## 5 Discussion
On the other hand, we separately examined the subjective feeling of e-learning effectiveness, finding that it was variable Q2. Regarding the study by the authors of the e-learning system, we studied individual elements of the system, for example, we examined whether the e-learning tools used by the university are accessible (Q7; average below 4.0, median 4.0), if academic teachers care about the security of students'personal data (Q10; average below 4.0, median 4.0), if academic teachers conduct e-learning in a strictly determined time (Q12; average above 4.0, median 4.0), if using the e-learning platform is convenient (Q13; average above 4.0, median 5.0--very good evaluation), and if logging into the e-learning platform is easy (Q14; average above 4.0, median 5.0--very good evaluation). In the field of e-learning readiness, we only studied if academic teachers are competent (Q9; average below 4.0, median 4.0). The issue of interactivity was also very important to us and to the authors, as we examined whether e-learning allows one to easily reach the academic teachers (Q5; average below 4.0, median 3.0--quite low rating), whether academic teachers are helpful to students (Q8; average below 4.0, median 4.0), and whether academic teachers respond quickly to e-mails (Q11; average below 4.0, median 3.0--quite low rating). However, we did not study resistance to change, which is in fact an important issue in this topic. According to another study ([PERSON] et al.) [87], the e-learning evaluation model should consist of four main elements: organization, student body, teaching, and infrastructure. This is to some extent consistent with our research, but we evaluated certain aspects in detail and not in the main categories. When it comes to e-learning in European Union countries, there are several studies with similar, as well as different, results to ours. The study in Germany [24] revealed that teachers showed a strong interest in e-learning tools during the pandemic, while students showed mixed feelings. The results, connected to the evaluation performed by the students, can be perceived as quite different from ours. In ours, the results were more positive. In another research [25] in Germany, the analysis showed that the pressure of the pandemic and the increased commitment of teachers might positively influence digital innovations in university teaching. In our research, innovative aspects were also shown to be positively assessed, recalling that the use of innovative e-learning teaching methods and the use of open innovation methods works well from a technical point of view. Most of the variables examined that are rated well concern various technical aspects--e-learning platforms, e-learning tools used, data security, etc. A different method from the one we used in our research on the similar topic of e-learning assessment was presented by authors from Spain [28]. While we used surveys, they used interviews. They focused mainly on identifying the main themes related to the challenges and impacts of this sudden shift to e-learning. The interviews were also used in a study in the Czech Republic [38]. While surveying is a closed and constructed method of research, interviews are an open-ended form of research, which allows the interviewer to provide information that goes beyond the pre-defined survey questions. This allows interviews to provide more new insights and information, including those hidden \"between the lines.\" They allow for spontaneous answers that can lead to interesting conclusions. Therefore, in the future, it is worth considering expanding our research to include interviews, which will certainly deepen and complement the results obtained from the surveys, providing a more comprehensive picture of the issues being studied. A study in Spain [29] revealed that keeping students attention during e-leaning was a great challenge. Students preferred prerecorded sessions over online lessons.