Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • 2023
23
Engineering Management in Production and Services
Although some studies are available on the adop-
tion of e-learning tools in higher education, all of
them are focused on a specic institution and dier-
ent limitations and perspectives (Regueras et al.,
Fonseca, M. J., Garcia, J. E., Vieira, B., & Teixeira, A. S. (2023). Lecturers’ attitude towards the use of e-learning tools in
higher education: a case of Portugal. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 15(2), 23-34. doi: 10.2478/emj-
2023-0009
2009; King & Boyatt, 2015; Valencia-Arias et al., 2019;
Alkhawaja & Abd, 2019; Eze, 2020; Yamoah & ul
Haque, 2022). Moreover, most of them investigate the
students’ but not the lecturers’ perspectives on
using the tools (Phutela & Dwivedi, 2020; Ho et al.,
2020, Rehman et al., 2022; Al Rawashdeh et al.,
2021; Almajali et al., 2021; Ejdys & Szpilko, 2021).
24
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • 2023
Engineering Management in Production and Services
erefore, this study explored the lecturers’ points of
vie w.
Considering the research objectives, the study
used the most relevant qualitative methodology,
a focus group. From the initial stage, it was based on
four specic investigated objectives: the level of lec-
turers’ knowledge about existing e-learning tools; the
perceived advantages and reasons for using them; the
advantages and disadvantages of using e-learning
tools; and, nally, the perspective of participating
lecturers on the student assessment process and tools
in e-learning.
e research objectives aligned with some unex-
plored points within studies on the same topic. Also,
they were used for the focus group debate to learn the
lecturer’s opinions on the use of e-learning tools in
the context of distance learning in Portugal, necessi-
tated by the pandemic.
roughout the research, the lecturers’ opinions
on the topic were facilitated and encouraged in the
denition and application phases of the methodol-
ogy, i.e., in the focus group. is research format was
chosen to ensure as substantiated analysis of the
results as possible and to draw lessons eectively in
line with the statements given by the participating
lecturers.
e article is divided into the following parts:
rst, a literature review focuses on various e-learning
topics to be analysed; then, a detailed explanation and
justication are given for the chosen research meth-
odology; next, for the analysis and conclusions,
research results are divided into four broad objectives
and presented in writing and visually; and, nally, the
conclusions are summarised and discussed, indicat-
ing perspectives for future studies on this research
topic.
Before analysing the application of e-learning
tools in higher education in Portugal, it is important
to understand them and their advantages for teach-
ing, as well as the main concerns in their development
and application.
Nowadays, it is increasingly important to develop
tools that keep up with digital transformations and
user requirements, which are changing faster and
more drastically (Costa et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al.,
2021). Besides usability as a primary objective, so-
ware developers have oered e-learning tools with
well-dened pedagogical strategies (Garcia et al.,
2022) and integrated training for students and lectur-
ers, state-of-the-art technologies aligned with user
expectations, continuous performance evaluation for
students and the learning platform, various support
to students and, nally, the pleasant design and
appearance of the tools (Eneterio et al., 2020; Ayu,
2020).
Based on Aljawarneh et al. (2010), e-learning
tools have taken a leading role in teaching delivery in
the 21st century as it signicantly reduces education
costs and is much more ecient and eective than
traditional teaching at its genesis. e authors listed
ve advantages of adopting e-learning tools: more
proactive teaching; more diversied forms of teach-
ing; greater attention and achievement of students;
less time for lectures, and visual stimulation of classes
and content. Also, they listed four disadvantages of
the use of e-learning tools: equipment and hardware
failures; the greater need for training and recovery
plans in case of problems; anxiety caused by over-
expository lectures; and the time spent learning new
technologies and the skills needed to use them (Alja-
warneh et al., 2010). According to another study on
e-learning eectiveness conducted among higher
education students, e-learning has such advantages as
speediness, the economy in terms of time and nan-
cial costs, suitability for independent work, added
value to teaching from the learner’s perspective, usa-
bility for more proactive teaching; responsiveness to
dierent needs, applicability outside the classroom,
and the overall satisfactory quality of e-learning,
indicating its eectiveness (Ali et al., 2018). is
study aimed to verify if the same conclusions were
true in Portugal from the lecturers’ perspective.
e identication of these advantages and disad-
vantages by other authors is extremely relevant for
this study on the Portuguese reality, allowing to verify
if the problems vary from country to country (Sebele-
Mpofu, 2020). According to Reddy (2015), the
opportunities for developed and developing countries
are somewhat similar, yet diculties may vary a lot
since, in developing countries, the constraints go far
beyond the lack of motivation and proactivity of the
involved actors, also noting the diculties added by
lacking technological infrastructure and incentives
from governments to introduce such solutions in
education. is important issue should also be inves-
tigated for a possibility to later verify if the advantages
and diculties in Portugal align with other countries
implementing policies on e-learning tools in higher
education. Higher education has been going through
a gradual transition towards e-learning over the years.
