The Use of Technology in English Medium Education (English Language Education, 27) 9783030996215, 9783030996222, 3030996212

Citation preview

English Language Education

Jack K. H. Pun Samantha Curle Dogan Yuksel   Editors

The Use of Technology in English Medium Education

English Language Education Volume 27

Series Editors Chris Davison, School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Xuesong Gao, School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Editorial Board Members Stephen Andrews, Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China Anne Burns, University of New South Wales, Ryde, NSW, Australia Yuko Goto Butler, Penn Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA, USA Suresh Canagarajah, Depts of Applied Linguistics and English, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA Jim Cummins, OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Christine C. M. Goh, Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore Margaret Hawkins, Dept of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Wisconsin Madison, WI, USA Ouyang Huhua, Faculty of English Language & Cultu, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China Andy Kirkpatrick, Department of Humanities, Lang & Soc Sci, Griffith University Nathan, QLD, Australia Michael K. Legutke, Institut für Anglistik, Justus Liebig University Giessen Gießen, Hessen, Germany Constant Leung, Dept of Educ & Prof Studies, King’s College London, University of London, London, UK Bonny Norton, Language & Literacy Educ Dept, University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada Elana Shohamy, School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Qiufang Wen, Box 45, Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing, China Lawrence Jun Zhang, Faculty of Education & Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

This series publishes research on the development, implementation and evaluation of educational programs for school-aged and adult learners for whom English is a second or additional language, including those who are learning academic content through the medium of English. The series has a dual focus on learners’ language development and broader societal and policy-related issues, including the implications for teachers’ professional development and policy support at the institutional and system level. The series seeks to engage with current issues in English language teaching (ELT) in educational institutions from a highly situated standpoint, examining theories, practices and policies with a conscious regard for historical lineages of development and local (re)contextualisation. By focusing on multiple educational contexts and adopting a comparative perspective, the series will transcend traditional geographical boundaries, thus will be relevant to both English-speaking countries and countries where English is a very much an additional, but important language for learning other content. This series will also cross disciplinary and methodological boundaries by integrating sociocultural and critical approaches with second language acquisition perspectives and drawing on both applied linguistics and educational research. In drawing together basic and applied policy-related research concerns, the series will contribute towards developing a more comprehensive, innovative and contextualized view of English language education internationally. Authors are invited to approach the Series Editor with ideas and plans for books. For more information, please contact the Publishing Editor, Natalie Rieborn. E-mail: [email protected]

Jack K. H. Pun  •  Samantha Curle  Dogan Yuksel Editors

The Use of Technology in English Medium Education

Editors Jack K. H. Pun Department of English City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong SAR, China

Samantha Curle Department of Education University of Bath Bath, UK

Dogan Yuksel Faculty of Education Kocaeli University Kocaeli, Turkey

ISSN 2213-6967     ISSN 2213-6975 (electronic) English Language Education ISBN 978-3-030-99621-5    ISBN 978-3-030-99622-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

 The Use of Technology in English Medium Education��������������������������������    1 Jack K. H. Pun and Samantha Curle  Shifting Assessment Online in the COVID-­19 Pandemic: A Case of an ICLHE Undergraduate Course in Medicine��������������������������   11 Julie Walaszczyk and Simon Segers Online Teaching and Academic Resilience During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lived Experience of College Students in Mainland China ��������������������������������������������������������   25 Qianwen Joyce Yu and Qing Huang  Learning from Struggle: ESP Teachers’ Reflections on Online Teaching����������������������������������������������������������������������   39 Jin Xina  Using HyFlex to Teach English for Academic Purposes: The Instructor’s Perspective ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   53 Lucas Kohnke Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments in Freshman English Courses in Hong Kong������������������������������������������������   65 Simon Wang and Cissy Li  Digital Divide vs. Inclusive Thinking: The Educational Television in Turkey������������������������������������������������������������   91 Sezen Arslan  Reconceptualising Teacher Education Courses for Online Teaching: The Experiences of Two Teacher Educators��������������������������������  109 Benjamin L. Moorhouse and Kevin M. Wong

v

vi

Contents

 Revealing Interactions Between Adolescent English Learners and a Computer-Assisted Writing System from the Activity Theory Lens: Two Case Studies����������������������������������������������������������������������  123 Cynthia Lee  Reacting, Re-learning and Reflecting on Sudden Pedagogical Adaptations���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  145 Lindsay Miller and Junjie Gavin Wu  Students’ Experience in Online Teaching and Learning: An Investigation into EMI Classroom Interaction, Willingness to Communicate and Classroom Enjoyment����������������������������  159 Daniel Fung Problematising E-Pedagogies��������������������������������������������������������������������������  177 Fei Victor Lim  Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous Collaborative Writing Task����������������  191 Jookyoung Jung and Xuehua Fu

Contributors

Sezen Arslan  Bandirma Onyedi Eylul University, Balıkesir, Turkey Samantha Curle  Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath, UK Xuehua  Fu  Department of English, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China Daniel  Fung  Department of English Language Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China Qing  Huang  School of Foreign Languages, Huizhou University, Huizhou, Guangdong, China Jookyoung Jung  Department of English, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China Lucas  Kohnke  Department of English Language Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China Cynthia  Lee  School of Education and Languages, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Hong Kong SAR, China Cissy  Li  The Language Centre, Faculty of Arts, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong SAR, China Fei Victor Lim  National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Lindsay  Miller  Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China Benjamin L. Moorhouse  Department of Educational Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong SAR, China Jack  K.  H.  Pun  Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China vii

viii

Contributors

Simon  Segers  Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Mons, Mons, Belgium Julie Walaszczyk  Language and Internationalisation Unit, Faculty of Translation and Interpretation, University of Mons, Mons, Belgium Simon Wang  The Language Centre, Faculty of Arts, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong SAR, China Kevin M. Wong  Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, CA, USA Junjie Gavin Wu  School of Foreign Languages, Shenzhen Technology University, Guangdong, China Jin  Xina  Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China Qianwen Joyce Yu  Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

The Use of Technology in English Medium Education Jack K. H. Pun and Samantha Curle

Abstract  The outbreak of COVID-19 has changed our lives in many ways. As schools and universities have been forced to shut down, teaching and learning is now taking place in a virtual environment. The traditional way of teaching in a classroom where teachers and students can physically interact, discuss, and share information may not be as applicable in this online setting. Many lecturers may be ill-prepared for the challenge of delivering academic content online. Class size may have suddenly increased, the mode of interacting with students has changed (i.e. now in virtual settings using texting, emojis, polling or breakout rooms) and it is now necessary to deliver content knowledge using different software such as Zoom, Panopto or Microsoft Teams. Teaching has now become a live broadcast, and the format of assessment has also changed (i.e. online exam/quiz or even an open-book format). Students may have also felt frustration adjusting to this new format of online teaching and learning. Some may not have been prepared with the physical infrastructure to proceed with their studies online (e.g. internet availability, speed, data, webcam) and may have felt an invasion of their privacy to participate in such learning (e.g. displaying their home environment to their peers and teachers while online). This edited volume is to document the challenges that language teachers and learners may experience when teaching and learning online; explore how these challenges have been addressed, and identify creative solutions that will enable language teachers and learners to overcome these challenges in different educational contexts within English medium Education. In this introductory chapter, we introduce the topic of this book, describes the background of research in general, the development, different models, and provides an outline of the subsequent chapters of the book and highlights the significance of the research.

J. K. H. Pun (*) Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China e-mail: [email protected] S. Curle Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath, UK © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_1

1

2

J. K. H. Pun and S. Curle

1  Introduction The outbreak of the pandemic has changed our lives in many ways. As schools and universities have been forced to shut down, teaching and learning is now taking place in a virtual environment. Essentially, universities need to successfully adapt their curricula to online delivery to ensure the teaching and learning quality (Davies et al., 2020). The traditional way of teaching in a classroom, where teachers and students can physically interact, discuss, and share information, may not be as applicable as before in this online setting. Many lecturers may be ill-prepared for the challenge of delivering academic content online for several reasons: (1) class size may have suddenly increased; (2) the mode of interacting with students has changed as now in virtual settings participants use texting, emojis, polling or breakout rooms for interaction and discussion; and (3) the necessity to deliver content knowledge using different unfamiliar software such as Zoom, Panopto or Microsoft Teams. Teaching has now become a live broadcast, and the format of assessment has also changed to online exam/quiz or even in an open-book format. Students may have also felt frustration adjusting to this new format of online teaching and learning. Some may not have been prepared with the physical infrastructure to proceed with their studies online (e.g. internet availability, speed, data, webcam) and may have felt an invasion of their privacy to participate in such learning (e.g. displaying their home environment to their peers and teachers while online). There is concern that this sudden massive adoption of online technology may discourage learners to acquire language through a more traditional approach; an approach to language teaching and learning which has a well-established history in applied linguistics research. If teachers and students move away from traditional classroom settings where they can have meaningful interactions, now heavily relying on automatic online tools, for example, using pre-recorded lesson clips and monologic livestream teaching. This may have a substantial impact on language learning and development.

2  Higher Education in the Context of COVID-19 With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, as of August 4, 2020, 143 countries have announced or implemented school and university closures (UNESCO, 2020). There have been worldwide measures taken by governments, including curfews, quarantines, shutdowns, lockdowns, etc., to prevent and slow down the spread of the virus (NBC News, 2020). In China, for instance, since the early spring of 2020, most of the universities started online education as fulfilling the requirements of “nonstop teaching and learning” by the Chinese government (Bao, 2020). Moving beyond China, higher education institutions around the world have started to react to the pandemic since lockdowns began. Online education has become necessarily popular, especially among universities.

The Use of Technology in English Medium Education

3

During the pandemic of COVID-19, lecturers are responsible for teaching courses, which are not originally designed for online delivery, in front of their computers or other electronic devices (Muflih et al., 2020). Students have also unexpectedly started experiencing virtual learning, in which they had to communicate with their teachers and peers through the internet. It was reported that students have been facing frustrations in such settings as the stay-at-home environments may not be suitable for learning. For instance, students recalled rushing out of toilets to answer professors’ calls, or classes being interrupted severely by relatives yelling in the background (Lau et  al., 2020). Although online education has been playing an important role for many postsecondary institutions as a long-term teaching strategy since the early twenty-first century (Allen & Seaman, 2005), it however remains unclear whether the use of online education can help maintain the high-quality learning and provide adequate learning opportunities as face-to-face learning did. These factors are believed to ultimately change the attitudes and impression of all participants, including students and teachers, towards virtual education (Muflih et al., 2020).

3  Rationale The major aims of this edited volume are to (1) document the challenges that language teachers and learners may experience when teaching and learning online; (2) explore how these challenges have been addressed; and (3) identify creative solutions that will enable language teachers and learners to overcome these challenges in different educational contexts within English medium instruction in higher education, such as public and private universities, higher education institutions, EAP courses, ESP courses and disciplinary courses at undergraduate/postgraduate studies. In this edited volume, we have invited both established and emerging researchers to write a theoretically and/or empirically informed chapter that falls within these key topics: teaching and learning online; encouraging learners to be interactive online; promoting self-directed learners; developing online communities for learners and teachers; online assessment; training teachers for online teaching; teachers’ or students’ experience of online teaching and possible challenges; new technologies and digital learning in ESP/EAP/EMI classrooms, or other related issues that deal with the online learning context.

4  A Synopsis with Chapter Summaries In this special edited volume, there are in total 14 chapters, including the introductory chapter, contributed by researchers around the world to examine the aforementioned topics relating to online teaching in the context of the pandemic of COVID-19. The first chapter is an introduction that provides background of the pandemic and

4

J. K. H. Pun and S. Curle

how it has affected higher education around the world. It then summarises all the chapters presented in this book, including topics related to EMI technologies in the online learning context. The second chapter focuses on third-year medical students’ perceptions of online assessment methods used in an EMI course on respiratory diseases. In this chapter, Walaszczyk and Segers investigate the challenges, constraints and impact this sudden and unprepared shift to distance learning has had on EMI content learning. More specifically, the analysis aims to explore the scope of this abrupt change in assessment methods in a course originally designed as a collaborative EMI experiment in formative learning. Drawing on student experiences and the teachers’ observations and reflections, four main questions will be addressed, including (1) to what extent the COVID-19 situation and its consequences on online assessment has affected student understanding of the learning outcomes; (2) how students have perceived the final online assignment and what implication it has had on their language and content learning; (3) in what way content teachers and language practitioners can better collaborate in online EMI environments; and (4) what lessons are to be learnt and the solutions that can be envisaged to maintain the quality of formative assessment methods of EMI courses in digital settings. In Chap. 3, Yu and Huang discuss the experience of college students in mainland China in meeting the challenges of online teaching and their academic resilience during the COVID-19. In their chapter, they review recent studies which call for an urgent move to distance education, presenting considerable challenges for students, and increasing concern over their academic resilience, and physical and mental well-being during the crisis. Yu and Huang discuss how Chinese college students cope with online teaching, focusing on the essential resilience strategies they adopt to overcome the academic difficulties. They interviewed 32 college students from mainland China, who had attended over 20 online sessions in 2020. In their findings, they provide pedagogical suggestions to new thinking on support services aimed at helping students tackle these unique challenges and enhancing resilience, and respond to calls for fostering future online pedagogical development. In Chap. 4, Xina presents a case study on teachers’ reflections on online teaching during COVID-19. She interviewed two experienced English for Specific Purposes (ESP) lecturers who are teaching at an English-medium university in Hong Kong, to share their perceptions toward online teaching. Based on their reflections, Xina discusses the pros and cons in terms of classroom interaction through video conferencing software (Zoom). In comparison with forward and backward recall, she comes to a conclusion by summarising the pedagogical implications on how teachers might prepare themselves to promote students’ engagement in response to future upheavals in education. Chapter 5 by Kohnke focuses on the pedagogical approach of adopting HyFlex (Hybrid + Flexibility) in an EAP course at an EMI university in Hong Kong. As the COVID-19 pandemic was brought under control, and to bridge the gap between online learning and face-to-face learning, a HyFlex model was introduced in Hong Kong for the summer semester 2020. HyFlex gives students greater control over their learning, allows them to attend face-to-face and/or online learning, thus

The Use of Technology in English Medium Education

5

provides flexibility to maximise learning opportunities while social distancing. Previous studies have examined students’ perceptions of synchronous and asynchronous learning (Dumford & Miller, 2018; Lee, 2017), but few have explored the adoption of HyFlex under the current situation. It is therefore important to expand our knowledge regarding learners’ experience of the learning quality that HyFlex offers. Kohnke aims to explicate Hong Kong university (EAP/ESP) students’ perceptions and experience of HyFlex-supported learning to determine the key factors that lead to better learning outcomes in this study. As such, it makes an original and significant contribution to the limited literature examining HyFlex adoption and provides pedagogical implications and strategies to teachers, programme administrators and universities regarding the best approach for its implementation. The chapter will provide, in the ending, the author sharing practical experiences and insightful reflections related to incorporation of HyFlex as an approach for maximising engagement and achievement among tertiary-level learners. In Chap. 6, Wang and Li explore the various practices of English language teachers giving feedback and investigate the students’ perception of the effectiveness of such feedback in the context of a Freshman English course in a publicly-funded university in Hong Kong. Though e-learning has been in practice for decades in Hong Kong tertiary institutions, from the very early CALL (computer-aided language learning), thanks to the wide-spread use of the computer, to now much more accessible and ever-growing online learning, empowered by the internet, the vast majority of university credit courses are still delivered face-to-face. Due to political unrest in late 2019 and coronavirus outbreak in early 2020, university teachers in Hong Kong had to switch to online teaching and provide digital feedback on students’ written assignments. This chapter reports the results of a survey of about 100 students taking the course in Spring 2020 focusing on their experience of receiving teachers’ feedback on their written assignments. The survey results inform the subsequent in-depth interviews with 10 students and 3 teachers with an aim to better understand their experience of receiving or giving feedback. Considering the variation of practices of giving feedback among teachers observed and a set of issues frequently raised by students, a number of suggestions on how to standardize the workflow of giving feedback while allowing room for personalization are made at the end in the context of designing a computerized platform for online feedback. In Chap. 7, Arslan presents the paradoxical relationship between the digital divide and inclusive thinking based on the related literature and the local context in Turkey by considering the rural and urban infrastructures for language teaching. The digital divide can be defined as the inequality access to instructional technology equipment such as the Internet and computers. Considering the global lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is worth mentioning that this uneven distribution stands out more than ever. Teaching practices are mostly conducted via online platforms and those who have not any access to technology are disadvantaged as they are unable to attend this process. Extant studies claim that digital divide causes segregation between the people and, eventually, it affects societies economically and socially. The digital divide can be considered as a problem in Turkey. Turkish Statistics Agency (2019) shows that households with access to the Internet

6

J. K. H. Pun and S. Curle

constitute 88.3% of the population between the ages of 16–74 and that percentage of internet users is 75%3 on average. However, this percentage has the tendency to decrease in some regions of Turkey (West Black Sea, East Black Sea, North East Anatolia, Central East Anatolia, and Southeast Anatolia). During the pandemic situation, primary, secondary and high schools are temporarily closed in Turkey, and the Ministry of National Education (MoNe) has implemented EBA TV (Education Information Network Television) in order to mitigate the effect of school closures and compensate educational services, especially for disadvantaged groups. EBA TV offers English courses in accordance with the national English curriculum for all school levels on a national channel specifically designed for the educational broadcast. A step taken for filling the digital gap brings out an initiative for inclusive education. Moorhouse and Wong, in Chap. 8, present their experiences: one in Hong Kong, engaged in English language teacher education, and one in the United States, engaged in general teacher education, as they adapted their courses to the new mode. Universities around the world have suspended face-to-face teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic with lecturers required to teach their courses exclusively online. While this situation is potentially challenging for lecturers of any discipline, for teacher educators, there is the added demand of needing to prepare their students with the skills to teach face-to-face through on-line only modes. In face-to-face teacher education, lecturer modelling of good practice (Loughran & Berry, 2005) and micro-teaching between peers are common practices, but these are harder to utilise online (Moorhouse, 2020). This chapter explores the challenges the authors faced as they themselves adapted to both asynchronous and synchronous online modes of teaching, while presenting pedagogical solutions to the identified challenges. It presents a possible model for blending asynchronous and synchronous instructional modes for preparing teachers online to teach face-to-face. Drawing on the Activity Theory perspective, Lee, in Chap. 9, unpacks the interrelatedness of second language (L2) writers and the different elements of the triadic model to achieve the goal of writing argumentative texts in a computer-assisted writing context. Based on the analysis of a total of 18 verbal protocols, stimulated recalls and post-study interviews collected from two adolescent L2 writers in three selected computer-assisted writing workshops in a Chinese-medium secondary school in Hong Kong, it was found that the L2 writers interacted with three mediation artefacts, namely the computer-generated content feedback System adopted for the study, the Internet and both first and second languages, according to their needs and motives. Other elements such as controlled writing time, freedom to use online resources and unlimited access to the System facilitated the writing process. Nevertheless, the elements of community and division of labour seemed to play a less significant role in the study. Both L2 writers tended to develop ideas suggested by the System rather than to elaborate on the existing ideas. The analysis advances understanding of how adolescent L2 writers mediate computer-generated feedback on content, and how they interact with the different elements of the triadic model. Implications for computer-assisted language learning and future research directions are discussed.

The Use of Technology in English Medium Education

7

In Chap. 10, Miller and Wu reveal the challenges of two ESP teachers at a university in Hong Kong, as the COVID-19 pandemic forced most teachers to move from classroom-based to online teaching within a matter of weeks. The sudden revaluation of pedagogy pushed teachers to make quick adaptations to online teaching, willingly or not. In this chapter, the authors adopt a narrative inquiry approach to investigate the lived experience of the teachers who went through this unprecedented period of time. Teacher A is a highly experienced classroom teacher yet a non-digital native while Teacher B is a digital native but with limited teaching experience. Teacher A taught content courses using English as the medium of instruction, while Teacher B taught a Business English course. Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecosystem model, Miller and Wu examine the teachers’ needs and challenges in order to understand their experiences from the micro-, meso-, and exo-­ systems perspectives. The chapter provides implications on what universities and teacher educators can do in order to better offer in-service teacher training and support to teachers for future online teaching scenarios. Fung presents a qualitative study in Chap. 11, which explores students’ views and experience in relation to these three aspects comparing online and face-to-face classes. Shifting to online learning in the COVID-19 situation is a logical consequence to respond to the needs of students in the midst of the pandemic; however, not much has been known about its effects on students’ experience. Particularly, given the lack of physical presence, it is questionable whether online teaching and learning may influence students’ interaction, their willingness to communicate (WTC) in second language (L2) English, and classroom enjoyment in English Medium Instruction (EMI) higher education context. In this study, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were conducted with students in an EMI taught postgraduate programme at a university in Hong Kong. These students experienced half of their courses conducted in a face-to-face mode and half in an online mode using Zoom in the academic year 2019–2020. Preliminary data from 4 students indicated that notwithstanding some mixed views on the opportunities for classroom interactions and WTC in online classes, students generally agreed that opportunities for peer interactions may be reduced but that they had a lower level of anxiety to speak up in front of the whole class. While one might expect classroom enjoyment to correlate with WTC based on previous research, the current study reveals no difference in classroom enjoyment for the learners regardless of their WTC, suggesting that WTC may be linked to other factors in the online mode. Furthermore, the findings demonstrated some individual differences which may be attributed to students’ L2 English proficiency, previous EMI learning experience, and cultural background. Implications are discussed in this chapter in relation to how teachers can improve students’ learning experience in EMI classes conducted using online technology. In Chap. 12, Lim problematises the notion of e-pedagogies and explores what it means for language learning in the Singapore secondary school context. This chapter discusses the reflection of a Singapore English language teacher in implementing digitally-mediated teaching during the ‘home-based learning’ period in the midst of the pandemic and explores the implications of the experience on the

8

J. K. H. Pun and S. Curle

understanding of e-pedagogies. During the period of home-based learning, teaching and learning activities were to continue through video-conferencing, learning platforms and multimedia resources to digitalise the delivery of the lessons. It has been well-recognised that the effectiveness of digitally-mediated learning is not the technologies, but how they are used by the teachers as designers of learning experiences (Lim, 2020; Selander, 2008). Some teachers have found it challenging to design effective home-based learning experiences for their charges given the lack of training, practice, and opportunities for teachers to design digitally-mediated learning previously. The experience with home-based learning has highlighted the importance of preparing teachers to design for effective digitally-mediated learning experiences. This chapter argues that the fundamentals of teaching based on learning theories of behaviourism and (social) constructivism are constant, albeit with different pedagogical expressions in online and classroom teaching. This is evident from approaches such as the conversational framework (Laurillard, 2012) and the reflexive pedagogy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015; Kalantzis & Cope, 2020) which while prompted by the affordances of teaching in a digital environment, is equally relevant in its application for classroom instruction. Rather than advancing the notion of a unique set of pedagogies for online teaching, this chapter argues that understanding the materiality in which the practice is situated and thinking of the entire interaction scenario in which the technologies are embedded (Bateman, 2019; Bateman et al., 2017) can be more productive in drawing out the commonalities in pedagogical principles across media. Such an orientation can allay the teachers’ anxieties towards online teaching and build on, rather than ignore, their deep reservoirs of pedagogical knowledge accumulated from years of experience in classroom instruction. Chapter 13 begins with a brief introduction to the theories on the psycholinguistic mechanism of L2 learning from technology-mediated reading. Jung and Fu will then discuss pedagogical interventions that can boost the efficacy of the technology-­ mediated L2 reading, along with two major venues: text modification (i.e., textual enhancement and glossing) and task manipulation (i.e., changing task complexity and condition). Then empirical studies that explored the effects of these techniques are reviewed in the context of technology-mediated reading, which leads to suggestions on how to design technology-mediated L2 English reading materials and tasks. Recent years have witnessed an accelerated movement of learning platform from face-to-face to computer-mediated mode, and this trend has become particularly salient in the field of second language (L2) reading. L2 reading serves as an indispensable component for L2 proficiency development as a major source of comprehensible input (Krashen, 1983), especially for learners situated in foreign language learning contexts, who normally suffer from the lack of sufficient L2 input. Against this background, this chapter discusses relevant theories and research findings on L2 learning from technology-mediated reading, with particular emphasis on how to manipulate L2 English reading materials and task features in such a way to facilitate L2 development.

The Use of Technology in English Medium Education

9

References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by Degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005. The Sloan Consortium. URL (last checked 17 June 2012) http://sloanconsortium.org/ publications/survey/growing_by_degrees_2005 Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113–115. Bateman, J. A. (2019). Digital: Is that even a thing? In colloquium on multimodality 2.0: New theories, new methods. New chances. Presentation at approaches to multimodal digital environments: From theories to practices (A-mode) international conference, Rome, 20th June to 22nd June 2019. Bateman, J. A., Wildfeuer, J., & Hiippala, T. (2017). Multimodality. Foundations, research, analysis. A problem-oriented introduction. De Gruyter. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Cope B , & Kalantzis, M. (2015). The things you do to know: An introduction to the pedagogy of multiliteracies. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design (pp.1–36). Palgrave. Davies, J. A., Davies, L. J., Conlon, B., Emerson, J., Hainsworth, H., & McDonough, H. G. (2020). Responding to COVID-19  in EAP contexts: A comparison of courses at four Sino-Foreign universities. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(2), 32–51. Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 452–465. Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2020). Introduction: The digital learner – Towards a reflexive pedagogy. In M. Montebello (Ed.), Handbook of research on digital learning (pp. xviii–xxxi). IGI Global. Krashen, S. D. (1983). Second language acquisition theory and the preparation of teachers: Toward a rationale. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 255–263. Lau, J., Yang, B., & Dasgupta, R. (2020, March 12). Will the coronavirus make online education go viral? Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ features/will-­coronavirus-­make-­online-­education-­go-­viral Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science. Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge. Lee, K. (2017). Rethinking the accessibility of online higher education: A historical review. Internet and Higher Education, 33, 15–23. Lim, F. V. (2020). Desiging learning with embodied teaching: Perspectives from multimodality. New York. Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modelling by teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 193–203. NBC News. (2020, February 25). Coronavirus: Italy reports 7 dead, 229 infected as Europe braces for COVID-19. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ coronavirus-­updates-­5-­dead-­200-­infected-­italy-­europe-­braces-­covid-­n1141466 Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). Adaptations to a face-to-face initial teacher education course ‘forced’ online due to the COVID-19 epidemic. Journal of Education for Teaching. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/02607476.2020.1755205 Muflih, S., Abuhammad, S., Karasneh, R., Al-Azzam, S., Alzoubi, K. H., & Muflih, M. (2020). Online education for undergraduate health professional education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Attitudes, barriers, and ethical issues. Research Square. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-­42336/v1. Selander, S. (2008). Designs for learning-a theoretical perspective. Designs for Learning, 1(1), 10. Turkey Statistical Agency (TUIK). (2019). Household use of information technologies. Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1028 UNESCO. (2020). COVID-19 educational disruption and response. Retrieved from https:// en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse

Shifting Assessment Online in the COVID-­19 Pandemic: A Case of an ICLHE Undergraduate Course in Medicine Julie Walaszczyk and Simon Segers

Abstract  In March 2020, Belgian universities moved all their courses online due to the COVID-19 outbreak that was sweeping across the globe. Higher education institutions had to take urgent measures to deal with this unprecedented crisis by providing rapid technological and pedagogical solutions for exclusively digital learning and teaching environments. This chapter focuses on third-year medical students’ perceptions of the online assessment methods used in an ICL course on respiratory diseases at the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy of the University of Mons. The authors wish to look into the challenges presented, the constraints imposed, and the impact that this sudden and unprepared shift to distance learning has had on content learning through the medium of English. More specifically, the analysis aims to explore the scope of this abrupt change in assessment methods in a course originally designed as a collaborative ICLHE experiment in formative learning. Drawing on the students’ experiences and the teachers’ observations and reflections, the following questions will be addressed: –– To what extent has the COVID-19 pandemic, and its consequences on online assessment, affected student understanding of the learning outcomes? –– How have students perceived the final online assignment and what implications has this had on their language and content learning? –– How can content teachers and language practitioners better collaborate in onand offline ICLHE environments? –– What are the lessons to be learnt and the solutions that can be envisaged to maintain the quality of formative assessment methods of EMI courses in digital settings?

J. Walaszczyk (*) Language and Internationalisation Unit, Faculty of Translation and Interpretation, University of Mons, Mons, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] S. Segers Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Mons, Mons, Belgium © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_2

11

12

J. Walaszczyk and S. Segers

1  Background and Context By the end of their third year of study, undergraduate students from the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of Mons are required to perform a critical analysis of guidelines for diagnosis and management of four common pulmonary diseases. Those four diseases are analysed in depth due to their high prevalence among the general population, their related high morbidity and impact on patients’ quality of life, and the necessity of efficient care by soon-to-be physicians. Special attention is paid to choosing guidelines with high content quality and a structure that can be handled by the students and will be relevant for their daily practice as general practitioners. Published every three to five years by specialised scientific committees, the reports are condensed materials regrouping evidence and advice regarding all aspects of the diseases, from risk factors and diagnosis criteria to treatment options and management of worsening conditions. About 150 pages long, these globally recognised reports are published in English. In an attempt to internationalise the curriculum, the undergraduate course Analysis of Guidelines was fully conducted in English for the first time during the 2019–2020 academic year. As they are sure to work in increasingly multiculturally diverse and multilingual settings, students need to be prepared to meaningfully contribute to society, and universities should provide the necessary intentional support for students to develop and acquire skills in line with the challenges of the twenty-­ first century (De Wit & Hunter, 2015). As members of the national and international scientific community, future practitioners are very likely to interact with peers and patients from different backgrounds from their own and use English as a means of communication to convey high-stakes information in a wide variety of unfamiliar and unpredictable contexts, even more so in times of pandemic. To probe students’ perceptions and expectations regarding a course fully taught in English, short anonymous surveys were used at the end of the introductory session, after each workshop, and upon completion of the course. In order to make as smooth and pleasant a transition as possible, important decisions were made prior to the health crisis in the planning and course design process on basis of the following considerations: • Due to large and heterogeneous differences in terms of language confidence and fluency, the teaching team favoured formative feedback over summative assessment of students’ English language skills. Indeed, 22% of the students of the course had never had English lessons before their undergraduate studies, and 17% of the students declared that they were not comfortable with English at the beginning of the course. The main rationale behind the choice of assessment was two-fold: firstly, it deconstructs the “ideology of authenticity” (Jenkins, 2007, 2013; Woolard, 2008; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994) that still prevails in language learning and teaching in French-speaking Belgian schools and universities and, secondly, it challenges traditional binary attitudes towards language use associated with the “native norm” (Jenkins, 1998, 2013) or a “mythical standard” to achieve (Jenkins & Leung, 2019). Formative assessment therefore reduces the

Shifting Assessment Online in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case of an ICLHE…

13

emotional constraints that language difficulties can trigger (Helm & Guarda, 2015; Lasagabaster et al., 2018),and provides a safe and inclusive environment for everyone, allowing students to resort to communicative strategies such as code-switching and translanguaging. • The risk of content acquisition loss through the use of English was also significantly reduced as the guidelines were fully integrated into a parallel theoretical pulmonology course given in French. This situation created ample leeway to organise an experimental ICL course1 consisting of an introductory lecture on the learning outcomes and a series of four face-to-face, jigsaw-type thematic workshops designed as interactive sessions where students had to share their ideas within their own teams as well as with members from other groups (Fig.  1). Different instructional techniques were used to scaffold learning, both in terms of content and language, and to eventually foster student autonomy and ownership. • Given the innovative and unusual character of the activities within the context at hand, team teaching was envisaged right from the start and close collaboration was observed throughout the course, from the preparatory stages to the delivery of the course content, task design, class activities and final assignment (Davis, 1995). Although there has been little research conducted on students’ perceptions of the benefits of team-teaching in EMI contexts (Lasagabaster, 2018), this

Fig. 1  Jigsaw group formation for the workshops 1  ICL is preferred to EMI here as this project was initiated as a joint teaching initiative and although language was not formally assessed, both content and language instructors were equally involved in the design of activities and class management.

14

J. Walaszczyk and S. Segers

practice is worth investigating as a potential springboard to promoting ­continuous professional development in EMI initiatives as it is perceived as a salutary and welcome opportunity for teachers to reflect on their own pedagogical approaches (Lasagabaster, 2018). Some aspects of this will be analysed in greater detail in the teachers’ reflections section. • Owing to the fact that previous research has shown the benefits of pluriperspective feedback (Gundermann & Dubow, 2018), the students were regularly asked to express their opinions on the activities and were invited to self-assess skill development in terms of both content understanding and linguistic competence through surveys and questionnaires. This ongoing process allowed the teaching team to explore a light version of dialogic education by prompting the students to suggest ideas, voice concerns or identify issues that they deemed important or relevant (Fielding, 2001; Shor & Freire, 1987) in order to regulate and recalibrate the learning experience.

1.1  From Face-to-Face to Online The different workshops would prepare the students to produce and share their group work during a face-to-face poster presentation session on the university premises. Guests from the medical world, including teachers from the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy and physicians and healthcare professionals, together with invited language teachers from the University’s Language and Internationalisation Unit (known as the Centre for Modern Languages at the time of the study) and the general public, would engage in discussions, ask questions or suggest adapted feedback to the different groups. This, therefore, provided a relatively authentic context in which students would be exposed to different degrees of familiarity with the content and to a wide range of English proficiency levels. Considering the radical changes brought to the course, much effort was put into shifting the students’ attention to the learning process itself, rather than the final assignment, therefore reducing the summative presentation to something incidental and even enjoyable. While the effects of assessment do impact learning, they should be considered as “educational features” and could potentially become “discretionary” if not solely limited to marking and classification (Boud, 2007). In order to achieve this, feedback loops, peer assessment and reflexivity were encouraged as learning strategies, and students could resort to continuous support from both the content and language teachers. Due to the COVID-19 outbreak in early 2020, all courses were moved online as of 13th March. The most significant change was the expected final production. Assessment quickly appeared to be a major concern for students who were reluctant to participate in an online synchronous session as a replacement for the planned face-to-face version. More than 60% of them felt that it would be less stressful to use English online in a pre-recorded video rather than during a live session. As a result, the teachers and students agreed on the production of pre-recorded videos

Shifting Assessment Online in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case of an ICLHE…

15

which were later podcasted on an institutional channel. Formative assessment remained the cornerstone of the evaluation process and the students were asked to give as much feedback as possible on their peers’ work, based on the following criteria: content accuracy, analysis, topic coverage and interpretation, and summarising. Technical aspects of video montage were not assessed.

2  Student Expectations and Perspectives 2.1  Before the Pandemic Upon presentation of the course outline and the learning outcomes during the introductory session, a short informal survey was issued to the students. Seventy-five answer forms were collected from the 87 students registered for the course. The project was received with mixed feelings from the participating students: while many recognised the relevance of being able to communicate in English as future professionals (Fig.  2), they were hesitant about using the language in a course exclusively based on information sharing and collaborative knowledge building (Fig.  3). Similarly, the survey participants were ambivalent about whether EMI would be best suited to lecture-style approaches or practical classes, with 52% of the students considering that an EMI workshop-based project was a valid option. These figures correlate with the students’ written responses to an open questionnaire. Comments such as being concerned about “the perception of the others” and the fear of “speaking in front of everyone” reflect a degree of distress when it comes to public speaking skills, which interestingly seem to be, for some, more a cause of anxiety than the act of presenting in English. On the other hand, language inequalities were perceived as having a negative impact on task completion (“It’s already complicated in French, why in English?”, “In English, really?”, “It makes things difficult when you haven’t practised for a while”) resulting in the students feeling that their treatment which would be unfavourable (“It’s not fair for those who don’t have any basic English skills!”) or biased (“extremely advantageous for students who are good in English”). Summative assessment of the course was a major concern for some students, even though there

How useful is the integration of the English language in a content class? How relevant is it for future generations of doctors to be able to communicate in English? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Extremely

Fig. 2  Perceived relevance of English

Very

A little

Not at all

16

J. Walaszczyk and S. Segers

I am comfortable about speaking English with my peers. I find it easier to communicate in English with non native English speakers. 0% Yes

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No

Fig. 3  Perception of English for the course

was no direct question on the subject. In response to the question “what are you afraid of regarding this type of class?”, some of the participants were resentful of “the presentation”, “the 8th of May” (the date set for the face-to-face poster session), or “the talk [they]’ll have to give”. Student perceptions and interpretations of equality or fairness manifested themselves in attitudes towards group work, and more specifically random group formation, which was considered another unjust burden for the students to deal with (“it’s not the class but more the people I’m going to work with”, “being in a bad and useless group”, “I will probably end up doing all the work by myself”, “teamwork […] never goes well”, “no randomised groups please”). Suggestions were made to create teams on basis of the members’ individual strengths in order to ensure “equity”. Another important theme that emerged from the participating students’ remarks was the learning itself. The language used is significantly different and conveys a sense of ownership, agency and self-efficacy, in striking opposition to the previously addressed topics. “I really love it, it’s really an interesting way to learn”, one student said. Another “hopes to learn many things and develop [their] critical thinking skills.” The integration of both content and language during the classes was also seen as “a huge opportunity for [them] to learn (English and medical stuff) and [to] become fantastic doctors”, at times leading to great anticipation (“I am really looking forward to doing it”) or a welcome break from the routine (“it’s a change from what we’re used to having as classes”).

2.2  Going Online After shifting to online assessment, the teaching team was concerned about the students’ perceptions of the new assessment method, as they had missed out on face-to-face feedback and interaction, even though the final activity remained essentially focused on two key components: sharing of information with an all-coming audience and learning from peers. The students were asked again to share their

Shifting Assessment Online in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case of an ICLHE…

17

thoughts on the matter in a survey after they had published their video project. The final survey, submitted both in English and in French, was completed by 37 students. The switch from a face-to-face poster session to a pre-recorded video team presentation highlighted technical and practical issues: about 12% of the students experienced difficulties due to a lack of appropriate equipment (camera, microphone or computer) and more than a third were affected by poor working conditions. These included isolation, family and personal constraints or obligations, and technological devices being shared with other people living under the same roof. Furthermore, the students reported that teamwork had been the factor which was most significantly impacted by distance learning (Fig. 4). The video project also received a wide diversity of reactions. They range from outright rejection, especially regarding the amount of time spent getting familiar with the tools needed (“Completely useless, considerable waste of time, I thought I was in my third year of medical studies, not in YouTube studies!!!”) to some reservations (“[I was] a bit sceptical at first, but in the end, once I understood the process, it was a nice experience”). Some students preferred it to the live poster presentation and described it as “less stressful and equally informative.”. Others acknowledged that it was a daunting task but admitted enjoying the video-making process and developed creativity through the use of technology and language, infusing pleasure into the preparation stages of the final activity and increasing information retention through peer learning: “It was more fun to do, we are not professional editors and to be able to catch people’s attention by using different intonation was a bigger challenge, and I remembered more information thanks to the others’ videos.” These considerations aside, the potential benefits of such a face-to-face event were highlighted by students considering various aspects, such as language and public speaking skills, and the importance of registers in medical communication: “I think that [the poster session] would have been really instructive but stressful at the same time. But I think that it could have helped me feel more confident in English and get used to speaking in front of several people.” Another student emphasised the relevance of the exercise in similar terms: “adapting our discourse to a general audience forces us to vulgarise, which we will constantly need to do in our future practice”. One participant even reported that “it [was] supposed to be a social challenge for [them]”.

On team working On your learning experience for the course On your learning experience in general 0% Huge impact

Fig. 4  Impact of distance learning

10%

20%

Moderate impact

30%

40%

50%

Minor impact

60%

70%

No impact

80%

90% 100%

18

J. Walaszczyk and S. Segers

It is also worth noting that students recognised the potential benefits of the face-­ to-­face event, yet 62% of them thought that they would not have performed better in the initial poster presentation than in the video project. This underlines the fact that students’ learning habits remain largely directed towards grades and individual performance benchmarked by the rest of the group, rather than on skill acquisition and on academic or professional development. To many, assessment is still experienced as something threatening or traumatic that impedes learning (Kvale, 2007). The final survey also included questions on language assessment and to what extent the experience influenced or changed student perceptions. In response to the need to assess content only, content and language together, or content and language separately, 70% of the students who participated considered that language should not be formally assessed for the course. Most of them justified their choice by the disparity in English proficiency levels that would lead to inequity in terms of assessment, and a few by the fact that the content was already cognitively demanding. Those who considered that English should have been assessed recognised its importance as a language of communication between scientists and professionals. Interestingly, one student suggested that formal marking is a way to motivate students to improve their English language skills: “[…] I think that English is a really important language and even more so in medicine, and if we are not pushed to learn, we cannot progress. Grading will force some students to make effort that they otherwise would not have made.” When asking the students how face-to-face workshops, the online assignment or the combination of both impacted their English skills, less than 10% of the students felt like the final assignment was the best way for them to either improve their English proficiency and their confidence to interact with their peers in English or to help them in their capacity to identify language registers. For those three skills, more than 60% of the students considered the face-to-face sessions as the best option.

