Global Journal of Human Social Science, G: Linguistics and Education, Volume 21 Issue 14

authorship). Study results were also coded based on their relationship with the sub-research questions, which included the technologies used for mathematics e- Learning, changes in practices, educators’ perceptions, and students’ perceptions. The coding, extraction, and analysis processes were conducted with the NVivo software version 12. Because most of the studies were qualitative in nature, meta-analysis could not be conducted. It should be noted that percentages from the analyses may not amount to 100%due to rounding. III. S tudy C haracteristics a) Methodological Characteristics Among the nine studies included in this review, five studies (55.6%) used qualitative methods, two studies (22.2%) used quantitative methods, and two studies (22.2%) used mixed methods. Although the majority of the studies were qualitative, only two out of the nine studies (22.2%) were interpretive in nature, with the rest being descriptive. Almost all studies involved an online survey with the exception of Naidoo (2020), who utilized online workshops and onlinediscussion forums, and Siregar et al. (2021), who utilized observations, interviews, and other files in their study. Various types of analyses were used in the qualitative studies, including content analysis (Nsengimana et al., 2021), open coding (Naidoo, 2020), and the Miles and Huberman procedure(Sulistyani et al., 2021), while the others did not specify the type of analysis used. Both of the quantitative studies involved descriptive statistics, and did not specify the instrument used for analysis. No correlations or causations were established in the quantitative studies. The mixed methods studies employed more sophisticated processes of analysis including McNemar’s tests, Chi- square tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and thematic analyses. Significant correlations were established in Lopez et al.’s (2021) study regarding self-reported additional hours spent teaching and increase in technologies during the transition to e-Learning. Cassibba et al. (2021) likewise reported significant increases in technologies used, as well as significant differences in willingness to continue e-Learning based on professors’ age. b) Geographical Characteristics The studies included in this systematic review encompassed six nations. Three studies (33.3%) took place in Indonesia, two (22.2%) in the United States, and one study (11.1%) each for Italy, Rwanda, South Africa, and Ghana. Interestingly, the locations for the studies were mostly clustered around the continent of Africa and the nation of Indonesia. Although Africa hasbeen known to be significantly affected in past pandemics, the Ghanaian and Rwandan governments imposed restrictions promptly, allowing for minimal cases in their respective nations (Attiah, 2020). Contrastingly, South Africa experienced a swift rise in Covid-19 cases early in March 2020 before imposing restrictions (Stiegler & Bouchard, 2020). As such, the findings of the three African studies are reflective of diverse situations albeit being within the same continent. It should also be noted that internet usage is highly limited in Africa, with only 24% of the population having access due to increased costs and poor connectivity, which couldbe a factor for e-Learning (Tamrat & Teferra, 2020). Indonesia, the nation with the greatest number of studies in this systematic review, was affected by Covid-19 early on as well. Reports from June 2020 indicated that Indonesia had the highest number of active cases in Southeast Asia, but at the same time, the lowest number of infection per capita (Olivia et al., 2020). The rise in the number of cases was attributed to the slow response of the Indonesian government when its neighboring countries were already imposing lockdowns (Olivia et al., 2020). Notably, Indonesia was reportedly unprepared for e- Learning as well, with only nine universities having established systems for e- Learning before the pandemic (Siregar et al., 2021). The three Indonesian studies in this review took place in different cities. It should be noted that all Indonesian studies in this systematic review utilized purely qualitative methods, which does not allow for a generalizable view of the nation. Although two studies took place in the United States, the data was still limited as Ludwig’s (2021) sample comprised students from a single university in western United States, while Lopez et al.’s (2021) sample only included educators from four higher education institutions in South and Central Texas. Only one study was found in Europe. The single European study was conducted in Italy, a nation that also saw a steep rise of Covid-19 cases early in March 2020, and adopted strict measures to contain the outbreak (Saglietto et al., 2020).Although the use of technologies in higher education was not new to Italy at the time of the Covid-19 outbreak, several traditional universities that used blackboard and chalk still existed (Cassibba et al., 2021). No studies that met the criteria were found in South America and Australia. c) Sample Characteristics The criteria for the study samples in this systematic review included either educators or students in the postsecondary levels. Five studies (55.6%) involved educators, two studies (22.2%) involved undergraduate students, and two studies (22.2%) involved postgraduate students. Notably, the two studies involving postgraduate students both took place in Africa. All three Indonesian studies involved lecturers. Although the North American studies in this reviewtook place in different states of the United States, it is the only continent with a study on educators and on students. © 2021 Global Journals Volume XXI Issue XIV Version I 4 ( G ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2021 Postsecondary Mathematics during the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review