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • 2023
25
Engineering Management in Production and Services
According to Magano et al. (2008) in 2008, Portu-
guese higher education had overcome the initial tra-
ditionalist fears and mistrust of this distance learning
method. en, the authors considered that e-learning
had already been seen as a valid means to overcome
existing problems and enhance the teaching and
learning quality in Portugal (Magano et al., 2008).
is reality has become more evident in Portuguese
higher education, especially during the COVID-19
pandemic, which required the adoption of strategies
and responses to ensure the best possible transmis-
sion of knowledge (Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021). is
study also focused on this dimension to verify
whether the e-learning context has evolved, consider-
ing, e.g., the preconceptions of 2008 about the
e-learning framework.
e research environment in the studied area is
still undeveloped, which explains why this article not
only presents the lecturers’ perspective but also eluci-
dates on the Portuguese teaching context through
qualitative analysis. ese two factors are the main
distinctive elements of the study. Until now, some
studies have been conducted from the perspective of
students regarding e-learning in Portuguese higher
education. Remote and online e-learning is consid-
ered a more personalised and appropriate knowledge
transmission format tailored to the needs of each
student (Mamede, 2014). E-learning can also be
dened as the use of technologies providing a wider
range of solutions to problems associated with
knowledge transmission. E-learning also supports
the rising idea of exible learning, which allows lec-
turers and students to personalise teaching and
knowledge transmission and/or reception depending
on the case (Kumar Basak et al., 2018). Besides these
types of studies, many more specic case studies have
been performed, several of which are related to Uni-
versidade Aberta in Portugal, an institution which
mostly operates using an e-learning format. Based on
some of the studies, the institution faced several
problems regarding the lecturers’ attitudes. Accord-
ing to Pereira et al. (2012), adequate training and
necessary support were provided to all lecturers so
that this type of teaching could be developed in the
entire institution. Such cases are interesting due to
the possibility of comparing whether the diculties
encountered by Universidade Aberta lecturers are
similar to those currently felt. In preparation for this
study, lecturers from several institutions in the coun-
try were interviewed, so it is pertinent to compare the
diculties faced by them and their institutions and
the problems that existed at Universidade Aberta
during its transition since 2006 (Pereira et al., 2012)
to verify if there is any dierence related to the time
gap.
In addition, other studies focused on specic
geographical areas and teaching sectors. Baber (2021)
presented a case study of South Korea dening the
acceptance of e-learning during the COVID-19 pan-
demic. Based on the conclusion, the interaction was
the main critical success factor in this teaching con-
text, and the main initiator’s role in such interaction
must be taken by the teacher in charge and not the
students (Baber, 2021). Irfan et al. (2020) studied
a specic case of diculties experienced in the transi-
tion from classroom teaching to e-learning in Indo-
nesia. e study was focused on the teaching of
mathematics and various associated sub-areas. e
author indicated several constraints experienced by
teachers in this transition, such as the lack of interac-
tion with students, the barriers in the computerised
use of mathematical symbols, and limited computer
knowledge and content presentation skills as the
teachers continued applying the models used in face-
to-face settings which, evidently, were not suitable in
an e-learning context (Irfan et al., 2020). Although
such studies address areas dierent to those presented
in this study, they allow for a comparison with other
realities to understand if e-learning brought globali-
sation or polarity in the transmission of knowledge in
the pandemic context.
e analysis of other literature reviews on the
research subject allowed identifying some of the main
study areas in the context of e-learning enhanced by
the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., the diculties in
adjusting the needs and desires of teachers to those of
students, diculties in connecting to devices and
communication networks, less control over issues
related to mental health, and the lack of necessary
resources associated with the transmission and acqui-
sition of academic knowledge (Zethembe, 2020). e
author also indicated insucient scientic research
on these issues and their respective short and long-
term consequences for e-learning in higher education
(Zethembe, 2020). e study described in this article
aims to full these research needs and to deepen the
understanding of how the situation in Portuguese
higher education compares to other countries.
Although most students preferred teaching in an
e-learning context, it is important to look at the
teachers’ perspectives and the diculties they experi-
enced in this context. According to Kulikowski et al.