3  Teachers’ Perceptions The implementation of this ICLHE course, and its abrupt online transition, created unexpected opportunities to reflect on the pedagogical choices that were made as it exposed students’ and teachers’ shared vulnerability and resilience in a time of turmoil. Regular temperature checks, such as surveys, open questionnaires, and informal comments, facilitated navigation through the waves of uncertainty that put an emotional strain on all the stakeholders involved. The data collected throughout the course, and prior to and during the period of distance learning, teaching and assessing led us to make first observations and draw some tentative conclusions, irrespective of the teaching frameworks and methods. Assessment remains, by and large, a relatively under-researched area of EMI and ICLHE (Wilkinson et al., 2006) with a few exceptions regarding student academic achievement (Dafouz & Camacho-Miñano, 2016), quality of learning and assessment methodologies (Hernandez-Nanclares & Jimenez-Munoz, 2015) and testing

Shifting Assessment Online in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case of an ICLHE…

19

of lecturers’ linguistic competences (Dimova & Kling, 2020; Kling & Hjulmand, 2012; Kling & Staehr, 2011). Self-assessment of language skills (Jensen et  al., 2011) has also been explored but little has been written on the necessity to formally assess language in EMI or ICLHE initiatives. Besides, institutional contexts differ widely when it comes to the “Englishisation” of curricula and whether or not the decision to implement EMI courses derives from the intentional process of integrating internationalised outcomes in the study programmes. In the setting under scrutiny in this chapter, feedback loops, dialogic learning, self-regulatory tasks and peer assessment were deliberately favoured over normative criteria-based evaluation methods of language proficiency and accuracy. The online transposition of the learning activities following the COVID outbreak undermined any efforts to fairly gauge the linguistic competences of each individual student and showed the fragility of traditional language rubric-based assessment in online environments. It also exacerbated inequalities, which students and teachers alike identified very early in the process as one of the main issues of the course. All these variables could have generated large amounts of stress, could have had a significant impact on student learning processes and could have reinforced already polarised attitudes towards language acquisition, therefore putting the implementation of more inclusive EMI or ICLHE classes in jeopardy. In order to foster off- and online unprejudiced learning EMI environments in which linguistic diversity can be tapped into, the relevance of formal assessment methods of linguistic competence needs to be addressed. This question calls for greater awareness amongst teachers and students of the wide variety of co-existing cultures of learning and teaching (Flowerdew & Miller, 1995; Westerholm & Räsänen, 2015), which are often silenced for questions of heterogeneity, reduced to monolithic antagonistic value systems (Lauridsen & Cozart, 2015) or still largely unknown. In a context which places sole reliance on academic performance or considers it and merit as the only legitimate benchmarks, and where the authoritative voice of the lecturer is the only one to validate the accuracy of responses, students with varying degrees of language and content knowledge are unlikely to express themselves unselfconsciously in EMI classes, or to find these classes emancipating for that matter. Team-teaching and the different forms that it can take (Chitiyo & Brinda, 2018) proved to be conclusive in the course under analysis, and we advocate for a closer collaborative approach in EMI activities, whose main objective is to secure an open non-judgemental space where learning can take place and mistakes can be made. Previous studies have shown the positive impact of close cooperation between content and language specialists on the learner’s experience and the necessity to reconsider the language teacher’s involvement as a valuable contributor to the learning process (Airey, 2011; Pavón Vázquez, 2014). A common understanding of what co-teaching entails, mutual respect and balanced responsibilities are prerequisites to avoid the mere instrumentalisation of language support, as it has sometimes been observed in ESP and EAP pre-sessional courses (Jacobs, 2007), reducing language teaching to a “casualty” (Wilkinson, 2008) or conferring it a second-hand status in the curriculum (Fortanet-Gómez, 2011). The quality of interdisciplinary

20

J. Walaszczyk and S. Segers

collaboration brought a new unsuspected dimension to the course content and shifted the focus of attention from information retention to patient communication and aspects of medical education that are hardly touched upon in the undergraduate medical curriculum in French-speaking universities, such as cultural differences, ethics or gender bias. The language teacher’s questions allowed students to realise that the way they interact with a patient with little medical knowledge is key to follow-up and prevention. The involvement of the “non-physician” in the feedback process highlighted the issue of language barriers that may impede communication and the importance of registers in professional medical settings. Quite notably, it also repositioned English along the wider spectrum of languages used, especially marginalised ones which are widely spoken by underrepresented minorities in urban and semi-urban environments. English is de facto perceived as the lingua franca of science and medicine, and although future practitioners need to be equipped with the linguistic repertoire to be able to produce accurate and detailed written reports or give clear academic presentations, they will also have to navigate in increasingly complex multicultural and multilingual settings in which English is not systematically the dominant language or the preferred lingua franca. As patient communication took centre stage, this led to some reflections on disciplinary self-perceptions. Medical training is by and large still dominated by knowledge acquisition of ‘hard’ sciences, such as anatomy, pharmacology, pathology and physiology. Yet, when medical graduates enter the professional world, they are often unprepared for “the untidy business of dealing with patients” (The Lancet, 2004). The different activities allowed the teams of students to enter the uncharted and muddy territory of language, which then gave way to the reinterpretation or deconstruction of content-related topics about which most students were already knowledgeable. The use of a foreign language, and the opportunity for the participating students to share their expertise with guests from a non-medical background or those with varying degrees of scientific knowledge, confronted them with the importance of patient-centred communication. This remains a ‘soft’ skill that future medical practitioners need to put in practice in the early stages of their undergraduate studies since it will become their responsibility as physicians to develop a therapeutical alliance with their patients. The patients, as the main actors of their own health and well-being, must be well informed and receive appropriate care from healthcare professionals, whose awareness of unbiased and inclusive discourse will be key to establishing a sustainable relationship. The overused and reductive dichotomy between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sciences based on Biglan’s model (Adapted from Dafouz et al., 2014; Biglan, 1973) which is still prevalent in Western teaching traditions, was constantly questioned throughout the course, leading many students to integrate a more ‘humanistic’ approach to the studied disease in their final video podcast.

Shifting Assessment Online in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case of an ICLHE…

21

4  Concluding Thoughts The unanticipated shift to online teaching and learning has exposed students and teachers to the challenges of remote assessment and has simultaneously opened up many unsuspected possibilities as regards re-evaluation of the feedback processes in EMI settings. From students’ diverse and often contradictory comments different profiles and attitudes towards continuous formative assessment have emerged. For some, it seemed to have triggered a liberating, almost restorative effect on their language use, while for others, it was perceived as a destabilising experience incompatible with their own perceptions of assessment. This chapter has hopefully shed light on the importance of redefining or reconsidering the language assessment contract in the student-English Medium educator relationship. In the age of knowledge society, students need to be supported to become active decision-makers and partners in every stage of their learning journey. This results in students who are adequately equipped with a skillset that promotes creativity, problem-solving and critical (digital) thinking (Valcke, 2020). The role of teachers is to foster dialogue in (e-)learning education which could ultimately lead to transformative experiences and have a significant impact on intrinsic motivation. The enormous and boundless potential of feedback for student growth in digital learning environments deserves greater recognition and integration in ICLHE online contexts. Videoconferencing software combined with virtual notice boards and other technological pedagogical tools can contribute to the development of inclusive multimodal spaces, which offer a wide range of benefits, such as flexibility, increased peer interaction and learning, and creative expression (Gray et al., 2010). By inviting students to take ownership and to gain in self-efficacy beliefs, content and language teachers in an online joint initiative can clear the way for alternative routes where learners can co-construct, generate, author, edit and review knowledge in a stress-free language zone. Conflict of Interest  We have no conflict of interest to disclose.

References Airey, J. (2011). The relationship between teaching language and student learning in Swedish university physics. In B. Preisler, I. Klitgård, & A. H. Fabricius (Éds.), Language and learning in the international university: From English uniformity to diversity and hybridity (p. 3–18). Multilingual Matters. Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213. https://doi. org/10.1037/h0034699 Boud, D. (2007). Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Éds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term (Numéro April, pp. 14–26). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203964309. Chitiyo, J., & Brinda, W. (2018). Teacher preparedness in the use of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms. Support for Learning, 33(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9604.12190

22

J. Walaszczyk and S. Segers

Dafouz, E., Camacho, M., & Urquía, E. (2014). ‘Surely they can’t do as well’: A comparison of business students’ academic performance in English-medium and Spanish-as-first-languagemedium programmes. Language and Education, 28(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09500782.2013.808661 Dafouz, E., & Camacho-Miñano, M. M. (2016). Exploring the impact of English-medium instruction on university student academic achievement: The case of accounting. English for Specific Purposes, 44(October), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.06.001 Davis, J. R. (1995). Interdisciplinary courses and team teaching: New arrangements for learning. American Council on Education and the Oryx Press. De Wit, H., & Hunter, F. (2015). The future of internationalization of higher education in Europe. International Higher Education, 83, 2–3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2015.83.9073 Dimova, S., & Kling, J. (Eds.). (2020). Integrating content and language in multilingual universities (Vol. 44). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­46947-­4. Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017949213447 Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (1995). On the notion of culture in L2 lectures. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 345. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587628 Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2011). Critical components of integrating content and language in Spanish higher education. Across the Disciplines, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-­J.2011.8.3.17. Gray, K., Thompson, C., Sheard, J., & Clerehan, R. (2010). Students as web 2.0 authors: Implications for assessment design and conduct. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1105 Gundermann, S., & Dubow, G. (2018). Ensuring quality in EMI: Developing an assessment procedure at the University of Freiburg. Bulletin VALS-ASLA, 107, 113–125. Helm, F., & Guarda, M. (2015). “Improvisation is not allowed in a second language”: A survey of Italian lecturers’ concerns about teaching their subjects through English. Language Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 353–373. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-­2015-­0017 Hernandez-Nanclares, N., & Jimenez-Munoz, A. (2015). International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism English as a medium of instruction: Evidence for language and content targets in bilingual education in economics. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1125847. Jacobs, C. (2007). Integrating content and language: Whose job is it anyway? In R.  Wilkinson & V.  Zegers (Éds.), Researching content and language integration in higher education (pp. 35–47). Valkhof Pers. Jenkins, J. (1998). Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an international language? ELT Journal, 52(2), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.2.119 Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua Franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2013). English as a lingua Franca in the international university. Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203798157. Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2019). From mythical “standard” to standard reality: The need for alternatives to standardized English language tests. Language Teaching, 52(1), 86–110. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0261444818000307 Jensen, C., Denver, L., Mees, I., & Werther, C. (2011). Chapter 2. Students’ and teachers’ selfassessment of English language proficiency in English-medium higher education in Denmark: A questionnaire study. In B. Preisler, I. Klitgård, & A. Fabricius (Eds.), Language and learning in the international university (pp. 19–38). Multilingual Matters. Kling, J., & Hjulmand, L.-L. (2012). PLATE  – Project in language assessment for teaching in English. In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Éds.), Realizing content and language integration in higher education (Vol. 25, pp. 191–200). Universitaire Pers Maastricht. https://doi.org/10.1075/ aila.25.01smi. Kling, J. M., & Staehr, L. S. (2011). Assessment and assistance: Developing university lecturers’ language skills through certification feedback. In R.  Cancino, K.  Jaeger, & L.  Dam (Éds.), Policies, principles, practices: New directions in foreign language education in the era of educational globalization (pp. 213–245). Cambridge Scholars Press.

Shifting Assessment Online in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case of an ICLHE…

23

Kvale, S. (2007). Contradictions of assessment for learning in institutions of higher learning. In D. Boud and N. Falchikov (Éds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 57–71). Routledge. Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Fostering team teaching: Mapping out a research agenda for English-­ medium instruction at university level. Language Teaching, 51(3), 400–416. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0261444818000113 Lasagabaster, D., Doiz, A., & Pavón, V. (2018). Undergraduates’ beliefs about the role of language and team teaching in EMI courses at university. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, 50(2–3), 111–127. Lauridsen, K., & Cozart, S. M. (2015). Teaching and learning in the international classroom: Quality principles and lessons learned from the IntlUni project. In Handbook: Internationalisation of European Higher Education. Dr. Josef Raabe Verlags-GmbH. Pavón Vázquez, V. (2014). Enhancing the quality of CLIL: Making the best of the collaboration between language teachers and content teachers. Encuentro, 23, 115–127. Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. Greenwood Publishing Group. The Lancet. (2004). The soft science of medicine. The Lancet, 363(9417), 1247. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0140-­6736(04)16027-­3 Valcke, J. (2020). Beyond English-medium education: From internationalisation to sustainable education. In A. Murphy & H. Bowles (Éds.), EMI and internationalization of higher education. Palgrave Macmillan. Westerholm, K., & Räsänen, A. (2015). Sharing and promoting disciplinary competences for university teaching in English: Voices from the University of Jyväskylä language centre’s TACE programme. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2015.000290. Wilkinson, R. (2008). Locating the ESP space in problem-based learning: English-medium degree programmes from a post-Bologna perspective. In I. Fortanet-Gómez & C. A. Räisänen (Eds.), ESP in European Higher Education: Integrating language and content (pp.  55–73). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.4.05wil Wilkinson, R., Zegers, V., & Van Leeuwen C, (Éds.). (2006). Bridging the assessment gap in English-medium higher education. AKS-Verlag. Woolard, K. (2008). Language and identity choice in Catalonia: The interplay of contrasting ideologies of linguistic authority. In K. Süselbeck, U. Mühlschlegel, & P. Masson (Eds.), Lengua, nación e identidad: La regulación del plurilingüismo en España y América Latina (pp. 30–323). Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415

Online Teaching and Academic Resilience During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lived Experience of College Students in Mainland China Qianwen Joyce Yu and Qing Huang

Abstract The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted the instructional delivery of higher education institutions, with online teaching being implemented suddenly and unprecedentedly. Recent evidence suggests that this urgent move to distance education presents considerable challenges to students, leading to increasing concern over their academic resilience, and physical and mental well-being during the crisis. This chapter aims to investigate how Chinese college students cope with online teaching, focusing on the essential resilience strategies they adopt to overcome the academic difficulties. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 college students from mainland China, who had enrolled in an ESP (English for Specific Purposes) course and had attended over 30 online sessions in 2020. The data were analyzed using grounded theory building and constant comparison method. This study contributes to the understanding of students’ resilience in achieving academic success in times of crisis. Drawing on students’ perspective, the findings are expected to invite new thinking on support services aimed at helping students tackling unique challenges and enhancing resilience, and to respond to calls for fostering future online pedagogical development.

1  Introduction The impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has been particularly notable in Higher Education (HE), as is evidenced by a rapid and urgent transition from face-­ to-­face instruction to online teaching. By the end of May 2020, there were 114 country-wide closures of schools and HE institutions, affecting approximately 864 Q. J. Yu (*) Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China e-mail: [email protected] Q. Huang School of Foreign Languages, Huizhou University, Huizhou, Guangdong, China © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_3

25

26

Q. J. Yu and Q. Huang

million learners around the world (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2020). Given the imperative need for social distancing and quarantine, the conventional mode of knowledge delivery is no longer viable (Bouali et al., 2020). To contain the spread of the pandemic, the Ministry of Education of China instituted an emergency policy called “Suspending Classes Without Stopping Learning” in 2020, aiming to “integrate national and local school teaching resources, provide rich, diverse, selectable, high-quality online resources for all students across the country, and support teachers’ online teaching and children’s online learning” (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2020a). By the beginning of April 2020, online education was implemented in 1454 HE institutions in mainland China, with students’ attendance at 1.18 billion (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2020b). Consequently, college students have to adapt to the fundamentally altered learning environment, where video conference-­ delivered lectures, social media, and online discussion forums become the major venues for knowledge construction and peer interaction (Yan et al., 2021). Existing studies of college students’ experience of online education during the COVID-19 pandemic have identified several major concerns, including Internet connection errors, issues with information technology skills, distractions at home, lack of physical interaction and collaborative learning opportunities, reduced learning motivation, rising learning burdens, students’ physical and psychological well-­ being (see, for example, Al-Nofaie, 2020; Hazaymeh, 2021; Holzer et  al., 2021; Jiang et  al., 2021; Kaisara & Bwalya, 2021). The myriad academic and social changes pose considerable and unique challenges to students’ academic success (Almusharraf & Bailey, 2021; Plakhotnik et al., 2021). Although these findings shed lights on students’ experience of online learning and challenges, there is a paucity of work focusing on how resilient college students overcome such challenges to achieve academic success in the wake of COVID-19. Such information contributes to a better understanding of college students’ difficulties and consequently facilitates the design of educational programs that may potentially improve students’ online learning experience. Despite the increasing attention to resilience in HE literature, the labels given to “resilience” and its definitions are unclear and inconsistent (Brewer et al., 2019). Resilience is generally conceptualized as an effective adjustment to pressure, adversity, or change (Flinchbaugh et al., 2015). Resilient people are able to manage pressure or hardship, maintain well-being, and survive and thrive from adversity (Campa, 2010; Cuadra & Famadico, 2013; Gerson & Fernandez, 2013; McAllister & McKinnon, 2009). This study centers on academic resilience, which is primarily related to the role of resilience in educational settings. Academic resilience is defined as “a capacity to overcome acute and/or chronic adversity that is seen as a major threat to a student’s educational development” (Martin, 2013, p. 488). Martin and Marsh (2006) note that despite many students’ poor academic performance, there are a great many others who present with the capacity to overcome academic challenges and to thrive in difficult situations. As an essential predictor of coping in

Online Teaching and Academic Resilience During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lived…

27

college (McLafferty et al., 2012), academic resilience is positively associated with academic success and students’ well-being (Cassidy, 2016). Resilient students are often found to be capable of employing available resources or of seeking help from others to mitigate the challenges and to excel in their academic endeavors (Ainscough et  al., 2018; Lessard et  al., 2014). The contemporary HE environment is fast-­ changing and increasingly challenging in nature (Ahmed & Julis, 2015), and the COVID-19 pandemic adds to the complexity of this environment. Considering the impact of HE environment on students’ well-being, academic performance and ongoing success or failure in college life (Cassidy, 2016; Reyes et al., 2015), this study seeks to investigate the resilience strategies adopted by college students for positive academic adaptation in this time of crisis. To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, this study is one of the first to explore the resilience strategies adopted by students in their studies that empower them to manage the challenges during the shift from on-site instruction to online education. This study contributes to the growing HE literature by responding to the global call for enhancing college students’ academic resilience (Brewer et al., 2019), and by offering a better understanding of college students’ lived experiences in their quest to overcome social, mental, emotional, and academic challenges through self-­ initiated strategies in this unprecedented situation (Ahmed & Julis, 2015). Specifically, the study aims to answer the following research questions: 1. What do students in this ESP course perceive to be their social, psychological, and academic challenges in online learning? 2. What resilience strategies do students in this ESP course adopt to cope with the challenges?

2  Method 2.1  Research Setting and Participants This study was conducted at a public nursing college in Guangdong Province, China. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures, all courses in this college moved online in the spring semester from February to July, 2020. Teachers used videoconferencing programs to deliver synchronous lectures, to assign homework, and to schedule examinations. This study adopts a convenience sampling technique for collecting data. Twenty first-year Chinese nursing students who enrolled in an ESP nursing course were recruited from the college (18 females and 2 males). All participants received a verbal explanation regarding the nature and aim of this project, as well as their rights and confidentiality. Written consent was obtained from all participants prior to the study. This study was approved by the ethics committee of the participating college.

28

Q. J. Yu and Q. Huang

2.2  Data Collection and Analysis Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participating students via WeChat. Each interview lasted for approximately 20 to 25 minutes, where student participants were asked about their perceptions of online education during the pandemic. Special attention was paid to their opinions of the challenges they encountered, and the corresponding coping strategies they adopted. For the research purpose of this study, we focus on the specific resilience strategies that students used to manage the challenges brought by online learning. Pseudonyms were used and identifying information were removed from the transcripts. The interview data were transcribed and examined as per the original language, mandarin. English translations of excerpts were used for illustrative purposes. The data were analyzed using grounded theory building and constant comparison method. Inductive analysis was conducted to identify common scenarios and to directly generate middle-level theory from the dataset (Glaser & Strauss, 2004). Constant comparison method was adopted to assign the interview data into individual categories, and to synthesize these categories by analyzing the reoccurring statements (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The data were first coded by one researcher and then checked by the other. Three major themes were identified and are presented as below.

3  Findings and Discussion The challenging period of the COVID-19 pandemic has brought profound changes to the HE landscape in mainland China. Drawing on semi-structured interviews, this study reports on how Chinese college students coped with emergency online education, especially in an ESP nursing course, during the COVID-19 quarantine period. These students’ experiences and responses are consistent with the growing concern over their psychological well-being and academic endeavors.

3.1  Resilience in Technical Issues As is reported by the participating students, one major barrier to online learning is a lack of necessary technical skills and facilities, which is in congruent with previous studies of online learning (Al-Nofaie, 2020; Bączek et  al., 2021). For example, Al-Nofaie (2020) noted that around half of the participating students in the study did not have headphones during the first weeks of online education, which significantly affected their communication with lecturers and peers. Bączek et al. (2021) found that more than half of the participating medical students experienced problems with technical equipment and that this was a more common issue for students

Online Teaching and Academic Resilience During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lived…

29

in earlier years of college. To attend classes online, a certain degree of technological proficiency, including the ability to successfully log in, participate in classes, submit assignment, and communicate with teachers and classmates, is required. However, most participants in this study were not familiar with the software used during online learning, such as Tencent Classroom or Ding Talk, each of which is a popular software for online class in mainland China. The following interview excerpts illustrate the difficulties that many students shared in using digital technologies required. I am not good at computer and am used to offline courses. Before the outbreak of Covid-19, we had no chance to attend classes online. So I felt anxious and nervous when I needed to learn in an online-only environment (Student 06). It was hard for me to figure out various functions of the software used for online class. Once I thought I had submitted my homework successfully, but in fact I did not. I almost failed that course because of the late assignment (Student 07). During the first two days of online class, I did not know how to sign in for the class, so the teacher thought I did not attend the class (Student 04). I was suddenly asked by different teachers to install different software in order to attend online classes via my mobile phone. I am a little at a loss in the face of so many different software. What is worse, my phone ran out of memory (Student 10).

In addition to students’ technological proficiency, a strong internet connection is a prerequisite for attending online classes. Spotty internet connection affects the quality of online leaning. Further, the server cannot handle a large number of online users at the same time, which causes network congestion. For example, two students said the following during the interview: The server will crash if there are too many people online at the same time. I still remember that at 9 am on the first day of the online class, no one could log in until 11 am. This kind of situation did not only happen to the students in our school. We learned from the news that students in other schools were also in such a mess all around the country (Student 11). Even if I logged in successfully, the internet connection can be spotty. Sometimes I could not hear the sound or see the screen; sometimes even the sound and picture were out of sync. This interrupted my learning and made me unable to keep up with the teacher’s thoughts in class (Student 2).

The above excerpts show that the lack of necessary technical skills generates a negative attitude from students towards online learning, which may impact students’ acquisition of the academic content being taught. Contemporary students are often expected to be digital natives, which refers to those born and raised in the era of digital technology (Prensky, 2001). Yet the findings suggest that a considerable number of students are not tech-savvy as is expected of digital natives. In that case, it takes more time for these students to shift to the emergency remote learning through virtual platforms made available by the college. Further, different teachers sometimes used different online platforms due to personal choices and time availability, particularly at early stages of online instruction. This situation adds to the difficulty of maintaining interest and completing assignments, as online platforms may vary in terms of format, course duration, and form of interactivity. It has thus become apparent that the pandemic pressures students to adopt and increase digital readiness (Antonopoulou et al., 2021; Grinberga Zalite & Zvirbule, 2020). To handle this challenge, students actively participated in the webinars offered by the

30

Q. J. Yu and Q. Huang

software companies. Further, the college hired the technicians from these companies to provide technical support for the students. As some participating students said, There are several WeChat groups for students to share their online learning experience. Several technicians and teachers are also in these groups to answer students’ questions related to technical issues (Student 14). Many video tutorials were posted and shared in these WeChat groups. We can learn how to use the software step by step with these resources (Student 01). Normally, we first look for answers and help among our classmates when we encounter technical difficulties, since we have similar learning experience and probably have the same problems. (Student 09).

To reduce network congestion, the college rescheduled the class by advancing or postponing the class time in order to stagger the rush hour of using network. As two students said, After the reschedule, the situation of poor internet connection has been alleviated (Student 9). Some of our classes are scheduled for 06:00 in the mornings or 08:00 in the evenings (Student 2).

Further, in order to keep students from being bothered by too much software, the college required the teachers to use only two mainstream software to give lessons. As is presented in the case below: This policy has really reduced a lot of pressure on our mobile phones, as we don’t need to register different software again and again. (Student 5).

In the above-mentioned cases, these students adopted self-initiated strategies to form peer support groups and seek professional and official help from the college when needed, in order to resolve the technical problems. In this context, resilience is in line with what Riley and Masten (2005) refer to as “positive adaptation in the face of adversity” (p. 13) in their explanation. The resilience strategy enabled nursing students to have positive academic experiences with the use of digital technology and to gain a perception of teachers, peers, and college as supportive in students’ academic endeavors. Jiang et al. (2021)‘s study showed that Chinese HE students’ satisfaction with online learning platform was influenced by their computer self-­ efficacy, and the perceived ease of use and usefulness of the platform. In order to counteract the negative outcomes related to technical problems, guide and assistance of technical support should be developed as they did here.

3.2  Resilience in Classroom Interaction Interaction in online education involves learner to teacher, learner to content, and learner to learner interaction (Moore, 2007). Recent research on students’ perceived interaction in online learning during the pandemic show that students are less active during online classes than during face-to-face teaching, which can impede the

Online Teaching and Academic Resilience During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lived…

31

learning process (Bączek et al., 2021; Yates et al., 2021). This is in part due to the lack of an interactive approach to the development of online learning courses. Yates et al. (2021) note that students might turn off videos and microphones, which can result in a classroom full of non-participating students; some students are even absent without excuse. Participating students in this study acknowledged that the lack of in-person interaction with both instructors and classmates was another challenge. Compared with the face-to-face interaction, it is less convenient and effective for students to communicate with teachers and peers online. As two student participants said, We can speak and discuss freely with teachers and peers during in-person interaction. When I have some questions in offline classes, I can ask my desk mates right away. However, as we usually communicate online through social software, online communication is not as prompt as face-to-face interaction and needs more time (Student 06). I am worried if I would disturb the teacher when I send messages to ask questions, especially after class (Student 09).

Further, it is more challenging for students when the ESP context is involved in online learning. Compared with face-to-face class, students have less chances to have group discussion, and teachers are unable to give prompt feedback for students’ language exercise. As one of the students said, In face-to-face class, teachers can come to us to check if we have right mouth shape or pronunciation when we speak English, but it is hard for teachers to check and supervise students’ learning in an online environment (Student 18).

As the above interview excerpts demonstrate, student participants raised their concern over the learning methods. They were cognizant of the fact that clear, prompt, and concise feedback was important in language learning when switching over to a digital environment. To shorten the distance between teachers and students and make students’ online learning effective, the college required teachers to have consultation time for each student if necessary. The student participants thus made full use of this opportunity to increase the feedback mechanism for effective online learning. As two student participants described, During the consultation, the teacher had his/her video on, and I had my video on, which helped me a lot in practicing my oral English (Student 21). I think this (online consultation) is a good alternative to actual face-to-face interaction, because I can learn effectively from a long distance (Student 04).

To provide students with more chances to practice oral English, the ESP teachers in this college added group assignments for the practice of spoken English. Student participants viewed group assignments as a way of promoting their learning and collaborative skills, particularly in oral English. Some students even took the initiatives to seek instructors’ help when they failed to have a group to join. As two of the participants said, After each unit in the ESP nursing course, we are required to record the roleplay nurse-­ patient conversations for each pair of students (Student 08). In online ESP learning, recording our conversation is an effective way to improve oral English. It took me an hour to finish the exercise (recording our role-play conversation)

32

Q. J. Yu and Q. Huang with my partner in Unit 1, but it only took us half an hour to finish it in Units 2 and 3 respectively, which suggested that we did make progress to some extent (Student 10).

Such examples indicate that group assignments facilitate memory recall and understanding, for they allow students to exchange similar ideas and support each other academically. Students adopt self-initiated strategies to form role-play groups and seek instructors’ assistance when needed, and to improve their online learning experience. Online instruction is not the same as in-class learning in that brick-and-­ mortar schools, hence effective pedagogical approaches differ (Moore, 2007). Although Yates et al. (2021) and Bączek et al. (2021) reported low level of class interactivity in online teaching, the aforementioned initiatives of nursing students provide an example of how students can employ resilience strategies to ensure collaborative learning opportunities and to maximize the effect of online education. Although they were mediated through technology, collaborative activities in online classrooms have a tendency to replicate those in face-to-face instruction (Yates et al., 2021). Vygotskiĭ (1980) pointed out the pivotal role of social interaction in fostering cognitive development and, while most participating students reported high interactivity during in-class collaboration activities, instances of effective collaboration in online learning were narrated. Students’ perceived learning process was positively conditioned by synchronous, small group learning and collaborative teaching activities mediated via technology.

3.3  Resilience in Seeking Emotional Support In the era of COVID-19, teachers and students have been thrown into an online environment where they often do not see or hear each other. The measures to control the transmission of the coronavirus have severe consequences in relation to students’ psychological well-being, such as social isolation and loneliness, which is derived from the disruption in their everyday routines and interpersonal communication (Labrague et  al., 2021). Tull et  al. (2020) illustrate that measures such as home confinement, social distancing, and quarantine lead to a sense of loneliness among young people as they are prevented from socializing with their family and peers. In addition to the challenge concerning classroom interaction, therefore, it was common for students to experience a lack of emotional connection. Compared with the traditional learning, online learning makes students feel isolated and less motivated to learn. As student interviewees said, It may be tempting to procrastinate when I am not surrounded by classmates and instructors in a physical setting (Student 01). When I study at home, I find it difficult to concentrate on my own study and am easily distracted by other things, such as TV programs and computer games (Student 11). I feel lonely when I study alone at home. I am wondering if my peers share the same feelings with me (Student 20).

Online Teaching and Academic Resilience During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lived…

33

As is revealed by the interview excerpts, the frustration reported by the student participants arose from the coronavirus and restrictions in mobility as well. Students sometimes felt disconnected and isolated during the online sessions. This resonates with Copeland et al. (2021) that the pandemic has dramatically influenced behavioral and emotional functioning of students, especially in terms of attention, mood, and wellness behaviors. To overcome this challenge, students came up with some strategies. For example, managing the time effectively and reviewing schoolwork regularly helped them stay engaged and make progress in their study. Some students shared their strategies as follows: Making a study plan is an effective way for me to stay focused in my work. I usually create a to-do list every day and write down how much time I need to tackle each task. In the evening I check if I have completed all the tasks (Student 20). I often share with my parents or classmates about what I have done every day. This is a good way for me to manage the time effectively. When I report what I get done, I have a sense of achievement and feel motivated to study harder the next day (Student 04). I always repeat what the teacher said to myself. As the old saying goes, one can learn the new by restudying the old. Going over the lessons can help me refresh my memory and check what I have missed (Student 11).

Although an accumulating quantity of international evidence has demonstrated that young people are more likely to experience loneliness than older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic (Barreto et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020), the findings of this study report the participating nursing students’ proactive attitude and the motivation in seeking support to handle emotionally charged situations, reducing the sources of emotional distress by directly targeting its causes. This problem-focused coping strategy in enhancing resilience echoes Ogińska-Bulik and Michalska (2020)‘s perspective that under stressful circumstances, a resilient individual and those with sufficient support and coping skills are less likely to feel lonely or stressed. Participants in this study were resilient and proactive with regards to staying focused in the face of distraction. They did so by seeking assistance from college and peers for their psychological well-being, which became more complicated when social interaction is largely mediated by technology (Yates et al., 2021).

4  Implications and Conclusions Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 20 nursing students in mainland China, this study investigates resilience strategies adopted by them in their academic endeavors in an online learning environment, especially in an ESP context, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings provide evidence that students represent a vulnerable group in the face of COVID-19. Challenges including lack of technological literacy, limited classroom interaction and emotional discomfort were detailed. Such challenges brought by the transition have a sound empirical basis in predicting negative academic outcomes (see, for example, Suryaman et al., 2020; Kapasia et al., 2020).This study, however, illustrates that many students were aware

34

Q. J. Yu and Q. Huang

of some of the stressors related to their learning experience and can identify the self-­ initiated resilience strategies to utilize in coping with the stressors. The study offers an informative account of what may underlie the resilience of Chinese college students under academic and additional pressures.The participating students demonstrated a strong academic resilience that enabled them to thrive and achieve academic success in the time of crisis. They reported some key dimensions of their lived experiences and essential resilience strategies they employed in their quest to overcome the academic barriers to online learning. The qualitative findings contribute to the understanding of students’ resilience and their capabilities in making academic progress and maintaining their social and psychological well-being. This study has important practical implications for further research and instructional practices in online education. Adequate, timely and quality academic and social support needs to be tailored for college students’ use in order to enhance their resilience in the new learning environment where online platforms have become irreplaceable emergency pedagogical tools. As the findings suggest, college recognition and involvement are important resources that can help learners manage and reframe adversity, which reflects contemporary HE climate. Online instruction is not the same as in-class learning, hence effective pedagogical approaches differ (Moore, 2007). Students’ paths towards resilience differ, due to the variability in students’ knowledge level, stressors, concerns, and preferences. It is therefore important to customize the methods to optimize students’ engagement in online learning. For example, screening and detection in advance could assist colleges and instructors to dedicate their efforts more effectively to providing students with the academic and emotional support they need. As the findings indicate, student participants valued suggestions and guidance from their peers who can relate to their current learning experience. They felt that they could have honest discussions with their peers, sharing their academic and social struggles, and obtaining mutual support (Ginns & Ellis, 2007; Ilic et  al., 2015). Hence HE advising programs for improving students’ resilience should include peer advisors who neither involve in evaluation nor rely on highly-structural activities to support students (Farquhar et al., 2018). Supporting college students in coping with challenges unique to the stressful events and enhancing their resilience contributes to their academic progress, mental health and even their employability (Brewer et al., 2019). It is equally significant to prompt students to use individual strategies and self-regulation skills developed in times of adversity and to enhance their resilience and psychological well-being (Kerbage et al., 2021). For students, resilience plays a critical role in their mental health and success both in college and at work, since resilience is closely associated with the ability to respond to social, psychological and educational challenges (Ahmed & Julis, 2015; Brewer et al., 2019). The findings indicate that resilient students might be uniquely prepared to address the demands of academic work. For example, they were likely to be protected from adverse academic impacts caused by emotional discomfort, as evidenced by their being active in college support services and personal assistance. Likewise, they might be less deterred when timely feedback and interaction are limited in online classes, as evidenced by their proactive behaviors of ensuring

Online Teaching and Academic Resilience During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lived…

35

access to effective learning and advantages of online education. By focusing on students’ lived experience, this study shows that resilient college students who respond to challenges actively and proactively can rebound from adversity, maintain well-being and continue to make academic progress.

References Ahmed, Z., & Julis, S. H. (2015). Academic performance, resilience, depression, anxiety and stress among women college students. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(4), 367. Ainscough, L., Stewart, E., Colthorpe, K., & Zimbardi, K. (2018). Learning hindrances and self-­ regulated learning strategies reported by undergraduate students: Identifying characteristics of resilient students. Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2194–2209. https://doi.org/10.108 0/03075079.2017.1315085 Al-Nofaie, H. (2020). Saudi university Students' perceptions towards virtual education during Covid-19 pandemic: A case study of language learning via blackboard Arab World. English Journal, 11(3), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no3.1 Almusharraf, N. M., & Bailey, D. (2021). Online engagement during COVID-19: Role of agency on collaborative learning orientation and learning expectations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37, 1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12569 Antonopoulou, H., Halkiopoulos, C., Barlou, O., & Beligiannis, G. N. (2021). Transformational leadership and digital skills in higher education institutes: During the COVID-19 pandemic. Emerging Science Journal, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-­2021-­01252 Bączek, M., Zagańczyk-Bączek, M., Szpringer, M., Jaroszyński, A., & Wożakowska-Kapłon, B. (2021). Students' perception of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey study of polish medical students. Medicine, 100(7), e24821–e24821. https://doi.org/10.1097/ MD.0000000000024821 Barreto, M., Victor, C., Hammond, C., Eccles, A., Richins, M. T., & Qualter, P. (2021). Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 110066–110066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110066 Bouali, H., Okereke, M., Adebisi, Y. A., & Lucero-Prisno, D. E., III. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on pharmacy education. SciMedicine Journal, 2, 92–95. Brewer, M. L., van Kessel, G., Sanderson, B., Naumann, F., Lane, M., Reubenson, A., & Carter, A. (2019). Resilience in higher education students: A scoping review. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(6), 1105–1120. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019. 1626810 Campa, B. (2010). Critical resilience, schooling processes, and the academic success of Mexican Americans in a community college. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(3), 429–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986310369322 Cassidy, S. (2016). The academic resilience scale (ARS-30): A new multidimensional construct measure. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1787–1787. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01787 Copeland, W.  E., McGinnis, E., Bai, Y., Adams, Z., Nardone, H., Devadanam, V., … Hudziak, J. J. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 60(1), 134–141.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466 Cuadra, D. S., & Famadico, L. F. (2013). Male nursing students’ emotional intelligence, caring behavior, and resilience. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 6(3), 243. Farquhar, J., Kamei, R., & Vidyarthi, A. (2018). Strategies for enhancing medical student resilience: Student and faculty member perspectives. International Journal of Medical Education, 9, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5a46.1ccc

36

Q. J. Yu and Q. Huang

Flinchbaugh, C., Luth, M.  T., & Li, P. (2015). A challenge or a hindrance? Understanding the effects of stressors and thriving on life satisfaction. International Journal of Stress Management, 22(4), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039136 Gerson, M.  W., & Fernandez, N. (2013). PATH: A program to build resilience and thriving in undergraduates. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(11), 2169–2184. https://doi. org/10.1111/jasp.12168 Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between on-­ line and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.003 Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2004). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction. Grinberga Zalite, G., & Zvirbule, A. (2020). Digital readiness and competitiveness of the EU higher education institutions: The COVID-19 pandemic impact. Emerging Science Journal, 4(4), 297–304. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-­2020-­01232 Hazaymeh, W.  A. (2021). EFL students’ perceptions of online distance learning for enhancing English language learning during Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14329a Holzer, J., Lüftenegger, M., Korlat, S., Pelikan, E., Salmela-Aro, K., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2021). Higher education in times of COVID-19: University students’ basic need satisfaction, self-­ regulated learning, and well-being. AERA Open, 7, 233285842110031–23328584211003164. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211003164 Ilic, D., Nordin, R. B., Glasziou, P., Tilson, J. K., & Villanueva, E. (2015). A randomised controlled trial of a blended learning education intervention for teaching evidence-based medicine. BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 39–39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-­015-­0321-­6 Jiang, H., Islam, A.  Y. M.  A., Gu, X., & Spector, J.  M. (2021). Online learning satisfaction in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A regional comparison between Eastern and Western Chinese universities. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 6747. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10639-­021-­10519-­x Kaisara, G., & Bwalya, K.  J. (2021). Investigating the E-learning challenges faced by students during COVID-19 in Namibia. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), 308–318. Kapasia, N., Paul, P., Roy, A., Saha, J., Zaveri, A., Mallick, R., … Chouhan, P. (2020). Impact of lockdown on learning status of undergraduate and postgraduate students during COVID-19 pandemic in West Bengal, India. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 105194. Kerbage, S., Garvey, L., Willetts, G., & Olasoji, M. (2021). Undergraduate nursing students’ resilience, challenges, and supports during corona virus pandemic. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 30(S1), 1407–1416. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12896 Labrague, L. J., De Los Santos, J. A. A., & Falguera, C. C. (2021). Social and emotional loneliness among college students during the COVID-19 pandemic: The predictive role of coping behaviors, social support, and personal resilience. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care. https://doi. org/10.1111/ppc.12721. Lessard, A., Butler-Kisber, L., Fortin, L., & Marcotte, D. (2014). Analyzing the discourse of dropouts and resilient students. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(2), 103–110. https://doi. org/10.1080/00220671.2012.753857 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. Martin, A.  J. (2013). Academic buoyancy and academic resilience: Exploring ‘everyday’ and ‘classic’ resilience in the face of academic adversity. School Psychology International, 34(5), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034312472759 Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 267–281. https:// doi.org/10.1002/pits.20149 McAllister, M., & McKinnon, J. (2009). The importance of teaching and learning resilience in the health disciplines: A critical review of the literature. Nurse Education Today, 29(4), 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2008.10.011

Online Teaching and Academic Resilience During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lived…

37

McLafferty, M., Mallet, J., & McCauley, V. (2012). Coping at university: The role of resilience, emotional intelligence, age and gender. Journal of Quantitative Psychological Research, 1, 1–6. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2020a). Guidance on the organization and management of online teaching in colleges and universities during the epidemic prevention and control period. Retrieved 6 February 2021 from http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A08/ s7056/202002/t20200205_418138.html Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2020b). Online teaching practice has achieved good results during the pandemic in universities across the country, and the Ministry of Education will launch international platforms for online teaching in universities. Retrieved 6 February 2021 from http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/202004/ t20200410_442294.html Moore, M. G. (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), The handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 32–46). Routledge. Ogińska-Bulik, N., & Michalska, P. (2020). Psychological resilience and secondary traumatic stress in nurses working with terminally ill patients-The mediating role of job burnout. Psychological Services, 18(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000421 Plakhotnik, M.  S., Volkova, N.  V., Jiang, C., Yahiaoui, D., Pheiffer, G., McKay, K., Newman, S., & Reißig-Thust, S. (2021). The perceived impact of COVID-19 on student well-being and the mediating role of the university support: Evidence from France, Germany, Russia, and the UK [original research]. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(2663). https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2021.642689 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https:// doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816 Reyes, A.  T., Andrusyszyn, M.-A., Iwasiw, C., Forchuk, C., & Babenko-Mould, Y. (2015). Resilience in nursing education: An integrative review. The Journal of Nursing Education, 54(8), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-­20150717-­03 Riley, J.  R., & Masten, A.  S. (2005). Resilience in context. In R.  D. Peters, B.  Leadbeater, & R.  McMahon (Eds.), Resilience in children, families, and communities: Linking context to practice and policy (pp. 13–25). Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Suryaman, M., Cahyono, Y., Muliansyah, D., Bustani, O., Suryani, P., Fahlevi, M., & Munthe, A. P. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and home online learning system: Does it affect the quality of pharmacy school learning. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(8), 524–530. Tull, M. T., Edmonds, K. A., Scamaldo, K. M., Richmond, J. R., Rose, J. P., & Gratz, K. L. (2020). Psychological outcomes associated with stay-at-home orders and the perceived impact of COVID-19 on daily life. Psychiatry Research, 289, 113098–113098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. psychres.2020.113098 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2020). Global monitoring of school closures. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse Vygotskiĭ, L.  S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wang, C., Pan, R., Wan, X., Tan, Y., Xu, L., Ho, C.  S., & Ho, R.  C. (2020). Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1729. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph17051729 Yan, L., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., Guan, Q., Wen, G., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2021). Students’ experience of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A province-wide survey study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 2038–2057. https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjet.13102 Yates, A., Starkey, L., Egerton, B., & Flueggen, F. (2021). High school students' experience of online learning during Covid-19: The influence of technology and pedagogy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1854337

Learning from Struggle: ESP Teachers’ Reflections on Online Teaching Jin Xina

Abstract  The outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has completely transformed the traditional teaching of universities from face-to-face into online mode. Unexpectedly, this measure has lasted for more than 1 year and, despite the initial chaos, the prolonged impact of pandemic affirms that teachers’ awareness of virtual classroom operation has inevitably increased. With such acknowledgment, this research invited two experienced ESP lecturers (n = 2) teaching at an English-medium university in Hong Kong, to share their perceptions toward online teaching. Based on their reflections in the interviews, this chapter delineates the pros and cons of classroom interaction through video conferencing software. In comparison with forward and backward recall, the study reflects on the pedagogical implications on online teaching and how teachers prepare themselves to promote students’ engagement in response to future upheavals in education.

1  Introduction The outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic has completely transformed the traditional face-to-face teaching of universities into online mode. Virtual classrooms, which were often previously regarded as non-formal education, have nowadays replaced the formal education system on a large scale (Mishra et al., 2020). Particularly, the uptake in online educational apps and management systems as both learning and teaching tools in higher education have become one of the biggest contributors to educational reform during the pandemic. For example, the arrival of video conferencing software (e.g., Zoom meetings, Google meet, Microsoft Teams), has become a crucial channel for live communication between faculty and students. Although online educational tools are developed for playing essential roles in education, J. Xina (*) Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_4

39

40

J. Xina

undeniably, the sudden shift to a virtual learning world required both teachers and students to adapt to relevant online platforms as a learning transition. Much of the recent research has overlooked how virtual teaching has triggered challenges for educators (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020; Hafeez Alvi et al., 2021). Of many relevant factors, a lack of previous experience in the subfield of online education, as well as a lack of preparation in teacher education programmes were directly conducive to interactional challenges between teacher and students (Asarta & Schmidt, 2020; Barrot et  al., 2021; Khalil et  al., 2020; Sepulveda-Escobar & Morrison, 2020). By virtue of these initial findings, the current study aims to move one step forward and review what teachers have ascertained in terms of active virtual classroom construction. Drawing on interview data from two experienced ESP teachers at an English-medium university in Hong Kong, the individual reflections on classroom interaction via Zoom is the focus of this study. By comparing forward and backward recall, the study provides pedagogical implications on how teachers prepare themselves to promote students’ engagement in response to future upheavals in education.

