technologies for Testing Online Teaching Skills and Competencies during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Al-Youbi, A.; Al-Hayani, A.; Rizwan, A.; Choudhry, H. Implication of COVID 19 on the Labor Market of Saudi Arabia: The role of universities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mukerji, S.; Jammel, N.K. Perspectives and Strategies towards Collaboration in Higher Education in the GCC Arab States of the Gulf. Asian J. Distance Educ. 2008, 6, 76–86. [Google Scholar]
  52. Morad, S.A. Education in Saudi Arabia. World Education News + Review, 9 April 2020. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kamal, K. Education in the United Arab Emirates. World Education News + Review, 10 August 2018. [Google Scholar]
  54. Shengbo, L.; Miaomiao, L.; Hua, J.; Yuan, L.; Kan, X. International comparisons of themes in higher education research. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2019, 38, 1445–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Macfarlane, B. The higher education research archipelago. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2012, 31, 129–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Flanagan, T. The Scientific Method and why if Matters. C2C J. 2013, 7, 4–6. [Google Scholar]
  57. Queiros, A.; Faria, D.; Almeida, F. Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 2017, 3, 369–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Conner, T.W.; Rabovsky, T.M. Accountability, affordability, access: A review of the recent trends in higher education policy. Policy Stud. J. 2011, 39, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tight, M. Research into higher education: An a-theoretical community of practice. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2004, 23, 395–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Adveeva, I.T.; Kulik, D.A.; Kosareva, L.A.; Zhilkina, T.A.; Belogurov, A.Y. Problems and Prospects of Higher Education System Development in Modern Society. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2017, 20, 112–124. [Google Scholar]
  61. Horta, H.; Jisun, J. Higher education research in Asia: An archipelago, two continents or merely atomization? High Educ. 2014, 68, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Milam, J.H., Jr. The presence of paradigms in the core higher education journal literature. Res. High. Educ. 1991, 32, 651–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Henn, M.; Weinstein, M.; Foard, N. A Short Introduction to Social Research; SagePublication Ltd.: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  64. Delıce, A. The Sampling Issues in Quantitative Research. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2010, 10, 2001–2018. [Google Scholar]
  65. Etikan, I.; Sulaiman Abubakar, M.; Sunusi Alkassim, R. Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 2016, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ochieng, P.A. An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Probl. Educ. 21st Century 2009, 13, 13. [Google Scholar]
  67. Eringfeld, S. Higher education and its post-coronial future: Utopian hopes and dystopian fears at Cambridge University during COVID-19. Stud. High. Educ. 2021, 46, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tinto, V. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  69. Kuh, G.D.; Hu, S. The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. Rev. High. Educ. 2001, 24, 309–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Halonen, T. Fair Globalization: Establishing Opportunities for All: Report of the Worldwide Commission on Social Dimensions of Globalization. Geneva, Switzerland, ILO Bureau, 2004. Problems and Prospects of Higher Education System Development in Modern Society. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322616265_Problems_and_prospects_of_higher_education_system_development_in_modern_society (accessed on 28 July 2022).
  71. Tight, M. Higher education research 2000–2010: Changing journal publication patterns. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2012, 31, 723–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 10886 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow of the Study Selection.
Figure 1. Flow of the Study Selection.
Sustainability 14 10886 g001
Sustainability 14 10886 g002 550
Figure 2. Participants/Source of Data.
Figure 2. Participants/Source of Data.
Sustainability 14 10886 g002
Sustainability 14 10886 g003 550
Figure 3. Previous Gaps Identified in the Research (some of the studies meet several criteria, for example, gender-related studies and local cultural context (2 studies), practical studies, and academic specialties (both studies)).
Figure 3. Previous Gaps Identified in the Research (some of the studies meet several criteria, for example, gender-related studies and local cultural context (2 studies), practical studies, and academic specialties (both studies)).
Sustainability 14 10886 g003
Sustainability 14 10886 g004 550
Figure 4. Present Gaps (some of the studies meet several criteria, for example, integration of additional factors and qualitative factors or extension of the research to other institutions).
Figure 4. Present Gaps (some of the studies meet several criteria, for example, integration of additional factors and qualitative factors or extension of the research to other institutions).
Sustainability 14 10886 g004
Sustainability 14 10886 g005 550
Figure 5. Researches Limitations and Issues (some of the studies meet several criteria, for example, research sample and content, for 2 studies, research sample and quantitative methodologies for 2 other studies).
Figure 5. Researches Limitations and Issues (some of the studies meet several criteria, for example, research sample and content, for 2 studies, research sample and quantitative methodologies for 2 other studies).
Sustainability 14 10886 g005
Sustainability 14 10886 g006 550
Figure 6. Recommendation to Improve and Adapt IH (some of the studies meet several criteria, policies and regulations, and use of LMS).
Figure 6. Recommendation to Improve and Adapt IH (some of the studies meet several criteria, policies and regulations, and use of LMS).
Sustainability 14 10886 g006
Table
Table 1. Data items and codes.
Table 1. Data items and codes.
Year CountryParticipants/DataArticle TypeResearch MethodThematic Focus
1. 2020
2. 2021
3. 2022		1. Saudi Arabia
2. Qatar
3. United Arab Emirates
4. Oman
5. Bahrain
6. Kuwait		1. Undergraduate students
2. Graduate students
3. Faculty members
4. Reports
5. Others		1. Article
2. Reviews
3. Perspectives
4. Editorial
5. Communication
6. Others		1. Qualitative
2. Quantitative
3. Mixed
4. Conceptual
5. Others		1. Teaching, Learning, Assessment
2. Student Transition and Graduate Attributes
3. Professional Development
4. Policy, Management, and Governance
5. Diversity in Higher Education Institutions
6. Others
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Michaleczek, I.J.D.; Kayan-Fadlelmula, F.; Sellami, A.L. Research on Higher Education during the COVID-19 in the Gulf Cooperation Council: An Overview of Publications in the Journal Sustainability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710886

AMA Style

Michaleczek IJD, Kayan-Fadlelmula F, Sellami AL. Research on Higher Education during the COVID-19 in the Gulf Cooperation Council: An Overview of Publications in the Journal Sustainability. Sustainability. 2022; 14(17):10886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710886

Chicago/Turabian Style

Michaleczek, Igor Jacky Dimitri, Fatma Kayan-Fadlelmula, and Abdel Latif Sellami. 2022. "Research on Higher Education during the COVID-19 in the Gulf Cooperation Council: An Overview of Publications in the Journal Sustainability" Sustainability 14, no. 17: 10886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710886

APA Style

Michaleczek, I. J. D., Kayan-Fadlelmula, F., & Sellami, A. L. (2022). Research on Higher Education during the COVID-19 in the Gulf Cooperation Council: An Overview of Publications in the Journal Sustainability. Sustainability, 14(17), 10886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710886

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