(2022), the teachers’ motivation and performance
suered because of job characteristics, which conse-
26
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • 2023
Engineering Management in Production and Services
quently may have implications for the overall teach-
ing performance. is “forced” e-learning adoption
may have caused practically incorrigible impacts on
the teachers’ opinions about this teaching context
since many insucient preparation cases could have
jeopardised the adoption or the continuity of the use
of the e-learning tools. Kulikowski et al. further sug-
gested dividing the consequences of forced e-learning
into two major tracks, one that understands the con-
sequences derived from COVID-19 and the other
that understands the major consequences that were
motivated by the implementation and execution of
e-learning (Kulikowski et al., 2022).
is division of consequences is essential for the
analysis as it may demonstrate the paradigm veried
by teachers in each of these two strands instead of just
understanding the general opinion of teachers with-
out any breakdown of the obtained results.
e methodology used was a focus group with
a sample of lecturers working in public higher educa-
tion (universities or polytechnic schools) and repre-
senting dierent teaching and geographical areas to
achieve a more holistic perspective on lecturers’ atti-
tudes towards using e-learning tools. Participants
were selected and invited based on the network of
contacts of dierent researchers engaged in this study.
No exhaustive list of tools was created to ensure
that lecturers mention the most-used e-learning tools
and to encourage the discussion. Instead, all partici-
pants were asked to openly state the e-learning tools
Â
used during teaching by distance or face-to-face
modes. A more open study of knowledge and
familiarity with new tools created a climate of knowl-
edge transmission between participants of the focus
group.
Since this study involved the personal perspec-
tives of each teacher, no pre-established metrics were
used to avoid limiting the opinions. However, per-
spectives given in the focus group and the analysis
were always directed towards studied objectives to
refrain from digressing too far into other topics.
Table 1 contains the list of participants providing
their names, scientic area, educational institution,
and a code assigned by the research team. In the fol-
lowing sections, whenever participants are mentioned
in the conclusions drawn, they will be referred to by
these codes.
Considering the nature of the studied subject,
a qualitative approach was chosen to achieve a more
comprehensive response and enhance the sharing of
ideas. Following this methodological approach justi-
cation, a focus group was selected because it best
meets the two premises.
Since the focus group can be used in various
contexts, such as exploring new and examining exist-
ing areas of research or even exploring new areas that
may arise from the methodology application (Wilkin-
son, 1998), the ow of information analysis is highly
relevant.
e focus group was held on 10 March 2022 for
approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes. e moderator
asked the participants for permission to record the
session to follow the sequence presented in Fig. 1. e
results analysis and the focus group followed a spe-
Fig. 1. Focus group analysis process
Fig. 2. Word cloud of the first dimension
Source: elaborated by the authors using the MAXQDA 2022 software.
Fig. 3. Word cloud of the second dimension
Source: elaborated by the authors using the MAXQDA 2022 software.
Conducting the
focus group
Analyzing the
recording Transcription
Analysis of
the
transcription
Interpretation
of results
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • 2023
27
Engineering Management in Production and Services
cic approach aimed at receiving and understanding
the lecturers’ perspectives. e topics analysed and
the ideas derived from them, in terms of content,
were used in the research as qualitative methods open
to discussion. Direct participants’ quotes stated dur-
ing the focus group were used to support dierent
objectives of the analysis (Jones et al., 2005).
e four major objectives outlined to respond to
the methodology’s application were: (1) the partici-
pant’s level of knowledge of dierent e-learning tools
and the freedom given by the institutions to choose
them, which aimed to understand the reality felt in
dierent scientic and geographical areas when
inserted in the same teaching context; (2) the main
advantages and (3) the main disadvantages associated
with the use of these tools, aiming to understand the
participants’ opinions (positive or negative) the
regarding their use to aid in the knowledge transmis-
sion; and (4) the lecturers’ opinions on the assessment
in the context of e-learning, previously identied as
a critical factor and to be conrmed or rejected in this
study and, most importantly, in the application of this
methodology.
e focus group began with an introductory dis-
cussion to assess how the transition from traditional
face-to-face teaching to distance learning occurred
starting in March 2020 during the spread of the
SARS-CoV-2 virus.
e introductory discussion revealed that many
represented institutions were prepared for the change.
ey provided training, equipment, constant moni-
toring and psychological support for students and
lecturers. Despite all the eorts, the participants also
emphasised some diculties in this transition, mainly
due to the lack of interactivity and the refusal of many
lecturers to work remotely due to the belief that this
method did not guarantee the required equity. In
conclusion, despite some restrictions particular to
this format of classes/assessments, positive results
were achieved because higher education institutions
were prepared, which made the transition quick, easy,
and quite enjoyable. is reality highlighted the great
responsiveness of higher education institutions in
Portugal throughout this process.
e participants also showed great responsive-
ness to this context and were satised with the use of
distance learning support tools, even stating that they
continue to use them daily.
P5IPS — “I think it went well; now it’s our daily life,
so to speak!”