2  Literature Review Specialized delivery technologies have been long recognized as a provider of efficient and quick access to knowledge instruction (Ally, 2008). In recent years, a large number of technologies have been adopted for online learning and teaching which have led to the application of various terms, such as e-learning/teaching, internet learning/teaching, remote learning/teaching, virtual learning/teaching, computer-­ assisted leaning/teaching, web-based learning/teaching, and so on. All of these terms hint that the learner keeps distance from the teacher, utilizing technology (e.g., internet; computer; smartphone, etc.) to access to the educational materials, and receives support from instructors through these mediums. With such recognition, Ally (2008) defined online education as “the use of the Internet to access learning materials; to interact with the content, instructor, and other learners; and to obtain support during the learning process, in order to acquire knowledge, to construct personal meaning, and to grow from the learning experience (p. 17).” In line with the definition, the technology requires educators to provide high-­ quality learning experience by promoting learners’ virtual environment participation (Sim et al., 2021). Generally, teaching and learning in an online environment owns much similarity to teaching and learning in formal in person educational context: for example, the needs of learners are analyzed, content is planned and negotiated, in-class activities are orchestrated, and eventually, students’ learning is assessed (Anderson, 2008). When the online classroom is facilitated effectively by teacher—who plays a significant role as an instructional helper, consultant, and encourager— students can immerse themselves in a democratic learning atmosphere with satisfactory achievement. Despite its potentials, virtual learning and teaching had not been completely accepted by mainstream higher education due to

Learning from Struggle: ESP Teachers’ Reflections on Online Teaching

41

the criticism around the commercialization of education (Kondra et al., 2008)—that is, until the sudden strike of COVID-19 pandemic forced educational institutions across the world to make a radical transformation. Such a change was unanticipated, resulting in a huge number of equally unprepared teachers and students. Many studies conducted in the context of COVID-19 revealed that the actual implementation of virtual education posed considerable challenges for both learners and teachers in universities. For students, the following issues were raised: due to internet connectivity problems, many could not easily access to the e-learning resources; some also encountered difficulties in adjusting to the new user interface of online platform; students usually felt distracted without learning in the classroom setting and experienced psychological isolation when lectures took place only in virtual environment (Barrot et al., 2021; Hafeez Alvi et al., 2021; Kaisara & Bwalya, 2020). On the other hand, in the absence of prior practice and sufficient technical support, a large number of teachers were unavoidably placed in the disruption stage, with hesitation of dealing with technical problems in delivery, and asking students higher cognitive questions (McQuirter, 2020). On this account, traditional face-to-face encounters are largely valued by both sides over virtual classroom for its advantage of real-world interactive setting. According to Yang and Jia’s (2020) investigation, although teachers tried their best to promote engagement with students in their online lectures, the interaction tended to be more teacher-initiated and teacher-centered. Teachers sometimes had to repeat questions several times to get the responses from students, which made students wait longer and even idle around. Moreover, there was a large reduction in the frequency of interaction among students, primarily constrained by a lack of familiarity with technology and internet issues. This tendency may result in a negative influence on students’ academic achievement. Especially, for those who are immersed in second language (L2) context, peer interaction creates more opportunities for practicing L2 as well as receiving direct feedback. This type of interaction is equally crucial to developing students’ L2 proficiency in comparison to teacher-­ student interaction. The technology-induced difficulty in terms of students’ interactive participation is also acknowledged in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classrooms (Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2020). As an important indicator of desirable pedagogical practice, classroom interaction between interlocutors not only facilitate content learning, but also provide opportunities for L2 learning (Lo & Macaro, 2015) . It is therefore vital to explore how ESP teachers experienced and managed in communication during their online courses when applying online educational tools. The recurrent waves of infection indicate that the pandemic still seems to be far from over. More than 1 year of pandemic affirms that teachers’ awareness of virtual classroom operation has inevitably improved. With such acknowledgment, this chapter interviewed two experienced ESP lecturers (n  =  2) teaching at an English-medium university in Hong Kong, to share their reflections on online teaching experience. The interview study was conducted to address following questions:

42

J. Xina

1. What do ESP teachers observe in terms of teacher-student, student-student interaction over Zoom? 2. What strategies do teachers find effective in facilitating student engagement in ESP online course?

3  Method In this study, the researcher invited two experienced teachers (n = 2) working at a government-funded English-medium university in Hong Kong, to reflect on their pedagogical process of online teaching via Zoom. With the surge of local COVID-19 cases, the university announced a series of teaching and learning arrangements for academic staff and students. Since February, 2020, the university’s teaching mode was being delivered primarily in a real-time interactive online format via Zoom platform. Prior to the university’s teaching mode transformation, both teachers had no experience of online teaching despite having had more than 10 years of teaching experience in ESP profession and being involved in several teaching and research projects on L2 education. All the ESP courses established in the focal university are aimed to assist students in mastering academic conventions and explore how to use English as a tool to learn, question, think, and interact within their general academic activities and chosen areas of interest. Before participating their semi-structured interviews, teacher A and teacher B had already taught on Zoom for three semesters, and completed teaching their respective ESP courses assigned by the university. An audio-recorded face-to-face interview was conducted with teacher A, the other video-recorded interview with teacher B was proceeded via Zoom meeting with the same standardized interview protocol. Topics of interview consist of the following: the teachers’ initial/general perceptions toward online teaching; interactive perspective on online teaching; impact of COVID-19 on personal teaching; challenges on online teaching; and personal strategies for online teaching. Each interview was carried out in English and lasted around 30mins with all recording files transcribed verbatim. Based on the research questions, qualitative data on the aspects of detailed interactive teaching experiences of two instructors was focused. Thematic analysis was operated by coding corresponding observations through repeated reading practices on the final transcripts.

Learning from Struggle: ESP Teachers’ Reflections on Online Teaching

43

4  Findings 4.1  Active Use of Chat Box Function After around one and half years of online teaching, both instructors expressed relatively high satisfaction toward their teaching outcomes. Instead of being at loss for how to handle the sudden change, they were quite aligned with the university’s policy on replacing physical classroom into online format, as they thought this was the only alternative to manage the pandemic situation. By using Zoom, they realized that students tended to be more active with teacher than they were in the real classrooms. It is somewhat unexpected and surprising to recognize how the students could effectively operate functions for interaction integrated in Zoom. In particular, the chat box function was predominantly used by students as one of the major tools for communication. According to Teacher A, students were less likely to feel shy or awkward in asking and answering questions. One reason was because they did not have to show their faces to the whole body of classmates while doing so. In such case, even if the student gave the wrong answer, he or she might feel less embarrassed. The other reason was attribute to the less restriction of this type of nonverbal communication, students could send public chat at any time they want to without interrupting the teacher and other students. My classes are very active in the chat boxes, so I know that they were engaged, and they were also active, like, with their microphones. Honestly, sometimes they were more active than they are in the classroom, because they don’t feel shy about speaking, because it’s in chat box……So, I am reaching more of them, and keeping them engaged longer in the class…… They send me private chats a lot more. Because I always had an active class face-­ to-­face, but here I’m hearing so many more of them. Because they can write something simple like, an emoji, or they can write “no”, or “yes”, or they can, there’s a lot that they can write. If they don’t feel comfortable, they can private chat me so they don’t have to say it in front of the whole group and be wrong in front of the whole group. So, I see a ton more of them are active.

This initiative by students is a good sign of content learning and language application, with learners enrolled in ESP courses have been reportedly reluctant to express themselves in front of teacher and classmates due to a lack of English skills or shyness (Dearden, 2018). As teacher A highlighted, it seemed that the chat box created substantial room for communication between teacher and student. Additionally, the subfunction of private chat provided another reliable channel for teacher-student interaction—particularly for those who tended to be inactive to ask for help. Sending a private message was another option for these group of students instead of having to responding publicly and as a result, keeping silent. Therefore, making use of the chat box function in online ESP classes played a significant role in students’ knowledge construction through unrestricted communication with the teacher. Students could learn not only through sending different types of semiotic messages via chat box, but also could establish an enthusiastic atmosphere of virtual classroom. Teacher B described this phenomenon as follows:

44

J. Xina When it comes to interactions and stuff, students seemed to more eager to respond through chat, and sometimes through audio, I think that is the plus side of doing this (Zoom), because, um, students have more affordances to express their (feelings)…sometimes they typed the jokes, and sometimes they responded to my jokes, so, there are certain type of interactions going on….

This kind of engagement was not always seen in actual classroom setting, in which teachers have to strictly adhere to the curriculum to demonstrate domain-­ specific language knowledge within a limited time. The atmosphere of relaxation which could affect learners’ feelings toward study had been often neglected in face-­ to-­face classroom (Nezakatgoo & Behzadpoor, 2017). Indeed, recalled by both teachers in previous teaching and learning context, each ESP course run by them relied more on teachers to spread content knowledge. Practically, the teacher-­ centered approach was not necessarily good for students to absorb and consolidate the information instructed in the classroom, nor the students felt the course continually engaging if most of the time in class was occupied by the teacher. Such tendencies were more than offset by allowing students take advantage of chat box on Zoom, whereby the interactive quality of online ESP classes could be enhanced in a multidimensional manner.

4.2  Limited Control Over Virtual World Despite the clear advantage in teacher-student interaction, interviewees pointed out a gray zone in online classes which they could often not control. Of many factors, the most reported issue was unstable connection of internet which negatively affected students’ interaction with their classmates and teacher. Things could deteriorate further when sharing materials for learning, as Teacher A mentioned: There were miscommunications within the groups, and difficulty is that sometimes people are not on the same continent, so the time was different, especially some students, if they don’t have a VPN, they don’t have access to the same files or somethings like that. So, the groups have to be very careful that the document sharing is balanced.

With the exception of local students, there were also many international students who stayed in their home country during the pandemic. Particularly, students from mainland China needed to connect to a virtual private network (VPN) to access the Zoom classes. In some cases, poor internet connection might result in a lack of accessibility to shared documents and also hinder the progress of the lecture caused by the sudden disappearance of some students. Although video conferencing software allowed the teacher and students to appear in the same ESP online course over a different time zone, it did not necessarily guarantee their interconnection. According to the previous study, mandating students to turn their cameras on can be beneficial by allowing teacher catching nonverbal cues from their facial expression, so that instructors can perform real-time evaluation and adjustment appropriately (Castelli & Sarvary, 2021). In doing so, both instructors and students are able

Learning from Struggle: ESP Teachers’ Reflections on Online Teaching

45

to enhance effectiveness of synchronous remote learning by capturing others’ reaction. Given the privacy concerns and likelihood of internet lag, however, interviewees did not require students to turn on their cameras during the lecture, this in turn had become an obstacle for teachers to monitor the whole class. Some students took advantage of this, and intentionally playing a “clever” trick to escape from their Zoom classes without being discovered until the end of the class. Teacher B provided a very good example: The only issue is that we cannot see a big group of people physically altogether, and sometimes students switched off their cameras, and you never knew what they were doing when they switched off the camera. I remember, when I was teaching a GE(ESP) course, I told my students I would stay behind for probably for ten more minutes for more questions, so I stayed behind, almost everybody was out, and only a few students was still there. So I asked them “Do you have any questions?”…… knock knock…… nobody’s there! Then I knew what happened. So, some students took advantage of it. Some students just left after the break.

In terms of student-student interaction, breakout rooms were supposed to play an important role in promoting communication between students. This function is an integrated operation in Zoom that allows the host (teacher) randomly or selectively split learners into “virtual rooms” where students can proceed with group discussion as an in-class activity. Regardless of English proficiency, it is believed that L2 students who engaged in interactive dialogue are able to create additional opportunities for learning (Watanabe, 2008). Theoretically, the function of breakout room aligns with the value of peer-peer interaction, encouraging collaborative activities and sharing ideas with small group of people. However, both instructors found that simply sending students into different breakout rooms was not as easy as they initially conceived, and some of the factors were detrimental to the success of group discussion among students. Most time, it’s just… I mean maybe they were… I don’t know what they were doing individually in the chat box, but if you go to the breakout room, it’s like dead silence! You can go every single breakout room, like you can try, but sometimes the activities were quite short, so…… I…… at least in the group you can go around and hear them, (in) face-to-face (situation).

As Teacher A recalled, the limited time set for group discussion was not usually enough for her to oversee all the breakout rooms around. Worse still, the discussions that she often observed in the breakout rooms was not satisfactory at all. Students were not as active as they were in the chat box, and felt less interest in communicating to each other. In the absence of teacher’s direct intervention, students seemed to have little motivation to carry out discussion, even if it was related to their own learning progress. Teacher B also noticed similar problem about breakout room activities. A number of students would rather complete the task individually than interactively, even though she repeatedly encouraged students to continue the discussion. It seemed that, as Teacher B assumed, the activeness of students’ interaction was mainly subject to their willingness to talk, which in turn made it difficult for teachers to reasonably allocate active students in the breakout rooms for moderate their communication. While incorporating peer discussion into L2 classroom

46

J. Xina

practice is generally considered as an integral component facilitating learners’ knowledge construction through using domain-specific language (Ananyeva, 2014), practically, lacking supervision in virtual breakout room may result in failure to build a close relationship between peers, and eventually drop their motivation to communicate.

4.3  Building Emotional Connection Student’s engagement positively relates to the extent that students participate in learning in the ESP classroom. When asked about strategies that interviewees used to facilitate student engagement, both teacher A and teacher B emphasized that strengthening emotional bonds with students was fundamental to boost their teaching effectiveness, rather than simply focusing on instructional approach. The pandemic inevitably has led to tensions that partially or completely prevent people from being exposed to external events, especially among students who are unlikely to build rich relationships from various environmental sources outside of academic community. For example, a recent study conducted in Poland found that university students were facing high level of emotional problems and pressure due to the change of educational environment during the pandemic, with approximate 80% claimed that they need support, and the majority indicated emotional support was the most expected (Babicka-Wirkus et al., 2021). Instructors in this study were fully aware of the psychological consequences of long-term social distancing and isolation on students during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could decrease their involvement in the virtual context. Therefore, Teacher A found many valuable tactics in her own ESP courses that might not directly pertain to the teaching content, but could help relieve learners’ stress toward online courses. In doing so, students were more willing to reach out to her, and proactively searched for support in their learning: I played music at the beginning, and it kind of like, to create some atmosphere. Sometimes I did, um, chair yoga with them, at the breaks, if I had a 3-hour class, to kind of develop more relationship with them, because what I feel is that, when you are in a student-teacher relationship, the more empathy, more connection you could have, the more intrinsic motivation they will probably feel. And so…that’s oftentimes lost, when you are online. Like online is very easy for us to imagine that teacher’s out to get you.

Another strategy that was frequently applied to constitute a positive relationship with students was arranging extra time for questioning. Instead of signing out the Zoom right after the class, Teacher A always tried to set additional few minutes for students to ask questions about what they had learned in the class. Students actually gained another opportunity to verbalize their thinking and review the content that they had just learned. Teacher B also favored this strategy in her online classroom: If they were there, I would ask if they have questions when I go around. I think one of the downside of online teaching is that, students don’t feel they are really connected to each other, they don’t see each other face-to-face, I think there is lack of sense of community.

Learning from Struggle: ESP Teachers’ Reflections on Online Teaching

47

Except for providing more questioning time, teacher B also suggested creating a polling activity. Although it takes extra time to design the relevant questions, she found creating polls were helpful in stimulating students, allowing them bounce ideas off each other anonymously, and eventually consolidate their learning of topics tackled in the class. As not all students wanted their thoughts to be heard, launching quizzes through polling can be another way of facilitating implicit communication.

5  Discussion and Conclusion The aim of this study is to probe ESP teachers’ recognition of operating interactive online course by using Zoom at an English-medium university in Hong Kong. The depiction of online teaching experience showed certain pros and cons in terms of teacher-student and student-student interactions in ESP virtual classrooms. Unlike previous literature that emphasized teachers’ challenges on online teaching operation, instructors in this study hold relatively optimistic views toward change of teaching mode since the beginning of the pandemic. Part of the reason might contribute to appropriate training workshops provided by the university, which has been identified as a crucial precondition in success of distance education (Hafeez Alvi et al., 2021). Overall, the Zoom platform has provided tremendous benefits in promoting communications between teacher and students. What was surprising is that the active use of chat box function had offered each student a great opportunity to directly reach out to the teacher for questioning and responding, which actual face-to-face classroom is impossible to give. This finding reflected those of Wong (2020), who also found that effective learning and discussion could occur concurrently using the chat box. Nowadays, many synchronous online teaching platforms afford text chat, allowing conversations in both written and visual forms. The potential of using text chat enables teachers to capitalize on the multimodality of instructional medium, provide timely feedback during the lecture without interrupting others’ learning process, and to encourage the expression of passive communicators (Wigham & Satar, 2021). In an online course, the chat box feature in Zoom can be applied almost any user at any time, as no high-level technical skills are required. The function allows students to converse with teacher at any opportunity during the class, both publicly and privately. Learners can thus concurrently contribute to in-class communication with less disruption. The utilization of chat box function also provided a way to narrow the hierarchical distance between teacher and student. Since interlocutors are allowed to tease, make jokes, and even send online memes in the chat box at times, the approach helped in stimulating learners’ confidence to proactively establish a closer interpersonal relationship with teacher (Frymier & Houser, 2000). Despite its advanced features, the experiences shared by the ESP instructors revealed that the operation of Zoom classroom was not entirely easy to control in

48

J. Xina

terms of teacher-student, student-student interaction. Teachers’ attempts to increase ESP Zoom classroom engagement could be hindered by the following factors: (1) unstable internet for document sharing and communication; (2) unobservable escape from online classroom; (3) insufficient monitoring of students’ conversation. Issues equivalent caused by technical defects not only could negatively affect teaching performance of ESP teachers, but also somehow decreased students’ interests in peer communication. For example, to encourage students to complete collaborative tasks in smaller groups, breakout rooms had been operated for peer discussion in the virtual classroom. However, difficulties in facilitating active peer discussion subsequently emerged and breakout rooms were not efficiently utilised by a number of students for discussion than in person. In actual classroom settings, every interactive activity can be carried out with multiple stimuli and it serves much more convenience for students to display their views to their group members. Specifically, face-to-face mode more easily allows conversations with visual cues of body language, oral language, and facial expressions through which students can easily observe counterparts’ thinking (Katz & Kedem-Yemini, 2021). As mentioned earlier, taking ESP course via Zoom might lack these visual cues, as it was not mandatory for students to turn on the camera, which in turn might have reduced their motivation to speak due to the limited observable visual expression the other party can observe. Furthermore, instructors in face-to-face classroom are able to simultaneously assess and monitor students’ discussion progress without checking one by one group as in online mode. Therefore, in online breakout rooms, teachers are not able to provide timely support or quick clarification when students need (Cavinato et  al., 2021). In this regard, the online discussion in breakout room may add an intangible burden for learners to handle, which is likely to create students’ negative reaction toward it. Since the aforementioned uncertainties are part of concerns in operating successful online ESP lectures, additional pedagogical reforms are needed to address these issues. To facilitate student engagement in ESP online classes, participants emphasized several suggestions based on their teaching experiences. Teachers in this study had been fully aware of the importance of providing students with emotional support during the semester. Similarly, previous research has also highlighted the necessity in strengthening teacher-student connections in online classrooms (Kaisara & Bwalya, 2020). This is because some educational changes during the pandemic, such as prolonged isolation from real academic setting, can erode a sense of community where stakeholders can collaborate and support each other, but also affect students’ proactive learning in virtual environment. Furthermore, learning at home is not usually considered as appropriate environment for students to concentrate. The imposition of campus lockdown can result in a series of psychological issues such as depression, stress and anxiety, which can influence interaction with teacher and peers in online classroom settings. Based on previous research, the consequences of stress can significantly lower students’ learning efficiency, task productivity, interactive engagement, as well as satisfaction in their learning process (Babicka-Wirkus et al., 2021). Emotion-oriented intervention, therefore, have to be considered especially when individuals are rarely stimulated by external events

Learning from Struggle: ESP Teachers’ Reflections on Online Teaching

49

other than online. In the interviews, some interactive strategies had been identified as useful. In specific, ESP instructors had found that (1) arranging extra time for questioning; (2) inserting relaxing break activities to narrow the perceived distance between people (e.g. yoga); (3) playing music prior to the class; and (4) designing polling for reviewing content had been shown to be effective in running successful online classes. As ESP teaching staff have pointed out, many of these strategies might not be related to what they were teaching in the lectures, but have appeared to reinforce students’ sense of belonging in the virtual environment, thereby creating a positive atmosphere for interactive teaching and learning. Despite efforts on providing preliminary information in regard to teacher-­student, student-student interaction via Zoom platform, some limitations still exist in this study. It has to be noted that findings with limited number of teaching participants may not generalize to an entire online ESP field. Nevertheless, results derived from the semi-structured interviews have shown certain phenomena of ESP courses conducted in Zoom. Additionally, the present study sheds light on general perspective on running interactive online courses, rather than features that ESP teachers should consider in their specific area. Part of the reason is that, since it has been a tremendous shift from face-to-face to online teaching form, most of teaching experience of university instructors are overlapping across disciplines. Participants in this study also explained that they have found little difficulties in teaching content per se, instead predominantly experienced problems that could significantly affect the effectiveness of teaching in terms of interactive communication via Zoom. However, as online platform is a relatively new medium of instruction in higher education sector, these limitations still need to be carefully addressed in future studies. To sum up, this snapshot study seeks to reflect on online teaching experiences of ESP instructors in the wake of continuing pandemic in Hong Kong. By laying out reflective information on running interactive ESP classes via Zoom, the study attempts to show some potential advantages and disadvantages that video conferencing platforms have brought to the field in terms of teacher-student and student-­ student interactions. In addition, the current study suggests a few strategies that can be applied by ESP teachers to build a more cohesive community in virtual context. The findings of this study raise potential issues for teachers to consider in order to increase students’ engagement in ESP online courses, as well as teachers’ preparedness of relevant teaching skills, so that they can cope with sudden upheavals in education context.

References Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482 0.2020.1813180. Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T.  Anderson (Ed.), Foundations of educational theory for online learning (2nd ed., pp. 15–44). AU Press.

50

J. Xina

Ananyeva, M. (2014). A learning curriculum: Toward student-driven pedagogy in the context of adult English for academic purposes, English for specific purposes, and workplace English programs. TESOL Journal, 5(1), 8–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.73 Anderson, T. (2008). Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 343–366). AU Press. Asarta, C. J., & Schmidt, J. R. (2020). The effects of online and blended experience on outcomes in a blended learning environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 44, 100708. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100708 Babicka-Wirkus, A., Wirkus, L., Stasiak, K., & Kozłowski, P. (2021). University students’ strategies of coping with stress during the coronavirus pandemic: Data from Poland. PLoS One, 16(7), e0255041. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255041 Barrot, J. S., Llenares, I. I., & del Rosario, L. S. (2021). Students’ online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-­021-­10589-­x. Castelli, F. R., & Sarvary, M. A. (2021). Why students do not turn on their video cameras during online classes and an equitable and inclusive plan to encourage them to do so. Ecology and Evolution, 11(8), 3565–3576. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7123 Cavinato, A. G., Hunter, R. A., Ott, L. S., & Robinson, J. K. (2021). Promoting student interaction, engagement, and success in an online environment. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 413(6), 1513–1520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-­021-­03178-­x Dearden, J. (2018). The changing roles of EMI academics and English language specialists. In Y.  Kırkgöz & K.  Dikilitaş (Eds.), Key issues in English for specific purposes in higher education (pp.  323–338). Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­70214-­8_18 Frymier, A.  B., & Houser, M.  L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49(3), 207–219. https://doi. org/10.1080/03634520009379209 Hafeez Alvi, A., Muhammad Bilal, S., Alvi, A. R., & A. (2021). Technology, pedagogy & assessment: Challenges of COVID19-imposed E-teaching of ESP to Saudi female PY students. Arab World English Journal, 1, 334–353. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/covid.25 Kaisara, G., & Bwalya, K. J. (2020). Investigating the e-learning challenges faced by students during Covid-19 in Namibia. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), 308–317. https:// doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n1p308 Katz, A., & Kedem-Yemini, S. (2021). From classrooms to zoom rooms: Preserving effective communication in distance education. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 23(3), 173–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2021.1922248 Khalil, R., Mansour, A. E., Fadda, W. A., Almisnid, K., Aldamegh, M., Al-Nafeesah, A., Alkhalifah, A., & Al-Wutayd, O. (2020). The sudden transition to synchronized online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: A qualitative study exploring medical students’ perspectives. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-­020-­02208-­z Kondra, A. Z., Huber, C., Michalczuk, K., & Woudstra, A. (2008). Call centres in distance education. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 367–395). AU Press. Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E. (2015). Getting used to content and language integrated learning: What can classroom interaction reveal? The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 239–255. https://doi. org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1053281 McQuirter, R. (2020). Lessons on change: Shifting to online learning during COVID-19. Brock Education Journal, 29(2), 47–51. Mishra, L., Gupta, T., & Shree, A. (2020). Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100012 Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2020). Using mentimeter to elicit student responses in the EAP/ ESP classroom. RELC Journal, 51(1), 198–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688219890350

Learning from Struggle: ESP Teachers’ Reflections on Online Teaching

51

Nezakatgoo, B., & Behzadpoor, F. (2017). Challenges in teaching ESP at medical universities of Iran from ESP stakeholders’ perspectives. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9(2), 59–82. Sepulveda-Escobar, P., & Morrison, A. (2020). Online teaching placement during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile: Challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1820981 Sim, S.  P.-L., Sim, H.  P.-K., & Quah, C.-S. (2021). Online learning: A post Covid-19 alternative pedagogy for university students. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(4), 137151. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i4.11963 Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer–Peer Interaction between L2 Learners of Different Proficiency Levels: Their Interactions and Reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605–635. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.4.605 Wigham, C. R., & Satar, M. (2021). Multimodal (inter)action analysis of task instructions in language teaching via videoconferencing: A case study. ReCALL, 33(3), 195–213. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0958344021000070 Wong, J. O. (2020). A pandemic in 2020, zoom and the arrival of the online educator. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(3), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.46451/ijts.2020.09.19 Yang, L., & Jia, L. (2020). The impact of online teaching on interaction during the pandemic: An exploratory study in CFL classes. International Journal of Chinese Language Teaching, 1(2), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.46451//ijclt.2020.09.03

Using HyFlex to Teach English for Academic Purposes: The Instructor’s Perspective Lucas Kohnke

Abstract  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face teaching has all but disappeared, with many higher education institutions adopting blended and online learning. The case study described in this chapter explored the experience of nine instructors at an English-medium university in Hong Kong who used HyFlex, a blended-learning model, to teach English for Academic Purposes. Overall, the teachers were unprepared to use this pedagogical approach to teach concurrent classrooms as required. However, they identified several strategies that facilitated teaching and learning in the HyFlex mode: utilising student response tools, incorporating station rotation and focusing on pairs or smaller groups of students. These techniques could be used to improve the delivery of blended learning in higher education.

1  Introduction Spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic, higher education institutions worldwide have adopted teaching and learning modes that minimize face-to-face contact. Institutions are implementing online and/or blended learning using learning management systems (LMS) (e.g. Moodle, Blackboard, Canvas) and video-conferencing software (e.g. Microsoft Teams, Zoom) to ensure a seamless transition (Dhawan, 2020; Moorhouse, 2020; Van Nuland et al., 2020). To bridge the gap between online and face-to-face learning as the COVID-19 infection rate in Hong Kong decreased, administrators introduced a HyFlex model (see Beatty, 2006)—a combination of hybrid and flexible learning—for an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course. HyFlex gives students greater control over their learning, allowing them to L. Kohnke (*) Department of English Language Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_5

53

54

L. Kohnke

communicate online from a remote location with in-classroom students and instructors (Beatty, 2010). This rarely implemented blended-learning model left many EAP teachers pedagogically unprepared. Previous studies have examined teacher preparation for the digital age (Albion et al., 2015; Amhag et al., 2019; Starkey, 2020), but few have explored the adoption of HyFlex during the current pandemic. This qualitative case study examined Hong Kong University EAP teachers’ perceptions and experiences of HyFlex-supported learning to identify key factors in better learning outcomes. It makes an original contribution to the literature on the HyFlex model by examining the pedagogical implications of its use in teaching EAP at an English-medium university. Additionally, the results of this study suggest strategies for implementing HyFlex effectively that could be useful to teachers, programme administrators and universities.

2  Literature Review Due to the rapidly increasing demands for online and distance-based courses, blended learning has become higher education’s new normal (Dziuban et al., 2018; Moradimokhles & Hwang, 2020). Researchers have observed positive effects from blended-learning pedagogies, such as increases in student satisfaction, engagement and retention (Fisher et al., 2018; Moradimokhles & Hwang, 2020) and facilitation of language learning in general (Li, 2017). Teachers of EAP courses have a plethora of technological tools at their disposal for enhancing the learning experience (Terauchi et al., 2020), including learning-management systems (Cheng & Chau, 2016) and student-response systems like GoSoapBox and Mentimeter (Kohnke, 2021; Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2020). While blended learning can improve students’ potential for academic success (Asarta & Schmidt, 2020; Dziuban et  al., 2018), studies have shown that teachers find it challenging to stimulate interaction, foster an effective learning environment and facilitate student learning processes (Boelens et al., 2015). Thus, digital pedagogy is a vital component in the delivery of blended learning, and teachers must holistically understand the technology to utilise and exploit it to the fullest (Cabanatan, 2003). Digital pedagogy and technology have become indispensable components of EAP, helping teachers to individualise, personalise and adapt content to improve learning outcomes (Kohnke & Moorhouse, 2020; Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2020). Through technological tools aligned with the established principles of language acquisition, students can benefit from interactivity, authentic materials, independent learning and collaboration (Chappelle & Sauro, 2017; Hockly & Dudeney, 2018). The availability of technology encourages teachers to “think of new ways of doing new things with new tools” (Garrett, 2009, p. 720). Earlier studies have found that teachers’ beliefs about what constitutes good pedagogy and effective education determine whether and how they adopt digital pedagogy and incorporate technology into teaching and learning activities (Ertmer et al., 2015; Hur et al., 2016).

Using HyFlex to Teach English for Academic Purposes: The Instructor’s Perspective

55

After the implementation of emergency remote teaching and learning, EAP teachers worldwide had to cope with unexpected pedagogical and technological challenges to provide an environment conducive to learning (Kohnke & Jarvis, 2021; Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2021a). Teachers in Hong Kong were asked to deliver synchronous online lessons using video-conferencing software, a form of instruction new to them (Moorhouse, 2020). Moreover, they had to do so with little if any training, like many teachers globally (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020). As instructors shifted their existing delivery models, unique challenges related to this new form of pedagogy arose in EAP instruction. Blended learning bridges traditional learning and new online learning models by delivering a more varied learner experience (Hrastinski, 2019). As outlined and implemented by Beatty (2006), the HyFlex blended-learning model is a student-­ centred approach (Beatty, 2007) that combines hybrid and flexible learning. Although not an entirely new methodology, it has received little attention in the EAP literature. Hybrid refers to the class content, which is offered both face-to-face and online, and flexible refers to the choice afforded to the individual student of attending class in a physical classroom or remotely (Beatty, 2014). The model has four key tenets (Beatty, 2010). The first is learner choice: students can decide how they would like to receive blended learning. The second, equivalence, refers to the design and delivery of classes that challenge and engage students in both modalities. The third tenet, reusability, means that students can utilize, reuse and create podcasts, videos, discussion, wikis and the like, whether they are learning in person or online. Finally, accessibility means that students can choose the learning delivery method that best suits their needs (e.g. they may be unable to commute to the university or have low internet bandwidth). Thus, HyFlex allows students to choose the method of learning that best suits their circumstances. Blended learning has become an indispensable part of EAP. It is therefore essential to expand our knowledge of how it affects learning quality. This qualitative case study explored the introduction of HyFlex and the challenge of concurrent classroom EAP teaching at a Hong Kong university during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study addressed the following research question: What challenges and solutions to adopting HyFlex lesson delivery did EAP teachers encounter? I anticipated that exploring this question would provide insight into learning quality with HyFlex and provide teachers with an array of pedagogical strategies to support teaching and learning.

3  Methodology 3.1  Context and Participants This study was conducted during a credit-bearing undergraduate EAP course offered in multiple sections by a public university in Hong Kong in January 2021. The course aims to enable students to study effectively in the university’s Englishmedium learning environment and to improve and develop their English language

56

L. Kohnke

proficiency within the context of university-level studies. The course had four major objectives: students should learn to (a) refer to sources in written text and oral presentations, (b) paraphrase and summarise written and spoken source materials, (c) plan, write and revise expository essays using sources and (d) deliver effective oral presentations. The course was offered in HyFlex mode—for each lesson, students were free to attend classes in the physical classroom or synchronously via a video-conferencing platform. The school administration asked teachers to teach concurrent classrooms (one in-person and one online) from the physical classroom via the video-­ conferencing platform Zoom (Kohnke & Moorhouse, 2020). This format provided students with the choice, autonomy and flexibility to adapt to constraints such as illness, inability to commute to the university or a myriad of other challenges. The participants consisted of nine full-time EAP teachers at a university in Hong Kong. They were selected to teach the course using HyFlex, and I invited them to participate in the study. In total, I interviewed four male and five female teachers. They had between 6 and 14 years of experience teaching EAP. All held a master’s degree. They were assigned pseudonyms to protect their anonymity. Before the COVID-19 outbreak, the teachers used the university’s LMS to offer asynchronous learning tools such as discussion forums, blogs and formative quizzes. They had no prior full-time experience teaching online or in the HyFlex mode, and each teacher received only a 60-minute professional-development workshop before their first HyFlex lesson. The participants received a letter that outlined the study’s purpose and procedures and included a consent form for each to sign.

3.2  Data Collection and Analysis Individual, in-depth semi-structured interviews with participants elicited rich detail on their lived experiences (Creswell, 2008) of delivering their lessons in a HyFlex format. The interviews conducted in English ranged from 20 to 42 minutes and were audio-recorded before being transcribed verbatim. I created an interview guide to direct my exploration of topics; these topics included participant perceptions of the opportunities and challenges of teaching concurrent classrooms. The study design employed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic analysis framework to identify important or interesting patterns. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data due to its flexibility (Reicher & Taylor, 2005) and its ability to provide a rich, detailed and complex account of data when guided by key ideas and perspectives (Braun & Clarke, 2006). I utilised two member checks to establish the data’s trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each participant approved their transcripts along with the final themes and representative quotations and verified that the information accurately represented their experiences.

Using HyFlex to Teach English for Academic Purposes: The Instructor’s Perspective

57

4  Results and Discussion The teachers’ comments provided essential insights into how HyFlex might be facilitated. Four main themes were apparent in the interviews: uncertainty and stressful environment, building rapport and communicating, adapting existing practices and future HyFlex teaching.

4.1  Uncertain and Stressful Environment The dominant theme in the interviews was the uncertainty that instructors felt about their ability to deliver pedagogically sound lessons in the new blended-learning model, especially with the challenge of managing concurrent classrooms. Participants often began the interviews by sharing that they were pedagogically unprepared for delivering HyFlex, having never before heard of it or seen it in practice. This knowledge and experience gap created an unusually stressful environment. Jacob said, “I was really stressed the first couple of lessons and thought, ‘I’m not being a very good teacher.’” Beth expressed similar sentiments: “I don’t feel very comfortable, and this makes me uncomfortable and that I’m being thrown into the deep end.” Being asked to teach using a new pedagogical model without training and preparation made these experienced teachers question their existing pedagogy (see Albion et al., 2015). Participants felt inadequate when they tried to deliver their usual high-quality lessons to both online and face-to-face students. They were unsure of how to focus on both groups of learners equally. As one teacher, Michael, observed, “It is not easy interacting through Zoom with both groups.” Thomas added: “being in the classroom, it is only natural that I focus on the students I can interact with. So yes, I think I give them a priority as I’m not sure how to give the online students the same attention.” Anna agreed: I’m not sure how to teach this course and focus on both groups of learners simultaneously. For example, I asked them to complete an APA activity. While they are working on it, I can walk around and help the students in the classroom, but I need to keep track of the Zoom room at the same time if one of the online learners needs help.

Anna shared her view that “it is impractical to expect teachers to create fully pedagogical online and blended learning environments with little if any training.” In HyFlex instruction teachers are required to bring all students together into a single learning experience that has multiple ways for students to participate (Betty, 2021).

58

L. Kohnke

4.2  Building Rapport and Communicating Teachers agreed that teaching concurrent classrooms made it challenging to build rapport with the students and establish a sense of intimacy. The most frequently identified issue was the breakdown in communication and feedback between teachers and students and between students attending remotely and face-to-face. “I want them to work together as a group,” Christian said, “but turn-taking is hard, and they struggle to get each other’s attention or know when to talk, so I suggested they use the chatbox as their primary communication channel first.” Several participants observed similar communication challenges between face-to-face and online learners. Jacob, for example, found that there was often silence when students were supposed to be collaborating in breakout groups. He resorted to “calling students by names” to “force” them to communicate with each other. The lack of interaction made it challenging to teach specific EAP skills. Daisy, for example, mentioned that she felt she was “teaching blindly with little response… I don’t know if they have understood the academic texts we are reading and supposedly discussing.” Similarly, Anna shared, “simple things such as not receiving answers to my instruction checking questions” made it difficult to set-up the learning tasks effectively, “and I often noticed they were unable to complete the activities when I monitored their progress.” In an HyFlex learning environment, communication can take place both synchronously and asynchronously. It appears that the students were unwilling to take the initiative to communicate and interact using voice and camera in real time, instead relying primarily on text chat to communicate, which is not ideal for student-­centred learning (Lowenthal et al., 2017). There was a strong consensus that Zoom’s built-in functions (e.g. poll, chat, emojis) helped to create a sense of rapport, facilitated interactions and sustained a sense of connectedness between the groups (see Romero-Ivanova et  al., 2020). “I think it is great that we all can work together,” Gabriella said when discussing the Zoom features. Other teachers introduced a pathway for students who needed support to ask questions through the app Remind, attempting to make both groups feel less isolated or disconnected. In adopting online and/or blended learning modes such as HyFlex, teachers need to carefully consider what tools to use in their teaching to sustain students’ motivation, needs and confidence (Watts, 2016).

4.3  Adapting Existing Practices Teachers frequently attempt to re-create the physical classroom online when migrating from face-to-face to online learning (see Turnball et al., 2021). The participants in our study reflected on their attempts to meet students’ needs in concurrent classrooms and their efforts to reduce the learners’ feelings of isolation and deliver

Using HyFlex to Teach English for Academic Purposes: The Instructor’s Perspective

59

practical English lessons. They reported initial frustration with their inability to use their “tried and tested teaching methods,” as Cecelia put it. Several participants noted that they did not have high digital competency despite being highly knowledgeable EAP teachers. Specifically, participants found it challenging to leverage the available digital tools to facilitate language learning in a HyFlex learning environment using their standard teaching methods and felt ill-prepared to design and plan their lessons (see König et  al., 2020). Thomas considered the challenge of “how to use the time effectively and efficiently to engage students in HyFlex learning” to be very “troublesome.” He said that he spent more time lecturing than he had in the traditional classroom in “helping students understand academic discourse and developing critical thinking.” All of the participants shared similar sentiments. Further, most of the participants reported that the EAP communicative activities that they had used previously to promote learner autonomy and academic listening skills and foster extensive and critical reading and discussion were ineffective in this new learning environment (see Davies et al., 2020). This apparent deficit in their digital competency could have been reduced if the institution had promoted proficiency in digital tools, online and blended teaching and curriculum development in its professional development program (see Mouchantaf, 2020; Schmidt et al., 2016). Many teachers that felt their ability to incorporate various technological tools (e.g. Padlet, Kahoot!, Lino, Mentimeter) had significantly improved by the end of the course that involved HyFlex instruction. They had discovered how to engage both sets of learners concurrently in a wide variety of activities. “I didn’t have a good background in using tech in my classes before,” Christian said, “so the most challenging thing for me was figuring out what works with my style of teaching. So, I found Mentimeter worked really well in engaging both groups of learners with its word clouds, Q&A and quiz functions.” Similarly, Daisy successfully using Padlet, Kahoot! and Lino, which allowed both groups to contribute and work together on a common topic (see Kohnke & Moorhouse, 2021a). The instructors in this study had to adapt their teaching styles to thrive in the new learning mode (see Hartshorn & McMurry, 2020; Todd, 2020). Four teachers made more drastic changes to their pedagogical practices. Thomas and Anna described adopting a classic station-rotation activity from the physical classroom to allow both groups of learners to progress through a series of activities in each lesson: I ask them to rotate to different stations for each class in pairs with specific tasks. This helps me to engage both groups. (Thomas) I create specific activities that students working together in small groups can progress through for each lesson. For example, they work with me for one activity, then complete an activity online using a wiki and then comment on other groups’ work. (Anna)

In this small-group model, teachers can differentiate learning and spend time with each group, engaging all learners. Additionally, the offline component allows students to consolidate their learning after each lesson through asynchronous tools (see Moorhouse & Wong, 2021).

60

L. Kohnke

Jacob, another teacher, decided to narrate pre-lesson PowerPoints with explanations, instructions and initial modelling to ensure that students were prepared and understood what each lesson would entail: I thought this worked well, as I don’t have to try to explain and then explain one more time to individual students, which can be confusing with learners attending from different locations. Also, it frees up class time for them to work on activities together and makes it easier for me to float around and help.

When asked to share an example, he said that he asked students to record the answer to an activity, such as giving a verbal APA citation using Flipgrid. The students could learn from each other regardless of their physical location (see Miller et al., 2021), and the activity increased their confidence, pronunciation and language skills (see Keiper et  al., 2021). It was similar to flipped learning and enabled Jacob to spend less time giving instructions so that he could focus on facilitating learning. Gabriella used a combination of Thomas’s, Anna’s and Jacob’s models and assigned learners tasks to complete in sequence but individually. In doing so, she emphasised individual learning and gave each student a clear plan of work to be completed. In explaining her approach, Gabriella explained her approach: For each lesson, I create a short video or sometimes a podcast explaining the lesson objectives and how to achieve them, and this could include writing a short paragraph, working on their project, outline something on a Google Doc. In the lessons, students work independently and have to check in using Zoom. In the final part of the lesson, everyone comes online, and it is then I conduct a more traditional lesson by providing feedback.

The model shared by Gabriella incorporated a variety of learning modalities optimised for HyFlex to keep students engaged in a shared digital space. As these three models illustrate, no method works for everyone. One of the key aspects of synchronous learning is the delivery of quality interaction (Tello, 2008). Incorporating a variety of tasks and tools can improve interaction quality and facilitate the attainment of student goals and learning outcomes (see Keiper et al., 2021). Teaching concurrent classrooms is a daunting task, and each teacher must discover what works best with his or her pedagogical approach and the resources available (see Kohnke & Moorhouse, 2021b).

4.4  Future HyFlex Teaching All of the participants agreed that HyFlex was not their preferred teaching mode. However, they concurred that it was a step in the right direction towards returning to face-to-face teaching. Christian commented, “I looked forward to interacting with my students face-to-face again.” Michael, too, said that he had missed face-to-­ face interactions. Nevertheless several teachers said that they had appreciated the opportunity to develop expertise in integrating technology into their teaching materials and pedagogical practices. Daisy found that “she forced herself to change and try new things.” Despite the positive comments, however, the participants concluded

Using HyFlex to Teach English for Academic Purposes: The Instructor’s Perspective

61

that HyFlex was not an optimal modality for delivering instruction. Despite his best efforts, Jacob felt that his students would have benefited more had the class been delivered entirely face-to-face or online because the HyFlex mode relied upon students taking the initiative (see Kohnke & Moorhouse, 2021b). Similarly, Beth thought that the two groups of learners had remained passive and considered themselves members of two different groups (see Lee et al., 2019). She felt that placing them in one class would have been more conducive to learning. Overall, the participants believed that synchronous instruction should be limited in HyFlex courses with both fully online and fully face-to-face learning environments to ensure equivalent learning outcomes in the two groups of students.

5  Conclusion The purpose of this study was to explore EAP teachers’ perceptions and experiences of adopting HyFlex instruction in an EAP course at a university in Hong Kong. The results provide a snapshot of the lived realities of teaching EAP in the HyFlex mode. The findings reveal that the teachers were unprepared to integrate new blended and online technologies and take advantage of these to foster effective learning (e.g. collaborative learning, critical thinking, critical reading, and discussion) (see Boelens et al., 2015; Moorhouse & Kohnke, 2021b). They had to rapidly improve their digital competency and preparedness to effectively teach using the HyFlex model. This included being proactive in identifying tools promoting interaction and facilitating learning. Although teachers must remain aware of sound pedagogy and stay up-to-date on generic digital learning technologies, the pedagogy required to be effective in concurrent classroom delivery may be especially difficult to master and require additional or different approaches. Thus, teachers must receive continuous professional development opportunities to ensure they possess the necessary digital competencies and pedagogy (Kohnke & Zou, 2021; Starkey, 2020). They must also have adequate support and resources from their institutions (Amhag et al., 2019) to deliver pedagogically sound lessons in concurrent classrooms (Beatty, 2007). This study has identified five important steps teachers can take to make hybrid learning effective: (1) making small, impactful changes to their pedagogy; (2) supplementing their classroom/existing approaches with technology; (3) creating smaller learning communities and working with them; (4) using station rotation to deliver learning in smaller and more manageable chunks; and (5) engaging classroom and online learners together using applications such as Mentimeter, Kahoot!, Lino and Google Docs. This interpretive study reveals that there is much more to learn about employing HyFlex in EAP instruction. Teasing out the differences and similarities between face-to-face, online and concurrent delivery will help teachers become more confident and effective in delivering HyFlex lessons. I suggest that future studies analyse specific aspects of HyFlex learning environments or the tools used in them in more detail. The application of different qualitative methods (e.g. interviews, written

62

L. Kohnke

reflections) and quantitative methods (e.g. surveys) may be beneficial. I hope that these findings will inspire more comprehensive investigations into HyFlex adoption in teaching and learning. Technology-based EAP instruction, either fully online or in a blended-learning environment, is the new normal. Higher education institutions will need to provide support and resources to help teachers become the architects of positive and engaging learning experiences.

References Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.202 0.1813180. Albion, P.  R., Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Peeraer, J. (2015). Teachers’ professional development for ICT integration: Towards a reciprocal relationship between research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10639-­015-­9401-­9 Amhag, L., Hellström, L., & Stigmar, M. (2019). Teacher educators’ use of digital tools and needs for digital competence in higher education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(4), 203–220. Asarta, C.  J., & Schmidt, J.  R. (2020). The effects of online and blended experience on outcome in a blended learning environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 44. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100708. Beatty, B. (2006, October). Designing the HyFlex world - hybrid, flexible courses for all students. Paper presented at Association for Educational Communication and Technology International Conference, Dallas, TX. Beatty, B. (2007). Transitioning to an online world: Using HyFlex courses to bridge the gap. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), EdMedia: World conference on educational media and technology (pp. 2701–2706). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Beatty, B. (2010). Hybrid courses with flexible participation – the HyFlex design. Retrieved from http://itec.sfsu.edu/hyflex/hyflex_course_design_theory_2.2.pdf Beatty, B. (2014). Hybrid courses with flexible participation: The HyFlex course design. In L. Kyei-Blankson & E. Ntuli (Eds.), Practical applications and experiences in K-20 blended learning environments (pp. 153–177). IGI Global. Betty, B. J. (2021). Hybrid-flexible course design: Implementing student-directed hybrid classes. EdTech Books. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex Boelens, R., Laer, S. V., Wever, B. D., & Elen. J. (2015). Blended learning in adult education: Towards a definition of blended learning. Retrieved from http://www.iwt-­alo.be/wpcontent/ uploads/2015/08/01-­Project-­report-­Blended-­learning-­in-­adult-­education-­towards-­adefinition-­ of-­blended-­learning.pdf Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Cabanatan, P. (2003). Integrating pedagogy and technology: The SEAMEO INNOTECH experience. Paper presented at the experts meeting on Teachers/Facilitators Training in Technology– Pedagogy Integration, Bangkok. Chappelle, C. A., & Sauro, S. (2017). The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell. Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 257–278.

Using HyFlex to Teach English for Academic Purposes: The Instructor’s Perspective

63

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.. Davies, J. A., Davies, L. J., Conlon, B., Emerson, J., Hainsworth, H., & McDonough, H. G. (2020). Responding to COVID-19 in EAP contexts: A comparison of courses at four Sino-foreign universities. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(2), 32–52. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crises. Journal of Educational Technology System, 49(1), 5–22. Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-­017-­0087-­5. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Tondeur, J. (2015). Teacher beliefs and uses of technology to support 21st century teaching and learning. In H. R. Fives & M. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teacher beliefs (pp. 403–418). Routledge – Taylor & Francis. Fisher, R., Perényi, Á., & Birdthistle, N. (2018). The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1469787418801702 Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 719–740. Hartshorn, K. J., & McMurry, B. L. (2020). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on ESL learners and TESOL practitioners in the United States. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(2), 140–157. Hockly, N., & Dudeney, G. (2018). Current and future digital trends in ELT. RELC Journal, 49(2), 164–178. Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63, 564–569. Hur, J. W., Shannon, D., & Wolf, S. (2016). An investigation of relationships between internal and external factors affecting technology integration in classrooms. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(3), 105–114. Keiper, M. C., White, A., Carlson, C. D., & Lupinek, J. M. (2021). Student perception on the benefit of Flipgrid in a HyFlex learning environment. Journal of Education for Business, 96(6), 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2020.1832431 Kohnke, L. (2021). GoSoapBox – Encourage participation and interaction in the language classroom. RELC Journal, 52(3), 648–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0033688219872570 Kohnke, L., & Jarvis, A. (2021). Coping with English for academic purposes provision during COVID-19. Sustainability, 13, 8642. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011520 Kohnke, L., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). Facilitating synchronous online learning through zoom. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0033688220937235. Kohnke, L., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2021a). Using Kahoot! To gamify learning in the language classroom. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882211040270. Kohnke, L., & Moorhouse, B.  L. (2021b). Adopting HyFlex in higher education in response to COVID-19: Students’ perspectives. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-learning. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0033688219872570. Kohnke, L., & Zou, D. (2021). Reflecting on existing English for academic purposes practices: Lessons for the post-COVID classroom. Sustainability, 13, 11520. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su132011520 König, J., Jäger-Biela, D., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Adapting to online teaching during covid-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.108 0/02619768.2020.1809650 Lee, J. C., Walker, A., Belland, B., & Schroder, K. (2019). Understanding willingness to communicate in L2 between Korean and Taiwanese students. Language Teaching Resource. https://doi. org/10.1177/1362168819890825. Li, L. (2017). New technologies and language learning. Palgrave.

64

L. Kohnke

Lowenthal, P. R., Dunlap, J. C., & Snelson, C. (2017). Live synchronous web meetings in asynchronous online courses: Reconceptualizing virtual office hours. Online Learning, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1285. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to. Design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. Miller, A. N., Sellnow, D., & Straswer, M. G. (2021). Pandemic pedagogy challenges and opportunities: Instruction communication in remote, HyFlex and BlendFlex courses. Communication Education, 70(2), 202–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2020.1857418 Moorhouse, B.  L. (2020). Adaptions to a face-to-face initial teacher education course ‘forced’ online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 609–611. Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2020). Using Mentimeter to elicit student responses in EAP/ESP classroom. RELC Journal, 51(4), 198–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0033688219890350 Moorhouse, B. L., & Kohnke, L. (2021a). Responses of the English language-teaching community to the COVID-19 pandemic. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F00336882211053052. Moorhouse, B.  L., & Kohnke, L. (2021b). Thriving or surviving emergency remote teaching necessitated by COVID-19: University teachers’ perspectives. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-­021-­00567-­9. Moorhouse, B. L., & Wong, K. M. (2021). Blending asynchronous and synchronous digital technologies and instructional approaches to facilitate remote learning. Journals of Computers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-­021-­00195-­8. Moradimokhles, H. & Hwang, G.-J. (2020). The effect of online vs. blended learning in developing English language skills by nursing students: An experimental study. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1739079. Mouchantaf, M. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges faced and lessons learned regarding distance learning in Lebanese higher education institutions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(10), 1259–1266. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1010.11 Reicher, S., & Taylor, S. (2005). Similarities and differences between traditions. Psychologist, 18, 547–549. Romero-Ivanova, C., Shaughnessy, M., Otto, L., Taylor, E., & Watson, E. (2020). Digital practices & applications in a Covid-19 culture. Higher Education Studies, 10(3), 80–87. https://doi. org/10.5539/hes.v10n3p80 Schmidt, S. W., Tschida, C. M., & Hodge, E. M. (2016). How faculty learn to teach online: What administrators need to know. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 19(1), 1–10. Starkey, L. (2020). A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.1625867 Tello, S. F. (2008). An analysis of student persistence in online education. In C. Van Slyke (Ed.), Information communication technologies: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1163–1178). IGI Global. Terauchi, H., Noguchi, J., & Tajino, A. (2020). Towards a new paradigm for English language teaching: English for specific purposes in Asia and beyond. Routledge. Todd, R.  W. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of the shift from the classroom to online teaching. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(2), 4–17. Turnball, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2021). Transitioning to E-learning during COVID-19 pandemic: How have higher education institutions responded to the challenge? Education and Information Technologies, 26, 6401–6419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-­021-­10633-­w Van Nuland, S., Mandzuk, D., Tucker-Petrick, K., & Cooper, T. (2020). COVID-10 and its effect on teacher education in Ontario: A complex adaptive systems perspective. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 442–451. Watts, L. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(1), 23–32.

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments in Freshman English Courses in Hong Kong Simon Wang and Cissy Li

Abstract  Though e-learning has been in practice for decades in Hong Kong tertiary institutions, from the very early CALL (computer-aided language learning), thanks to the widespread use of the computers, to now much more accessible and ever growing online learning, empowered by the Internet, the vast majority of university courses are still delivered face-to-face. Due to political unrest in late 2019 and coronavirus outbreak in early 2020, university teachers in Hong Kong had to switch to online teaching and provide digital feedback on students’ written assignments. This book chapter explores the various practices of English language teachers giving feedback and investigates how to develop an eLearning platform to engage students more effectively in the context of two Freshman English courses in a publicly-funded university in Hong Kong. It reports the results of a survey of about 100 students taking the courses in Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 focusing on their experience of receiving teachers’ feedback on their written assignments. The survey results inform the subsequent in-depth interviews with 6 students and 3 teachers with an aim to better understand their experience of receiving or giving feedback. Considering the variation of practices of giving feedback among teachers observed and a set of issues frequently raised by students, the chapter then critically reviews the two online feedback platforms, TurnItIn Feedback Studio and Google Classroom, and introduce a new online platform for giving feedback developed by the authors while exploring how to standardize the workflow of giving feedback while allowing room for personalization.

S. Wang (*) · C. Li The Language Centre, Faculty of Arts, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong SAR, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_6

65

66

S. Wang and C. Li

1  Introduction Due to the social unrest caused by the extradition bill crisis and Covid-19 pandemic, universities in Hong Kong had to switch to online teaching in November 2019 and later turned to mixed modes teaching when the situation of pandemic improved. While it was unfortunate that students missed the chances to attend classes on campus, the recent events also created unique opportunities for the university communities to experiment with online teaching and learning at an unprecedentedly large scale. While university teachers and students vary greatly in their skills of using eLearning tools and their willingness to adopt technologies, everyone in the university community had no choice but to start teaching and learning online regardless of how well prepared we were. In the realm of language teaching at university level, teaching and learning online can be particularly challenging as online classrooms are not an equal alternative of the traditional language classrooms that provide a good arena for teachers to interact with students through a range of activities that emphasize the development of communication skills (e.g. McDonough, 2004). As much as possible, for improving learners’ competence in academic literacy, in addition to giving written feedback, teachers continued to hold personal conferences through online platforms with students to discuss issues that need to be addressed to improve their writing while developing affiliative relationships along the way (e.g. Shvidko, 2018), which became more important in times of difficulties. Feedback is a core element in the teaching and learning process and a compelling influence on learner achievement (Carless, 2016; Hattie, 2009; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). While it contributes to the development of a relationship between the teacher and students, which of and in itself promotes learning (Wolsey, 2008), feedback can improve students’ confidence, self-awareness and enthusiasm for learning (Yorke, 2002). In the context of L2 writing, giving feedback also makes students become better writers (Evans et al., 2010). Feedback processes in academic writing have been widely studied. For example, Lee (2008a)’s study examined the written feedback of Hong Kong secondary English teachers to their student texts as well as teacher interview data and found that teachers’ written feedback was primarily error-focused and teachers’ feedback practices were influenced by a myriad of contextual factors including teachers’ beliefs, values, understandings, and knowledge. From the perspective of students’ reactions to written comments, Lee (2008b), in another study, found, while all students wanted more and explicit written feedback from teachers, students with lower proficiency were less interested in error feedback than those of higher proficiency. She further argued that written feedback was largely teacher-centred, making students dependent on teachers. Investigating the effectiveness of teacher feedback on student writing, Hamp-­ Lyons and Chen (1999), by examining the differences in students’ and teachers’ perceptions of different types of feedback, sought to explain some of the reasons why teacher feedback was sometimes ineffective. They concluded that, in order to

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments…

67

make feedback work, it is imperative to have a significant incentive for students to act on the comments by the teacher. Also on students’ response to teacher feedback, Williams (2004) investigated how students followed up on the various types of feedback from the tutors when they revised their drafts and found that tutors’ feedback on sentence-level issues was more likely to affect the subsequent drafts. The author also found that students tended to take up suggestions under certain conditions such as offering direct suggestions, scaffolding and highlighting specific textual features. In a more recent study focusing on the tutor-tutee interactions and revisions, Yu (2020) found that tutors’ approaches to tutoring were more influenced by the features of writing tasks. The study also confirmed Williams (2004)’s finding that more sentence-level suggestions were incorporated into the revised drafts by the tutees. While the majority of research in this area focuses on teacher written feedback, there is an increasing amount of research that examines oral feedback (e.g. Unlu & Wharton, 2015), technology-supported feedback (e.g. Shintani, 2016), or feedback conferences (Ewert, 2009; Goldstein & Conrad, 1990; Strauss & Xiang, 2006; Trotman, 2011). For example, Unlu and Wharton (2015), investigated teacher-­ students classroom interactions and found feedback interactions shapes and are shaped by the patterns of teacher–student relationships which lead to student’s increased critical awareness of academic writing. Investigating technology in feedback, Johanson (1999), who examined the benefits of recorded audio feedback in EFL writing classes, suggested that recorded audio feedback saves time, gives clearer comments and personalizes feedback. With a focus on preferred delivery modes for feedback, Maas (2016)’s study found that more students preferred technology-­facilitated feedback such as audio recordings and email. She concluded that the employment of technology could increase student receptivity to teacher feedback. Similarly, Farshi and Safa (2015) compared grades of EFL students who received handwritten, emailed, or no corrective feedback on written tasks over a semester and found that emailed feedback led to significantly greater improvement on post-test grades than handwritten feedback. Exploring EFL students’ attitudes and preferences over video commentary or feedback given through Microsoft Word, Silva (2012) found that the mode and medium of teacher feedback had an impact on students’ perceptions of the rhetorical context for revision and perceptions of the teacher/student relationship. However, modality (video or Microsoft Word) was found to have little effect on students’ revision. Feedback conferences as another pedagogical strategy frequently employed by teachers to scaffold personalized learning has also attracted research attention. For example, Ewert (2009) analyzed the discursive practices of two teachers in ESL writing conferences with the frameworks of negotiation and scaffolding and found that, with certain combinations of negotiation and scaffolding tactics in relation to conference focus and learner proficiency, one teacher could promote greater learner participation in the revision. Though giving feedback is un-controversially a necessary pedagogical approach, research in feedback on second language writing has reached no consensus about what constitutes good practices (Cloete, 2014; Maas, 2016), particularly in English

68

S. Wang and C. Li

for Academic Purposes (EAP) settings (Maas, 2016). Approaches of feedback are greatly diversified in terms of what to focus on in feedback and how feedback should be given (Cloete, 2014). Hyland & Hyland (2006) have identified three major unanswered questions in the L2 writing literature: the best modes of feedback, the role of technology, the development of writer autonomy (see also Maas, 2016). The sudden and complete switch to online and mixed-mode teaching in Hong Kong due to social unrest and coronavirus pandemic caught many teachers off-­ guard. Teachers “who have been comfortable and competent in traditional face-to-­ face teaching” were “thrust into the new modes of online or blended teaching with only some technical preparation” (Stacey & Wiesenberg, 2007, p. 5). Online and mixed-mode teaching had foregrounded the role of technology in the feedback process. It is important to explore how teachers used computer tools to facilitate feedback processes, in particular, how teachers and students perceived the effectiveness of giving and receiving online feedback on written EAP assignments. Against this backdrop, this chapter reports a pilot study that attempts to understand the processes of giving and receiving feedback on written assignments in two EAP-oriented University English courses for first-year undergraduates. The study draws on quantitative data from a questionnaire survey on first-year students taking the courses and qualitative data from interviews with 6 students and 3 teachers sharing their experiences of the feedback processes. As the study is concerned with how computing technologies can be more effectively deployed for giving feedback, it also reports the development of a new computer platform for teachers to comment on students’ assignments and compare some features of the platform with existing tools such as TurnItIn GradeMark and Google Classroom. Based on the authors’ experience of teaching the courses, the questionnaire results and the interview data, four issues about eLearning will be addressed in this study: 1. How do students and teachers perceive the quality of teaching and learning and the challenges in a University English course, especially during the process of receiving and giving feedback? 2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two popular eLearning platforms with respect to their support for giving feedback? 3. How can a new eLearning platform be designed and developed to faciliate provision of effective feedback and support learning analytics? The rest of the chapter is organized as follows. After the introduction of the two University English courses as the setting of the study and a summary of the questionnaire data, the results of the interviews with the teachers and students are reported to highlight a number of issues and themes related to giving feedback. Three digital platforms for giving feedback including TurnItIn studio, Google classroom and a new tool developed by the authors known as onLine essAy aNd speeCh fEedback sysTem (LANCET) are discussed to explore how feedback can be provided effectively to address the issues found in the interviews.

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments…

69

2  The University English Courses The Language Centre where the authors work offers two semester-long University English courses that all first-year students are expected to take to develop their academic writing skills essential for successful academic communication in the university. In the first course taught in the Fall semesters, students learn to write a summary of a research article provided by the course team known as Annotated Bibliography and develop an academic argument based on three academic source texts in an assignment known as Argumentative Essay. Building upon the skills developed in the first semester, the second University English course allows students to choose their own topic for a term project. Each student would first review relevant research literature on the chosen topic and write an argumentative research paper addressing the same topic, followed by an academic oral presentation. In both courses, students are expected to write extensively following academic conventions, e.g. citing source texts using the guidelines issued by American Psychological Association. Since the students taking the courses have little background in academic writing, they often struggle to perform well and need help from the teachers. Therefore, consultation meetings are scheduled in both courses for teachers to discuss with the students their writing through personal conferences. Teachers are also available to answer questions students may have during their office hours or by email. Some teachers create WhatsApp or WeChat groups for students and answer their questions through the instant messengers.

3  S  urvey on Students’ Views on the Quality of Online Teaching, Learning and Feedback Aiming to investigate students’ eLearning experience taking the two Language Centre credit-bearing courses amid Covid-19 pandemic, an email was sent out to all the students who took the University English courses (about 1300 in total), inviting them to participate in an online questionnaire survey to share their views on the effectiveness of eLearning in general and teacher feedback on their assignments in particular. A total of 108 students completed the questionnaire which was composed of two sections: students’ perception of the eLearning experience and teachers’ online feedback amid Covid-19 pandemic. As indicated in Table 1, the majority of the students (99/108) were satisfied with the effectiveness of online feedback and consultation meetings regarding teacher feedback (statement 1). Over 72% and 65% of the participants agreed that the online feedback (78/108) and online consultation meetings (71/108) have the same effect as service provided face to face. 87/108 participants considered the feedback helped them improve their writing. In terms of technologies for eLearning, most participants had no difficulties in using technologies for eLearning with 77% (84/108) positive responses. In addition to the questionnaire survey, follow-up interviews

70

S. Wang and C. Li

Table 1  Results of the questionnaire on eLearning regarding feedback (N = 108) Strongly Statements agree 1. Overall I find the eLearning 27 (25%) experience of Language Centre courses satisfactory amid coronavirus outbreak. 2. I have no problem using 36 (33.3%) technologies for eLearning. 28 (25.93%) 3. Feedback on my work delivered online is as effective as feedback given on paper. 25 (23.15%) 4. Consultation meetings online are as effective as face-to-face consultations. 29 (26.85%) 5. The feedback I received helped me improve my writing.

Neither agree nor disagree Agree 72 (66.67%) 6 (5.56%)

Strongly Disagree disagree 3 (2.78%) 0 (0.0%)

48 (44.44%) 16 (14.81%) 6 (5.56%) 2 (1.85%) 51 (47.22%) 23 (21.3%)

5 (4.63%) 1 (0.93%)

47 (43.52%) 28 (25.93%) 7 (6.48%) 1 (0.93%)

58 (53.7%)

17 (15.74%) 2 (1.85%) 2 (1.85%)

were conducted with 3 teachers and 6 students about giving and receiving feedback on course written assignments.

4  I nvestigating the Processes of Giving Feedback Through Interviewing While the survey results suggest that the majority of the students taking the two University English courses were satisfied with the new ways of teaching online in comparison to the traditional forms of face-to-face lecturing and consultation meetings, there was much room for improvement when it comes to the online teaching practices especially the provision of feedback. After all, many teachers were not fully prepared for this new mode of teaching. In this section, we report the findings from the interviews conducted with teachers and students to learn more about the challenges they faced when giving and receiving feedback in the two University English courses. The four issues raised above related to student engagement, connection between teaching and feedback, community learning and learning analytics will be highlighted when the interview findings are presented.

4.1  Student and Teacher Interviewees A total of six student interviewees were identified through recommendation of three colleagues teaching the two University English courses who were also interviewed to share their teaching experience. Informed consent has been obtained from the

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments…

71

Table 2  Six student interviewees and three teacher interviewees Student names Tang Chang Liu Yau Cheng Yung

Secondary school medium of instructions Chinese (local student) Chinese (local student) Chinese (local student) English (international student) English (international student) English (international student)

Recommended by the teacher interviewees Jay Ellen Mica

interviewees who are referred to as pseudonyms to protect their privacy. As indicated in Table 2, three of them graduated from local schools where Cantonese (a vernacular version of Chinese) was used as the medium of instruction. The other three were international students who received secondary school education with English as the medium of instruction. It is important to note that the interview responses collected from the 6 students do not necessarily represent the general views of the student population. Although 50% of the student interviewees were international students, the overall percentage of international students at the authors’ university is about 7.7% (Hong Kong Baptist University, 2020). While no generalised claims could be made about the students’ views, the interview data nevertheless reveal interesting insights about how feedback could be more effectively delivered. In the interest of space, the interviewees’ answers are summarised in the following sections without presenting the direct quotes.

4.2  Challenges of the Courses Most of the interviewees found the courses challenging though definitely rewarding. Three major challenges were identified: critical review of literature, identification of appropriate topics and source texts for writing and linguistic sophistication. Tang believed that, though the second University English course (UE2) was generally less challenging as it was built upon concepts and techniques introduced in the first course (UE1), what was particularly difficult for him in UE2 was to find weaknesses in the literature to write the part on critical review. Yau thought that more help was needed at the early stage of the project when she was looking for suitable topics and appropriate source texts. This observation was supported by Chang, who believed, though the course was useful in providing her the opportunities to read a range of texts and develop the skills of synthesizing evidence from multiple sources, it was difficult for year-one students to identify appropriate and relevant source texts for a particular writing topic. Cheng commented the course was less challenging for him as an international student who was familiar with doing research through his high school education but suggested that the course could be more difficult for his local peers who were linguistically challenged as they often asked him for help with

72

S. Wang and C. Li

proofreading. Indeed, the requirement of an academic style for university assignments posed challenges to the students. Liu found it rather difficult to write sophisticated sentences at the university level and to be concise. While they reported a range of difficulties encountered in the course, the students had all mentioned one strategy to overcome these difficulties: to study and learn from the sample texts provided in the course textbook. Tang said the sample texts were very helpful as he could identify some basic structures in the texts to organise his own writing despite the fact that he still had to figure out how to critically review his own source texts. Cheng also studied the sample texts closely to learn more about the expectations of the teachers though he was mindful that the sample texts should not be treated as the only resources to rely on when approaching the tasks. Not surprisingly, Liu found the sentences in the sample texts in advanced grammatical structures were good models for her to imitate and reuse in her own writing and hoped more sample texts could be provided.

4.3  S  tudents’ Perceptions and Experience of Teachers’ Feedback As revealed by the student interviews, the issues addressed in teachers’ feedback were mostly related to the grading rubrics of the assignments which focus on four aspects: content, organization, language and citation practices. The rubrics, as an interface between teachers’ pedagogical goals, students’ needs, and institutional education policies and a quality assurance measure (Bailey & Garner, 2010), had therefore, to a great extent, standardized teacher feedback (e.g. Ene & Kosobucki, 2016; Bailey & Garner, 2010). Comments related to content and organisation were usually added at the end of their assignments along with the numeric scores whereas inline comments were made to the specific areas of the texts pertaining issues on language and in-text citations. Occasionally, the tutors also edited students’ writing directly using Track Change function in Microsoft Word. Although previous studies suggested that direct editing may not be the most helpful form of feedback (Ferris & Roberts, 2001), the student interviewees believed that this form of intervention was very helpful especially for certain grammatical and stylish matters that could be difficult to explain through written comments. As for the forms of feedback and interaction, the student interviewees reported three distinct ways to discuss their assignments with the teachers. For one thing, students may write emails to the teachers with an attached Word document of their assignment drafts. The teachers would email back a word document with comments. Another way for students to interact with teachers is to ask questions about the assignments through instant messengers such as WhatsApp. As they usually did not send the drafts through WhatsApp that is mainly intended for exchanging text messages, more general issues were addressed in this way. It is important to note that both email and WhatsApp consultations are not part of the course requirements; only more proactive students would seek help through these two channels. The third

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments…

73

way of student-teacher interactions is consultation meetings scheduled after the Literature Review drafts were graded as part of the course. Taking a process approach to writing, one-on-one consultation meetings were held via Zoom, a popular video conferencing platform, for teachers and students to discuss the assignment drafts that had been graded. Students’ perceptions on the usefulness of such meetings varied among the interviewees. More active students said that the consultation meetings were not very useful as they had consulted the teachers beforehand through email and WhatsApp. Yet, one student interviewee (Chang) who did not pay much attention to the teacher’s comments about her assignment found the consultation meeting very useful as it was during that meeting that she realized the issues she needed to address to improve her assignment. Another student interviewee (Liu) also preferred feedback from teachers through emails or WhatsApp because she felt nervous during the one-on-one meeting with the teacher and could not raise questions about her assignment. In addition, the email and WhatsApp consultations would leave records in writing for future reference. The differences between synchronous and asynchronous feedback have been explored in the literature (e.g. Coffin et al., 2012; Eslami et al., 2015; Murphy et al., 2011) and will be further discussed when reporting the findings from interviewing teachers under the subheading Teachers’ workflow of giving feedback. The interview data suggest that teachers of the University English courses differed in ways to engage the students beyond the classroom when giving feedback to students’ assignments. An important issue for further exploration in this chapter is how online platforms could facilitate the continuous engagement of students by teachers. It is important to recognize that, despite their efficiency, both email and instant messaging facilitates communication between teachers and students out of the context of the written assignments. In other words, teachers and students exchange messages without immediate access to the written assignments they are discussing. This is clearly a less ideal scenario for giving feedback. Ideally, feedback should be provided in an online platform in the context of the written assignments, e.g. comments added with references to the specific sentences or paragraphs of the written assignments.

4.4  Teachers’ Workflow of Giving Feedback To understand how feeedback was given from the teachers’ perspectives and inform the subsequent discussion of online platforms, the three teacher interviewees were asked to describe their workflow for grading and commenting on students’ assignments in the University English courses. Although moderation meetings were held before the teachers assessed students’ assignments to standardize grading as well as improve the consistency of grading, teachers had the autonomy to decide how to approach grading and commenting; therefore, the actual practices of giving feedback on students’ writing varied considerably among the teachers. Learning more about the three teachers’ workflow of giving feedback through interviewing

74

S. Wang and C. Li

provides the background knowledge for the authors to further discuss how digitalizing the feedback processes could help improve efficiencies and consistency of the pedagogical practices. 4.4.1  Jay The teacher reported that he read students’ assignments multiple times through different lenses and annotated the texts along the way following the framework prescribed by the grading rubrics that assess the content, organization and language of the assignments. The first round focused on linguistic issues that were often surface-­ level grammatical and usage problems, which, according to Jay, was less demanding. The second time of reading was more cognitively involved as the teacher was more concerned with coherence and organization of the written assignments, the assessment of which also required an understanding of the content of the texts. When giving comments on the language, a set of symbols developed by the teacher were used to refer to specific linguistic errors to save time from spelling out the error types. Students could look up a table of symbols with full explanations prepared and provided by the teacher when necessary. 4.4.2  Ellen Similar to Jay, Ellen assessed the students’ assignments through reading several times. In the first round of commenting, the teacher focused more on the language issues followed by more attention to the content and organization of the assignments. While Ellen also used the rubrics as the framework for giving overall comments, she also added comments to the specific parts of the texts in Microsoft WORD.  She did not develop her own coding system for language errors as she found such coding systems a bit difficult for the students to understand though she acknowledged efficiency in using such a system if the students knew the system well. 4.4.3  Mica Different from Ellen and Jay, Mica focused on the content of the student assignments when reading the texts the first time. She experimented with different approaches to grading the assignments and found that it was more time consuming to comment on the language issues first. Many of her students had difficulties to understand the source texts properly when working on the Literature Review assignments. Students could benefit more from feedback on the contents and organization as they could revise the drafts focusing on these issues first, according to Mica. As professional autonomy is fully respected and celebrated in the Language Centre where the authors and the interviewees work, it is not surprising that the

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments…

75

interviews with the three teachers revealed diversity in the ways they graded and gave feedback to student assignments. Yet, it is also clear that the three teachers could have benefited greatly if they learned about one another’s practices of giving feedback and made attempts to identify some common grounds in how they reviewed students’ assignments. For example, Ellen might find Jay’s experience of using the coding scheme to label errors relevant. Mica and Ellen could have an interesting and useful conversation about the timing of giving feedback to different issues. As will be discussed later in the chapter, the process of building and using an online platform could facilitate such exchanges of ideas among colleagues that are not otherwise well supported. Although professional autonomy could still be preserved, an online platform shared among colleagues could introduce the opportunities of sharing more common practices that colleagues may find useful.

4.5  Modes of Interaction and Consultation Before the pandemic, teachers often interacted with students in the classroom face-­ to-­face through lectures, group discussion and one-on-one consultation meetings. While most interactions occurred online during the pandemic, there were not many guidelines from the university in terms of exactly how online consultations should be conducted. The teacher interviewees were invited to reflect on the ways they interacted with their students online. 4.5.1  Jay According to Jay, as mentioned earlier, more proactive students communicate with him mainly through email, which is different from the instant messengers, in that the email communication is asynchronous i.e., the email conversation does not occur in real time. On the other hand, weaker students who are less proactive only show up in the consultation meetings to get all the essential information for them to do their assignments. As Jay points out, one limitation of giving feedback via Word document is that teachers and students usually do not interact and further discuss the issues being commented on since emailing documents back and forth is very inconvenient. In other words, Word documents do not provide the features that facilitate ongoing conversation about the assignments. 4.5.2  Ellen Ellen reports that she discusses with the students via WhatsApp Business in addition to email. She registers a WhatsApp business account using her office number as she has some reservations about sharing her personal phone number with students for privacy reasons. Ellen also creates a Whatsapp group for the students

76

S. Wang and C. Li

taking her course mainly for her to make announcements about the course. Although she hopes that students can use the whatsapp group to exchange ideas, most members of the group are not very active. 4.5.3  Mica When reflecting on how she interacted with her students online, Mica shared her concerns about discussing citation practices and paraphrasing practices with the students. As part of the course assignment, for a better assessment of students’ paraphrasing skills, students were expected to provide all the source texts and label clearly which section of the source text had been used in which parts of the written assignment. Before the pandemic when the hard copies of the assignments including the source texts were handed in, it was easier to go through the source texts and check whether paraphrasing was done properly and credit was given to source materials. However, it was more difficult to do so on the computer as students were only submitting the soft copies of the assignments. Mika referred to the possibility of asking students to provide the source text by generating links to the specific parts of the source texts in PDF files saved in Google drive. Although this could be an effective way to facilitate the process of giving feedback, there may be a learning curve for adopting such technologies. That is why even though this technology is available, Mika was reluctant to require all the students to use it. However, she pointed out that a better platform than TurnItIn Feedback Studio was needed for annotating the text, and also for students to have a conversation with the teachers about the text.

4.6  Connecting Feedback with Teaching The teacher interviewees were also asked how the feedback given by them on students’ assignments was connected to the teaching and learning of the course. This question was initially raised because there seems to be a lack of such connections based on the authors’ own experience of teaching the course. This perceived gap between teaching and feedback can also be found in the literature. For example, in a study documenting the feedback practices of secondary school teachers in Hong Kong, Lee (2008a) reports that teachers’ feedback practices were influenced by factors such as accountability, teachers’ beliefs and values, exam cultures and lack of training. While the actual teaching process and contents are not identified as a related factor, the author does warn (warn who?) that the feedback giving practices borrowed from the west may not be suitable for the teaching context.

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments…

77

4.6.1  Jay During the interview, Jay recognized the importance of connecting classroom teaching with the feedback on the assignments. In his classes, he made the connection explicit by discussing in the lectures a set of feedback symbols that he would then use when giving feedback. As shown in Table 3, these symbols were used as shorthands for more detailed feedback addressing various issues. For example, Jay used the symbol ‘COMB’ to tell students to combine sentences for sentence complexity and diversity rather than using simple sentence structures to enhance sophistication and style. Jay discussed these issues referring to the symbols during the class to remind the students of these problems in advance, which is an important step to promote students’ “feedback literacy” and hence their uptake of feedback (Carless & Boud, 2018). This particular system of feedback symbols actually served as a bridge between teaching and feedback. 4.6.2  Ellen Different from Jay, Ellen took the opposite approach to connecting feedback with teaching. In her course, after assignments were graded and feedback was given to the students, she would create a worksheet summarizing the common mistakes or issues found in the assignments in the past which aimed to give students an overview of what issues should be addressed when revising their assignments. The reason why Ellen did not provide this worksheet in advance was that she believed students might not have enough time and energy to process this information before they started working on their assignments. For example, students were reminded to write a topic sentence to summarise the paragraph before doing the assignment; yet, many students either did not construct a topic sentence or the sentence could not serve as a leading sentence in the paragraph. Hence a summary of identified issues Table 3  Some feedback symbols used in Jay’s classes Symbol of feedback COMB

Meaning To combine sentences

Tran

For transition points

PEAK/ PEAL

Taking an idea from the end of the last paragraph and integrating it into the new topic sentence Audience purpose content

APC

Discussion during lectures It impacts the complexity of their ideas negatively A new topic sentence/transition between sentences

The importance of being sensitive to the genre, the audience and the purpose

78

S. Wang and C. Li

was found necessary. Ellen had also discussed during the lectures the sample student assignments provided in the textbook with some annotations for students to consult. However, the issues highlighted in the sample assignments may not be the same as those found in students’ assignments. Even though there is no doubt that these samples were useful, students did not always find the examples relevant to their own problems as Ellen’s summary could only cover a limited number of issues that were more prominent among the assignments of her students. This highlights the importance and necessity of large scale data analytics on students’ assignments in order to provide more comprehensive guidance on how to revise students’ assignments. It may not be feasible or advisable to talk about how to revise the assignments earlier in the course as pointed out by Ellen; yet, access to more samples with comments on a wider range of issues can certainly help more students. This could be achieved in a well-designed online platform for giving feedback to student assignments. 4.6.3  Mica Mica believed that the main connection between teaching and feedback could be found in the key techniques required for the assignments that are covered in the course and taught to students through various tasks in the course. But she acknowledged that some of the techniques discussed in the tasks were not connected with the students’ assignments. According to Mica, students working on completely different topics could face challenges of different nature in their assignments. In other words, Mica shared Ellen’s concern that the samples provided in the textbook and the issues addressed in the comments were probably more relevant to some students and less so for others. Considering the limitations of having a small number of sample assignments, both Ellen and Mica agreed that students could benefit from having access to a larger set of sample assignments.

5  Giving Feedback Through Digital Platforms In a research article advocating learner-driven feedback, Maas (2016) espouses that teachers and learners are often frustrated by ‘traditional’ forms of feedback given on L2 learners’ written work where “teachers directly correct language errors in handwritten form, and summarize problem areas” beneath the text in metalanguage (p. 127). As researchers are increasingly concerned about the effectiveness of that traditional mode and media of feedback (Maas, 2016), the findings from the questionnaire and the interviews discussed here also highlights the fact that feedback could be more effectively delivered through better designed digital platforms that facilitate the contextualised discussion of student assignments, strengthen the links between teaching and feedback and provide sample assignments that can cater the needs of more students. The case for improving the technologies for giving

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments…

79

feedback became even stronger because of the pandemic as teachers and students had to spend more time interacting online. In this section, we first review the main features of two existing platforms for giving feedback- TurnItIn Feedback Studio and Google classroom- and identify a number of areas where further improvements could be made. We will then introduce a new platform for commenting on student assignments currently developed by the authors through a teaching and learning project funded by the university.

5.1  GradeMark: The TurnItIn Feedback Studio TurnItIn is one of the most popular anti-plagiarism service providers widely used among universities around the world. In addition to comparing the student assignments against Internet source texts and written texts previously submitted by earlier students to detect possible cases of plagiarism, the company also offers a Feedback Studio known as GradeMark in which teachers can provide online feedback to students’ assignments drawing upon a set of comment banks addressing various issues (Carruthers et al., 2015; Kostka & Maliborska, 2016). As shown in Fig. 1, users may select from a list of comments on academic integrity and drag and drop the comments to specific texts highlighted in a student assignment. In addition, as shown in Fig. 2, besides a number of built-in comment banks that teachers can use, it is also possible for teachers to create new comment banks addressing new issues and incorporating comments from existing comment banks into their new comment banks. Information about the comment can be edited by the teacher creating the comment and is also available for students who receive the comment. While the TurnltIn Feedback Studio offers a flexible platform for teachers to give feedback on student assignments, a number of limitations can be found. For one thing, information about the individual comments is presented in plain text, not in

Fig. 1  A screenshot of the user interface of TurnItIn Feedback Studio GradeMark

80

S. Wang and C. Li

Fig. 2  Teachers may create a new set of comments and add comments from existing sets to their customized comment bank

the form of images or videos that could be more visually appealing to students. In addition, there is no interaction between the teachers and students on the issues as students cannot reply to the comments. Another concern is the lack of opportunities for learning analytics as the users cannot monitor the frequencies of the different comments given to the assignments. Tracking frequency related feedback data from the e-tutorial systems constitutes a main data source for learning analytic (Tempelaar et  al., 2015). Researchers also find that collecting and analysing such data can inform the teachers and help them improve the overall quality of learning (e.g. Pardo et al., 2019). It is therefore regrettable that the TurnItIn platform offers the users no opportunity for data analytics. Finally, the platform only allows individual users to build customized comment banks that cannot be shared with other colleagues. Although autonomy of individual teachers should always be respected, the platform should have enabled the sharing of comment banks to facilitate the development of a community of practice among teachers by allowing the teachers to access and contribute to a comment bank shared among all the colleagues. Only through such sharing can the teachers learn from one another’s practices of giving feedback and explore the possibilities of developing a set of guidelines and resources that teachers can use to better serve the students.

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments…

81

5.2  Google Classroom Google Classroom is an online learning management platform that can increase student participation and learning and improve classroom dynamics (Heggart et al., 2018). It has been made freely available to all schools in the United States. Since the university of the authors subscribes to Google productivity tools such as Gmail and Google Office, the university teaching staff also has access to Google classroom although Moodle is the main learning management system used by most teachers in this university. Google classroom is a learning management platform that integrates other Google products such as Google docs that could be used as an alternative to Microsoft Word. One important feature of Google docs is that teachers and students can edit the same document online via their own computers without worrying about version control, an issue that Microsoft Word users have to face. Comments can also be added in Google docs which other users can reply; this feature is advantageous over the TurnItIn Feedback Studio where interaction between teachers and students about the comments is not possible. In 2018, a new feature known as comment bank was introduced to Google Classroom in which teachers are allowed to add comments they make in Google docs to a comment bank. As shown in Fig. 3, Google

Fig. 3  Comments can be added to a comment bank by Google classroom users through Google docs

82

S. Wang and C. Li

Fig. 4  The comments added to the comment bank can be re-used by users typing #sign followed by keywords in the comments

classroom users may add a comment in Google docs to a comment bank. Teachers can then re-use the comments added to the comment bank by typing the hashtag (#) and some keywords to choose the comments that contain the keywords  (Fig. 4). This way of accessing the comments could be more convenient than the drag and drop feature in TurnItIn as long as the teachers remember the keywords associated to the comments they intend to make. As discussed earlier, students can then interact with teachers by replying to comments and having an online conversation about particular issues in Google docs. Despite the novel feature of the comment bank, in the Google classroom, it is not possible for teachers to maintain information pages for individual comments that students may consult if they need further information about the issues. Similar to the TurnItIn system, neither does Google Classroom support learning analytics as the users still cannot monitor the frequencies of the comments being used. In addition, the comment bank built by individual users cannot be shared with other colleagues.

5.3  LANCET Considering the promises and limitations of the two online platforms for giving feedback reviewed above and the fact that large corporations such as TurnItIn and Google are unlikely to respond to the needs of individual teachers, we as language teachers should look into the possibilities of developing new online platforms for giving feedback that can meet our needs in a more flexible way by working directly with computer programmers. OnLine essAy aNd speeCh fEedback sysTem

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments…

83

(LANCET) is a new online platform currently being developed by the authors for teaching and learning English focusing on giving feedback to students’ writing. When designing and developing the platform, we attempt to address some of the limitations of both TurnItIn Feedback Studio and Google Classroom while taking into account the needs of the teachers and students at the Language Centre. In addition to giving feedback to the students’ written assignments, the platform could also transcribe students’ oral speeches and enable the users to annotate the model texts; yet, this book chapter will focus on the features for giving feedback on written assignments and explore how the platform could facilitate the development of a set of common practices among teachers while preserving professional autonomy. Although the platform has become fully functional and been used in some teaching contexts, it is important to note that it is still a work in progress with some features to be fine-tuned and new features to be further developed in response to feedback from the colleagues using it. We believe being able to work with a computer programmer to develop a computer platform in-house gives us the advantage of being flexible in meeting the diverse needs of the colleagues and, at the same time, being innovative in supporting novel teaching practices. As discussed earlier, there are three limitations found in the commenting functions of TurnItIn Feedback Studio and Google Classroom: the lack of information about the issues presented in multimodal formats, the lack of support for learning analytics and the difficulties of sharing comment banks among teaching staff. When developing LANCET, some efforts were made to overcome these three limitations. 5.3.1  Facilitate the Provision of Feedback by a Community of Teachers To facilitate the provision of feedback, the paragraphs and sentences of the student assignments are automatically numbered in our platform. The teachers can then refer to the specific paragraphs and sentences using the numbers when discussing the assignments with the students. Similar to Google docs, teachers can add comments to the words and phrases they select. They can also add comments to sentences or paragraphs by clicking on the numbers. This way of adding comments is better than the TurnItIn Feedback studio as the students are clearly informed about which sentence or stretch of texts are in question. After adding a comment, a teacher can include it in the comment bank; once the comment is part of the comment bank, it can then be recalled and re-used by a user who types # and some letters found in the comment, a feature inspired by a similar function in Google Classroom (see Fig. 5). Since the comment bank is accessible to all the teachers, it is possible for colleagues teaching the same courses to negotiate on what comments should be included in the comment bank. While teachers can still write their own comments in this platform, the shared comment bank offers the teaching team an opportunity to reach some consensus on how to give feedback to student assignments, a step towards a limited degree of standardization that should be healthy for the teaching of the courses.