3.1. Level of knowledge of e-learning
tools
Aer addressing the introductory topic, the
research moved on to its rst major dimension, aimed
at measuring the degree of participants’ knowledge of
e-learning tools and the freedom given by their edu-
cational institutions to choose the tools. It was found
that the focus group participants had complete free-
dom to choose the tools; however, the institutions
made recommendations, i.e., mainly Zoom1, Moo-
dle2, traditional e-mail3 and Microso Teams4 and in
some instances, Fenix5, BigBlueButton6 and
Exame.net7. e training was provided for lecturers
on certain previously used tools, namely Moodle. It
provided knowledge for more optimised assessments
and introduced lecturers to earlier undiscovered and
unexplored features. In addition to the tools licensed
by educational institutions, other tools were used to
streamline the course of the classes, such as Kahoot8.
Aer measuring the participants’ level of knowledge
about these types of tools, the discussion delved into
functionalities considered having an added value
during lessons and necessary for their use within dif-
ferent teaching areas. Two participants defended the
non-use of many tools; however, the remaining par-
ticipants considered the use of more tools and meth-
odologies as a way to increase the interaction lost in
this remote teaching regime. erefore, it was consid-
ered that such tools as Mentimeter9, Zoom simulta-
neous rooms, ScreenCasts10, Quizizz11, Sway12,
Podcast13, Google Forms14, Microso Forms15,
URKUND16, etc., could promote interaction with
Zoom — videoconferencing tool.
Moodle — sharing documentation.
E-mail — interpersonal communication.
Microso Teams — videoconferencing and documen
tation sharing tool.
Fenix — internal information system.
BigBlueButton — video conferencing tool.
Exame.net — assessment control.
Kahoot — interaction through questionnaires.
Mentimeter — interaction through questionnaires.
10 ScreenCasts — asynchronous teaching by sharing
content via a screen.
11 Quizizz — interaction through questionnaires.
12 Sway — content presentation tool.
13 Podcast — asynchronous teaching by sharing content
through audio recordings.
14 Google Forms — interaction through questionnaires.
15 Microso Forms — interaction through question
naires.
16 URKUND — plagiarism detection tool.
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • 2023
Engineering Management in Production and Services
students making them more comfortable with the
means used.
e participants advocating for the use of these
tools proved to be quite versatile and adaptable to the
environment. ey even admitted that in a dierent
environment, the methodologies should also be dif-
ferent and more diversied, as they believed this was
the only way to achieve a better result regarding the
cognitive optimisation of students.
P2IPT — “Means are dierent; therefore, we also
have to have dierent methodologies.”
Although most participants advocated for diverse
e-learning tools, two reasons were stated by the par-
ticipants who did not. First, they argued that it was
due to institutional rules and legislation that lecturers
could not force students to use tools for which the
institutions had no legal protocols and thus could not
guarantee the security of data, so students could
refuse to use them.
Second, the tools did not have functionalities
considered especially important to participants, such
as making text transcription of verbal conversations
on videoconferencing platforms. One participant
stated that their institution decided to keep all the
workload and conduct as was done face-to-face, i.e.,
the tools could not replace synchronous human inter-
action, even if at a distance.
P3UMa — “Even the best technologies can never
simulate human interaction. We do a simulation, but
limitations will always exist.”
Within the rst dimension on the level of knowl-
edge of e-learning tools, a new discussion topic was
launched to try and understand if participants who
extensively used the tools remotely continued doing
so in face-to-face classroom settings once the pan-
demic in Portugal subsided and to learn the reasons
behind this choice. e discussion revealed that
almost all participants continued using the tools,
particularly for exercises using a tablet and providing
documents with corrections made during a class so
that students felt more familiar with the topics.
Also, one participant attested to a strong investment
by their higher education institution in high-resolu-
tion cameras that continue to be used frequently,
particularly in the case of students in prophylactic
isolation.
Despite these topics being more specic to cer-
tain realities, the participants agreed more on the
continued use of Teams as the main form of commu-
nication, the greater potential of Moodle as a whole,
Kahoot and Zoom in a professional context and/or as
an addition for extra-class students. In addition to
tools ocially adopted by institutions, some partici-
pants continue to use tools discovered and explored
during the time of remote teaching.
P2IPT — “I was already using these tools. What hap-
pened was more massive and more intensive use of
t h e m .”
P5IPS — “I say that now, I will hardly ever stop using
any of these tools because they have become
a part of our everyday life.”
In conclusion of the rst dimension’s analysis,
Fig. 2 shows a word cloud composed of the most used
and relevant words that reect the main addressed
concepts. Some ideas support previous analyses, e.g.,
the focus on students through the adequacy of tools,
concerns with the needs of colleagues, lecturers, some
technologies and dierent ways to share content, and
some fears regarding the excess of diversication.
3.2. Main advantages and reasons for
using e-learning tools
e second dimension aimed to assess the
advantages perceived by participants in the use of
Fig. 1. Focus group analysis process
Fig. 2. Word cloud of the first dimension
Source: elaborated by the authors using the MAXQDA 2022 software.
Fig. 3. Word cloud of the second dimension
Source: elaborated by the authors using the MAXQDA 2022 software.
Conducting the
focus group
Analyzing the
recording Transcription
Analysis of
the
transcription
Interpretation
of results
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • 2023
29
Engineering Management in Production and Services
Fig. 1. Focus group analysis process
Fig. 2. Word cloud of the first dimension
Source: elaborated by the authors using the MAXQDA 2022 software.
Fig. 3. Word cloud of the second dimension
Source: elaborated by the authors using the MAXQDA 2022 software.
Conducting the
focus group
Analyzing the
recording Transcription
Analysis of
the
transcription
Interpretation
of results
e-learning tools. is topic revealed more diver-
gence among the participants.
One participant believed that the tools brought
practically no added value to students, as they
remained quite discouraged due to the remote for-
mat of classes, even with various tools at their dis-
posal. e institution of this particular participant
prioritised face-to-face teaching, making no massive
investment in technological tools and equipment to
support e-learning.
P3UMa — “ere is a limitation of the technologies
to be used, whether it is at the hardware level in the
rooms (...), whether it is at the level of imitation
soware, there is no interactivity on the boards or
anything that allows it.”
Other participants mentioned several yet very
dierent advantages of the use of e-learning tools in
this same context.
While some participants saw advantages for
students, who seemed more motivated and ener-
gised in this context, others indicated benets
related to the ease of working with students, meeting
them aer work and scheduling individual tutoring
sessions and even arranging meetings with compa-
nies connected to the educational institutions. e
participants indicated that the tools allowed for
a simplied and more practical day-to-day running
of the classes and interaction with stakeholders
involved in higher education.
e second view was based on the premise that
higher education students are digital natives, per-
ceiving e-learning tools as extremely benecial in
general and to lessons in particular. e supporters
of this view also argued they were using the tools
because they were considered the best by students.
ey saw eective advantages in the use of the tools,
and if students wanted other types of methodolo-
gies, they would have also been used to ensure stu-
dent satisfaction with the e-learning process.
P2IPT — “I’ve been using a lot of digital tools
because I think that’s what the students want, but if
the students wanted something else, I would use it
because I have to achieve my goal.”
e word cloud model allowed for the verica-
tion of lecturers’ concern regarding the focus on
students and the smooth running of classes, as can
be seen from the terminology most used by the
participants in this category (Fig. 3). Also, some
most frequently used terminology evaluated the use
of distance learning support tools as good and creat-
ing “added value” in meeting the objectives and
adapting methodologies.
3.3. Main disadvantages and reasons
for not using e-learning tools
While it makes sense to study the advantages of
using e-learning tools, it also makes sense to study
the main disadvantages and/or reasons for not using
some of the available solutions.
Some factors causing the non-use of tools were
perceived; however, the participants mostly men-
tioned the lack of time to master them, the practi-
cality and ease in nding the contents by students,
insucient adequate training regarding the existing
technologies and choosing the best in each situa-
tion/context of the classes taught by the participants’
strong nancial constraints throughout higher edu-
cation for the acquisition of licenses, cameras,
interactive whiteboards and computers, the need to
adapt the material to be taught remotely, and the
lack of time to autonomously learn about tools and
their use.
Participants gave a range of reasons for not
using certain tools in the e-learning context. One
indicated not using more tools because it was
impossible to use them all, and trying to do so would
run the risk of losing focus on teaching and knowl-
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • 2023
Engineering Management in Production and Services
edge transmission. erefore, the participant felt
forced to analyse and choose the tools best suited for
the lecturer’s and syllabus’ objectives.
Although dierent reasons were given, all par-
ticipants strongly advocated for the lack of available
time to master the tools perfectly and to increase the
practicality of students’ cognitive process through
simplicity.
P5IPS — “I would maintain here, as a fundamental
point, the objective need to achieve certain goals in
various contexts. e amount of time that lecturers
have to spend to be able to master the tool is also
r e l e v a n t .”
As the cloud of words for the third dimension
veries, the term “tools” clearly stands out, once
again showing a great interest in mastering the
platforms to contribute to the smooth running of
classes and transmission of the greatest degree of
knowledge and information to students in this
remote teaching context (Fig. 4).
3.4. General opinion about assessment
in the e-learning context
Aer studying dierent perspectives on dimen-
sions concerning the environment and the context
of used e-learning tools, the study moved to address
the lecturers’ views on student assessment since this
was one of the most sensitive and least successful
issues in the context of remote classes.
In this dimension, the answers were very simi-
lar, indicating the aspect as the least successful area
due to numerous fraud cases and the unreliability of
students’ academic results. Some situations were
defended by the participants as more sensible for
remote rather than face-to-face assessments; how-
ever, they underlined the necessity to guarantee
some equity in the results, i.e., performing oral tests
and using other methods of substantiating the per-
formance obtained in the dierent moments of
assessment.