84

S. Wang and C. Li

Fig. 5  Comments in the comment bank can be recalled and re-used by the users typing relevant characters

5.3.2  Inform the Students About the Issues Addressed in Feedback For each comment added to the comment bank, a web page is automatically created which can be edited to provide more information about the issues addressed in the comment (see Fig. 6). The editing interface of the pages allows some basic formatting of the texts as well as insertion of hyperlinks. In future, the platform will support uploading of images and embedding of YouTube videos. Addressing the concern over the lack of connection between teaching and feedback, these web pages will serve as bridges between teaching and commenting as students can consult them to learn about what issues are addressed when certain comments are provided. 5.3.3  Features for Learning Analytics to Be Developed In the same information pages for the comments, a list of sentences where the comments were given is also presented. Users who have access to the student assignments can also click on the sentences to locate the comment in the student

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments…

85

Fig. 6  A web page is automatically created for each comment added to the comment bank

assignments. This feature is the first step towards analysing how various comments are given to students’ assignments to inform the teachers and students about students’ performance in the assignments. Since all the data is available in our own computer server, it is straight-forward to statistically analyse the comments given the assignments and students. Reports on what issues are more commonly found in individual assignments and students can be automatically generated to shed light on the difficulties that students may have on working on the assignments and the problems they have as they develop their academic writing skills. The examples accessible through the comment web pages can also be used to develop more teaching materials to address the issues that students often have. As for facilitating learning analytics, the pages created for the comments also include lists of sentences where the comments were added (see Fig. 7).

6  Conclusion While it is highly regrettable that the Covid-19 pandemic has cost large numbers of lives and deep economic recession worldwide, it has nevertheless accelerated the digital transformation of higher education as more university teachers have to come to terms with the necessity of using new technologies. This book chapter explores how teachers and students perceive the new normal of teaching and learning online focusing on their experience of two University English courses offered by a Language Centre of a publicly funded university in Hong Kong. Through analyzing quantitative data from a questionnaire and qualitative data from interviewing 6

86

S. Wang and C. Li

Fig. 7  The sentences where the comment has been added are listed in the web page for the comment with links to the contexts

students and 3 teachers, issues on interacting with students, connecting feedback with teaching, facilitate community building and learning analytics are highlighted and explored. It is found that, despite the students’ general satisfaction with the experience of eLearning, the ways that teachers and students interact could be further improved through a better designed online platform. By reviewing two existing online platforms- TurnItIn Feedback Studio and Google Classroom, this book chapter makes the case that both platforms have limitations in their ways for teachers to interact with students and to better inform the students about the comments given to their assignments. The platforms also provide limited opportunities for teachers to build a community to learn from one another about giving feedback and to conduct learning analytics. Considering such limitations, the book chapter then reports the attempts of the authors to build a new online platform known as LANCET that can be used to annotate students’ assignments and have the potential to address the limitations of the two existing platforms. Given that LANCET is still a work in progress with more functions to be implemented in the near future, the case for LANCET being a clearly superior platform for giving feedback relative to TurnItIn Grademark Studio and Google Classroom needs to be further strengthened. Yet, it is important to recognize the enormous potential for language teachers to engage computer programmers to develop an online platform that can meet our needs rather than relying on existing commercial platforms that are less flexible and responsive to the expectations of the teachers. As Amiri (2000) points out, language teachers should learn basic computer programming skills in order to become both consumers and producers of computer-based materials. In light of our experience of developing LANCET, it is clear that being able to communicate with a computer programmer to negotiate what can be accomplished in a computer system is crucial for language teachers interested in developing tailor-made computer tools.

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments…

87

Since LANCET is developed with funding from a publicly-funded university, the authors intend to make the platform available for English teachers interested in adapting the platform to meet their eLearning needs. It is hoped that the platform could inspire further conversation and debate about the extent to which language teaching in general and feedback provision should be standardised while at the same time preserving professional autonomy among the teaching staff.

References Amiri, F. (2000). IT-literacy for language teachers: Should it include computer programming? System, 28(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-­251X(99)00061-­5 Bailey, R., & Garner, M. (2010). Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers’ reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 187–198. Carless, D. (2016). Feedback as dialogue. In M.  A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory (pp. 1–6). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­287-­532-­7_389-­1 Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 Carruthers, C.,Wightman, C., McPeake, S., Farley, H., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2015). Using Turnitin/ Grademark for effective feedback with business and management students. The Association of Business Schools Annual Learning and Teaching Conference. https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/en/ publications/using-­turnitingrademark-­for-­effective-­feedback-­with-­business-­and%2D%2D3. Cloete, R. (2014). Blending offline and online feedback on EAP writing. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 2(4), 559–571. Coffin, C., Hewings, A., & North, S. (2012). Arguing as an academic purpose: The role of asynchronous conferencing in supporting argumentative dialogue in school and university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 38–51. Ene, E., & Kosobucki, V. (2016). Rubrics and corrective feedback in ESL writing: A longitudinal case study of an L2 writer. Assessing Writing, 30, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. asw.2016.06.003 Eslami, Z. R., Mirzaei, A., & Dini, S. (2015). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of {EFL} learners’ pragmatic competence. System, 48, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.008 Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Tuioti, E. A. (2010). Written corrective feedback: Practitioners’ perspectives (p. 31). Ewert, D.  E. (2009). L2 writing conferences: Investigating teacher talk. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.06.002 Farshi, S. S., & Safa, S. K. (2015). The effect of two types of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ writing skill. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(1), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.7575/ aiac.alls.v.6n.1p.26 Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1060-­3743(01)00039-­X Goldstein, L. M., & Conrad, S. M. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587229 Hamp-Lyons, L., & Chen, J. (1999). An investigation into the effectiveness of teacher feedback on student writing. English Language Teaching and Learning, 3, 207–219.

88

S. Wang and C. Li

Hattie, J. (2009). The black box of tertiary assessment: An impending revolution. In L. H., meyer, S., Davidson, H., Anderson, R., Fletcher, P. M., Johnston, & M., Rees (Eds.), Tertiary assessment & higher education student outcomes: Policy, practice & research (pp. 259–275). Ako Aotearoa. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Heggart, K., Yoo, J., & Australian Catholic University. (2018). Getting the most from Google Classroom: A pedagogical framework for tertiary educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n3.9 Hong Kong Baptist University. (2020). Undergraduate Admissions 2020. http://admissions.hkbu. edu.hk/uploads/en/download/pdf/HKBU_Prospectus_INTL_2020.pdf Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399 Johanson, R. (1999). Rethinking the red ink: Audio-feedback in the ESL writing classroom. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 4(1), 31–38. Kostka, I., & Maliborska, V. (2016). Using Turnitin to provide feedback on L2 writers’ texts. TESL-EJ, 20(2), 1–22. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1113905 Lee, I. (2008a). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jslw.2007.10.001 Lee, I. (2008b). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jslw.2007.12.001 Maas, C. (2016). Receptivity to learner-driven feedback in EAP. ELT Journal, ccw065. https://doi. org/10.1093/elt/ccw065 McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.003 Murphy, E., Rodríguez-Manzanares, M.  A., & Barbour, M. (2011). Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 583–591. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­8535.2010.01112.x Pardo, A., Jovanovic, J., Dawson, S., Gašević, D., & Mirriahi, N. (2019). Using learning analytics to scale the provision of personalised feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12592 Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.993400 Shvidko, E. (2018). Writing conference feedback as moment-to-moment affiliative relationship building. Journal of Pragmatics, 127, 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.004 Silva, M.  L. (2012). Camtasia in the classroom: Student attitudes and preferences for video commentary or Microsoft Word comments during the revision process. Computers and Composition, 29(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2011.12.001 Stacey, E., & Wiesenberg, F. (2007). A study of face-to-face and online teaching philosophies in Canada and Australia. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 19–40. Strauss, S., & Xiang, X. (2006). The writing conference as a locus of emergent agency. Written Communication, 23(4), 355–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088306292286 Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B., & Giesbers, B. (2015). In search for the most informative data for feedback generation: Learning analytics in a data-rich context. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.038 Trotman, W. (2011). Action research on feedback on EAP writing: Teacher-student oral conferencing in a higher education context in Turkey. English Language Teacher Education and Development, 14, 15–23.

Personalization vs. Standardization: Digitalizing Feedback on Written Assignments…

89

Unlu, Z., & Wharton, S.  M. (2015). Exploring classroom feedback interactions around {EAP} writing: A data based model. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 24–36. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.005 Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3), 173–201. Wolsey, T. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 311–329. Yorke, M. (2002). Academic failure: A retrospective view from non-completeing students. In M.  Peelo & T.  Wareham (Eds.), Failing students in higher education. SRHE and Open University Press. Yu, L. (2020). Investigating L2 writing through tutor-tutee interactions and revisions: A case study of a multilingual writer in EAP tutorials. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, 100709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100709

Digital Divide vs. Inclusive Thinking: The Educational Television in Turkey Sezen Arslan

Abstract  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, schools closed down in many countries, and the students participate in virtual-only classes. However, as there is no equality in access to technology and connectivity among the populations, this has become a major problem for the millions, intensifying the digital divide. Thus, in order to mitigate this digital gap, many countries have taken several measures to use educational technology in different ways. Turkey is one of them and has supported distance education through the use of educational television. Therefore, this chapter explores the implementation of educational television by introducing its background, use, and contributions to foreign language instruction and contextualises it in a scholarly discussion of the digital divide and inclusive education within the local context of Turkey. Ultimately, the chapter provides recommendations for the policymakers to support inclusive education to embrace wide masses of learners.

1  Introduction Historically speaking, learning has taken place within the physical borders of the traditional classrooms in a face-to-face mode; yet thanks to technological developments, learning can occur in virtual settings through information and communication applications (Oladokun & Aina, 2011). Nevertheless, not all learners worldwide own these opportunities, and some of them thus fall behind their counterparts. This inequality has become more pronounced due to the recent outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic because lockdown has been implemented to control virus transmission and reduce human interaction. As a result, teaching practices have mostly been conducted via online platforms, and those who have no access to and/or capability of using technology are disadvantaged as they are unable to attend this process, thereby S. Arslan (*) Bandirma Onyedi Eylul University, Balıkesir, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_7

91

92

S. Arslan

causing segregation between the people and affecting societies socially. Overall, the digital divide among the learners has been exacerbated (United Nations, 2020a). This exponential growth of the digital divide is not only occurring in under-­ developed countries but also in developed and developing countries such as Turkey (Er-Koçoğlu, 2020). Turkish Statistics Agency (2019) shows that Turkish households with access to the Internet constitute 88.3 per cent of the population between the ages of 16–74, and that percentage of internet users is 75.3 on average. However, this percentage tends to decrease in some regions of Turkey (West Black Sea, East Black Sea, North East Anatolia, Central East Anatolia, and Southeast Anatolia). It implies that the digital divide still exists despite the rise in internet access. With the school closures in Turkey during the pandemic lockdown, this gap between districts becomes a primary concern. The close relationship between the digital divide and L2 learning has been explored in the extant literature. Accordingly, digital disparity negatively influences L2 achievement and performance (Neupane, 2016; Rosen & Wolf, 2011). Specifically, Yaman (2015) maintains that the digital divide should not be ignored for better L2 learning/teaching experiences because the learners who have no/limited access to the internet/computers are disadvantaged or ‘undeserved’ as Carrier (2018) calls because there are clusters of learners who cannot use information and communication technology (ICT) for effective L2 learning. Therefore, in order to mitigate the effect of school closures and compensate educational services, especially for disadvantaged groups, the Ministry of National Education (MoNe) in Turkey has implemented educational television (ETV), which is called ‘EBA TV’ (Education Information Network Television). It offers curriculum courses including foreign language for all school levels (from primary to high school) on Turkish Radio and Television Cooperation (TRT) specifically designed for educational broadcast. However, the researchers have consistently emphasised the importance of interaction for effective foreign language learning (Jang & Cheung, 2019; Hall, 2010; Kawaguchi & Ma, 2012). As such, learner-learner/instructor interaction and interactive practices have been identified as key components for L2 education, even in distance learning (Granena, 2016; Marcum & Kim, 2020). Clearly, interaction lies at the heart of foreign language learning. Despite this, due to the digital divide among the learners, EBA TV, which lacks mutual interaction, has been added into distance education during the Covid-19 pandemic in Turkey. Therefore, drawing on the extant literature, the primary purpose of this study is to dissect the EBA TV, its background, use, contributions to L2 education and to contextualise it in a discussion of the digital divide and inclusive education within the local context of Turkey. By exploring EBA TV concerning these scholarly issues and concerns, its potentials, applications, and problems can be understood throughout the chapter. This understanding will provide an underpinning to inform the practitioners and policymakers for their decisions on inclusive education practices.

Digital Divide vs. Inclusive Thinking: The Educational Television in Turkey

93

2  Digital Divide In the late 1990s, the term digital divide began to be emphasised in the United States, then spread to the whole world and quickly drew the attention of policymakers, computer professionals, and researchers (van Dijk, 2005). Until that time, general terms such as information equality, information gap, or media literacy were used for explaining the digital divide (van Dijk, 2006). In parallel with this thinking, Warschauer (2003) believes that the term is confusing, but it simply means “the division between the haves and have-nots, the connected and the disconnected” (p.297). Although Rooksby, Weckert, and Lucas (Rooksby et al., 2002) advocate that the digital divide happens in society if some members of that society do not have access to ICT, Norris (2001) thinks this term is multidimensional and should be considered from a broader perspective: Accordingly, three aspects have a considerable impact on the digital divide, which can be summarised as follows: The global divide among countries  While some rich countries can make investments in digital technologies, thereby offering opportunities to their citizens to take part in the digital world with a fast speed, wireless technology, and ideal bandwidth, the poorer countries lack the resources and infrastructures to catch up with the ICT developments. Thus, global disparities can be observed in the access to and use of Internet and communication technologies. Social stratification within countries  As the digital divide can exist among countries, it can also be within the borders of any country. For instance, when the urban areas are equipped with technological affordances such as computer ownership and access to the Internet, the rural areas can be excluded from those opportunities. Therefore, the governments try to tackle this disparity by establishing learning centres where learners from rural areas can access the Internet and information technologies or plan to distribute computers in poor neighbourhoods. The democratic divide  The digital division has a significant impact on the political engagement of the society because the advantaged group can be informed about the world faster and show their reactions quickly. It can be concluded from Norris’ (2001) understanding that the digital divide is an umbrella term that could be explained by international, national, and political aspects. In other words, it cannot simply be dictated by the gap between access to and exclusion from the ICT technologies. This line of thinking also informs the framework developed by Hohlfeld et  al. (2008). According to them, the digital divide is not only concerned with access to the technologies; it is also related to the frequency of use of those technologies by the learners/teachers and empowerment of the learners to improve their technological skills. It is complicated to define the term of the digital divide, but, at the same time, it is challenging to close this disparity as well (Eynon, 2009). Nevertheless, several suggestions are made to diminish the gap. For example, funding for even

94

S. Arslan

distribution of digital sources for the students (Rowsell et  al., 2017) can be an option. Additionally, setting a technology standard for the curriculum may be effective; thus, all students are supposed to reach a certain level of attainment in technological skills, which will urge teachers and education professionals to incorporate technology in the school for accomplishing curriculum goals (Swain & Pearson, 2002). This may enhance the students’ exposure to the technology. On the other hand, the meaning that is attached to technology in education should be understood thoroughly. Therefore, Yıldız and Vural (2020) explain that the use of technology in education should not be an end in itself but an instrument that supports learning. They maintain that if technology becomes the monopoly of education, thereby equating learning with technology use, this will end up with the marketisation of education. This will probably widen the digital divide by creating educational stratifications.

3  Inclusive Education The term inclusive education started to be used in the late 1990s in order to refer to a learning environment provided to school children with special needs (Lo, 2007). Although it was closely associated with the special education of the children at those times, the meaning attached to this term has changed over time and become more comprehensive. It has evolved into describing an inclusive learning setting for all children with varying physical, cognitive, and social backgrounds (Qvortrup & Qvortrup, 2018) and addressed several problems, including poverty and social disadvantage (Terzi, 2014). Thus, it has been substantially emphasised in the international agenda (Norwich, 2014). More importantly, inclusive education is a legal right and stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as follows (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, n.d.): “Everyone has the right to education…Education should be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms…” (Article 26). Therefore, it is worth mentioning that inclusive education is granted, regulated, and protected universally. It is also one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) declared by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2017). Accordingly, SDG 4 (Quality Education) aims to tackle disparities in education and calls on international authorities to make investments and establish partnerships to accomplish this goal. Equitable education is the panacea for child labour, poverty, and social deprivation (EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2010). Thus, it is of utmost importance to ensure equity in education for all individuals. To consider inclusive education more thoroughly and facilitate its implementation, Ramberg and Watkins (2020) introduce three dimensions for defining the levels. Accordingly, the macro-level of inclusive education refers to the educational system within a country. In contrast, the meso-level is primarily concerned with the schools’ affordances for inclusive education with the help of the active participation

Digital Divide vs. Inclusive Thinking: The Educational Television in Turkey

95

of the parents and administrative support. The third level, micro-level, is linked to classroom procedures, including teaching practices, implementations, and teacher attitudes. It is, therefore, relevant to note here that inclusive education is multidimensional, thereby operating the national and local settings.

4  E  xploring the Digital Divide in Turkey and Its Implications for Foreign Language Learning Turkey stepped up the ICT developments at the beginning of the 2000s and, accordingly, reached up to 4.5 million internet users in 2002 (Akca et al., 2007). In the following years, to realise the transformation of Turkey into an information society, several initiatives have immediately been made. For example, the e-transformation project, e-government applications, internet cafes, and houses are among these initiatives that offer Turkish citizens an opportunity to experience the Internet for the first time in their lives (Karakaya-Polat, 2012). These initiatives can be handled within the national endeavours to lessen the social stratification (Norris, 2001). After these steps were taken for the public concerning developing ICT knowledge and experience, some other developments have been made for the educational field. For example, in 2010, a project entitled ‘Movement of Enhancing Opportunities and Improving Technology’ (FATİH) was established (Isci & Demir, 2015). The project aimed to equip the schools with the latest technological hardware/software, network infrastructure, and internet access, thereby improving the technology in the schools (Ministry of National Education, n.d.). In addition to that, as from 2009, the Turkish Ministry of National Education built nearly 2000 Public Internet Access Points for enabling access to the Internet and developing ICT skills because it was estimated that the number of students per computer was 30.8 in primary schools (Tisoglu et al., 2020). It can thus be argued that Turkey’s national efforts to provide inclusive education are at the macro-level (Ramberg & Watkins, 2020) as there is a governmental endeavour to enable equality of opportunity and ensure that all stakeholders can benefit from the technology across the whole country. These efforts, fortunately, have brought out success to prevent social stratification to an extent given that the internet usage of the Turkish people was 75.3 for the individuals aged 16–74 and 88.3% of the households had internet access (Turkish Statistics Agency, 2019). Despite this, Turkey’s internet use significantly varies according to the regions of the country, which is illustrated in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, the percentage of daily internet users ranges between 45 and 82 for individuals aged 16–74. The data illustrate a higher development in the west, whereas the eastern parts fall behind by showing an uneven distribution across the country. These data are echoed in the findings of the study by Fidan and Şen (2015), who claim that the digital divide exists among the rural and urban regions in Turkey concerning the use of the Internet. Therefore, Koramaz et al. (2019) call it the ‘mono-centric development pattern of Turkey’ as there is a tendency to use the

96

S. Arslan

Table 1  Turkey’s internet use across regions (Eurostat, 2019) Regions Istanbul West Anatolia East Marmara Aegean Middle Anatolia Mediterranean West Marmara West Black Sea East Black Sea Middle-East Anatolia North-East Anatolia South-East Anatolia

Daily internet users (%) 82 76 70 69 68 65 64 61 57 52 50 45

Internet in the most populated and in-migrated regions. Along similar lines, in the study by Arıcıgil-Çilan (2019), it is also pointed out that internet usage in Turkey differs significantly across age, gender, and education level apart from the regional differences. This finding corroborates the idea that the digital divide does not only stem from limited/no access to the Internet/computer; it is also strongly connected with the development of Internet skills (Özsoy & Muschert, 2020). Thus, improving the students’ technological skills is important to help eliminate the digital divide (Hohlfeld et al., 2008). The disparities documented among the regions in terms of access to the Internet in Turkey are disconcerting. This has inevitably affected L2 development. Kızılet and Ozmen (2017) conducted a study with 1600 English learners from all regions of Turkey. The findings showed that the students who had the Internet at home were more competent in using ICT tools for learning. Moreover, in Aydın’s study (Aydın, 2007), more than half of the participants, who were English learners, reported that they had no computers; thus, they had to use internet cafes to connect to the Internet. Therefore, he specifically indicated that inaccessibility would create instructional barriers to L2 development. Clearly, endeavours should aim to disseminate ICT opportunities and make the best use of them for L2 teaching/learning. This could be realisable through eradicating social stratification within the country (Norris, 2001).

5  G  lobal Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on Education Concerning Digital Divide and Inclusive Education Digital technologies are useful for increasing learning opportunities, flexibility, engagement, and personalisation. This will help, undoubtedly, the students who have fallen behind in school to compensate or supplement learning. Paradoxically,

Digital Divide vs. Inclusive Thinking: The Educational Television in Turkey

97

although digital technologies fuel growth for learning in many ways, students can be vulnerable if they do not have them. Thus, the students with no/limited access to the Internet and suitable software may be disadvantaged. This marginalisation has been substantially highlighted with the COVID-19 outbreak. The UNESCO’s April 2020 statistics show that nearly 1.5 billion learners are affected with 172 country-­ wide closures, which corresponds to 84.3% of total enrolled learners due to the pandemic (UNESCO, 2020). The schools are closed down nearly all around the world, which has forced teachers and students to conduct teaching through remote applications. For this reason, access to digital technologies has become crucial more than ever during this time. Considering that only roughly 50% of the world population uses the Internet (The World Bank, 2019), it can be well-argued that the digital divide is intensified and that not all learners have an equal chance to maintain their learning with this sudden shift to remote learning settings. This brings to the fore the issue of inclusive education, exacerbated by the inequalities of connectivity and lack of software.

5.1  E  ducational Implementations in Turkey During the Covid-19 Pandemic 5.1.1  Educational Portal Due to the Covid-19 outbreak, the schools (from primary to high school) shut across Turkey on March 16, 2020; thus, distance education started 1 week later, on March 23, 2020 (Ministry of National Education, 2020). Considering the compulsory education of 12 years from primary to high school with roughly 16.6 million students in Turkey, there appears an urgent need for continuous education and learning. Therefore, it can be asserted that organising and starting distance education right after the school closures was accurate and well-timed. Turkey conducted distance education through two channels: Educational portal (EBA) and educational television (ETV) during the Coronavirus outbreak. EBA, developed in 2012, is the educational portal of the Turkish Ministry of National Education, which aims to provide digital instructional resources for teachers, students, parents, and other stakeholders (TRT News, 2015). Within EBA, there are six portals, including language education, cybersecurity, pre-school education, primary school education, high school, and religion education. Each portal involves instructional games, videos, digital copies of textbooks, and supplementary learning resources. Apart from offering recorded courses, the EBA portal can allow teachers to host synchronous classes. Parents can also log in to the system to keep track of the students’ progress and find out the students’ scores on the assignments and tests (TRT EBA TV, 2020). Additionally, MoNe partnered with the GSM operators to provide cost-free GBs to facilitate the students’ access to this EBA portal (Özer, 2020). In the same line of

98

S. Arslan

thinking, MoNe also announced that 1420 free-WIFI EBA hotspots were established across Turkey to support the students who do not have connectivity at home to get access to the EBA portal. 5.1.2  Educational Television Fisch (2004) claims that ETV can support formal education in the following ways: • introducing the academic topics, the learners may not have the opportunity to expose to, • providing additional time to practice the school subjects, • developing positive attitudes towards academic subjects, • motivating the learners to take part in learning in and out of school. In the same line, MoNE immediately implemented ETV, which is called EBA TV, in March 2020 and established three channels (one channel for each grade; primary, secondary, and high school) with the partnership of TRT channel for broadcasting the courses during the pandemic. Students can follow the broadcast program on EBA TV and find out the course schedule; therefore, they are not expected to be on the screen all day. The courses were recorded by 674 teachers from 93 different fields beforehand (Akbulut et  al., 2020). Additionally, the replays of the courses spread out all day for the students to watch them later when they like to make revisions. This will also be helpful for those who have siblings in different grades but only one TV at home, thus solving overlapping classes (EBA TV, n.d.). EBA TV airs 1 hour a day of two courses for primary and secondary schools (for courses: Turkish, Maths, Life Science, English, Science, Social Science, Religion and Ethics, and Arabic) and 1-hour and 30-minute of three courses a day for high schools (for courses: Turkish language and literature, Math, Biology, Physics, Geography, Philosophy, English, and History) (Eren, 2020). Accordingly, in a typical social studies course, key terms and explanations concerning the topic are made with the help of slides, pictures, maps, and animations; however, as the TV does not offer an interactive implementation of the courses, the students cannot participate actively (EBA TV, n.d.). Educational Television for Foreign Language Learning in Turkey After the start of the first TV broadcast in 1968 in Turkey, a Turkish state university (Anadolu University) established Open Education Faculty in 1982 and started to broadcast classes in the fields of Economics and Business Administration on the national state TV channel (Grammes, 2020; Open Education Faculty, n.d.). This national TV started to air English courses in corporation with the Open Education Faculty in the following years. Therefore, it can be stated that the use of ETV has a history of more than 30 years in Turkey.

Digital Divide vs. Inclusive Thinking: The Educational Television in Turkey

99

English is the only compulsory foreign language that all students need to study from primary (2nd grade) to high school level (12th grade) in Turkey (Kirkgoz, 2007). This shows the value placed on English language learning. Therefore, in order to compensate for the pandemic disruptions to foreign language education, ETV is used apart from the EBA platform. The weekly schedule for EBA TV is illustrated for all grades in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, English courses on EBA TV are offered for all levels except for 2nd grade for primary level. Each course broadcast has the presence of a Turkish English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher. The course content is mostly reflected on a smartboard. In all TV content of English courses, the medium of instruction is English. Since the main need of the television program is to be appealing to children (Fisch, 2004), puppets, toys, games, and animations are used for primary level students. However, fill-in-the-blanks type activities, matching, and multiple-choice questions are added in the secondary and high school levels to prepare the students for centralised tests as they include this sort of item. Apart from the written materials reflected on the smartboard, listening texts and videos are also incorporated into the content of some English courses on EBA TV. Grammes (2020) thinks that EBA TV makes good use of visuals while presenting the courses; however, Özkanal et al. (2020) pointed out that EFL materials in EBA lessons need to be more colourful and engaging. Furthermore, the use of English as a medium of instruction is indicated as an obstacle to understanding the subject matter in some studies (Sönmez et al., 2020; Yurtbakan & Akyıldız, 2020). Despite these studies, little literature is available regarding the use of EBA TV for English courses to promote language learning. Therefore, further research is needed to shed light on this occurrence, particularly by focusing on the activities, materials, course content, and medium of instruction. Table 2  Weekly contact hours on EBA TV (November 23, 2020-Nov. 28, 2020) Level Primary level

Grade 2nd grade 3rd grade 4th grade Secondary level 5th grade 6th grade 7th grade 8th grade High school 9th grade level 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade

Contact hour per week for an English course –

Course hours per week for all classes 10

1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1

10 10 10 10 10 10 11 12

1

12

1

11

100

S. Arslan

The Place of Educational Television in Mitigating the Digital Divide and Enabling Inclusive Foreign Language Education In the late 1940s, television began to penetrate the homes, and following the 1960s, it started to be used for educational purposes, thereby giving birth to ETV. However, with the technological developments during the 1990s, the traditional role of television shifted towards incorporating interaction; therefore, ETV encouraged the viewers to use phones, fax machines, and computers for an interactive environment (Omar, 2001). Language teaching through television is not a recent initiative that has only emerged due to the pandemic. It has already been used for teaching foreign languages. Particularly, the 1960s received serious attention to the use of television for L2 purposes (Umino, 2002). Additionally, the positive contribution of the ETV to L2 development is also illustrated in the extant literature (Kim, 2015; Perry & Moses, 2011; Uchikoshi, 2006). In his study, Kim (2015) investigated the effectiveness of a satellite ETV program in Ethiopia, and the findings pointed out that the program was found to help improve the English skills by some of the participant students. Additionally, Perry and Moses (Perry & Moses, 2011) demonstrated that ETV plays a significant role in Sudanese families learning English vocabulary and pronunciation. Similarly, Uchikoshi (2006) analysed the vocabulary development of Spanish-English bilingual kindergarten students and pointed out that the students who watched the ETV programs at home empowered their vocabulary. It has been noted that learners’ L2 development is positively influenced by ETVs. For this reason, in developing countries with infrastructure problems, ETVs can still play a key role in the instructional medium (Kim, 2015). Considering the regional digital disparities that still exist in Turkey, ETV can be identified as a useful educational setting. Compared to the internet users, World Bank’s report in 2007 revealed that 98 per cent of the Turkish households had a TV (Trading Economics, n.d.). This shows that TV has become commonplace in houses. Although people may have difficulty in access to the Internet, TV penetration is rather higher. Therefore, implementing ETV may promote learning opportunities for those with no/limited connectivity to the technology during the pandemic, aiming to reach everyone in the country. However, there is an intimate relationship between this digital divide and inclusive thinking practices like EBA TV, facing a chicken-and-egg situation. The inequalities regarding the access to and use of technology have led to the creation of EBA TV in the early days of the pandemic in Turkey. Thus, accepting the reality of this digital gap between the learners, an inclusive instructional implementation has occurred. This implies that EBA TV is a means of alleviating the impact of the digital divide in language learning. Nevertheless, the reality does not change; it is still there. This is why this perspective is akin to approving challenges and the emotional, cognitive and financial difficulties that are related to this situation. However, the second perspective might be accepting EBA TV as an end itself. In other words, the objective is to establish instructional TV broadcasts, which is regardless of the pandemic. ETV programs

Digital Divide vs. Inclusive Thinking: The Educational Television in Turkey

101

still may continue even after the pandemic ends and become supplementary to formal education. This perspective is independent of whether or not to acknowledge the existence of the pandemic which resurfaced the digital divide. Rather, it accepts ETV as an out-of-school experience since it cannot be replaced with formal education (Fisch, 2004). Overall, although ETV can reach a much larger public, it would be mistaken to advocate that ETV is sufficient to mitigate the digital disparities in a country. Within the context of teaching L2, it may be a useful setting for practising and learning a foreign language. However, at the end of the day, it is a low-tech solution (United Nations, 2020b) which can be mainly used for one-way communication. As a result, the interactive aspect of language learning/teaching will be ignored, and the ETV users will not have the same opportunities that the ICT offers to develop language skills such as receiving feedback, asking questions, and active listening.

6  Conclusion and Recommendations This chapter set out to explore the ETV in Turkey during the Covid-19 pandemic. By drawing on the mutual relationship between the digital divide and inclusion, ETV implementation to promote distance learning is introduced. In this section, recommendations are provided concerning the ETV implementation to promote inclusive education within the context of Turkey. In doing this, three dimensions (macro-level, meso-level, and micro-level) offered by Ramberg and Watkins (2020) are considered.

6.1  Macro-Level Dimension The Covid-19 pandemic shows that distance education should be prioritised within the scope of the emergency plans considering natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and pandemics. However, this also offers great opportunities to explore and understand the possibilities of distance education (Telli-Yamamoto & Altun, 2020). As a response to the pandemic concerning distance education, Turkey uses the EBA portal as a main educational setting and EBA TV for those with no/ limited connectivity and inability to use digital technology. Although some may argue that TV is antithetical to learning, EBA TV implementation is indeed inventive to support inclusive education. Also, it may imply that technology is not the monopoly of effective instructional practices (Yıldız & Vural, 2020) because Turkish MoNE aims to reach all learners through a different medium apart from digital platforms. Despite this, it is not sufficient to completely eradicate the digital divide by using such a low-tech implementation. Therefore, television can be an alternative but not as efficient as the ICT technologies because it lacks in providing

102

S. Arslan

an interactive environment, which is the key component of foreign language learning. For this reason, depending on the circumstances, the overall policy should focus on the expansion and use of ICT to promote social inclusion (Warschauer, 2003). This can be a long-term plan; therefore, we should think about how we can make the best use of the broadcasting channels already used for education during such an urgent crisis of pandemics. Thus, maximising the pedagogical affordances of ETVs should be prioritised. It would be essential to exploit the leveraging potentials that ETVs own to promote a broader educational inclusion in language instruction. For example, Teletext can be used as a resource where the topic can be introduced, and further practice can be made. It has a potential curricular application in social studies, including language teaching (Smith 1978 as cited in Anderson, 1980). Through Teletext, the information pages can be transmitted by a televised medium, and they demonstrate text and graphics, which allows the viewer to see, navigate, and select the pages s/he likes (Ranga & Koul, 2017). Thus, everyone with a TV has also access to Teletext. In Turkey, Teletext is available on the national channel, TRT (See Fig. 1). Teletext may seem old-fashioned, but it is still alive and used to disseminate news and information (Brautovic & Perisin, 2016). Although there are limitations of it due to its lacking of providing rich visual content (Nyre, 2016), by creating the relevant pages for English language instruction, Teletext service in the Turkish national channel still may support the learners to study and practice the language. For instance, some language questions may be displayed on the screen, and the learner may press the button on the remote control to find out the answers, which

Fig. 1  The first page of the Turkish Teletext on TRT. (Taken from the TV page. December 4, 2020)

Digital Divide vs. Inclusive Thinking: The Educational Television in Turkey

103

may give the learner more engagement (Duby, 1988). These questions can be in the form of gap-filling, true-false, multiple-choice, and cloze items, which could be mainly used for practising grammar and vocabulary. Also, new vocabulary may be introduced through embedded texts and visual graphics. Given that Teletext pages can be regularly updated, it could thus be useful for exposing learners to new activities. As such, Teletext magazines, including the content of interest to the language learners (e.g., movies, theatre), can be developed (Tidhar & Ostrowitz-Segala, 1985) to encourage reading in English. It is also worth mentioning that there can be differences in media use among different groups of the population; for this reason, Teletext can help spread information to these people and thus should not be ignored (Moe, 2016). This could be extended into language education for the masses during emergencies such as a pandemic. Although it is a low-­ tech application, it can be still brought to the fore as a quick-fix solution during emergency teaching by the Turkish educational authorities.

6.2  Meso-Level Dimension At the meso-level, the related literature shows that there is little endeavour exerted by the schools to benefit the most from the EBA TV in Turkey. As the school administrations may know the regional/local needs of the students, teachers, and parents, schools should play an active role in enabling inclusive education. Thus, the schools should have the responsibility to organise and run a variety of inclusive practices. For example, considering that EBA TV English courses have a maximum of 1 or 2 contact hours per week and could be a supplementary aid to formal education, the language textbooks in use may not be sufficient because formal education tightly structures them. Contrary to formal curriculum language courses, EBA TV English courses have fewer contact hours. Thus, local language teachers can prepare and publish worksheets by paying attention to their learners’ interests and proficiency levels, and the schools can disseminate these worksheets to the students. Apart from worksheets, publishing and disseminating self-study materials by the schools for learners would also be helpful. Thanks to the self-study materials, the learners can find relevant, informative explanations with enriched content such as visuals and highlighted notes concerning the topic and self-evaluate themselves. This would help enhance learner engagement and test the level of understanding of the offered content. In addition, the schools can disseminate learning support manuals for parents as well. Turkish Directorate of Family and Social Research (2011) carried out a study with Turkish families and pointed out that nearly 15 per cent of them were higher education graduates whereas roughly 50 per cent were primary school and 24 per cent were high school graduates; thereby indicating a need for guiding parents. For

104

S. Arslan

this reason, during distance learning, where the learners are mostly left to ETV, providing support to parents about how they could help their children in their learning process is of paramount importance to improve their academic outcomes. In this way, families can be aware of their responsibilities when the children watch ETV to study English. The learning support manuals can include: • Co-viewing ETV programs (Watching together with children) (Uhls & Robb, 2017): Even though the parents do not know English, co-viewing ETV may facilitate the learning process thanks to the affective support. • Checking the daily schedule of EBA TV: Since the broadcast program of EBA TV is announced publicly, the parents should check the program and know the exact hours of English lessons/replays to facilitate the student’s presence in the EBA TV lesson. • Evaluating the EBA TV course: After each broadcast of an English lesson, the parents can make a KWL chart and evaluate together what the student has already known about the course (K), what s/wants to learn (W) about the course, and what s/he has just learned (L). In this way, a quick evaluation can be made about the lesson of the day. In case of any misconception, misunderstanding, or confusion, direct contact should be established with the language teacher. Thus, schools may play a key role in implementing inclusive education for those with only ETV for learning, thereby promoting parental involvement and teacher preparedness.

6.3  Micro-Level Dimension Micro-level attributes are in a close relationship with teachers’ positive attitudes towards introducing and disseminating inclusive practices (Ramberg & Watkins, 2020). For instance, the learners and parents may need to be scaffolded by the language teachers during distance learning because they may need to ask questions regarding course content on EBA TV, receive feedback and get assistance for completing the language assignments. Therefore, the language teachers should communicate with the parents/students by showing interest, trust, understanding, and commitment. Communication can be established with the help of cell phones and text messages, considering the high number of cell phone users (95%) in Turkey (Turkish Statistics Agency, 2020). For this reason, a personal contact program (Rumble & Koul, 2007) can be launched to facilitate interaction between students/ parents and language teachers.

Digital Divide vs. Inclusive Thinking: The Educational Television in Turkey

105

References Akbulut, M., Şahin, U., & Esen, A. C. (2020). More than a virus: How COVID-19 infected education in Turkey. Journal of Social Science Education, 19, 30–42. Akca, H., Sayili, M., & Esengun, K. (2007). Challenge of rural people to reduce digital divide in the globalised world: Theory and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 404–413. Anderson, J. S. A. (1980). Exploring teletext as a resource. Innovations in education & training International, 17(1), 27–35. Arıcıgil-Çilan, Ç. (2019). Measuring digital divide by using confirmatory factor analysis and MANOVA: A case of Turkey. The Journal of Operations Research, Statistics, Econometrics and Management Information Systems, 7(1), 1–12. Aydın, S. (2007). Attitudes of EFL learners towards the Internet. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 6(3). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED500059.pdf Brautovic, M., & Perisin, T. (2016). Teletext as a new media promoter in Croatia. In H.  Moe & H. V. Bulck (Eds.), Teletext in Europe: From the analog to the digital era (pp. 187–204). Nordicom. Carrier, M. (2018). English for the underserved: Closing the digital divide. Training, Language and Culture, 2(4), 9–25. Duby, A. (1988). A distance education medium. Educational Technology, 28(4), 54–57. EBA TV. (n.d.). EBA TV ders yayini nasil olacak? [What will EBA TV broadcasts be like?]. http:// www.eba.gov.tr/nasil-tv.html EFA Global Monitoring Report. (2010). Reaching the marginalised. UNESCO Publishing. https:// en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2010/reaching-marginalized Er-Koçoğlu, N. (2020). The big obstacle/barrier to access information in the COVID-19 pandemic: Digital divide. Turk Kutuphaneciligi, 34(3), 373–376. Eren, E. (2020). The impact of the new Coronavirus on the Turkish education policy practices: New regulations of the Ministry of National Education and the Council of Higher Education. Journal Higher Education, 10(2), 153–162. Eurostat. (2019). Daily internet users during the three months preceding the survey. https:// ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistical-atlas/gis/viewer/?mids=BKGCNT,C09M01,CNTOVL&o=1, 1,0.7&ch=C04,C09¢er=39.5508,37.95214,4&lcis=C09M01&nutsId=TRC& Eynon, R. (2009). Mapping the digital divide in Britain: Implications for learning and education. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(4), 277–290. Fidan, H., & Şen, H. (2015). Gini approach to measuring digital divide: Digital divide levels in terms of urban, rural and gender in Turkey. The Journal of International Social Research, 39(8), 1108–1118. Fisch, S. M. (2004). Children’s learning from educational television: Sesame street and beyond. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grammes, T. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic, emergency remote teaching and social science education. Journal of Social Science Education, 19, 1–7. Granena, G. (2016). Individual versus interactive task-based performance through voice-based computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 40–59. Hall, J.  K. (2010). Interaction as method and result of language learning. Language Teaching, 43(2), 202–215. Hohlfeld, T., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51, 1648–1663. Isci, T. G., & Demir, S. B. (2015). The use of tablets distributed within the scope of FATIH project for education in Turkey (Is FATIH project a fiasco or a technological revolution?). Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(7), 442–450. Jang, H., & Cheung, Y.  L. (2019). Impacts of dyadic interaction on second language writing: A study with eight bilingual primary school students in Singapore. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years of Education, 48(5), 527–540.

106

S. Arslan

Karakaya-Polat, R. (2012). Digital exclusion in Turkey: A policy perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 589–596. Kawaguchi, S., & Ma, Y. (2012). Corrective feedback, negotiation of meaning and grammar development: Learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction in ESL. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2(2), 57–70. Kim, S. W. (2015). Effectiveness of a satellite educational television program for Ethiopian secondary education. Distance Education, 36(3), 419–436. Kirkgoz, Y. (2007). English language teaching in Turkey: Policy changes and their implementations. RELC Journal, 38(2), 216–228. Kızılet, E., & Ozmen, K. S. (2017). Evaluation of a nationwide ICT reform movement in Turkey: Insights from the FATIH project. Journal on School Educational Technology, 13(1), 33–48. Koramaz, T.  K., Nasrollahzade, S., & Ozdemir, Z. (2019). Spatial pattern of digital divide in Turkey. Paper presented at REAL CORP 2019, Karlsruhe. https://conference.corp.at/archive/ CORP2019_113.pdf Lo, L. N.-K. (2007). The sustainable development of inclusive education. Chinese Education & Society, 40(4), 44–62. Marcum, J., & Kim, Y. (2020). Oral language proficiency in distance English-language learning. CALICO Journal, 37(2), 148–168. Ministry of National Education. (n.d.). Fatih project. http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/about.html Ministry of National Education. (2020). Uzaktan eğitimle ilgili süreç hafta içi simülasyonlarla anlatilacak [Information about the distance education process]. https://www.meb.gov.tr/ uzaktan-egitimle-ilgili-surec-hafta-ici-simulasyonlarla-anlatilacak/haber/20513/tr Moe, H. (2016). Freedom of information and divides in the digital age: Teletext and internet use in Norway. In Teletext in Europe: From the analog to the digital era (pp. 167–185). Nordicom. Neupane, B. (2016). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions on digital divide in English language learning (Master’s thesis). Tribhuvan University. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press. Norwich, B. (2014). Recognising value tensions that underlie problems in inclusive education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 495–510. Nyre, L. (2016). What is teletext? A phenomenological description. In H.  Moe & H.  V. Bulck (Eds.), Teletext in Europe: From the analog to the digital era (pp. 51–66) Nordicom. Oladokun, O., & Aina, L. (2011). ODL and the impact of digital divide on information access in Botswana. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6), 157–177. Omar, S. H. (2001). An exploration of the use of the learning channel biology programmes by grade 12 educators and learners in public schools in an urban area of Kwazulu-Natal (Master’s thesis). University of Durban-Westville. Open Education Faculty. (n.d.). General information. https://www.anadolu.edu.tr/en/academics/ faculties/2/open-education-faculty/general-info Özer, M. (2020). Educational policy actions by the Ministry of National Education in the times of COVID-19. Kastamonu Education Journal, 28(3), 1124–1129. Özkanal, Ü., Yüksel, İ., & Başaran-Uysal, B. Ç. (2020). The pre-service teachers’ reflection-on-­ action during distance practicum: A critical view on EBA TV English courses. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 8(4), 1347–1364. Özsoy, D., & Muschert, G. (2020). A comparison of high-skill and low-skill internet users in Northeast Anatolia, Turkey. In M. Ragnedda & A. Gladkova (Eds.), Digital inequalities in the global south (pp. 177–195). Palgrave Macmillan. Perry, K.  H., & Moses, A.  N. (2011). Television, language, and literacy practices in Sudanese refugee families: “I learned how to spell English on Channel 18”. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(3), 278–307. Qvortrup, A., & Qvortrup, L. (2018). Inclusion: Dimensions of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(7), 803–817.