In addition to this practically unanimous per-
ception of the assessment in remote learning con-
texts, one participant was an exception. As a lecturer
in the archipelago of Madeira, he could always per-
form assessments in a face-to-face setting due to
dierent regulations compared to mainland Portu-
gal. e participant also pointed out the possibility
of continuing assessments face-to-face, even in the
context of remotely taught classes. Practically all
lecturers in this educational institution chose to use
this assessment method already implemented in
a face-to-face setting because they considered it
lled the gaps previously exposed in the study of
this dimension.
Although the participants believed that assess-
ment was the least successful accomplishment of
e-learning tools, a concern was raised that no assess-
ment method is 100 % reliable and that all means
must be validated to achieve greater equity in results.
P2IPT — “I’ll start by saying that there is no 100 %
reliable instrument, whether it’s online or face-to-
f a c e .”
As this last dimension delved into student
assessment in remote teaching, the most frequently
used terms were related to students, the assessment
and the maintenance of equity among them, also
reecting the need to adapt the strategies to ensure
greater accuracy of remote testing (Fig. 5).
To draw more centralised and schematic con-
clusions about the studied topic, the research team
considered it important to present the dimensions
and dierent perspectives provided by the focus
group participants in their dierent responses (Table
2).
Fig. 4. Word cloud of the third dimension
Source: elaborated by the authors using the MAXQDA 2022 software.
Fig. 5. Word cloud of the fourth dimension
Source: elaborated by the authors using the MAXQDA 2022 software.
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • 2023
Engineering Management in Production and Services
e summary of data and the analysis of the
lecturers’ perspectives on the use of e-learning tools
allowed for a conclusion that the main objective of
the remote teaching process was to ensure the trans-
mission of knowledge in line with the expectations
and needs of students.
Several dierent views were oered regarding
the greater or smaller number of tools to be used
during classes, considering the demands and limita-
tions of each teaching area and/or represented
higher education institution.
Besides a very comprehensive set of answers,
the focus group as a research methodology allowed
for a continuous sharing of knowledge and for
obtaining broad results for each of the pre-estab-
lished dimensions, which was extremely necessary
for the analysis of the topic with such an intrinsic
component for each participant.
e main considerations, besides the concern
with the smooth and appropriate delivery of the syl-
labus, were very much focused on an easy transition
to the remote learning context, the literacy of a fairly
broad level of e-learning tools and the continuity of
their use in a post-pandemic context, several advan-
tages for specic cases and those involved in the
remote learning context, limited time for the adop-
tion of more e-learning tools; and the assessment as
the most sensitive point in the whole remote learn-
ing process.
Despite fairly divided opinions on some of the
studied dimensions, it was possible to verify high
technological literacy and extensive preparation by
participants and represented higher education insti-
tutions. It was possible to verify the enormous
capacity demonstrated by the lecturers throughout
this process to adapt and work towards the success
of students.
P5IPS — “is context somehow also forced us
to do some technological updates in certain solu-
tions that were a little older.”
P3UMa — “I believe that with technologies, we
are the ones who adapt to them and not the other
way around.”
Nearly all the participants were concerned with
adapting methodologies to the context in which
they were required to teach and used several digital
e-learning tools as a current form of work, both in
teaching and professional terms.
As veried, higher education institutions also
had a preponderant role in the success as they had to
provide training, licenses, and the best possibilities
for remote classes from the perspective of the lectur-
ers in this case.
is case study in Portugal veried some of the
earlier pointed-out diculties (Kulikowski et al.,
2022) faced by teachers. It was possible to verify the
consequences of this forced adoption of e-learning
in Portugal, motivated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
In most cases, teachers continue to use tools even
though they are no longer mandatory but are eec-
tively seen as having added value. erefore, in this
case study, the consequences for teachers in Portugal
were not as much derived from the sudden and
forced implementation of e-learning but rather from
the pandemic context that was experienced and the
implication this had on the physical and mental
health of teachers.
P2IPT — “It seems to me that students, as digital
natives, are more linked to technologies than to
other types of methodologies, such as chalk and
blackboard.”
P2IPT — “It was far from what distance learning is,
but for remote learning, it was amazing!”
e limitations of this paper are based on two
major points. e rst limitation is the sample used
since not all higher education institutions in Portu-
gal were represented, and each of them had only one
representative. e second major limitation is the
Fig. 4. Word cloud of the third dimension
Source: elaborated by the authors using the MAXQDA 2022 software.
Fig. 5. Word cloud of the fourth dimension
Source: elaborated by the authors using the MAXQDA 2022 software.