Digital Divide vs. Inclusive Thinking: The Educational Television in Turkey

107

Ramberg, J., & Watkins, A. (2020). Exploring inclusive education across Europe: Some insights from the European Agency Statistics on inclusive education. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 6(1), 85–101. Ranga, V., & Koul, B.  N. (2017). Television and video components. http://egyankosh.ac.in// handle/123456789/8362 Rooksby, E., Weckert, J., & Lucas, R. (2002). The rural digital divide. Rural Society, 12(3), 197–210. Rosen, Y., & Wolf, I. (2011). Bridging the social gap through educational technology. Educational Technology, 51(5), 39–43. Rowsell, J., Morrell, E., & Alvermann, D. E. (2017). Confronting the digital divide: Debunking brave new world discourses. The Reading Teacher, 71(2), 157–165. Rumble, G., & Koul, B. N. (2007). Open schooling for secondary & higher secondary education: Costs and effectiveness in India and Namibia. Commonwealth of Learning. http://oasis.col. org/handle/11599/228 Sönmez, M., Yıldırım, K., & Çetinkaya, F. Ç. (2020). Evaluation of distance education process due to new type of Coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) pandemic with the opinions of elementary school classroom teachers. Turkish Studies, 15(6), 855–875. Swain, C., & Pearson, T. (2002). Educators and technology standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 326–335. Telli-Yamamoto, G., & Altun, D. (2020). The Coronavirus and the rising of online education. Journal of University Research, 3(1), 25–34. Terzi, L. (2014). Reframing inclusive education: Educational equality as capability equality. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 479–493. The World Bank. (2019). Individuals using the Internet (% of population). https://data.worldbank. org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS?end=2019&start=1990&view=chart Tidhar, C. E., & Ostrowitz-Segala, L. (1985). Teletext in Israel: A new instructional tool. Journal of Educational Television, 11(3), 161–169. Tisoglu, S., Kursun, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2020). Open educational resources in Turkey. In R. Huang, D. Liu, A. Tlili, Y. Gao, & R. Koper (Eds.), Current state of open educational resources in the “belt and road” countries. Lecture notes in educational technology (pp. 213–235). Springer. Trading Economics. (n.d.). Turkey  – households with television. https://tradingeconomics.com/ turkey/households-with-television-percent-wb-data.html TRT EBA TV. (2020). Schedule. http://www.eba.gov.tr/#/anasayfa TRT News. (2015). MEB’in ‘EBA’ eğitim programı tanitildi [EBA education program was introduced]. https://www.trthaber.com/haber/egitim/mebin-eba-egitim-programi-tanitildi-207621. html. Accessed 1 Dec 2020. Turkey Statistical Agency (TUIK). (2019). Household use of information technologies. https:// data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Survey-on-Information-and-Communication-Technology(ICT)-Usage-in-Households-and-by-Individuals-2019-30574 Turkey Statistical Agency (TUIK). (2020). Household use of information technologies. https:// data.tuik.gov.tr/Search/Search?text=cep%20telefonu Turkish Directorate of Family and Social Research. (2011). Türkiye’de ailelerin eğitim ihtiyaçları [Educational needs of the Turkish families]. https://www.ailevecalisma.gov.tr/uploads/athgm/ uploads/pages/arastirmalar/turkiye-de-ailelerin-egitim-ihtiyaclari.pdf Uchikoshi, Y. (2006). English vocabulary development in bilingual kindergarteners: What are the best predictors? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 33–49. Uhls, Y.  T., & Robb, M.  B. (2017). Chapter 16  – How parents mediate children’s media consumption. In F. C. Blumberg & P. J. Brooks (Eds.), Cognitive development in digital contexts (pp. 325–343). Academic. Umino, T. (2002). Foreign language learning with self-instructional television materials: An exploratory study (Doctoral Dissertation). University of London, the UK. UNESCO. (2020). Education: From disruption to recovery. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/ educationresponse.

108

S. Arslan

United Nations. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444?utm_sq=gj34xbfn94 United Nations. (2020a). Education in a post-COVID world: Nine ideas for public action. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373717/PDF/373717eng.pdf.multi United Nations. (2020b). Frontier technology issues: Can digital technologies put us back on the path to achieve the SDGs? https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/frontiertechnology-issues-can-digital-technologies-put-us-back-on-the-path-to-achieve-the-sdgs/ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (n.d.). https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/ UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Sage Publications. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34, 221–235. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press. Yaman, İ. (2015). Digital divide within the context of language and foreign language teaching. Paper presented at International Educational Technology Conference (pp.  766–771). https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.538. Yıldız, A., & Vural, R. A. (2020). Covid-19 pandemisi ve derinleşen eğitim eşitsizlikleri [Covid-19 pandemic and the deepening digital divide]. Türk Tabibleri Birligi Covid-19 Pandemisi Degerlendirme Raporu (pp.  556–565). https://www.ttb.org.tr/kutuphane/covid19-rapor_6/ covid19-rapor_6_Part64.pdf Yurtbakan, E., & Akyıldız, S. (2020). Primary school teachers, primary school students and parents’ views on distance education activities implemented during the Covid-19 isolation period. Turkish Studies, 15(6), 949–977.

Reconceptualising Teacher Education Courses for Online Teaching: The Experiences of Two Teacher Educators Benjamin L. Moorhouse and Kevin M. Wong

Abstract  Universities around the world have suspended in-person teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic with lecturers required to teach their courses exclusively online. Although this situation is potentially challenging for lecturers of any discipline, for teacher educators, there is the added demand of needing to prepare students with the skills to teach in-person through on-line only modes. The chapter presents the experiences of two teacher educators, one in Hong Kong, engaged in English language teacher education, and one in the New York, engaged in general teacher education, as they adapted their courses to the new mode. It explores the challenges they faced as they themselves reconceptualised their practices for online modes of teaching, while presenting pedagogical solutions to the identified challenges. It ends with lessons learned and considerations for teacher education beyond the pandemic.

1  Introduction Clearly, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on universities around the world has been profound. In many contexts, in-person (face-to-face) classes were suspended with teachers required to find ways to help their students continue learning and, therefore, complete their programmes remotely. While the situation is potentially challenging for university teachers of any discipline, professional disciplines such as teacher education are particularly affected as they need to help their students develop the skills and knowledge for the profession through online only modes (Cutri et al., 2020). B. L. Moorhouse (*) Department of Educational Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong SAR, China e-mail: [email protected] K. M. Wong Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, CA, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_8

109

110

B. L. Moorhouse and K. M. Wong

In ‘traditional’ in-person teacher education, most programmes involve a combination of subject knowledge, educational psychology, sociology, and pedagogical skills courses with professional teaching practicums conducted in relevant contexts. These experiences are designed to help graduates leave teacher education with the skills and knowledge needed for the profession, such as facilitating learning, building rapport, managing diverse groups of learners, and communicating with various stakeholders (du Plessis et al., 2020). Emphasis is often placed on the relational and contextual aspects of teaching to ensure graduates are ‘work-place ready’ (Clark & Newberry, 2019). Teacher educators use a variety of methods to help students connect educational theories with pedagogical practices and prepare them for the school context. Activities such as teacher modeling and micro-teaching where students role-play various classroom scenarios are an integral part of teacher education programmes as they provide a safe, mediated space for students to ‘try out’ teaching (Loughran & Berry, 2005). However, with pandemic forcing teacher education to shift entirely online, teacher educators have had to work with the affordances and constraints that online modes of teaching and learning provide (Cutri et al., 2020; Kidd & Murray, 2020; Moorhouse, 2020a). Teacher educators, including the two authors, have been considering how to re-conceptualise teacher education for the online setting (Flores & Gago, 2020), asking questions, such as, how can we prepare our pre-service teachers for the in-person classroom through online modes of teaching and learning? And do we now need to prepare student-teachers to be able to teach in physical, digital or blended environments? In this chapter, we present the experiences of the two authors, one in Hong Kong (Benjamin) engaged in English language teacher education, and one in New York (Kevin), engaged in general teacher education, as we adapted our courses to the new mode of instruction. We explore the challenges we faced as we re-conceptualised our courses and adapted to online modes of teaching, while presenting pedagogical solutions to the identified challenges. The chapter concludes with lessons learned and considerations for teacher education beyond the pandemic.

2  Challenges Adapting to Online Teacher Education Online teacher education programmes and courses have been expanding over the last few years as technology has made distance learning more accessible and versatile (Dell et al., 2008). For example, New Zealand universities have offered distance learning teacher education using online strategies for a number of years (Falloon, 2011). Online teacher education can provide an alternative path for the development, training, and accreditation of teachers who may have difficulty attending an in-person programme (e.g., because of financial or geographical barriers). They also provide a way for universities to increase access to their courses. However, teacher educators have reportedly struggled with the shift online (Dunn & Rice, 2019;

Reconceptualising Teacher Education Courses for Online Teaching: The Experiences…

111

Fletcher & Bullock, 2015; Rice, 2016), finding the teaching and learning environment very different from that of the in-person classroom. Specifically, they have found it difficult to design courses and develop and enact instructional practices for the unfamiliar environment (Cutri & Whiting, 2018). Some challenges teachers have found include building rapport and relationships with and between learners, facilitating and encouraging dialogue through online means, assessing learners formatively and summatively and simulating the physical classroom environment when teaching online (Carrillo & Flores, 2020). For example, Rice (2016) reported on his experience conducting teacher education online. He reflected on the struggle of building relationships with students and how to best develop his pre-service teachers’ ability to engage relationally with students. Importantly, online teaching requires modifying course design and pedagogical approaches, as “using established techniques for student success in traditional classrooms do not always work in distance courses” (Serwatka, 2002, p. 48). Thus, for improved pedagogical practices in online learning (e.g., efficiency, flexibility, access), all stakeholders (e.g., lecturers, students, institutions) must have a full understanding of the benefits and limitations of the mode (Hrastinski, 2008). Despite this awareness, and the increase in online teacher education, there has been little research into how we can best prepare teacher educators for teaching online or teachers’ readiness for online teaching (Cutri et al., 2020). Furthermore, we know little about what constitutes ‘best practice’ in online teacher education (Carrillo & Flores, 2020). As is common in teacher education generally, there is often the assumption that if ‘good teachers’ can become ‘good teacher educators’ (Goodwin & Kosnik, 2013) then ‘good teacher educators’ can become ‘good online teacher educators.’ However, the evidence suggests a breakdown in logic as the ‘good teachers’ do not always make ‘good teacher educators’ (Goodwin & Kosnik, 2013) and it is likely that ‘good in-person teacher educators’ may not naturally make ‘good online teacher educators.’ If online teacher education is going to increase and more educators will need to be able to teach successfully through this mode, we have some important questions that need to be addressed, such as: What skills and knowledge do online teacher educators need to adapt to the online environment? How do we ensure teacher educators are ready for online teaching? And, what practices might constitute ‘best practice’ in online teacher education? While these are multifaceted questions that cannot be fully answered in this chapter, we hope to make important contributions by sharing our challenges and the pedagogical strategies we developed to overcome them while adapting to online instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2.1  Benjamin’s Experience Adapting to Online Teaching In Hong Kong, universities suspended in-person teaching in November 2019  in response to the occupation of campuses during the widespread protests against the now withdrawn ‘extradition bill.’ Although they briefly started in-person classes

112

B. L. Moorhouse and K. M. Wong

again in January 2020, these were again suspended in late January 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Zhao, 2020). Previous to the suspension of in-person classes, Benjamin had little experience of online teacher education apart from the utilisation of a learning management system (LMS) for the storage and dissemination of readings and session materials and the use of an instant messaging platform for facilitating out of class communication. Before the pandemic, his courses involved in-person sessions held once a week with each session lasting for 2-hours. Benjamin always tried to make the lessons learner-centred and dialogic. To do this, he planned each session to include a careful balance of input, discussion, and group activities. Activities included evaluating curricula, materials, and methods; designing lessons, activities, and materials; and engaging in modelling and micro-teaching (e.g. Moorhouse, 2020b) with an emphasis on experiential learning (Lee, 2019). When in-person classes were first suspended, Benjamin had to consider the best way to continue students’ learning remotely. Initially, he uploaded annotated PowerPoint presentations to the LMS for students to continue their learning independently. However, as the closure was extended further, in addition to the presentations, he used a video-conferencing software (VCS) to deliver optional synchronous online lessons (SOLs) once a week for 1 hour per class. Due to his inexperience of online teaching, and a clear lack of knowledge and skills required for this mode (Peachey, 2017), he faced a number of challenges. Firstly, the number of students who attended the optional synchronous online lessons was minimal – usually about 30% of the enrolled students. Secondly, the SOLs were not well-structured. He had hoped they would create a space for an open discussion about the session content, however, the students rarely talked or turned on their cameras. They did use the text chat function of the VCS. This led the sessions to be very teacher-centered where Benjamin mainly recapped the content of the annotated PowerPoint presentation. Finally, he found it hard to feel a sense of social presence from the learners, as along with physical distance, the mode seems to create a relational distance as well. There were limited or no private turns with groups or individuals with the platform making lessons more ‘one-way’ and ‘formal’.

2.2  Kevin’s Experience Adapting to Online Teaching In North America, New York City was one of the first major cities to be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the news of the spread of the virus in South Korea and Italy, New York City became the “epicenter” in the United States with 150 thousand confirmed cases and almost 12,000 deaths by late April, 2020 (NYC Health, 2021). Soon after the city’s first COVID-19 case, a majority of tertiary institutions transitioned away from in-person classrooms. Kevin was teaching a number of courses in an undergraduate teacher preparation program for early childhood education, which included students conducting their professional teaching

Reconceptualising Teacher Education Courses for Online Teaching: The Experiences…

113

practicum. In in-person classrooms, the lecturer often sought to support pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986) by modeling different pedagogical approaches for students, such as, monitoring and supporting group work, formatively assessing learning, and building learning communities. Through modelling and discussing ‘best practices’ in his lessons, he hoped his students could adopt them into their own teaching contexts. He found this approach particularly effective as his students could reflect on the modelled practices from the perspective of future teachers and students (Loughran & Berry, 2005). With the shift to online teaching, Kevin had to reconsider how modelling, which was central to his practices, could be conducted in a digital environment. Unlike Benjamin, Kevin’s institution expected lecturers to teach all their courses synchronously only. This meant each in-person session was replaced with a SOL conducted through VCS. At first, Kevin found it challenging to engage his students through this unfamiliar mode. Many of them turned their cameras off and did not participate in class-based discussions. Relatedly, lesson delivery felt like long, extended lectures as many of the Kevin’s planned in-person activities could not be implemented in virtual environments. Moreover, the rapport between students and Kevin was limited as relationships operated very differently across digital platforms. This troubled him, as he felt the relational aspect of teaching was core to successful modeling of practices. To participate in modeling activities, students need to feel comfortable and safe to take risks. This requires students to have a sense of rapport with the lecturer and each other. Kevin knew that he needed to address some of the challenges he was experiencing with online teaching to prepare his students to teach in any potential teaching environment they may find themselves. Both of us faced challenges adapting to this unfamiliar and somewhat unnatural teaching environment. After these initial experiences, we were left with a number of questions: 1. How do we motivate students to attend SOLs? 2. How do we use synchronous lesson time effectively? 3. How do we engage students in dialogue? 4. How do we maintain relationships with and between learners in SOLs? 5. How do we cater for different learning needs of students? 6. How do we prepare students for SOLs? 7. How do we adapt the practice of modeling for the in-person to the online environment? We were worried that if they were unable to adapt and reconceptualise their practices, then our students would feel unprepared for teaching. A lack of sense of preparedness can impact on a beginning teacher’s self-efficacy, teaching confidence (Clark & Newberry, 2019), and job satisfaction, as well as their belief that they have the knowledge and skills to carry out the duties of a teacher (Rowan et al., 2017). This sense of unpreparedness could be exacerbated by the uncertainties caused by the pandemic (Moorhouse, 2021).

114

B. L. Moorhouse and K. M. Wong

3  R  econceptualising Teacher Education Courses for Online Teaching In this section, we present the strategies we developed to overcome the challenges and address the questions mentioned above in our respective contexts.

3.1  Blending Instructional Approaches and Technologies Benjamin understood that if he wanted to meet his learners’ needs and make sure they were prepared for the classroom, he needed to adapt his online practices further and develop the skills needed for online teacher education ‘on the job’ rapidly. To do this, he made a number of adjustments to his practices. It was important to consider what the purpose of SOLs were within the course, and how to utilise them effectively towards this purpose. He decided that the primary purpose of the SOLs were to serve as a space for dialogue, the application of students’ developing knowledge, maintaining relationships and formative assessing learning  – similar to an in-person lesson. He therefore reorientated his sessions around the SOL as the centre of a three-stage teaching sequence (See Fig. 1) – Effectively adopting a ‘virtual flipped classroom approach’ (Ismail & Abdulla, 2019; Tang et al., 2020). The virtual flipped classroom approach has been found to improve student learning and attention during online learning (Tang et al., 2020). As the SOL was now an integral part of the course delivery, he made attendance mandatory. In the first stage, he uploaded the session materials (e.g. annotated Powerpoint presentation and readings) to the LMS, and included a pre-SOL preparation task. These tasks included analysing lesson video clips, textbooks, and lesson plans or designing simple teaching materials, such as worksheets or activity procedures. The task was designed to Stage 1: Pre-SOL stage

Upload session materials to the LMS 20-30 minute tailor-made annotated Powerpoint presentation Relevant readings Pre-SOL preparation task

Stage 2: SOL stage

1-hour SOL lesson conducted through VCS Review of session materials through key questions Activity or discussion of preparation task in small groups (using breakout room function) Whole class sharings Set post-SOL reflection task

Stage 3: Post-SOL stage (optional)

Self-reflection task Pose questions related to the session content for student self-reflection

• • • • • • • •

Fig. 1  Benjamin’s online teaching sequence

Reconceptualising Teacher Education Courses for Online Teaching: The Experiences…

115

ensure that students came to the SOLs prepared for the activities and discussions. In the second stage, he conducted a live SOL through VCS. At the beginning of each lesson, he posed a few key questions regarding the content of the session materials. Students were then put in small groups in breakout rooms to discuss the questions. This was followed by an open discussion regarding the questions. As students were prepared for the discussion, there was increased dialogue between the Benjamin and students. He then set the main session activity where students would discuss their responses to the pre-SOL preparation task in small groups followed by a whole class discussion. He was able to monitor and support students in the breakout rooms, allowing him to get a better idea of their understandings and needs. Occasionally, he utilised other tools such as Google Classroom, as a shared space for students to collaborate on a task; student-responses-systems (e.g., Mentimeter) to gather students’ ideas and opinions; and game-based platforms (e.g., Kahoot!) to assess student learning. Finally, he set the post-SOL reflection task. In the optional post-SOL stage, students could use the posed questions to self-reflect on the session content and what it means for their own learning and professional development. In addition, now with the experience of teaching online, Benjamin was in a position to discuss and contrast the different modes of teaching with students. He made time in SOLs to discuss the key differences between online and in-person teaching with his students. For example, in the in-person classroom, students talking out of turn or engaging in off-task behaviour can disrupt the learning. However, in the online classroom, this is easy to observe, and can be addressed by simply muting the relevant student (although this is clearly a short term fix). Disengagement is harder to address during SOLs as it is hard to observe, and with limited options for private turns, the teacher has limited options to address it. These discussions were useful in helping him and his students conceptualise learning and teaching in different contexts. Benjamin found that these further adaptations had a dramatic effect on student attendance (almost full attendance), participation, engagement, and interaction. Students had more encouragement to attend the SOLs as they understood its function within the sequence of teaching, while their participation and interaction were enhanced as they were able to review the session content before the SOLs (Tang et  al., 2020). Furthermore, the structured approach meant students knew what to expect in each lesson as it provided Benjamin with a model to design his online lessons. The discussions regarding the differences between in-person and online lessons helped students understand the affordances and constraints of the different modes of teaching, with the hope of raising their awareness and preparing them to teach in either mode. The SOLs were still less smooth and more teacher-centred than in his in-person lessons. He found turn-taking and other aspects of interaction are harder online, and require more explicit actions, such as ‘clicking’ a response ‘icon’ in the VCS. This takes away some of the spontaneity and casualness of the interactions. Furthermore, although breakout rooms allowed him to interact with students in small groups, he could not monitor other groups of learners simultaneously nor take short private turns with specific students. These could only be conducted during one-on-one

116

B. L. Moorhouse and K. M. Wong

consultations outside of lesson time. This limited opportunities to build rapport and formatively assess specific student’s needs. To continue to address these challenges he engaged in a collaborative self-study with a colleague (See Moorhouse & Tiet, 2021). This provided him with the opportunity to critically reflect on his practices, discuss them with a critical friend, and continue to improve them.

3.2  Modeling Good Practices Online Like Benjamin, Kevin understood that if he wanted to continue his practice of modeling good teaching (Shulman, 1986; Loughran & Berry, 2005), he had to consider what these ‘best practices’ looked like in online learning environments. Teaching and learning through a 2-D screen was challenging with obvious effects on the relational aspects of teaching. In order to address these limitations, he experimented with different features of the VCS and implemented a variety of strategies in online teaching. First, he wanted to model group and pair discussions to allow space for students to engage with content, ideas, and projects. Adapting to the virtual context, the lecturer used a feature of the VCS that allowed him to put students in small groups, breakout rooms. He coupled this feature with a shared Google document for students to complete as a group. The Google document was used as a centralised platform for students to direct their thoughts and discussions, and also to serve as an accountability mechanism to ensure students were on task. This was particularly important as Kevin would normally walk around the classroom in in-person classrooms to ensure students were on task and on the same page. Monitoring and supporting students in groups was an important approach he wished to model. Second, Kevin sought to model strategies to enhance student engagement. This proved more challenging, and different, in online teaching as students could easily turn off their web cameras and disengage. In response, he modeled a number of student response systems like Mentimeter and Padlet to demonstrate how all students could simultaneously participate in lesson content. He also utilised the VCS’s interactive whiteboard feature in each lesson to model how visual imagery could serve as a scaffold for young learners. Moreover, unlike in the in-person classrooms, the digital whiteboard allowed all students to interact simultaneously. Third, he wished to model the important principle of using data to inform instruction. In the in-person classroom, we constantly gather information and data on our students’ interests, abilities and understandings through observing our students as they participate in various class activities (Carless, 2007). However, the ability to observe is harder online than in person. Therefore, Kevin had to develop explicit strategies and utilised a daily interactive agenda where students could respond to a prompt on a shared online document (e.g. Google Docs). Students would write responses to a video or answer questions related to the objective of the lesson. Kevin then modeled how he would use student answers to make follow-up instructional decisions. Finally, he wanted to model a responsive classroom that acknowledged the feelings and experiences of

Reconceptualising Teacher Education Courses for Online Teaching: The Experiences…

117

his students. He did this by incorporating community-building activities, such as icebreakers, into each lesson. These included polls, greetings, and prompts such as “If you had a superpower, what would it be and why?” He ensured these activities considered his students’ background, interests, cultures, and individual needs, with the aim of helping them feel connected to the course. Through these practices, Kevin demonstrated the importance of catering to the socioemotional needs of students, particularly in the early childhood education classroom context. He also adopted virtual office hours, to give students a private space for one-on-one interactions with him. Through these strategies, Kevin felt he was able to model practices important to his students’ development of pedagogical content knowledge while also humanising the classroom ensuring students had multiple ways to engage and participate in the SOL. However, similar to Benjamin, he noticed that in the online environment, his strategies needed to be more pre-planned and explicit than in the in-person classroom.

4  Lessons Learned This period of online teaching has been immensely challenging, yet also a period of personal learning and growth for us. While we were both ‘forced’ into an unfamiliar, often counterintuitive and ‘unnatural’ teaching environment, it made us reflect on our practices, and consider how best to teach our learners through online modes. We learned to capitalise on the affordances of the mode provided, and the associated technologies, e.g., use of breakout rooms, and find ways to overcome the constraints of the platform e.g., the formality of the mode. The main lessons learned we learned are discussed:

4.1  L  esson Learned 1: Blend Synchronous and Asynchronous Approaches and Technologies Previous research on online teacher education has tended to focus on asynchronous modes of instruction (e.g., Dunn & Rice, 2019; Fletcher & Bullock, 2015). With recent technological developments and the mainstream roll-out of high-speed internet, now, SOLs are becoming increasingly common (Peachey, 2017) and should be central to any online teacher education programme. As teacher education is highly contextual and relational, SOLs can become a space for dialogue, application of students’ developing knowledge, maintaining relationships and formatively assessing learning. Teachers can also make on-the-spot decisions based on students’ needs. However, for SOLs to achieve these purposes, it is important that students come to the sessions prepared for them. To do this, we can utilise asynchronous approaches and technologies. Benjamin found the ‘virtual flipped classroom

118

B. L. Moorhouse and K. M. Wong

approach’ ensured students come prepared for the SOLs. In addition, SOLs need to be structured to provide different kinds of interactions and forms of participation (e.g., small groups and whole class) (See Fig. 1). It is important for teacher educators to develop different strategies to manage SOLs as classroom interaction and other aspects of the classroom feel and look quite different online while utilising asynchronous approaches for out of SOLs time learning.

4.2  L  esson Learned 2: Discuss the Affordances and Constraints of Different Instructional Modes In the future, teacher education graduates may find themselves teaching in an in-­ person, online or blended teaching environment (Dell et al., 2008; Falloon, 2011). It is therefore important that they understand the affordances and constraints of the different modes and associated technologies. Explicitly discussing affordance and constraints can help build students’ awareness and at the same time help them consider ways to effectively teach in the respective modes. For example, by understanding that during SOLs it is challenging to take one-on-one private turns with individual students, they can consider making time out of classroom instruction for such interactions (Moorhouse et al., 2021). In addition, by exploring and critiquing different technological tools, such as student-response-systems, game-­based platforms and VCS, they will have a better idea of how to integrate them into both physical and digital classrooms effectively. It is likely that teachers will need to develop pedagogical and technological competencies for various modes of teaching. Through critiquing and discussing different technologies and modes of teaching, we can help students develop such competencies. In addition, teachers need to continually explore and reflect on their own practices as teaching evolves through reflective practice, self-study, and action research.

4.3  L  esson Learned 3: Model Explicit and Purposeful Practices to Humanise the Online Learning Experience To enhance the teaching and learning experience in online teacher preparation programmes, teacher educators should engage their pre-service teacher in humanising pedagogies (Price & Osborne, 2000). Particularly in online environments where students can feel disconnected and isolated from one another, humanising the online learning experience can help foster a unique environment that is conducive for learning. To humanise the online learning experience, teacher educators need to make students feel seen and heard. This can be accomplished through simple icebreaker questions at the beginning of each lesson; through one-on-one informal

Reconceptualising Teacher Education Courses for Online Teaching: The Experiences…

119

meetings with students outside of the classroom; or by incorporating the backgrounds and cultures of students into daily lesson plans. Various technologies, such as student-response-systems can help actualise these activities. Together, these are explicit and purposeful practices that can humanise the online learning experience for all students. Moreover, as these humanising pedagogies are modeled for pre-­ service teachers, they are more likely to use these strategies for their own students (Loughran & Berry, 2005), creating a space for their own students to be seen and heard.

5  Conclusion In this chapter, we have presented the challenges and pedagogical strategies of two teacher educators, the authors, as they re-conceptualised their teaching practices for the online environment in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although initially we were in shock and felt our knowledge and skills were inadequate for the new mode of teaching and learning, we were able to re-conceptualise our practices for the new mode and adopt pedagogical strategies that allowed us to keep teaching to prepare graduates for the education workforce. Our lessons learned reflect our combined understandings of online teacher education. Still, questions remain, and we are continuously exploring our practices while looking for ways to make our online teacher education practices more effective. We still feel like we are learning and have a long way to go until we can say we are ‘good’ online teacher educators. Aspects of teacher education, such as creating a culture of care and building strong relationships are areas we struggle with (See Moorhouse & Tiet, 2021 for an article detailing a collaborative self-study conducted by Benjamin and his colleague’s as they attempted to implement a pedagogy of care while teaching online during the pandemic). Therefore, we will continue to explore our own practices through self-study. Looking beyond the pandemic, we are aware that we can never be prepared for the new reality or possible eventualities we will face, nor can we hope to prepare our students for all future eventuality either (Goodwin, 2010), no matter whether they end up teaching in the physical, digital or more likely, a blended teaching environment. However, the period of online teaching has shown us that we need the ability to actively respond to change, critically evaluate and reflect on our teaching principles, engage in exploration of our practice, and constantly adapt and conceptualise our practices until we feel comfortable that our principles and practices align. We therefore encourage teacher educators to engage in various forms of practitioner research, such as self-study, reflective practice, lesson study and/or action research as a way to support and develop their abilities to adapt to new realities and possible eventualities.

120

B. L. Moorhouse and K. M. Wong

References Carless, D. (2007). Conceptualizing pre-emptive formative assessment. Assessment in Education, 14(2), 171–184. Carrillo, C., & Flores, M.  A. (2020). COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 466–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184 Clark, S., & Newberry, M. (2019). Are we building preservice teacher self-efficacy? A large-scale study examining teacher education experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 32–47. Cutri, R.  M., Mena, J., & Whiting, E.  F. (2020). Faculty readiness for online crisis teaching: Transitioning to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1815702 Cutri, R. M., & Whiting, E. F. (2018). Opening spaces for teacher educator knowledge in a faculty development program on blended learning course development. Studying Teacher Education, 14(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2018.1447920 Dell, C.  A., Hobbs, S.  F., & Miller, K. (2008). Effective online teacher preparation: Lessons learned. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 602–610. du Plessis, A. E., Cullinan, M., Gramotnev, G., Gramotnev, D. K., Hoang, N. T., Mertens, L., Roy, K., & Schmidt, A. (2020). The multilayered effects of initial teacher education programs on the beginning teacher workforce and workplace: Perceptions of beginning teachers and their school leaders. International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 101488. Dunn, M., & Rice, M. (2019). Community, towards dialogue: A self-study of online teacher preparation for special education. Studying Teacher Education, 15(2), 160–178. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/17425964.2019.1600493 Falloon, G. (2011). Making the connections: Moore’s theory of transactional distance and its relevance to the use of virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education. Journal of Research in Technology in Education, 43(3), 187–209. Fletcher, T., & Bullock, S. M. (2015). Reframing pedagogy while teaching about teaching online: A collaborative self-study. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 690–706. Flores, M. A., & Gago, M. (2020). Teacher education in times of COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal: National, institutional and pedagogical responses. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1799709 Goodwin, A.  L. (2010). Globalization and the preparation of quality teachers: Rethinking knowledge domains for teaching. Teaching Education, 21(1), 19–32. https://doi. org/10.1080/10476210903466901 Goodwin, A.  L., & Kosnik, C. (2013). Quality teacher educators = quality teachers? Conceptualizing essential domains of knowledge for those who teach teachers. Teacher Development, 17(3), 334–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2013.813766 Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous E-learning. Educause Quarterly Review. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/-­/media/files/article-­downloads/eqm0848.pdf Ismail, S. S., & Abdulla, S. A. (2019). Virtual flipped classroom: New teaching model to grant the learners knowledge and motivation. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(2), 168–183. Kidd, W., & Murray, J. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on teacher education in England: How teacher educators moved practicum learning online. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 542–558. Lee, J. F. K. (2019). Enhancing preservice teachers’ professional competence through experiential learning. Journal of Education for Teaching, 45(3), 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958923 6.2019.1599507 Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modelling by teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 193–203.

Reconceptualising Teacher Education Courses for Online Teaching: The Experiences…

121

Moorhouse, B. L. (2020a). Adaptations to a face-to-face initial teacher education course ‘forced’ online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 609–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1755205 Moorhouse, B. L. (2020b). Preparing pre-service English language teachers for the literacy classroom: Modelling good practices. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(5), 697–700. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1733397 Moorhouse, B.  L. (2021). Beginning teaching during COVID-19: Newly qualified Hong Kong teachers’ preparedness for online teaching. Educational Studies, (Ahead-of-Print). https://doi. org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1964939 Moorhouse, B. L., & Tiet, M. C. (2021). Attempting to implement a pedagogy of care during the disruptions to teacher education caused by COVID-19: A collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 17(2), 208–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2021.1925644 Moorhouse, B. L., Li, Y., & Walsh, S. (2021). E-Classroom interactional competencies: Mediating and assisting language learning during synchronous online lessons. RELC Journal. [Ahead-of-­ Print] https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220985274 New York City Health. (2021). COVID-19 Data. Available from: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/ covid/covid-­19-­data.page Peachey, N. (2017). Synchronous online teaching. In M. Carrier, R. M. Damerow, & K. M. Bailey (Eds.), Digital language learning and teaching. Routledge. Price, J. N., & Osborne, M. D. (2000). Challenges of forging a humanizing pedagogy in teacher education. Curriculum and Teaching, 15(1), 27–51. Rice, B. (2016). Rethinking technological resources in self-study of teacher education practices: The case of taking and teaching online courses. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Being self-­ study researchers in a digital world: Future oriented research and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 33–46). Springer. Rowan, L., Kline, J., & Mayer, D. (2017). Early career teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach ‘diverse learners’: Insights from an Australian research project. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(10), 71–92. Serwatka, J. (2002). Improving student performance in distance learning courses. The Journal of Technological Horizons in Education, 29(9), 46–52. Shulman, L.  S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Tang, T., Abuhmaid, A. M., Olaimat, M., Oudat, D. M., Aldhaeebi, M., & Bamanger, E. (2020). Efficiency of flipped classroom with online-based teaching under COVID-19, Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1817761 Zhao, R. (2020). Hong Kong universities suspend on-campus classes. China Daily On-line (Downloaded from: https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/119792)

Revealing Interactions Between Adolescent English Learners and a Computer-Assisted Writing System from the Activity Theory Lens: Two Case Studies Cynthia Lee

Abstract  Drawing on the Activity Theory perspective, the study unpacks the interrelatedness of the second language (L2) writers and the different elements of the triadic model to achieve the goal of writing argumentative texts in a computer-­ assisted writing context. Based on the analysis of a total of 18 verbal protocols, stimulated recalls and post-study interviews collected from two adolescent L2 writers in three selected computer-assisted writing workshops in a secondary school in Hong Kong, it was found that the L2 writers interacted with three mediation artefacts, namely the computer-generated content feedback System adopted for the study, the Internet and both first and second languages, according to their needs and motives. Other elements such as controlled writing time, freedom to use online resources and unlimited access to the System facilitated the writing process. Nevertheless, the elements of community and division of labour seemed to play a less significant role in the study. Both L2 writers tended to develop ideas suggested by the System rather than to elaborate on the existing ideas. The analysis advances understanding of how adolescent L2 writers mediate computer-generated feedback on content and how they interact with the different elements of the triadic model. Implications for computer-assisted language learning and future research directions are discussed.

1  Introduction Computer technology has been widely used in all aspects of society since the emergence of the Internet, free and open software, and mobile networked devices (Murphy & Rodríguez-Manzanares, 2014). Education is one of the aspects in which C. Lee (*) School of Education and Languages, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Hong Kong SAR, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_9

123

124

C. Lee

computers have been adopted as a tool to enhance learning and teaching, including second language (L2) writing. Both positive and negative outcomes have been reported in the literature on computer technology and L2 writing (Cotos, 2012; Sung et al., 2016). While the studies allow us to better understand the impact of computer technology on learning, the process of how learners interact with computers, however, is not their focus. Drawing on the Activity Theory (AT) perspective, this study adds to the existing literature by adopting a multiple case study approach to reveal the interactions between human, a computer-generated content feedback System, and other elements in writing through introspections and interviews. The study took place in a secondary school in Hong Kong in which 27 Secondary 3 and Secondary 4 students aged between 14 and 15 years old participated voluntarily in five English writing workshops as an after-school English activity in one term. Among the participants, two high, two mid, and two low proficiency students were selected to verbalise their thoughts, recall concurrent thinking, and attend interviews after completing workshops one, three and five. Out of the six selected students, only two came to all three workshops. Therefore, the two cases were analysed to reveal how they interacted with different elements of the triadic model. It was found that the computer-­ generated content feedback System, the resources on the Internet, and both English and Chinese languages seemed to play a more important role in the computer-­ assisted writing context than other elements of AT. In short, the sociocultural lens offers valuable qualitative evidence and sheds light on how teachers can better utilise different elements to achieve intended learning outcomes.

2  Theoretical Framework: Activity Theory Activity theory (AT), which is a branch or an aspect of sociocultural theory (Braine & Franken, 2006; Fujioka, 2014), is a theoretical framework that allows people to understand, analyse and explicate the complex human cognition and collective social phenomena, behaviours and patterns oriented at objects, taking into consideration the cultural and material artefacts and other elements of the context (Engeström, 1999; Roth & Lee, 2007). Its concepts have been evolved over decades, owing to Vygotsky’s concept of cultural mediation, Leont’ev’s division of labour and Engeström’s contribution of community and rules (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, pp. 211–212). According to Vygotsky (1978), people (i.e., the subject) construct an object (i.e., the objective) and use an artefact/tools/instruments to reach the object. The three elements – subject, mediation artefact and object – interact in a triangular manner in the activity system. An object is the target a subject should direct at to achieve outcomes, mediated by symbols and tools. Mediation artefacts include both symbols (e.g., language) to present inner thoughts and material and psychological tools (e.g., pens, computers, teaching strategies, techniques) that satisfy needs, improve and transform human activity, develop over time and implement an action externally (Cole, 1999 cited in Murphy & Rodríguez-Manzanares, 2014, pp. 33–38). In the 1980s, Leont’ev (1981) proposed the hierarchy of activity-action-operation.

Revealing Interactions Between Adolescent English Learners and a Computer-Assisted…

125

Mediation artefacts

Object

Subject Rules

Community

Outcome

Division of labour

Fig. 1  A model of an activity system (Engeström, 1999, p. 31)

The new perspective allows analysts to understand the relevance of the different levels or tiers of a system or an activity in explaining why something takes place due to social/biological need or desire (i.e. the activity), what is being done (i.e. the action for a goal-directed behaviour) and the actual doing (i.e. the operation which is a real-time action being carried out). The hierarchy, however, may not be consciously realised by the actor (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, pp. 216–217). In the 1990s, Engeström (1999) substantially expanded both Vygotsky’s and Leont’ev’s perspectives by adding the community, rules and division of labour to the triadic model, depicting the complex interactions among different key elements. Community is described as the social group in which a subject is involved while participating in an activity. Rules refer to implicit or explicit regulations. Division of labour concerns the roles or responsibilities of different members in the activity. It is through the recurrent interaction of multiple levels that transformation occurs (Engeström, 1999). Engeström’s pioneer model is presented in Fig. 1.

3  A  ctivity Theory and Second Language Writing in the University Context AT has been widely adopted as a theoretical or analytical framework to explain the complexity involved in human or human-machine interactions (Murphy & Rodríguez-Manzanares, 2014) in different disciplines, including language education and curriculum development (e.g., Daniels et  al., 2010; Hedegaard, 1999; Ng’ambi & Brown, 2015; Wood, 2015); disciplinary postgraduate writing (Fujioka, 2014); and second language acquisition (e.g., Amano, 1999). In recent second language (L2) writing research studies, AT has also been used as a lens to understand the mediation process of L2 learners and interactions between learners and teachers from a sociocultural perspective in various university and cultural contexts (Fujioka, 2014; Haneda, 2007; Kang & Pyun, 2013; Lei, 2008, 2016). In the early 2000s, Haneda used the triadic model to interpret the different approaches (i.e., modes of engagement) of adult learners of Japanese in a Canadian university in their writing activities through conference talks and interviews. She found that although the learners of Japanese adopted similar composing processes, their reasons for engaging in writing as a language exercise, writing for a coherent argument or writing as a communicative activity varied, resulting in some deliberately chosen

126

C. Lee

writing strategies. For instance, if learners treated writing as a language exercise or for a coherent argument, they would pay more attention to linguistic resources (i.e., artefacts) of the triadic model than rules, community and objects (i.e., readers of their writing). Along a similar vein, Kang and Pyun’s (2013) and Lei (2008) studies revealed the mediation strategies of university American learners of Korean and Chinese learners of English in L2 writing. In another study, Lei (2016) compared mediation strategies of four proficient and four less proficient adult English learners in a university in Mainland China. She found that while both groups used similar types of mediation resources, the former demonstrated a higher level of awareness and appreciation of how the language was used by experts and differences between their first and target language; they were more willing to learn and imitate experts’ and other skills peers’ writing and had clearer learning goals than the latter. Furthermore, Fujioka (2014) investigated how multi-directional interactions between a Japanese postgraduate student and his professor, class readings, consultations and instruction guidelines shaped the student’s disciplinary writing and the professor’s teaching. The student finally produced an excellent paper while the professor also improved his assignment instructions. Barkaoui (2016) studied the relations among text revision, task types, learners’ proficiency level and keyboard skills in a computer-­ assisted writing setting. It was found that both proficiency level and task types influenced learners’ revision behaviours rather than their keyboard skills. The above studies apply AT to the study of L2 writing performed by university students in the pen-and-paper context. Adolescent L2 learners who represent a major group of learners are an under-researched population (Harklau, 2011; Qin & Uccelli, 2016). Given the rapid advancement of technology, AT could be used as a lens to understand the affordances of technology within a complex sociocultural institutional setting at other educational levels, such as secondary level, not the tertiary level alone (e.g., Fujioka, 2014; Lei, 2016; Murphy & Rodríguez-Manzanares, 2014; Yu & Lee, 2015). However, studies on adolescent L2 learners in computer-­ assisted L2 writing situations are scant, regardless of the proliferation of the use of software packages (e.g., corpora, concordances), network-based resources (e.g., the Internet) or automated writing evaluation (AWE) programmes (e.g. Criterion, MyAccess, Pigai, WriteToLearn) to assist teachers in teaching and to give feedback and to help L2 learners think and write. Given that the literature on adolescent L2 writers and interactions with the different elements of the triadic model in a computer-assisted learning environment is sparse, the current study that addressed the research gaps was conducted. It aimed to investigate the ways and processes in which adolescent Chinese learners of English in Hong Kong interacted with the artefact – a computer-generated feedback system on writing ideas known as the Essay Critiquing System 2.0 – and with different elements of the triadic model to write an argumentative text. Argumentation is a text type that is tested not only in international examinations such as IELTS (Hirvela, 2017) but also in the English Language Writing Paper of the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE) – a public examination for all school leavers in Hong Kong since 2012 (Curriculum Development Council, 2017). The

Revealing Interactions Between Adolescent English Learners and a Computer-Assisted…

127

findings will contribute to English language education in Hong Kong as many secondary school English teachers and students devote their attention to writing products rather than processes due to the territory’s examination-oriented culture (Lam, 2019). Drawing on the AT perspective, the case studies unpack adolescent L2 writer-­ computer interactions and advance our understanding of the processes in which computer-generated feedback on writing ideas is mediated by adolescent L2 writers to achieve the writing goal. Although the study is limited to a specific computer system, it can shed some light on how English teachers can maximise the use of different elements of the triadic model to inform their computer-assisted pedagogical approach in the classroom.

4  The Study 4.1  Research Aim and Questions The aims of the study were twofold. First, it investigated how adolescent L2 writers interacted with the different elements of the triadic model (i.e., mediation artefact, subject, object, rules, community and division of labour) to achieve the outcome (i.e., an argumentative text) in a computer-assisted system that focuses on content feedback (i.e., writing ideas). Second, it revealed how adolescent L2 writers handled and mediated computer-generated content feedback. Concerning the aim, two research questions were asked. 1. How do L2 writers interact with the mediation artefact (i.e., ECS2.0) and other elements of the triadic model (i.e., rules, community and division of labour) to complete the writing of an argumentative text in a computer-assisted writing setting? 2. How do adolescent L2 writers respond to the computer-generated feedback on writing ideas?

4.2  Research Method The study adopted a multiple case-study approach to collect introspective data through verbal protocols and stimulated recalls (For details about the procedures, see Sect. 4.4). In addition, personal comments on how the mediation artefact facilitated writing and what they were thinking during pauses were sought through post-­ writing interviews to triangulate the introspective data (For interview questions, see Appendix 1). Considering the English proficiency competence of the selected adolescent L2 learners, verbal protocols stimulated recalls and interviews were conducted either in L1, L2 or a mixed code at the learners’ choice. The collected

128

C. Lee

discourse was transcribed and analysed. Although introspective data can reveal some human mental activities while performing a task (Wilson, 1994), to increase data reliability, some brief training and practice for learners before actual recording was provided as well as videotaping of the entire verbalisation and writing processes for immediate stimulated recalls based on researchers’ advice (Dörnyei, 2007). Details of how training was conducted and data were collected are described in Sects. 4.3.2 and 4.5.

4.3  Elements of the Triadic Model 4.3.1  Artefact: Essay Critiquing System 2.0 In the study, the artefact or tool is a computer-assisted writing programme known as the Essay Critiquing System 2.0 (ECS2.0). The System aimed to provide writing ideas for learners of English when they were writing argumentative essays. The Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) method and the machine training technique were adopted to train the System to recognise the writing ideas of a student’s text by matching them with those identified from the texts of the same topics collected from other students and topic-related online materials (e.g., reading articles) stored in its database. After matching, the System would show the ‘covered’ and ‘uncovered’ (suggested) writing ideas (See Fig. 2 for the features and layout of the System). A student can seek System feedback as many times as s/he prefers. The System provides at least four writing ideas for each topic. The remaining writing time and the number of words are also provided. Aside from seeking System feedback, students are allowed to exit the System and search for topic-related information or linguistic resources from the Internet. For instance, they can look for examples from websites or check the meaning of a word from an online dictionary. The System will pause for 5 minutes after 20 minutes of writing to allow students to revise their texts.

Fig. 2  A screenshot of the ECS2.0

Revealing Interactions Between Adolescent English Learners and a Computer-Assisted…

129

4.3.2  O  ther Elements of the Triadic Model: Orientation, Writing Rules, Pre-workshop Training, Marking Criteria, Writing Workshops, and Writing Instructor A 20-minute orientation session introducing the information of the workshops, such as when and where they were held, writing rules, marking criteria, and the System, was provided for all workshop participants. The participants were told to write 300–500 words about a given topic in each workshop within 1 hour. The workshop rules allow the participants to exit the System to read online information; seek System feedback on the ‘covered’ and ‘suggested’ argument(s), and view the location of the covered argument(s) in the text (See Appendix 2 for the suggested arguments for the topic of workshop 5). The participants can exit the System and access the Internet for language assistance (e.g., looking for the meaning of a word). Whenever a participant exits the System, its timer will automatically pause. Five writing workshops were organised once every 2  weeks in a computer laboratory during the research period. A pre-training session was held for the six selected participants of the study. During the session, a video on how a young girl verbalised her thoughts in Cantonese (first language, L1) and English (second language, L2) while writing a descriptive task was played to them. After watching the video, some explanations about the verbalisation skills were given. Two short descriptive tasks were provided for practising the skills. Regarding previous research experience (Lee et al., 2013), the revised marking criteria of the current study (Appendix 3) concentrates on ‘content/number of writing ideas’ (10 marks) than to ‘grammar’ (5 marks) and ‘organisation’ (5 marks). Given that the System is the main tool of the workshops and its role in assisting L2 writers to think of writing ideas, more marks are awarded to ‘content/number of writing ideas’ than to ‘grammar’ and ‘organisation’. Five writing workshops were held in a language laboratory once every 2 weeks, consultation with the participating school. A workshop instructor, an experienced English teacher, was present in each workshop to answer the participants’ questions, such as submitting the written text. The instructor was briefed by the researcher on the marking criteria.

4.4  Participants Participants came from a secondary school (School B) in Hong Kong. A total of 27 14–15-year-old Secondary 3 and 4 students voluntarily participated in five writing workshops organised by the researcher as an after-school activity due to publicity (details of the writing workshops are described in Sect. 4.4). The School assigns its students annually to three types of classes based on their English examination results in the previous academic year: elite classes for high English proficiency students, intermediate for mid proficiency students, and remedial classes for low

130

C. Lee

English proficiency students. Among the 27 students, two high, two mid and two low proficiency students were randomly selected from the three types of classes. Two of the six students came to all three workshops, two came to two workshops, and two came only once. The two students, B1002 and B1017, who came to the three workshops (i.e., workshops one, three and five) designated for verbal protocols, stimulated recalls, and post-writing interviews were reported in this paper. B1002 was a 15-year-old Secondary four male student of the elite class, representing a high English proficiency level. The second student, B1017, was a 15-year-­ old Secondary four female student, representing a mid-English proficiency level. The first language of both students is Cantonese.

4.5  Data Collection and Analysis Procedures On the day of the first workshop, each participant was given a code number generated by the computer (from B1001 to B1027) and a password by the workshop instructor to log into the System. After logging in, a writing topic was shown on the screen. The participants were advised not to exit the System for too long, considering the prescribed writing time. They should submit the essay to the workshop instructor for marking via the System by pressing the ‘submit button. The workshop instructor was present in each workshop, answering enquiries, returning the marked texts, and answering students’ questions about the returned texts. All submitted texts were evaluated by the workshop instructor based on marking criteria that reflected the focus of the workshop on the use of the System for writing. A feedback sheet showing the marks for each criterion accompanied by written comments was attached and returned to students in the subsequent workshop. Prior to marking the texts, a moderation meeting was held between the instructor and the researcher. Six texts (16.67%) of the first topic were randomly selected for moderation according to the marking criteria. Figure 3 summarises the key elements of the triadic model of the study. Concurrent verbalised thoughts of three workshops (i.e., Workshops one, three and five) out of five were collected for analysis. In the first workshop, the participants were asked to agree or disagree with the idea of starting the school day early. In the third workshop, they had to present their stance on the topic of athlete doping (Workshop three), while the fifth workshop was about the (un)importance of respecting the elderly (Workshop five). The six students wrote their texts in a classroom where six laptops were provided to avoid disturbance to other participants while verbalising. A camera was put behind each of them, focusing on the screen so as to record their writing processes and actions. Each of them wore a headphone to record their verbalised thoughts. Five of them verbalised their thoughts in both L1 and L2, except one student who insisted on verbalising in L2 most of the time. The researcher and her Research Assistants stood behind the six students to minimise distractions and reminded them when necessary to verbalise their thoughts while writing, particularly when they

Revealing Interactions Between Adolescent English Learners and a Computer-Assisted…

131

Artefact (ECS2.0) Subject (2 S4 students)

Object (write an argumentative essay in aone-hourworkshop)

Rules Community Division of labour (write in an hour in a (workshop participants, (workshop participants write texts, writing workshop, workshop instructor) workshop instructor marks texts) can exit the System, can seek information from the Internet, can seek ECS2.0 feedback repeatedly, follow the prescribed marking criteria)

Fig. 3  The triadic model of the study

were silent. The six students stayed behind to watch and listen to their verbal protocols for the immediate stimulated recalls and answered some prepared post-writing interview questions. The introspective and post-writing interview data were transcribed and studied carefully. Drawing on the work of Bosher (1998) and Wong (2005), strategies used by the learners to write a text and mediate the System feedback, and the aspects of writing they attended to while writing were identified, categorised and grouped to answer the research questions. The findings were triangulated with the post-writing interview data.

5  Findings 5.1  H  ow Do L2 Writers Interact with the Mediation Artefact (i.e., ECS2.0) and Other Elements of the Triadic Model (i.e., Rules, Community and Division of Labour) to Complete the Writing of an Argumentative Text in a Computer-Assisted Writing Setting? Adopting the AT lens, the following paragraphs reveal how B1002 and B1007 interacted with the different elements of the triadic model to reach the learning goal. Prior to the summary of the interactions, related information about the learners’ previous English learning experience in school is presented. B1002 B1002 preferred to use English for verbalisation, stimulated recalls and interviews. He said he was used to speaking English because he interacted with his foreign domestic helper in English at home. In the first post-writing interview, B1002

132

C. Lee

admitted that he enjoyed English learning and writing. He enjoyed writing and practised writing in English for different assignments such as Chemistry experiment reports, Liberal Studies.1 essays and English compositions. However, he criticised himself for spending too much time introducing a text and had difficulty completing the text on time and ‘perfectly’ (in his words). He thought it was because his English teacher told students to write compositions at home. During class time, the teacher prepared students for a writing topic by giving them reading passages, discussing some social phenomena and brainstorming relevant ideas using a mind map together, which would last for a few lessons. Therefore, he would like to experience the entire writing process, from brainstorming to task completion in the workshops. Although B1002 could not finish the whole text in workshop one, his writing pace increased in workshop three. He finally submitted the whole text on time in the remaining workshops. He admitted in the last interview that the rule of submitting a text within a period of time made him write fast. He learnt to observe rules. Those suggestions help me write quicker. They also let know me if I am on the right track. (Interview after workshop five)

As mentioned in his interviews, he benefited from a discussion about problems of the elderly in an English lesson by transferring some ideas to workshop five. He appreciated the flexibility of checking ‘covered ideas’ and ‘suggested ideas’ from the System at any time. This allowed him to think and seek help whenever necessary rather than follow a list of take-home ideas given by classroom teachers. Regarding the writing process of B1002, he began his writing by reading the topic to himself, comprehending the keywords of the instructions several times, murmuring his stance and brainstorming relevant writing ideas to support the stance. He did not click the ‘feedback’ button for ideas throughout the first workshop. While he was verbalising his thoughts, he asked himself what ideas to write and the best words to express himself (e.g., an adjective). B1002: What an adjective should I use to describe the teacher? So ahm you’re your mis- your innocent innocent teacher (.) will (.) (Workshop one – Early Start of the School Day, Verbal Protocol Lines 59-60)

When he was uncertain about spelling, meaning and usage of a word or a phrase, he accessed multiple sources such as Google translate, English-Chinese online dictionaries and Wikipedia. He also looked for synonyms from thesaurus.com. During the process of searching for an idea, he read his written sentences again. Likewise, he edited these sentences by adding, deleting or changing words while he was reading them to himself several times. B1002: (read over the lines to himself) who managed to get most gold medals in the Olympic Olympic. Managed to be the man with the most gold medals in the Olympic Games. (22:50, B1002 changed the word ‘get’ to ‘be the man with’) (Workshop three – Athlete Doping, Verbal Protocol Lines 96-98)

1  Liberal Studies is one of the four core subjects in the Hong Kong secondary school curriculum. The other three core subjects are the English Language, Chinese Language and Mathematics.

Revealing Interactions Between Adolescent English Learners and a Computer-Assisted…

133

In addition to utilising online resources, he used the five-minute pause to review the texts by moving the cursor to the covered themes to see their location in the text and read them, correcting spelling and editing expressions. As he commented in the third interview conducted after the fifth workshop, he said he liked the five-minute break because it made him proofread his text – a task which is so boring that he did not like to do it in the past. Nevertheless, he modified his behaviour in workshop five. Although he adopted the same approach by reading the instructions and expressing his stance, he sought the first System feedback for suggestions at the fourth minute. He performed the request a total of 10 times in the fifth workshop. According to his interviews, he realised the importance of seeking writing ideas when his were exhausted in workshop three. He did so because he wanted to know if he was on the right track. After reading the suggested idea(s) provided by the System, he took one and developed it. By doing so, he felt he had sped up his writing pace. The pop-up prompt also reminded him to review his organisation. This helped him avoid his habit of spending too much time developing just one idea. Therefore, he was glad that he managed to submit his writing on time from workshop three onwards. B1002 finally wrote 262, 514 and 426 words, receiving four marks, seven marks and then eight marks for content, with total scores of 9.5, 14 and 14 marks out of 20, respectively. The following is a summary of the top three strategies performed by B1002 in the fifth workshop, identified from the videotaped computer screen (Table 1). Apart from the above, he paused to think for more ideas and consider the organisation of the text and even his stance at the beginning of writing. Drawing on Bosher’s paper (1998) on five aspects of writing (i.e., content, discourse organisation, language use, procedures and intention) which some Southeast Asian L2 college students attended to in the pen-and-paper setting, three additional aspects were found in the computer-assisted writing setting (see Table 2). Two out of the three additional aspects were related to the use of the System i.e., Review the System feedback (RSF), look for feedback from the System (FS). B1002 focussed on language use, that is, what words to use and how to express his ideas best, followed by both content and discourse organisation. B1017 B1017 did her verbalisation, stimulated recalls and interviews mainly in L1 (i.e., Cantonese). She admitted that she was not motivated to learn English when she was a child. She adopted a more positive attitude towards English only when she was in her final year of primary education, realising the role of English as an international language. As she felt her English was rather weak, she was taking extra English Table 1  Top three strategies performed by B1002 and frequency counts Strategies Seeking System feedback by clicking the ‘feedback’ button Reading System ‘covered’ and ‘suggested’ arguments Searching word meaning via online dictionaries (English to Chinese)

Frequency 10 5 3

134

C. Lee

Table 2  Aspects of writing and frequency counts in the three workshops Workshop one Workshop three Workshop five Total

C 8 6 6 20

Dis 6 5 8 19

LU 19 11 12 42

RSF 1 1 2 4

RG – 2 1 3

FS – – 2 2

PRO 1 – – 1

INT 3 – – 3

Key: C content, Dis discourse organisation, LU language Use, RSF review the system feedback, RG review grammar, FS look for feedback from the system, PRO procedures (copy and write); INT intention (thinking about the purpose of the text/whether it is off-track) Table 3  Top three strategies performed by B1017 and frequency counts Strategies Deleting words from the text Clicking the System feedback button Adding words to the text

Frequency 29 10 5

lessons in a tutorial school. She said she was not fond of writing and was not good at argumentation either. She was not resistant to writing but would consider it as school work only. She felt she had the responsibility to finish it. She adopted the same approach in the three workshops  – reading the topic instructions verbatim and expressing her stance initially, as shown in her verbal protocols. To submit the text on time, she sought ideas from the System regularly to avoid spending too much time thinking for arguments, especially after verbalising 諗唔到啊:2 can’t think of any idea while writing. In workshop one, she thought for ideas for a while and turned to the first System feedback at the 19th minute. She clicked the feedback button to search for ideas and crosschecked a total of 10 times throughout the workshop. Then in workshops three and five, she viewed suggested ideas from the System much earlier, at the 5th minute and the 8th minute, respectively. She clicked the feedback button four times on average in each workshop. In workshops one and five, she only sought ideas from the System. In workshop three, she accessed both Chinese and English resources such as dictionary.com to check the meaning of zero tolerance for the topic of athlete doping and other information related to zero tolerance, such as zero-tolerance law and policy in Wikipedia. B1017 finally wrote 297, 339 and 339 words in the first, third and fifth texts. She received seven marks, eight marks and eight marks in content, for a total of 13, 14 and 16 marks out of 20, respectively (Table 3). As revealed in the three stimulated recalls, she always thought about the suitability of each suggested idea for the text. Her pauses were mainly related to the content, including ideas and examples. The second aspect of writing she cared about most was language use, followed by discourse organisation and reviewing the System feedback (Table 4).

 Cantonese transcription is given, followed by an edited English version.

2

Revealing Interactions Between Adolescent English Learners and a Computer-Assisted…

135

Table 4  Aspects of writing and frequency counts in the three workshops Workshop one Workshop three Workshop five Total

C 10 4 2 16

Dis 4 1 1 6

LU 3 2 2 7

RSF 2 1 2 5

RG – – – –

FS 1 – 1 2

PRO – – – –

INT 1 – 1 2

Key: C content, Dis discourse organisation, LU language use, RSF review the system feedback, RG review grammar, FS looked for feedback from the system, PRO procedures (copy and write); INT intention (thinking about the purpose of the text/whether it is off-track)

5.2  R  Q2: How Do Adolescent L2 Writers Respond to the Computer-Generated Feedback on Writing Ideas? B1002 In workshops 1 and 3, B1002 mainly relied on himself for writing ideas and used online linguistic resources to check the spelling. As mentioned in his post-writing interview after workshop 5, he started to maximise the System feedback after realising its function in workshop 3. Thus, mediation actions were found in workshop 5, in which B1002 developed suggested arguments four times. Whenever he viewed a suggested idea, he picked it up and further elaborated on it. For instance, (At the 4th minute, B1002 clicked the ‘feedback’ button) (An idea – Elderly people in society was shown under ‘Suggested ideas’. B1002 began to verbalise thoughts while writing) B1002: Um: elderlies, can be, can be seen everywhere in our society. Comma. There is no: such as the MTR, T, R, public parks, and restaurants, and restaurants. Um: um. Elderlies can be seen everywhere in our society. Elderlies are omnipresent. (Workshop five – Respecting the elderly, Verbal Protocol Line 22–28) (At the 15th minute, B1002 clicked the ‘feedback’ button) (An idea – obligation of juniors was shown under ‘Suggested ideas’. B1002 began to verbalise thoughts while writing) B1002: Respecting the elderly and senior people is one of the values that we treasure. Full stop. [(15:17) B1002 clicked the feedback button] Obligation. We as juniors has no has no excuse to disrespect them as it is our obligation to do it to to to respect… We will learn more about their absorbing their their past experience, which is the key for use for success. (18:22) [B1002 switched to Google search and typed 'success to check the spelling.] (Workshop five – Respecting the elderly, Verbal Protocol 102-108)

In the first example, B1002 began with a general phenomenon in society – that is, elderlies can be seen everywhere, and they are omnipresent – after viewing the suggested idea of saying something about elderly people in society. He then elaborated on the notion of ‘everywhere’ by referring to places such as parks and restaurants.3 Similarly, the suggested idea of saying something about the ‘obligation of juniors’

 Part of Essay 5 is shown in Appendix 4.

3

136

C. Lee

prompted him to elaborate on what our obligation is – to respect the elderly and the benefits of respect. Nevertheless, B1002 did not further develop or re-organise the ideas that had been detected as ‘covered arguments’ by the System. He admitted in the stimulated recalls that he sometimes paused after receiving the System feedback because he wanted to look for the meaning of some words of the System’s ‘suggested ideas’, check spelling or search for alternative expressions from the Internet. B1017 B1017 took the suggested ideas after viewing them. She thought them through, editing the written lines repeatedly by adding, deleting or replacing words or punctuation marks. She also moved the cursor to view the location of the covered ideas. She was used to revisiting System feedback to check if her written idea had been covered. Nevertheless, she behaved the same way as B1002  – she did not further develop or re-organise the covered ideas. During the 5-minute pause, she moved the cursor to read the highlighted parts of the texts and added or deleted expressions. B1017 could not finish her writing in Workshop 1. Nevertheless, her pace was much faster in Workshops 3 and 5, and she submitted those texts within 1 hour. She admitted in the stimulated recalls that seeking writing ideas from the System at an earlier time helped her solve the content problem.

6  Discussion 6.1  I nteractions Between the Adolescent L2 Writers and the Different Elements of the Triadic Model and Their Writing Processes The verbal protocols, stimulated recalls and post-writing interview data show that two major mediation artefacts were adopted in addition to ECS2.0, namely online resources and L2 writers’ first language. Although the learners were asked to use ECS2.0 as the primary artefact, the workshop rules that allowed them to exit implicitly led to the emergence of online resources and the use of their L1 – Chinese, to support their inadequate knowledge of the topic and mastery of their second language – English. The online resources and the use of L1 are found to be mediation artefacts in addition to the System. While the two adolescent L2 writers of different proficiency levels (one high- and one mid-level) performed well in the workshops, it can be seen that they handled the System, online resources and the two languages in different ways according to their choice and needs. B1002, the high proficiency student, has a passion for writing. He preferred to think for writing ideas and not to seek any System feedback in the first workshop. Despite his use of a variety of online resources for linguistic support, his insistence on not seeking System feedback led to a setback in the first workshop. He was not

Revealing Interactions Between Adolescent English Learners and a Computer-Assisted…

137

able to finish writing on time, and the content score and the overall score was not as good as B1017’s. It was only after the third workshop that he began to realise the function of the System – content support. Since then, he was aware of the need to elicit suggested ideas from the System whenever necessary. According to his post-­ writing interviews, his change of behaviour increased the writing pace and allowed him to submit the text on time after workshop 3. It also improved his habit of overspending time on thinking and writing about one idea. Moreover, his actions and strategies – from searching for writing ideas by himself in the first workshop to seeking help from the System and searching the Internet for thesaurus and bilingual dictionaries for word meaning – reveal his adroit handling of computer resources to assist his writing. In contrast, the learning motivation of B1017, a mid-proficiency student who does not have any particular passion for writing, admitted in the interviews that she perceived the writing workshops as a duty to be completed in school. This is reflected through the ways she handled the mediation artefacts to achieve the writing goal. She was keen to look for ideas in each workshop to address her major concern. She rarely accessed online resources for linguistic assistance, except in Workshop 3, despite editing during the writing and pausing times. The two students attended to both languages at different times and for different learning purposes. This finding seems to corroborate the studies of Lei (2008) and Yu and Lee (2016) that a learner’s motive for joining the workshops and perception of writing in school can shape mediation strategies and choice, not only in a pen-and-paper writing setting but also in a computer-assisted writing setting. Both L2 writers have the power to decide and direct when to seek feedback from the System and other online resources, how many times to (re)read System feedback, how to mediate System suggested ideas and learning, and what to edit during the writing process. Further to language proficiency which is always a key factor affecting L2 writing and revision behaviour (Barkaoui, 2016), it seems feasible to state that the computer-assisted learning environment of this study captures the important features of learner agency (Mercer, 2011) by allowing learners to have a sense of control of what is happening in learning. Their appeal to L1 also lends support to the positive function of L1 use (Ma, 2019) for learning purposes. In addition, the role of workshop rules should not be downplayed as they generated some impact on both learners. First, the unlimited access to the System encourages them to read the suggested ideas at any time though B1002 did not do it frequently. Second, the 5-minute pause gives a breathing space to read the highlighted lines in the text and react to the pop-up prompt by editing language and re-­ organising ideas. Both learners made use of this opportunity to revise their writing. B1002 expressed his appreciation of this rule as it changed his perception of proofreading. Third, the flexibility of accessing the Internet provides an additional mediation artefact to support ECS and computer-assisted writing. Thus, the rules seem to serve as a translanguaging space (Li, 2018) in which the two adolescent L2 writers can explore the two languages, reason, think and create meaning for their writing through their use of the System and online resources. Fourth, the one-hour writing time caused both learners, particularly B1002, to learn to control their writing pace to meet the requirement. The explicit rules, to a certain extent, influenced the

138

C. Lee

learners’ writing strategies and shaped the learning outcome in this computer-­ assisted writing setting, an element which is not well discussed in the pen-and-paper setting nor mentioned in other computer-assisted writing settings. The time pressure also offers a possible explanation, in addition to English proficiency and marking criteria, for their focus on content and some low-level grammatical changes (e.g., spelling, deleting or adding words/phrases) rather than high-level paragraph organisation as revealed in verbal protocols and stimulated recalls in other studies (Crawford et al., 2008). Nevertheless, community and division of labour do not seem to have any significant effect on the mediation process. Although the community consists of both workshop participants and the workshop instructor, the workshop only requires students to work on the computer alone while the instructor answers enquiries and returns marked essays. Under this circumstance, interactions with peers or the instructor are therefore minimal. Peer or instructor assistance do not seem to be a key element that facilitates writing. Moreover, as the workshops are an after-school English activity, and their scores are not counted towards the final English results, the two students do not pay much attention to the marking criteria and the scores. In the post-writing interviews and stimulated recalls, they did not mention anything about the importance of discussing with peers nor seeking the instructor’s help. Even though all elements play a role in the triadic model, the study seems to demonstrate that some elements tend to play a more significant role than others. In this light, Fig.  4 presents the elements again, highlighting the more significant elements. In this study, AT, which is referred to as a ‘powerful sociocultural lens’ (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999, p. 2), provides qualitative evidence regarding the effects of computer technology for L2 writing in context over a period of time. The lens shows that although computer technology is regarded as an effective tool to assist learning, the extent of its effects and how they facilitate writing can be mediated by individual learners. The analysis enables us to see when and how the two learners interact not only with the System but also with other online resources, the first

Fig. 4  A revised triadic model of the study

Revealing Interactions Between Adolescent English Learners and a Computer-Assisted…

139

language (L1) and the workshop rules to reach their goal. It advances our understanding of how other elements of the triadic model interact with the mediation artefacts and the adolescent L2 writers. Unlike other research on the use of computer technology that focuses on impact (Liu & Kunnan, 2016; Sung et al., 2016), the AT lens demonstrates the complex learning system and interrelatedness of the three mediation artefacts, the workshop rules, the learners as subjects and the writing workshops as objects in a computer-assisted writing context over a period of time. It also enables teachers who are interested in integrating computer technology into L2 writing to explore some methods to address the potential factors that affect human-computer interactions and to promote L2 writing in a computer-assisted setting. For instance, teachers can survey the attitudes and perceptions of their learners towards the use of computers for writing. They can consider the use of timed writing or share how a computer system or software can be managed with their students, based on regular observations of high, mid and low proficiency levels of L2 writers’ behaviours and strategies. As argued by Williams and Beam (2019), relevant and high-quality pedagogical knowledge by teachers is required in the realm of technology and writing.

7  Conclusion In essence, this study contributes to L2 writing by adopting the AT lens to examine the interrelatedness among the elements of the triadic model in a computer-assisted writing setting. It has also attempted to address the gap of researching adolescent L2 writers in the literature. As reported in the paper, the two adolescent L2 writers often interacted with and mediated interactions with the System, online resources, L1 and the workshop rules in a series of writing workshops. To a certain extent, their interactions were partially influenced by their motives and perceptions and partially by the explicit rules. It is felt that these elements form a translanguaging space in which the two L2 writers could make good use of both English and Chinese to support writing and create meaning. The level of importance of community and division of labour seems to be lower than that of the artefacts and rules. The aspects of writing they attend to during pauses are similar to those in a pen-and-paper context. As the study adopts a case study approach and is limited by the ECS2.0 that only gives feedback on writing ideas as a mediation artefact, the findings should be treated with caution. Further investigation into human-computer interactions, including L2 writers with different learning motivation, age groups and English proficiency levels (particularly low-proficiency L2 writers who are more likely to drop out from any study or task than high- and mid-proficiency counterparts), in the same or similar computer-assisted writing context (e.g., automated writing evaluation software) is deemed necessary.

140

C. Lee

Acknowledgements  This study was funded by the Standing Committee on Language and Education Research (SCOLAR) (EDB(LE)/P&R/EL/164/14), Hong Kong Education Bureau.

Appendices Appendix 1: Guiding Questions for Post-writing Interviews For Workshop 1 Can you describe your English language experience? How many hours do you spend on English writing every week? How does your English teacher teach writing? What difficulty/difficulties have you encountered when you write essays in composition lessons/other subjects? What motivated you to join this workshop? What do you expect to gain from the workshop? What aspect of writing do you expect to improve? For Workshops Three and Five What have you learnt in the past few weeks? As it is the second/third time you have used the System, can you tell me how it helps you to write better? In what ways is your writing experience with the ECS2.0 different from that with your writing experience in the classroom/at home? What are your comments on this learning experience?

Appendix 2: Suggested Arguments Provided by the System Workshop 5: Respect the Elderly It is said that there is a general lack of respect and appreciation for older members in our society. Do you agree? Support your view and/or opinion with examples of your experiences with senior citizens, and why you feel special deference and respect should be accorded to this group. • • • •

Obligation of juniors Etiquette, culture and tradition Elderly in society Wisdom of elderly

Revealing Interactions Between Adolescent English Learners and a Computer-Assisted…

141

Appendix 3: English Writing Workshop Feedback Form Code number: _______________________ Writing Topic: _______________________ Area Content

Mark and descriptor 10 8 Covered >70% Covered 60% subthemes subthemes Organization 5 4 Subthemes are Subthemes are well organised very effectively and developed organised and well-developed Grammar

5 Made very few grammar mistakes Able to use a variety of complex structures and a wide range of vocabulary

4 Made a few grammar mistakes Able to use a range of complex structures and vocabulary

6 Covered 40% to 50% subthemes 3 Subthemes are quite well organised and adequately developed 3 Made a number of obvious grammar mistakes, Able to use correct structures and vocabulary

4 Covered less than 40% subthemes 2 Subthemes are not organised and not adequately developed

2 Made a large number of basic grammar mistakes that impede comprehension, Only able to use limited simple structures and vocabulary

Other Comments

Total Mark: _________________________________ Signature: _________________________________

Appendix 4 Writing Samples B1017: Part of Essay 5 Elderly people in Hong Kong are always being ignored. People think that they do not pay any effort and only taking money from the government, so I agree that elderly people are not well respected in Hong Kong. Whenever we have got trouble, we can ask for the elderly’s advice as known as they have experienced more than us. We can trust them and follow what they have told us because they have the wisdom that we don’t have, and I believed that things never go to the wrong side. Ignoring them is also a kind of not respect. Although they may don’t have the fashion sense that we have or don’t share the same interest

142

C. Lee

with us, however, they may also got the fashion sense some years ago. So I think we should respect them. B1002: Part of Essay 5 Elderlies can be seen everywhere in our society, such as in the MTR, public parks and restaurants. Elderlies are omnipresent. However, elderlies are nowadays not well respected in Hong Kong. As an agent of transmitting experience and wisdom, elderlies are always supposed to be an important part of a society. Respecting the elderly and senior people is one of the values that we treasure. We, as juniors, have no excuse to disrespect them as it is our obligation to do it. We will learn more about them their past experience, which is the key for use, for success. Elderlies carry wisdom and knowledge, from etiquette, culture to traditional practices like table manners or being grateful to others. Their past experience is indispensably a major part of learning which is why the elderly should be well-respected.

References Amano, K. (1999). Improvement of schoolchildren’s reading and writing ability through the formation of linguistic awareness. In Y. Egneström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 183–205). Cambridge University Press. Barkaoui, K. (2016). What and when second-language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: The roles of task type, second language proficiency, and keyboarding skills. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 320–340. Bosher, S. (1998). The composing processes of three Southeast Asian writers at the post-secondary level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 205–241. Braine, J., & Franken, M. (2006). Students’ perception of a selected aspect of a computer-mediated academic writing program: An activity theory analysis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22, 21–38. Cotos, E. (2012). Towards effective integration and positive impact of automated writing evaluation in L2 writing. Iowa State University Digital Repository, pp.  81–110. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=engl-­pubs Crawford, L., Lloyd, S., & Knoth, K. (2008). Analysis of student revisions on a state writing test. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(2), 108–119. Curriculum Development Council. (2017). English language education: Key learning area curriculum guide (primary 1 to secondary 6). Education Bureau, HKSARG. Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (2010). Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. Routledge. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Egneström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge University Press. Fujioka, M. (2014). L2 student – US professor interactions through disciplinary writing assignments: An activity theory perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 40–58.

Revealing Interactions Between Adolescent English Learners and a Computer-Assisted…

143

Haneda, M. (2007). Modes of engagement in foreign language writing: An activity theoretical perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(2), 297–327. Harklau, L. (2011). Commentary: Adolescent L2 writing research as an emerging field. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(20), 227–230. Hedegaard, M. (1999). Activity theory and history teaching. In Y.  Egneström, R.  Miettinen, & R.  L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp.  282–297). Cambridge University Press. Hirvela, A. (2017). Argumentation and second language writing: Are we missing the boat? Journal of Second Language Writing, 100(36), 69–74. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299477 Kang, Y. S., & Pyun, D. O. (2013). Mediation strategies in hL2 writing processes: A case study of two Korean language learners. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(1), 52–67. Lam, R. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: Surveying knowledge, conceptions and practices of classroom-based writing assessment in Hong Kong. System, 81, 78–89. Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press. Lee, C., Cheung, W. K. W., Wong, K. C. K., & Lee, F. S. L. (2013). Immediate web-based essay critiquing system feedback and teacher follow up feedback on young second language learners’ writings: An experimental study in a Hong Kong secondary school. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 39–60. Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 217–236. Lei, X. (2016). Understanding writing strategy use from a sociocultural perspective: The case of skilled and less-skilled writers. System, 60, 105–116. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 33–71). M. E. Sharpe. Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. Liu, S., & Kunnan, A. J. (2016). Investigating the application of automated writing evaluation to Chinese undergraduate English majors: A case study of “WriteToLearn”. CALICO Journal, 33, 71–91. Ma, L. P. F. (2019). Examining the function of L1 use through teacher and student interactions in an adult migrant English classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(4), 386–401. Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39(4), 427–436. Murphy, E., & Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. Á. (2014). Activity theory perspectives on technology in higher education. Information Science Reference. Ng’ambi, D., & Brown, C. (2015). Mediating learning in a blended postgraduate course. In V. Bozalek, D. Ng’ambi, D. Wood, J. Herrington, J. Hardman, & A. Amory (Eds.), Activity theory, authentic learning and emerging technologies (pp. 46–58). Routledge. Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2016). Same language, different functions: A cross-genre analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 3–17. Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. Sung, Y. T., Liao, C. N., Chang, T. H., Chen, C. L., & Chang, K. E. (2016). The effect of online summary assessment and feedback system on the summary writing on 6th graders: The LSA-­ based technique. Computers & Education, 95, 1–18. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M.  Cole, V.  John-Steiner, S.  Scribner, & S.  Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Harvard University Press.

144

C. Lee

Williams, C., & Beam, S. (2019). Technology and writing: Review of research. Computers and Education, 128, 227–242. Wilson, T.  D. (1994). The proper protocol: Validity and completeness of verbal reports. Psychological Science, 5(5), 249–252. Wong, A. T. (2005). Writers’ mental representations of the intended audience and of the rhetorical purpose for writing and the strategies that they employed when they composed. System, 33(1), 29–47. Wood, D. (2015). The affordances of three-dimensional virtual worlds as authentic learning environments. In V. Bozalek, D. Ng’ambi, D. Wood, J. Herrington, J. Hardman, & A. Amory (Eds.), Activity theory, authentic learning and emerging technologies (pp. 144–156). Routledge. Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Exploring Chinese students’ strategy use in a cooperative peer feedback writing group. System, 58, 1–11.

Reacting, Re-learning and Reflecting on Sudden Pedagogical Adaptations Lindsay Miller and Junjie Gavin Wu

Abstract  In the COVID-19 period, teachers and learners across the globe face great challenges, not only physically, mentally, but also pedagogically. The pandemic forced most teachers to move from classroom-based to online teaching within a matter of weeks. That is, the sudden revaluation of pedagogy pushed teachers to make quick adaptations to online teaching, willingly or not. Against this backdrop, this chapter unpacks the challenges of two language teachers at a university in Hong Kong. We adopt a narrative inquiry approach to investigate the lived experience of the teachers who went through this unprecedented period of time. Teacher A is a highly experienced classroom teacher yet a non-digital native while Teacher B is a digital native but with limited teaching experience. Teacher A taught a language skills and strategies course to BA English majors, while Teacher B taught a Business English course to non-English majors. Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s (The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1979) ecosystem model, we examine the teachers’ needs and challenges in order to understand their experiences from the micro-, meso- and exo-­ systems perspectives. The study provides implications on what universities and teacher educators can do in order to better offer in-service teacher training and support to teachers for future online teaching scenarios.

L. Miller (*) Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China e-mail: [email protected] J. G. Wu School of Foreign Languages, Shenzhen Technology University, Guangdong, China © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_10

145

146

L. Miller and J. G. Wu

1  Introduction At the time of writing this chapter, the COVID-19 pandemic has been with us for more than 1 year. At the onset of the pandemic, many teachers may have expected that online teaching would be temporary for 1 month or at most half a year. Yet, until today, campuses around the globe are still virtual and students are learning from home. No one ascertains whether education will go back to normal while we have seen news and reports that predict a permanent change caused by the disease to the traditional classroom learning. The sudden, compulsory use of technology in delivering courses has uprooted most teachers’ usual teaching practices and forced them to react to the situation, re-learn how they teach their courses and perhaps reflect on their future pedagogical practices. It is therefore necessary for us to develop a better understanding of teaching and learning via the virtual mode. Recent studies have explored the challenges and coping strategies teachers take to deal with the abrupt changes to their teaching careers. According to Moorhouse (2020), the health crisis has caused a step backward for language education; it has somewhat transitioned the recent, interactive and learner-centered learning into the old-fashioned, spoon-fed and teacher-centered lecturing. Teachers may rely more on the delivery of PowerPoint slides while students showed a significant decline in participation during their lessons. Furthermore, Teng and Wu (2021), by comparing two different teachers’ teaching experiences, argued that novice teachers seem to suffer more pressure when teaching online and tend to adopt passive agency, providing there was insufficient professional support from colleagues and schools. Proactive agency, on the other hand, plays a key role in helping teachers adjust to the online mode of teaching. It improves teachers’ ownership in teaching and facilitates a smoother transition to online teaching. Though the abovementioned studies attempted to unpack the complex stories of language education during COVID-19, they generally adopted a micro perspective by examining the specific teaching moments. A macro perspective would also be of value to further our understanding of the professional support teachers need to better plan and carry out their teaching. Thus, differing from most of the other chapters in this edited volume which describe the students’ perspectives, the present chapter takes an ecological perspective and focuses on another important group of stakeholders – the teachers. We try to unpack the challenges of two language teachers at a university in Hong Kong during COVID-19 through their lived experiences.

2  Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Ecosystem Model Previous literature has drawn upon Bronfenbrenner’s nested ecosystems (1979) to cast light on the teachers’ professional development by delineating teachers’ situated teaching and living experiences in the complex socio-cultural world (e.g., Chen, 2020; Harrison & McIlwain, 2020). This framework depicts five different ecological systems (Fig.  1), interacting with each other to influence teachers’

Reacting, Re-learning and Reflecting on Sudden Pedagogical Adaptations

147

Fig. 1  Bronfenbrenner’s ecosystem framework (1979)

professional growth. Starting with the most commonly researched, the microsystem primarily examines teachers’ emotions, actions and relationships with students. The mesosystem level, encompassing the microsystem, concentrates on the transactions with students, colleagues, administrators and other stakeholders in the school. Different from these two systems that often directly impact teachers, the next level, exosystem, focuses on the wider social and academic communities. The macrosystem, extending the exosystem, describes the societal world teachers work in, including cultural values, national laws, economic boom and political development. Changes in the macrosystem, according to Cross and Hong (2012), tend to have significant influences on the other systems. Lastly, the chronosystem stresses the importance of time as different life events and an increase in teaching experiences play a role in changing teachers’ professional development. Based on this sophisticated framework, we attempt to present two life stories from two teachers by using the narrative inquiry method. The ecosystems will be applied to analyze their stories by extending our knowledge beyond the micro perspective of classroom teaching.

3  The Teachers’ Narrative Accounts Mertova and Webster (2020) highlight that critical events are key for researchers to unearth human understanding and action. Critical events are not random pieces of human memory, but they bring about positive or negative effects on people’s

148

L. Miller and J. G. Wu

cognition and behaviour and such effects tend to cause profound changes. In addition, critical events are memories retained by human brains over time and these events are “unplanned, unanticipated and uncontrolled” (Mertova & Webster, 2020, p.  63). In this chapter we present what might be considered as a cross between ‘small stories’ and ‘big narratives’ (Barkhuizen, 2013). That is, we focus on aspects of the specific lived experiences of two teachers dealing with a sudden change to pedagogy, yet frame this within their life histories as users of technology, personally and professionally. The teachers in the two case studies are also the researchers of this study. Therefore, we use the plural first-person pronoun to refer to ourselves here. We used a list of reflective questions to prompt ourselves, trying to recall the critical events in our previous lived experiences. By situating the two narrators/ researchers within their lifelong learning and teaching experiences, we hope that our readers may get a holistic and emic perspective. Narratives and narrative inquiries are hard to define. This is due to the fact that they change depending on the disciplines investigated and the large array of methodologies that can be used. Based on White, (cited in Wertch, 1997) we see narrative inquiry as “organized around temporality; it has a central subject; a plot with a wellmarked beginning, middle and end; an identifiable narrative voice; it makes connections between events; it achieves closure, a conclusion a resolution” (White, cited in Wertch, 1997, p. 8). The two teachers reported on here acted as both narrators and addressees. In this way, we helped each other co-construct the experiences of the past year when we had to suddenly move from being face-to-face teachers to online teachers. There are areas where the narrator and addressee are close: both are tutors in a university context, neither had any previous experience of working with zoom, both struggled to understand the theories and pedagogical approaches they needed to learn or adopt; and at other times they are distant: one is a digital native the other a non-digital native, one has only recently started his career as a university teacher while the other has many years of experience of teaching. By dint of our experiences and the ways in which we interacted with each other as colleagues, the narratives we present are ways to try and uncover how we have approached the new events of the past year and how we make sense of this period in our teaching lives. In many ways the created narratives have helped us to “…make life experiences meaningful (and) connect us with our past and present, and assist us to envision our future” (Kramp, 2004, p. 107). In such a way, our stories bring coherence to our experiences and help make sense of what has happened. Through casual chats on WhatsApp and by phone we came to realize that in many cases other colleagues had similar struggles and were also having difficulty making sense of their professional lives in the current situation caused by COVID-19. Therefore, we decided to try and make sense of an unreal situation for ourselves and perhaps deal with it better in the coming months, or years. The methodological approach used in this chapter can be broadly described as a narrative inquiry and had five main stages:

Reacting, Re-learning and Reflecting on Sudden Pedagogical Adaptations

149

(a) Firstly, over the past year we have had numerous conversations together about the current teaching/learning situation and about the use of zoom: the advantages and problems we had encountered. As a result of these conversations, we realized that there were issues we both shared in respect to online teaching and areas where we had different approaches, possibly due to our different personal exposures to technology. (b) Secondly, as a way to move our conversations forward into a research study, we constructed a list of questions (see Appendix) dealing with both the personal and professional landscapes of our experiences of using technology. These questions emerged from our conversations as it is often difficult when conducting qualitative research to know exactly what you are looking for at the beginning of a study (see Flowerdew & Miller, 2013). The questions that emerged from our unstructured chats then helped us construct our critical events. (c) Thirdly, we both wrote individual narratives based on the discussion questions we had constructed and seen in Appendix. We did not attempt to answer all the questions in the Appendix. Instead we attempted to recall those critical events that were most significant to our learning and teaching experiences. (d) Fourth, after we had written our narratives, we exchanged these and reflected on each other’s stories. We then had further online chats about our experiences, explaining the possible influences these critical events brought about. This cycle of reading; negotiating for clarity; then re-writing ensured that our stories accurately reflected our experiences with technology and our online teaching with zoom. (e) Fifth, we investigated, via thematic analysis, the similarities and differences between ourselves and our experiences in this unusual teaching and learning environment and framed these within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecosystem. In conducting this study, we attempt to answer the question: How do tertiary-level teachers cope with sudden pedagogical changes? In answering this question, we hope to build up a picture of what typical teachers have experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic and how we have coped with this unusual teaching context.