32
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • 2023
Engineering Management in Production and Services
focus on one country only, which represents the
specic reality of lecturers in a specic country. is
may prevent generalising the results to some other
countries with a greater or lesser impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on the national education
system. erefore, there should be adapted and in-
depth studies of the realities of other countries.
Future studies on this research topic should
include two major subjects. e rst should seek to
understand the students’ attitudes towards the use of
e-learning tools in the context of higher education
in Portugal. is study would disclose student opin-
ions, showing both sides of the same coin. Also, this
would show the connection between the arguments
used and veried by teachers, students and educa-
tional institutions regarding the tools that greatly
impacted Portuguese higher education.
e second topic should be devoted to studying
the reality of other countries. Although the study
focused on the opinions of Portuguese teachers
regarding the use of e-learning tools, it would be
important and interesting to adapt and perform the
study in other countries to compare dierent higher
education institutions and experiences of teachers in
using these tools, aiming to ascertain the existence of
a pattern for the adoption and acceptance in dierent
countries.
Al Rawashdeh, A. Z., Mohammed, E. Y., Al Arab, A. R.,
Alara, M., & Al-Rawashdeh, B. (2021). Advantages
and disadvantages of using e-learning in university
education: Analyzing students’ perspectives. Elec-
tronic Journal of e-Learning,19(3), 107-117.
Ali, M., Hossain, S. K., & Ahmed, T. (2018). Eectiveness of
E-Learning for University Students: Evidence from
Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Empirical Research,
8(10), 352-360. doi: 10.18488/jour-
nal.1007/2018.8.10/1007.10.352.360
Aljawarneh, S., Muhsin, Z., Nsour, A., Alkhateeb, F.,
& AlMaghayreh, E. (2010). e-Learning Tools and
Technologies in Education. A Perspective. LINC Pro-
ceedings.
Alkhawaja, M. I., & Abd Halim, M. S. B. (2019). Challenges
of e-learning system adoption in Jordan higher edu-
-
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • 2023
33
Engineering Management in Production and Services
cation.International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences,9(9), 487-494.
Almajali, D., Al-Okaily, M., Barakat, S., Al-Zegaier, H.,
& Dahalin, Z. M. (2022). Students’ perceptions of the
sustainability of distance learning systems in the
post-COVID-19: a qualitative perspective.Sustain-
ability,14(12), 7353.
Ayu, M. (2020). Online Learning: Leading e-Learning at
Higher Education. e Journal of English Literacy
Education: e Teaching and Learning of English as a
Foreign Language, 7(1), 47-54. doi: 10.36706/jele.
v7i1.11515
Baber, H. (2021). Modelling the acceptance of e-learning
during the pandemic of COVID-19-A study of South
Korea. International Journal of Management Educa-
tion, 19(2), 100503. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100503
Costa, C. R., Garcia, J. E., Serra da Fonseca, M. J., & Teix-
eira, A. (2021). Data Analysis in Content Marketing
Strategies. 16th Iberian Conference on Information
Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Chaves, Portugal,
1-6. doi: 10.23919/cisti52073.2021.9476377
Ejdys, J., & Szpilko, D. (2021). Teachers’ Perception of
e-learning on the Example of Bialystok University of
Technology. Przegląd Organizacji, 9(980), 27-39.
10.33141/po.2021.9.04
Eneterio, N. da P., Major, C. R., Oliveira, E., Rolindo, J.,
Freitas, M., Ferreira, M., Abreu, S., & Morais, T.
(2020). O E-Learning Como Ferramenta Estratégica
Na Pandemia Covid-19. Anais do Seminário de Atua-
lização de Práticas Docentes, 163-167. Retrieved from
http://45.4.96.34/index.php/praticasdocentes/arti-
cle/view/5742
Eze, S. C., Chinedu-Eze, V. C., Okike, C. K., & Bello, A. O.
(2020). Factors inuencing the use of e-learning
facilities by students in a private Higher Education
Institution (HEI) in a developing economy.Humani-
ties and social sciences communications,7(1), 133.
Garcia, J. E., Rodrigues, P., Simões, J., & Serra da Fonseca,
M. J. (2022). Gamication Strategies for Social
Media. In J. Remondes, & S. Teixeira (Eds.), Imple-
menting Automation Initiatives in Companies to Cre-
ate Better-Connected Experiences (pp. 137–159). IGI
Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-6684-5538-8.ch007
Ho, N. T. T., Sivapalan, S., Pham, H. H.,Nguyen, L. T. M.,
Pham, A. T. V., &Dinh, H. V.(2021). Students’ adop-
tion of e-learning in emergency situation: the case of
a Vietnamese university during COVID-19. Inter-
active Technology and Smart Education,18(2), 246-
269.doi: 10.1108/ITSE-08-2020-0164
Irfan, M., Kusumaningrum, B., Yulia, Y., & Widodo, S. A.
(2020). Challenges During the Pandemic: Use of E.
Learning in Mathematics Learning in Higher Educa-
tion. Innity Journal, 9(2), 147. doi: 10.22460/innity.
v9i2.p147-158
Jones, A. Q., Dewey, C. E., Doré, K., Majowicz, S. E., McE-
wen, S. A., Waltner-Toews, D., Henson, S. J.,
& Mathews, E. (2005). Public perception of drinking
water from private water supplies: Focus group anal-
yses. BMC Public Health, 5, 1-12. doi: 10.1186/1471-
2458-5-129
King, E., & Boyatt, R. (2015). Exploring factors that inu-
ence adoption of e-learning within higher educa-
tion.British Journal of Educational Technology,46(6),
1272-1280.
Kulikowski, K., Przytuła, S., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2022).
E-learning? Never again! On the unintended conse-
quences of COVID-19 forced e-learning on academic
teacher motivational job characteristics. Higher Edu-
cation Quarterly, 76(1), 174-189.
Kumar Basak, S., Wotto, M., & Bélanger, P. (2018). E-learn-
ing, M-learning and D-learning: Conceptual deni-
tion and comparative analysis. E-Learning and
Digital Media, 15(4), 191-216. doi: 10.1177/2042-
753018785180
Magano, J., Castro, A. V., & Carvalho, C. V. (2008). O
e-Learning no Ensino Superior: um caso de estudo.
Educação, Formação & Tecnologia, 1(1), 79-92.
Mamede, S. M. P. (2014). Comportamento do consumidor
digital: o caso do e-learning nas licenciaturas do
ensino superior português. Retrieved from http://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&si-
te=eds- live&db=edsrca&AN=rcaap.openAc-
cess.10400.22.5454
Pereira, A., Quintas-Mendes, A., & Morgado, L. (2012).
Educação on-line no Ensino Superior: um programa
de doutoramento em educação a distância e e-learn-
ing na Universidade Aberta (Portugal). Revista Teias,
13, 313-333.
Phutela, N., & Dwivedi, S.(2020). A qualitative study of
students› perspective on e-learning adoption in
India.Journal of Applied Research in Higher Educa-
tion, 12(4), 545-559.doi: 10.1108/JARHE-02-2019-
0041
Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A Literature Review on
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Teaching and
Learning. Higher Education for the Future, 8(1), 133-
141. doi: 10.1177/2347631120983481
Regueras, L. M., Verdu, E., Munoz, M. F., Perez, M. A., De
Castro, J. P., & Verdu, M. J. (2009). Eects of com-
petitive e-learning tools on higher education stu-
dents: A case study. IEEE Transactions on
Education,52(2), 279-285.
Rehman, M. A., Soroya, S. H., Abbas, Z., Mirza, F., & Mah-
mood, K. (2021). Understanding the challenges of
e-learning during the global pandemic emergency:
the students’ perspective. Quality Assurance in Edu-
cation, 29(2/3), 259-276.doi: 10.1108/QAE-02-2021-
0025
Rodrigues, M. I., Fonseca, M. J., & Garcia, J. E. (2022). e
Use of CRM in Marketing and Communication
Strategies in Portuguese Non-Prot Organizations.
In J. Andrade, & T. Ruão (Eds.), Navigating Digital
Communication and Challenges for Organizations
(pp. 223-244). IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-7998-
9790-3.ch013
Sebele-Mpofu, F. Y. (2020). Saturation controversy in quali-
tative research: Complexities and underlying
assumptions. A literature review. Congent Social Sci-
ences, 6(1). doi: 10.1080/23311886.2020.1838706
Sree Reddy, B. (2015). Challenges and Opportunity of
E-Learning in Developed and Developing Countries-
A Review. International Journal of Emerging Research
in Management & Technology, 46, 2278-9359.
34
Volume 15 • Issue 2 • 2023
Engineering Management in Production and Services
Valencia-Arias, A., Chalela-Naah, S., & Bermúdez-
Hernández, J. (2019). A proposed model of e-learning
tools acceptance among university students in devel-
oping countries.Education and Information Technol-
ogies,24(2), 1057-1071.
Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus group methodology: A review.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology,
1(3), 181-203. doi: 10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874
Yamoah, F. A. ., & ul Haque, A. . (2022). Strategic Manage-
ment rough Digital Platforms for Remote Work-
ing in the Higher Education Industry During and
Aer the COVID-19 Pandemic. Forum Scientiae
Oeconomia, 10(2), 111-128. doi: 10.23762/FSO_
VOL10_NO2_6
Zethembe, M. (2020). A Literature Review of E-Learning
and E-Teaching in the Era of Covid-19 Pandemic.
International Journal of Innovative Science and
Research Technology, 5(10), 588-597.