4  Stories 4.1  Teacher A: A Non-digital Native My first experience of using ‘technology’ was when I learned to write the alphabet at primary school. I have strong memories of my teacher, Mr. Brown, filling our ink wells and passing out wooden pens with detachable nibs. This type of technology may seem alien to younger readers, but it ensured that those of us who learned to write with these implements actually had good handwriting and had time to learn

150

L. Miller and J. G. Wu

not only penmanship, but vocabulary and spelling to boot. Moving onto secondary school, I remember teachers starting to use technology to enliven their lessons as new pedagogical trends developed. I have memories of film projectors, radio programmes, overhead projectors, audiotapes (and headphones) and banda handouts. It was not until I started working as a teacher myself that photocopiers became available and then later interactive whiteboards, personal computers and the internet. Therefore, I can honestly say that I have experienced the whole gamut of technological innovation as a student and as a teacher. The biggest challenges I have experienced in using technology as a teacher have happened in the past few years. As more administrative work in the university has gone online and students, who are digital natives themselves, have come to expect their learning experiences to be more multi-modal, I have had to shift my personal and professional approaches to the use of technology. My relationship with technology has never been smooth. I resisted buying a mobile phone for a long time while my friends and family all moved over to making this a common aspect of their daily lives. My feeling was that I was comfortable enough being able to do all my daily business with the type of technology available 15 years ago: using ATM banking, but not internet banking; using an overhead projector with acetates, but not PowerPoints. It was only when life became a little more difficult that I bought my Nokia phone: I was invited to give some lectures in Pakistan and the organizer of the event wanted my mobile phone number in case of problems contacting me; and when I realized that there was a host of interesting information available online which was relevant to the courses I was teaching did I move over to changing my acetates to PowerPoint slides with embedded content. Therefore, I can say that I was a reluctant convert to high-end technology in both my personal and professional life. Nowadays, I feel comfortable with a range of technology: face recognition internet banking and chatting online using WhatsApp, communicating with students via the university online management system – CANVAS – and preparing all my lessons with the aid of PowerPoint and the internet. However, when, in early 2020, with the arrival of the COVID-19 virus the university management informed us that we could no longer continue to offer face-to-face in-class teaching and that we had to move over to teaching our students online, I was totally unprepared and not convinced that it was something I could easily handle. I was skeptical that ordinary teachers, who engaged in classroom-based face-to-­ face teaching, could use online teaching effectively. I can even say that I was hostile to the university management’s abrupt emails informing us that we must use a new app called zoom. I had never heard of this app before and had no interest in learning how to use it. My feeling at the beginning of the online teaching revolution was that we would soon be back to teaching face-to-face and that it was probably a waste of time to learn some new technological device. Not surprisingly, my first experiences of using zoom for teaching were disastrous. I believe I had the misconception that students would not like this type of learning environment and no one wanted to be teaching/learning online. I also felt inadequately prepared for this type of teaching and a bit angry that management insisted that we should immediately change good pedagogical practice.

Reacting, Re-learning and Reflecting on Sudden Pedagogical Adaptations

151

Normally, at the university, we have three-hour classes and it is somewhat challenging to keep the students’ interest levels and motivation levels high throughout a lesson. The in-class approach I have used, for many years, is to allow students to have a lot of small group discussions to relax them from having to listen to me lecturing for too long, and I also give the students a 15-minute break halfway through each lesson. This approach has worked well, but I had no idea how to convert this to online teaching; for instance, if we had a break, I was concerned that the students would just switch off and not know when the lesson had restarted. I was also at a loss of how to convert my teaching materials as I would normally control these in class and only give handouts to students as they needed them. All of this was difficult to achieve online and I felt that my stress levels were high at the beginning, during, and after teaching an online lesson. I feel that my initial attempts to teach online were not at all successful. I was concerned that I was not delivering the content in a coherent fashion, that I was speaking too quickly, that I was not engaging the students in the learning and that if the technology failed then I had no back-up response. Notwithstanding these fears, I noticed that as the semester progressed and I continued to become more familiar with using zoom, the students’ responses to my teaching improved and we all learned how to handle the online teaching/learning environment. I converted my PowerPoints so that they were more user-friendly to online learning and I started to make extensive use of the breakout, polls and chat functions on zoom. I also started opening my zoom classes early and would chat with any student there to find out how they were coping with their online learning. From this, I realized that I was not the only stressed person in each lesson and that my students were having to cope with other issues related to their education: weak internet connectivity, noisy family members disrupting their concentration, tiredness due to 18–20 h of online learning each week, to name a few. In some ways, these chats with students and informing them of my own fears of how things were going, enabled me to have more confidence in my online delivery and I realized that students were not expecting anything too extraordinary in terms of the technology we were using and that some of their other teachers were also struggling to make use of zoom for teaching. I also experienced help from some of the students when they reminded me to turn on my microphone when it had been muted and in one class a student started to help me by posting links in the chatbox to web pages I was referring to in the PowerPoints. These responses from my students created a sense of sharing the difficulties we were experiencing and allied some of the fears that I had in trying to cope with the situation. Slowly, as a non-digital native, I began to feel that I could handle the zoom teaching environment and that after one semester of using the app there is not a lot more I needed to learn in order to be able to teach online, albeit at the most basic level. Assessment, though, is still an issue I have not come to terms with. In my face-to-­ face lessons I have complete control over any in-class test and I am able to talk directly to students about their assignments and answer any questions. With online tests I feel that I have little control and am a bit anxious if the instructions for assignments are clear. So far, though, there have been no big problems, but it is an area I am still unsure with and I need to discover more about this.

152

L. Miller and J. G. Wu

One thing that surprised me was that at the end of the semester when students completed their online teaching evaluation of the course and my teaching the results were similar to, or even better, than my usual students’ evaluation. This has given me more confidence that I am able to make use of zoom for teaching and that my students feel that they are learning something. During my transition to online teaching I had several chats (real and online) with friends and colleagues. I soon realized that my non-teaching friends had also moved over to using zoom for business meetings as most were working from home and that most of my colleagues were less than enthusiastic about conducting their classes online: even younger and more digitally aware colleagues were not completely happy with this mode of teaching. These facts somewhat comforted me as I felt that I was part of the wider community of professionals who were dealing with an unusual situation and that I could still perform my duties as a teacher regardless if it was online or face-to-face. Within the wider community I also realized that everyone’s lives had been affected due to the COVID-19 virus and that I was not alone in the changes that I had to make to my personal and professional life. For instance, everyone started wearing face-masks when travelling around and many people were working from home as evidenced by fewer travelers on the public transport each day. In terms of what I have learned about teaching online and the advice I might give to others about the use of zoom, I would suggest that university management become more sensitive to the type of communications they send to staff. Authoritative emails are not usually received well. There is also a need for drop-in centres for staff to go to and get some quick advice on how to use aspects of the app for teaching. To teachers I would suggest experimenting with zoom before using it. I would also suggest spending some time chatting with students about their learning to find out how they view the situation. To students I would advise them to open their cameras during lessons, not expect the teacher to also be an expert user of technology and perhaps offer to help the teacher by taking control of discussions when in the breakout rooms. To the zoom designers I would like them to have some conversations with teachers who are using the app. There are a few functions I would like: better display buttons (I have cancelled the whole lesson a few times by hitting the ‘end meeting’ rather than ‘end breakout rooms’ button) and the ability to monitor all the breakout rooms simultaneously rather than one at a time would be useful. What I find most interesting and perhaps empowering, is that given my introduction to using low-level technology at primary school, I now feel I have some confidence (though not overly assured) in using high-end technology in my professional life.

4.2  Teacher B: A Digital Native Growing up, I was surrounded by various advanced technologies, though they are outdated nowadays, for instance, CD-ROMs, cassettes and overhead projectors. My family owned a vintage Tsinghua Tongfang® desktop computer when I was in

Reacting, Re-learning and Reflecting on Sudden Pedagogical Adaptations

153

primary school. My parents and I explored its various, exciting functions, such as typing Chinese characters in MS Word, using animation in PowerPoint, and, most importantly, playing the classic Minesweeper game. Although my primary school was not a top one in a third-tier Chinese city I lived in, Information and Communications Technology (ICT) was a compulsory course and the school built a computer lab, which ensured that every student had access to a desktop during lessons. ICT courses since then had remained compulsory in secondary and university education, which prepared me with the basic knowledge and skills to use computer technology as I moved forward with my education. It should also be pointed out that China is undergoing a technological revolution with the use of apps playing a key role in everyday life. As such, I can see from the word ‘go’ that I was a digital native and that I need to use technology in my future too. Reflecting on my journey with new technologies and my education, I would say that I am a quick learner. In many cases, I am capable of addressing technical problems with the aid of the largest Chinese search engine – Baidu. I am also excited to explore new technological tools, such as virtual reality (VR) and artificial intelligence (AI), although I still lack the basic knowledge of developing these advanced technologies. I am, to a large extent, intrigued by the concept of how teachers and learners can effectively tap into technology so as to improve their learning experience and performances. Although, because of my age, home and school environments I have been surrounded by technology, I sometimes still seek out my computer-savvy friends who are able to offer advice to an English teacher, like myself, when I get confused with the latest technological innovations. I obtained all my university degrees in English language education; however, I am still a young teacher with around 5 years of teaching experience. In this way, I feel a little bit inadequate when I start teaching a new course as I do not have past experiences to draw on. On top of this, I also found language teaching in Hong Kong challenging. First, the university adopts an English medium instruction (EMI) policy. As a somewhat novice teacher and EFL learner myself, I occasionally found it difficult to communicate some sophisticated ideas to my students. Second, most of the language courses I teach employ a task-based approach, including course assignments such as delivering a business promotional presentation. Instructors thus need to teach around the assignments during a 13-week semester. Reflecting on my teaching experience, I noticed that I usually spend a large amount of time, over and beyond class time, interacting with my students to help them understand their assignments. This face-to-face contact with students is something I enjoy and believe that having such personal contact with the students makes me a better teacher. As a researcher in the field of technology-enhanced language learning, I am constantly looking for ways to innovate my teaching practices to improve students’ language learning process, and, if possible, to use technology to do this. For example, I am currently exploring the use of VR to enhance students’ English vocabulary learning. I believe that I have enough passion, theoretical background and practical experiences with different technologies. Informed by my pedagogical beliefs, I have attempted to turn my class into interactive, multimodal and stimulating learning environments by integrating technologies into learning. I have experimented with

154

L. Miller and J. G. Wu

different technological tools with my students in in-class and out-of-class learning, and as such, I believe that I am an innovative language teacher. Although I may have depicted myself as a tech-savvy, digital native language teacher, my experiences with the sudden transition from in-class face-to-face to total virtual teaching were not smooth. As the university abruptly demanded every instructor to teach via zoom, I was caught off guard in the beginning. I had self-­ doubt whether I could successfully handle this transition and teach effectively because of my limited teaching experience. Although I attended some university tutorials on the use of zoom and basically understood how this software works I was not convinced that using the app would be useful for teachers to implement meaningful and effective teaching online. I had spent years learning to be a classroom teacher and so I believe that pedagogical support in how to teach online was crucial; however, such pedagogical support was limited and I felt somewhat frustrated at being ‘thrown to the lions’. As I have an inherent curiosity about using technology in enhancing student learning it may be assumed that I would be excited to know more about distance learning. After all, zoom is just another technological tool. Yet, I felt that I was just like all the other teachers, who were learning, at speed, to adapt to the new needs under a very challenging situation. Of course, my research background enabled me to adapt to the online mode of teaching and I was quick to realize my own teacher autonomy: I have the awareness and capability to design, reflect on and perfect my teaching via a technological environment. However, I still felt unsatisfied that I lacked the relevant pedagogical training to be able to use zoom-based teaching. As a result of this feeling of inadequacy, I resorted to reading research papers, searching for online teaching seminars and chatting with my colleagues with the aim to find possible ways to re-design my teaching in this new era of compulsory online teaching. Apart from the insufficient pedagogical support from the university level, there was also a lack of support from the department I worked in. One glaring issue was that the course coordinator did not revise the requirements of student assignments based on the online mode of learning, but insisted that instructors marked students’ work based on the previous rubrics. I felt that as a novice teacher, I was under tremendous stress as the pandemic had significantly changed my way of living and working. Reflecting on my experience of zoom-based teaching, I would suggest that teachers share useful teaching ideas in online teaching on a regular basis. Such sharing can help others relieve their psychological pressures, especially during a crisis. To university management, I would alert them to issues related to the syllabi and assessments. These require necessary adjustments based on the online mode of education. University management should allow some leeway for teachers to make their own adjustments to their courses. Finally, to students: turn on your cameras during the lesson. Language learning is by no means a one-man show. As usual, learners should participate in learning activities, no matter if it is in a virtual or physical class. Moreover, the emotional connections afforded by seeing each other in online classes would improve the teacher’s teaching confidence and teaching practice.

Reacting, Re-learning and Reflecting on Sudden Pedagogical Adaptations

155

Though I was confident that I could plan my teaching based on the online mode of learning, as a young teacher I felt unsupported most of the time. Much more pedagogical, affective and administrative support could have been offered.

5  Discussion The sudden pedagogical changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic caused us to react to the unusual situation, re-learn how we delivered our course materials and reflect on how we were teaching our students. In the process of doing this, we developed a small research study based on our own narratives. We did this because “…narratives of experience, are both personal…and social…- reflecting the milieu, the contexts in which teachers live” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999, p. 2). Our purpose was to go beyond the storytelling and uncover some of the shared experiences we had that may lead to a better understanding of the sudden pedagogical changes teachers had to engage with. Although, together, we had had many social chats about our teaching and how we were trying to cope with the situation, we thought that we needed to take things a step further and write down our stories as a personal narrative can make the topic more concrete and accessible (Vandrick, 2013). As we were different teachers in certain ways we also wanted to see if these differences could account for the ways we were dealing with the situation. In summary, Teacher A is someone who: is a non-digital native; has an awareness of the range of technology that has been used in education; is not confident in using technology; had problems adjusting to using zoom for teaching; has ongoing concerns about the use of online teaching apps; has adapted somewhat to teaching online, but whose struggle with using technology is not yet over. Teacher B is someone who: is a digital native; has been using technology all his life at home and for his learning; is very confident about his conceptualization of technology and his ability to use it; was concerned about the lack of backup to support his teaching; was worried that he was unable to teach his students online to the standard he wanted; feels better about using zoom now, but is very aware that there is a lot more to learn about teaching online. In the process of writing and discussing our narratives were are able to offer some answers and explanations to the research question we posted at the beginning of this chapter. By a process of discussion, writing, reading narratives and then talking about them, certain themes and issues emerged from the teachers’ stories which help us answer our research question: How do tertiary-level teachers cope with sudden pedagogical changes? Due to space limitation, though, we highlight only three themes here: episodic structure, minor epiphanies and issues of control and use Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecosystem as a way of conceptualizing these issues. By way of writing the narratives we created episodic structures to our professional lives. That is, we tried to see ourselves within the framework of users of technology within the whole chronosystem of society, community, school, classroom and as teachers. As we had very different exposures, personally and professionally, to using technology, our experiences are obviously different. Yet, we were

156

L. Miller and J. G. Wu

both highly aware of the impact technology has on our lives and how we use it in our teaching. We do not feel that we are unusual from other teachers in this way. Our narratives illustrate an awareness of our exposures and abilities (or lack of) with technology and that even given our very different backgrounds how we both struggled to make sense of the sudden change of pedagogy. From the societal level (macrosystem) we knew that technology had become part of our lives and we had experienced the benefits we got from this. Our narratives also show how we both appreciated that we were not the only people struggling to cope with the new teaching situation (exosystem). We both had issues with how the university management handled the situation (mesosystem) and we had concerns when it came to our own abilities to teach online (microsysetem): one of us (the non-digital native) was concerned more about the technical aspects while the other (the digital native) worried more about not using the ‘right’ pedagogical approaches. At the individual level of the chronosystem our insights gained by talking with each and then writing our narratives clearly illustrates how we framed ourselves in this sudden change to online teaching and how we managed to make sense of it. There were some examples in our narratives of minor epiphanies and these relate to turning points in adjusting to online teaching. Teacher A’s realization that students were also struggling with the new learning context helped him understand that what he was doing online was valued by his students. As an experienced teacher, Teacher A thought that he was responsible for creating a learning environment which all students could benefit from. Once he realized that he had no control over their home learning environments, or the connectivity aspects of their computers, he relaxed somewhat and focused on what he had control over. Teacher B came to a realization that although he is a digital native, he was not able to completely understand the pedagogical requirements of the new teaching context. However, once he engaged in conversations with Teacher A (and others) he began to put into perspective that there was only so much he could do himself and that the further training he needed was a wish rather than a reality. These minor epiphanies show how the individual, microsystem and to an extent the mesosystems interacted to create a complex working environment for both teachers. Both teachers felt that they had no alternative but to enact their own agency and take control of the online teaching in order to survive the sudden change to pedagogy, especially given the limited training and information from the university management. Framed within the exosystem and macrosystems of the framework we see how Teachers A and B were aware that they were not alone in trying to cope with the new teaching environment. Knowing that their colleagues and friends outside of the university were also struggling to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic at work allowed these teachers to accept what they were doing was rational and of benefit to their students.

Reacting, Re-learning and Reflecting on Sudden Pedagogical Adaptations

157

6  Conclusion In some ways the two teachers in this study can be considered as success stories. Although we both had issues with the sudden pedagogical change brought on because of the COVID-19 virus, we responded to the situation within the different levels of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecosystem and managed to cope with it. Now, we feel a certain level of achievement and satisfaction that we are able to teach online with relative ease. However, these successes are probably due to our own efforts and it may be that university management is not aware of the intense efforts all teachers have made while adjusting to online teaching. The narratives presented in this study illustrate the ‘creative discursive agency’ (Flowerdew & Miller, 2013) of each of the teachers. This agency, though, seems to have been left to chance and it is now time that further studies were undertaken to inform management and teachers of how to better respond to any future sudden pedagogical change.

Appendix: Reflective Questions 1. What is your experience of using technology in your daily life? 2. What is your past experience of using technology for teaching? 3. How would you describe your relationship with technology? 4. What technological devices do you use? 5. What was your initial reaction to being informed that all classes were to be taught online? 6. What was your first experiences of using zoom for teaching? 7. Did you have any problems in learning how to use zoom? 8. Did you have any challenges in converting your teaching materials for online use? 9. How did your students react to your online teaching? 10. What challenges did you face while teaching your students online? 11. What suggestions do you have for an online teaching app? 12. How did you handle assessment and assignments while using online teaching? 13. Did you receive any feedback from students about your online teaching? 14. Would you be happy to continue using an online app for supplementary teaching? 15. What advice would you give a teacher who had not used any online teaching apps before? 16. What advice would you give to a teacher trainer who prepares novice teachers in how to use an online teaching app? 17. Do you think content can be taught effectively using online apps?

158

L. Miller and J. G. Wu

1 8. Do you think language can be taught effectively using online apps? 19. What technical skills have you learnt from using the online teaching app? 20. What technical skills would you still like to learn in order to use online teaching apps?

References Barkhuizen, G. (2013). Narrative research in applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Chen, J. (2020). Teacher emotions in their professional lives: Implications for teacher development. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1359866X.2019.1669139 Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (Eds.). (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of educational practice. Teachers College Press. Cross, D. I., & Hong, J. Y. (2012). An ecological examination of teachers’ emotions in the school context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(7), 957–967. Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2013). Narrative inquiry in a second language context: Stories from Hong Kong. In G.  Barkhuizen (Ed.), Narrative research in applied linguistics (pp.  41–61). Cambridge University Press. Harrison, J., & McIlwain, M.  J. (2020). ESOL teachers’ experiences in their role as advocate: Making the case for transitive advocacy. TESOL Journal, 11(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tesj.464 Kramp, M. K. (2004). Exploring life and experiences through narrative inquiry. In K. B. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 103–121). Lawrence Erlbaum. Mertova, P., & Webster, L. (2020). Using narrative inquiry as a research method: An introduction to critical event narrative analysis in research. Routledge. Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). Adaptations to a face-to-face initial teacher education course ‘forced’ online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 609–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1755205 Teng, M.  F., & Wu, J.  G. (2021). Tea or tears: Online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(2), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747 6.2021.1886834 Vandrick, S. (2013). ‘The colonial legacy’ and ‘missionary kid’ memoirs. In G. Barkhuizen (Ed.), Narrative research in applied linguistics (pp. 19–40). Cambridge University Press. Wertch, J. (1997). Narrative tools of history and identity. Culture & Psychology, 3(5), 5–20.

Students’ Experience in Online Teaching and Learning: An Investigation into EMI Classroom Interaction, Willingness to Communicate and Classroom Enjoyment Daniel Fung

Abstract  Recently, many universities have shifted to online teaching and learning employing synchronous teaching apps. Such practice is a logical consequence to respond to the needs of students in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, not much has been known about its effects on students’ experience. Particularly, given the lack of physical presence, it is worthy to explore how online teaching and learning may influence classroom interaction, students’ willingness to communicate (WTC) in second language (L2) English, and classroom enjoyment in English Medium Instruction (EMI) higher education context. This study explores students’ views and experience in relation to these three aspects by comparing online and face-to-face classes. Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were conducted with four students in an EMI taught postgraduate programme at a university in Hong Kong. These students experienced half of their courses conducted in a face-­ to-­face mode and half in an online synchronous mode throughout an academic year. Results indicated more teacher-student interactions and heightened WTC mostly due to a lower level of anxiety. However, students reported less opportunities for peer interactions and had mixed views on classroom enjoyment. Implications are discussed in relation to how teachers can improve students’ learning experience in EMI classes conducted using online technology.

D. Fung (*) Department of English Language Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_11

159

160

D. Fung

1  Introduction The past 2 years have seen substantial changes across the world. Due to the global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing has become a norm in many places. The reaction of the education sector is no exception. Schools were closed for some time to avoid face-to-face contact. For example, the United Nations (2020) has reported that school closures have affected 94% of learners across the globe in April 2020, and online teaching and learning have taken place in multiple ways. In the higher education setting, some university lecturers have adopted a synchronous online mode and used apps to interact with students in usual class hours. Others have employed an asynchronous mode and made lesson recordings and self-access materials for students to learn at their own pace. In Hong Kong, most tertiary institutions have employed some degree of online teaching during the pandemic, for instance, in fully online or hybrid mode (i.e. some students taking classes online and others face-to-face) (Young, 2022). This abrupt turn from the traditional physical classroom setting to a virtual environment presents challenges and opportunities to both teachers and students. A source of challenges originates from how the classroom interaction in an online setting is very different from the traditional face-to-face setting. For example, activities requiring physical presence and choral speaking are very difficult to conduct. Students may also find themselves less encouraged to communicate with each other. A recent survey by Lingnan University (2020) in Hong Kong has found that more than 60% of university students regarded online teaching as less effective than face-­ to-­face teaching; in addition, 50% of the students considered that in-class interaction was affected, while 45% reported that after-class interaction with instructor was negatively influenced due to online teaching and learning. Despite these challenges and negative views, opportunities also arise when many apps and platforms such as Google Classroom, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Kahoot, Mentimeter, to name just a few, have proliferated in response to the surge of online teaching and learning. For instance, Tsui and Tavares (2021) have presented examples through the lens of an English language teacher educator at university of how the effective use of Zoom could foster whole-class and group interactions. However, to date, there is insufficient research comparing online and face-to-face classes in EMI higher education setting. Particularly, we do not know enough about the classroom interaction patterns and whether and why students find themselves more or less willing to communicate in online lessons as compared to face-to-face lessons. It is also not clear whether students enjoy classes conducted online. This study, therefore, intends to unveil the affordances and constraints of online classes in terms of classroom interactions, willingness to communicate, and classroom enjoyment.

Students’ Experience in Online Teaching and Learning: An Investigation into EMI…

161

2  Literature Review 2.1  Classroom Interaction Classroom interaction has been an important research area for years, with input, interaction, and output being highlighted as potential predictors of learning particularly in the second/foreign language (L2) literature. Krashen (1982) first proposed the idea of comprehensible input and maintained that modifying the input to a suitable level would help learners learn. Long (1983) focused rather on interaction and negotiation for meaning through the use of clarification requests, comprehension checks, and confirmation checks. Swain (1985) further highlighted the significance of learners producing the language and advocated her Output Hypothesis. Over the years, studies have shown some advantage of interaction and output over modified input in bringing about language learning (see, e.g. Ellis et al., 1994; Mackey, 1999; Maleki & Pazhakh, 2012). In the EMI context, interaction has also been regarded as providing important opportunities for learners to co-construct knowledge with the teacher. Yip (2004) used the term ‘conceptual change’ to signify how teacher-student interaction such as questioning and feedback can provide the space of learning. However, empirical research has shown that teacher talk dominated the EMI classroom, accounting for around 85% (An et al., 2021) or 89%–96% (Lo, 2015). Student turns are also short and last for only 3.5 s in An et al. (2021) or 1.8 to 2.6 s in Lo (2015). With such limited opportunities for the students to produce output or interact with the teacher, the implication is worrying – that students may not be able to learn both English and content knowledge effectively in the EMI context. In reality, despite the general beliefs of students that interactions in the EMI classroom are beneficial, they do not necessarily want to participate in extensive interactions, and some of them even expect the teacher to do most of the talking (An & Thomas, 2021). When it comes to online teaching and learning in EMI contexts, research has been scarce. As shown in a systematic review conducted by Querol-Julián and Crawford Camiciottoli (2019), most EMI studies have been conducted in face-to-­ face settings, leaving the online EMI context a much-needed area of research. Some recent contributions have been made by Querol-Julián (2021), who analyzed an episode of teacher-student interaction in an online lecture. It was found that the teacher tried to engage learners and integrate students’ contribution through multimodal discourse strategies. In terms of the language use, there was an instance where the lecturer used a referential question (which was less frequent in face-to-­ face EMI higher education contexts) in form of a yes/no answer question, making it possible even for low proficiency learners to provide a short one-word answer and contribute to the classroom interaction. While there were also some students who provided more elaborate answers, it would be interesting to follow up the results from the learners’ point of view whether turning EMI classes online has given rise

162

D. Fung

to more or less classroom interaction, and whether this classroom interaction pattern has actually limited or instead opened up the ‘space of learning’. One variable which could influence classroom interaction is willingness to communicate (WTC), to which we now turn.

2.2  Willingness to Communicate WTC is defined as ‘a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2’ (MacIntyre et al., 1998: 547). This readiness, depicted as ‘the final psychological step in preparation for L2 communication’ (MacIntyre, 2007: 568), has the potential to explain the classroom interaction patterns that have been observed in the literature. For example, if students are not willing to communicate, it is understandable why An and Thomas (2021) found that their students saw the benefits of interaction yet not feeling ready to enter into communication behaviour. WTC has, therefore, an important bearing on classroom interaction. Research has shown that WTC is affected by both learner-internal variables such as age, motivation and anxiety, and learner-external ones such as group size and classroom environment. For example, delving into the variable of group dynamics, Cao and Philp (2006) sampled eight learners in higher education context and revealed some mixed findings in that some learners participated more in whole-class setting whereas others preferred group or pair work. However, most of these learners reported in interviews that the number of interlocutors or group size would influence their WTC, and many of them reported that they lacked self-confidence to engage in whole-class interactions. Dewaele and Dewaele (2018) examined what variables predicted WTC. They found a multitude of variables such as foreign language classroom anxiety (FLCA), teachers’ use of the L2, students’ attitude towards the L2, students’ L2 level, classroom environment, the social dimension of foreign language enjoyment (FLE) and age predicted WTC. Among these predictors, FLCA was the only negative predictor but the strongest one which dampened WTC. Interestingly, the authors also compared their empirical findings with other research and found similar results – some kind of language proficiency or perceived proficiency, classroom environment, FLCA and FLE almost always appeared on the list of significant predictors of WTC.  All these have led Dewaele and Dewaele (2018) to conclude that a positive classroom environment is of paramount importance to mitigate the negative effect of FLCA and strengthen the positive aspects (e.g. classroom environment and social FLE) to promote WTC. When it comes to the online teaching and learning, research has mainly focused on WTC in relation to written communication (e.g., online chat in Freiermuth & Huang, 2012, or use of social media in Cao & Wei, 2019), asynchronous oral communication (e.g., Kissau et  al., 2010), or informal out-of-school digital learning contexts (e.g., Lee et al., 2021). One of the few studies which researched into WTC in online synchronous classroom settings is Le et  al. (2018), although they were

Students’ Experience in Online Teaching and Learning: An Investigation into EMI…

163

interested not in EMI but English as foreign language (EFL) students. They recruited Vietnamese high school students to take part in an online EFL course, which included some asynchronous tasks and participation in synchronous online meetings to receive feedback on the tasks and engage in discussion. Interestingly, results indicated that students were less willing to communicate when they were being ‘seen’ in video chats. In contrast, when they felt themselves having lower social presence (e.g. by not turning on their camera and engaging in voice chats only), they were more willing to speak. Therefore, in online synchronous classroom settings, social presence may be another variable that would predict learners’ WTC. Taken together, while research on WTC has begun to arrive at some converging findings on the factors influencing WTC, three areas warrant further research. First, WTC in online synchronous classroom settings have not been studied sufficiently. Second, research into WTC in EMI contexts is lacking. Most existing research investigated WTC in the L2 (especially English) classroom (e.g., Le et al., 2018), but WTC and interaction in L2 is equally important in the EMI classroom and should deserve research attention. Third, more studies are needed on the positive variables, such as the classroom environment. Dewaele and Dewaele (2018), among others, have offered the very important insight that many variables predicting WTC are actually positive ones, and the only negative variable – FLCA – can also be mitigated when the classroom is an inclusive and encouraging one that the learners feel at ease and enjoy. Classroom enjoyment can potentially positively impact on students’ WTC.

2.3  Classroom Enjoyment Classroom enjoyment is defined by Lee (2020: 2) as ‘the extent to which classroom L2 learning is perceived as providing pleasure’. This notion highlights how a positive classroom environment can be constructed by the teachers and peers, and reflects the turn of research attention ‘from negative emotions (e.g. L2 anxiety) to positive ones (e.g. L2 enjoyment)’ (Lee, 2020: 4). As Dewaele and MacIntyre (2014: 264) suggests, ‘the classroom environment can facilitate enjoyment’. Research into classroom enjoyment can be traced back to different types of FLE. Dewaele and MacIntyre (2016) carried out a Principal Component Analysis and identified the two dimensions of FLE-Social and FLE-Private, pinpointing that language learning enjoyment can arise from the social setting (e.g. good atmosphere; teacher is supportive) as well as personal reactions (e.g., I enjoy it; it’s fun). Li et al. (2018) further validated an 11-item scale of FLE, distinguishing three factors: FLE-Private, FLE-Teacher, and FLE-Atmosphere. Building upon these works, Lee (2020) considered the social aspects of classroom enjoyment, i.e., the FLE-­ Teacher and FLE-Atmosphere subscales, and their relationship with L2 WTC. He found that classroom enjoyment significantly correlated with and predicted L2 WTC.  Examining the data more in-depth, it was also revealed that classroom

164

D. Fung

enjoyment (in contrast with other variables such as age, length of time spent studying English, and grit) was a stronger predictor of L2 WTC for university learners. Similar to research on classroom interaction and WTC elaborated above, there is a lack of research into classroom enjoyment in online synchronous EMI settings. The most relevant research that was done in this area was Fraschini and Tao (2021), who researched into the online synchronous learning of a foreign language  – Korean – in an Australian university. They collected data on enjoyment, pride, anxiety, teacher friendliness and strictness, classroom participation, and some background variables. The results confirmed some of the findings in offline contexts, e.g., the self-reported frequency of Korean language speaking in class was positively correlated with enjoyment and negatively correlated with anxiety. Also, teacher friendliness predicted learner enjoyment. Turning back to online EMI settings which contain very limited research, it is important to examine whether teachers also play a central role in creating an enjoyable classroom environment, and whether this classroom enjoyment would heighten learners’ WTC and active involvement in classroom interaction. Given the research gaps with reference to classroom interaction, WTC, and classroom enjoyment in online synchronous EMI classes, as well as the important implications that delving into these research gaps would bring, the present study intends to answer the following research questions (RQs). RQ1: To what extent do online synchronous EMI lessons differ from face-to-face ones in classroom interaction, willingness to communicate, and classroom enjoyment? RQ2: What are the underlying factors that influence EMI students’ WTC and classroom enjoyment?

3  Methodology 3.1  Research Context and Participants This study is exploratory in nature given the scarcity of research in online synchronous EMI lessons. A sample of four students who were enrolled in a taught Master’s programme at a university in Hong Kong were invited to take part in this study. These students were selected because they experienced half the courses conducted in face-to-face setting and half in online synchronous setting in an academic year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and were therefore in a good position to reflect on their learning experience comparing the two settings. These students learnt in EMI, and they had good English proficiency (IELTS score at least 6.5). Effort was also made to recruit students with more diverse background in order to gather more insights from different perspectives.

Students’ Experience in Online Teaching and Learning: An Investigation into EMI…

165

The four participants were Anna, Bonnie, Clare, and David (all pseudonyms). Anna and Bonnie were local students in Hong Kong doing the Master’s degree in part-time mode, whereas Clare was from mainland China and David was from Japan, both doing their studies in full-time mode. The students also differed in their academic achievement, with Anna and Clare being the top students in their cohort and Bonnie and David average.

3.2  Procedure, Data Collection, and Analysis The four students were interviewed individually using an online app which allows synchronous interactions. The semi-structured interviews were divided into 3 parts. First, the researcher interviewed the students on their perceptions on and experience of classroom interaction in face-to-face and online classes. After gathering participants’ perceptions on classroom interaction, the students were asked to complete a short questionnaire on WTC and classroom enjoyment on the spot given that the questionnaire was a short one with 12 items. The reason for administering the questionnaire in the middle of the interview was to allow the participants to ask questions if they did not understand any questionnaire items. Also, the completed questionnaire could serve as stimuli for more reflections on WTC and classroom enjoyment. In the third and final part, therefore, the questionnaires were directly shown on the screen using the online app’s ‘share screen’ function, allowing participants to explain and reflect on their WTC and classroom enjoyment ratings. The questionnaire (see Tables 1 and 2 below) was adapted from Lee (2020). Changes were made to the items such that they prompted learners to self-report their WTC and classroom enjoyment in EMI and not EFL classes, and that they tapped into participants’ thoughts about online in comparison with face-to-face classes. The interviews lasted for 1 h, and students were allowed to use either Chinese or English to interact with the researcher, whichever was preferred by them. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and for the explanations of WTC and classroom enjoyment ratings, they were coded for content analysis. Themes were identified using a grounded approach during the coding process. The analysis went about following suggestions by Charmaz (2006) and Zacharias (2012). The author and a trained research assistant (RA) read and reread the data independently to develop tentative themes as openly as possible and without any predetermined categories. The tentative themes were then revised through discussion between the author and the RA. After agreeing on the themes to analyze, the author and the RA coded the interviews independently, and compared the coding to achieve intercoder reliability. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion, and in the end, there was no unresolved disagreement. The questionnaire ratings were also tabulated and presented, but given the small sample size, they were mainly discussed descriptively to complement the qualitative findings.

166

D. Fung

Table 1  Students’ WTC in online and face-to-face classes

Situation (1a)  When you are given a chance to talk freely in class (e.g. during a break or before/after class). (1b)  When you have a chance to talk in front of the class: Asking questions (1c)  When you have a chance to talk in front of the class: Answering questions (1d)  When you have a small group discussion in class. (1e)  When you have a chance to make a presentation in front of the class. (1f)  When you have a chance to share something about yourself (e.g. explain your own culture or experience) in English in front of the class.

(B) Face-to-face (A) Online classes classes How much are you willing to communicate in English in the following situations in an EMI classroom (i.e. content classes, NOT language classes)? Anna: 2 Bonnie: 3 Clare: 2 Anna: 5 Bonnie: 4 David: 2 Clare: 5 David: 3 Anna: 5 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 1 David: 4 Anna: 5 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 2 David: 3 Anna: 5 Bonnie: 5 Clare: 3 David: 5 Anna: 4 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 2 David: 4 Anna: 5 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 3 David: 4

Anna: 4 Bonnie: 2 Clare: 1 David: 3 Anna: 4 Bonnie: 2 Clare:4 David: 2 Anna: 5 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 5 David: 4 Anna: 4 Bonnie: 3 Clare: 5 David: 4 Anna: 3 Bonnie: 2 Clare: 5 David: 4

Note: 1 = Definitely not willing; 2 = Probably not willing; 3 = Perhaps willing / perhaps not willing; 4 = Probably willing; 5 = Definitely willing

Table 2  Students’ classroom enjoyment in online and face-to-face classes Statement (2a)  The EMI class has a positive environment. (2b)  The EMI teacher is encouraging. (2c)  The EMI teacher is friendly.

(A) Online classes Anna: 5 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 3 David: 3 Anna: 5 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 4 David: 3 Anna: 5 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 4 David: 3 (2d)  The EMI teacher is supportive. Anna: 5 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 4 David: 3 (2e)  There is a good atmosphere in Anna: 5 Bonnie: 3 Clare: 3 the EMI class. David: 3 (2f)  We laugh a lot in the EMI Anna: 4 Bonnie: 3 Clare: 4 class. David: 3

(B) Face-to-face classes Anna: 5 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 5 David: 4 Anna: 5 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 5 David: 4 Anna: 4 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 5 David: 4 Anna: 4 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 5 David: 4 Anna: 5 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 5 David: 3 Anna: 4 Bonnie: 4 Clare: 5 David: 3

Note: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree

Students’ Experience in Online Teaching and Learning: An Investigation into EMI…

167

4  Results 4.1  Classroom Interaction The students identified and distinguished two types of classroom interactions: student-­ student (SS) interactions and teacher-student (TS) interactions. It was agreed by all students that there were less SS interactions in online EMI classes than face-to-face classes. Particularly, students would not speak to each other informally during breaks and after class in online classes. It was also difficult to seek help from peers. Yet, there were more TS interactions. Excerpt 1 from Anna is a representative quote from the participants. Except 1 (Anna) Actually, there were more interactions between the teacher and the students in online classes when compared to face-to-face classes, but of course this also depended on the teacher. For classes taught by more experienced teachers who knew how to teach, there would be more interactions. However, the distance with other students was wider. In Term 1 when we had face-to-­face classes, peer relationship was better developed.

Anna observed more TS interactions in online classes, especially when the teacher was an experienced one who would engage the students through classroom interaction. Anna also suggested an interesting point about the ‘distance’ with other students. Upon further exchanges in the interview, she described this distance as both physical (that they did not see each other) and psychological (that there was less emotional support). This distant relationship among students was present not necessarily because of the lack of pair or group work, but because even during group discussion some students did not participate fully, as reported by Clare in Excerpt 2. Except 2 (Clare) When having small group discussion in online breakout rooms, sometimes it was very quiet. No one was responding to me, making the situation quite embarrassing. But occasionally, some students would lead the discussion, and then I would be more motivated to talk. Clare explained that students might not find it sufficiently motivating to talk to each other in an online platform. The ‘distance’, however, can both be constraining (leading to less interactions especially with peers) and enabling. From Bonnie’s viewpoint, it was because of the physical distance that she felt less anxious to interact with the others, especially in TS interactions. As for SS interactions, Bonnie’s opinion concurred with the other interviewees that there were less especially during the breaks (see Excerpt 3).

168

D. Fung

Except 3 (Bonnie) In terms of the quantity, there were more teacher-student interactions. I observed that there were more questions being asked by the lecturers in online classes. For me, I found that because I was not speaking in front of the public physically, I felt less anxious and could interact with the teacher. However, there were less interactions with other students. For example, in term 1, sometimes during the break we would talk to each other and clarify some concepts we just learnt. In online classes, we did so much less. David similarly reported the little SS interactions in online classes, especially the informal ones after class. He maintained that when attending face-to-face classes, he ‘usually talked to other students during breaks and after class’. These types of ‘informal’ peer talks were lacking in online classes. When asked whether EMI classes being turned online have presented more or less challenges, students commented that EMI interactions have been challenging anyway regardless of it being face-to-face or online classes given English is their L2 (see Excerpt 4), especially for David (see Excerpt 5) who was concerned about his pronunciation and word choice. Yet, online classes have enabled them to face these challenges in different ways. David resorted to written interactions and typed his questions in the chat box of the online platform; Anna felt that she was more willing to communicate with others because of lowered anxiety, which was also echoed by Bonnie in Except 3 presented earlier. Except 4 (Anna) There was not much difference in terms of the problems we encounter in classroom interactions. EMI classes, regardless of them being face-to-face or online, are more difficult than CMI ones anyway. By turning EMI classes to an online mode, the language difficulties are still there because English is my L2, not my L1. However, I felt that it was easier for me to initiate an interaction online because the whole class was more quiet. I was more willing to ask and answer questions online. I also felt less anxious and more comfortable physically.

Except 5 (David) The biggest challenge to me was asking questions in EMI. My pronunciation and choice of word could give rise to communication problems. However, this problem could exist in both face-to-face and online classes. What was good was that in online learning, I had the alternative to type my question and not verbally ask it. Or even if I had verbally asked a question, I could also type something using the chat function to further explain my question.

Students’ Experience in Online Teaching and Learning: An Investigation into EMI…

169

Taken together, the classroom interaction in online teaching and learning can be characterized as more TS but less SS interactions. The physical and psychological distance is both constraining and enabling. It is constraining because most students would feel less motivated to engage in informal chats. At the same time, the physical and psychological distance is enabling because it has the potential to lower the affective filter of some students, making them more willing to communicate.

4.2  Willingness to Communicate Students completed a questionnaire during the interview to indicate their WTC in online and face-to-face classes. Their WTC resembled findings on classroom interaction in that for situations which involved TS whole-class interactions, 3 out of the 4 students (Anna, Bonnie, and David) reported to be more or at least equally willing to communicate in online classes (see Table 1). These situations included asking and answering questions, as well as making a presentation and sharing experience and thoughts in front of the whole class. As for SS interactions, all students were not willing (giving a rating of three or less) to talk freely during a break or after an online class, again corroborating the findings that there was not much informal interaction among peers. The three students (Anna, Bonnie, and David), however, were willing to engage in small group discussion, but not Clare. Clare had negative views (giving a rating of three or less) on all aspects of WTC in online classes, which will be explored in detail after presenting the general trend reported by the three students. Students elaborated on their WTC ratings and the major underlying factors governing their WTC. The themes or factors most mentioned were the ideas of ‘being watched’ (or physical distance mentioned above), ‘anxiety’, and ‘class size’. For example, Anna attributed her generally enhanced WTC in multiple aspects to not being ‘watched’, and therefore lowered speaking anxiety (see Excerpt 6). Given the physical distance, she felt more at ease when taking online classes at home. In addition, class size was a determining factor that influenced WTC. Anna held herself ‘responsible’ to participate more when it was a small class, so that the questions posed by the professor could be answered. Bonnie also felt that in smaller classes, she would feel ‘less anxious to speak up’. Except 6 (Anna) The major factor that affected my WTC was whether there were any people physically around me, especially when sharing personal thoughts and ideas. Because in online classes no one was physically around me, I did not feel being watched and was more willing and less anxious to talk. Unlike in a face-­ to-­face classroom setting, I was at home and felt more relaxed to talk. Also, when the size of the class was smaller, I would be more willing to talk because I felt myself responsible to participate more, as the professor needed me to answer his / her questions. I felt my opinions being valued more. In bigger classes, however, I felt less involved and there was no need for me to initiate or engage in interaction with the lecturer or other students.

170

D. Fung

David shared a similar opinion that being ‘watched’ could affect his WTC (see Excerpt 7). He did not want to ‘waste’ the class time, and he was concerned that other students might feel that he was showing off when asking or answering questions in classes. He also considered class size an important variable. However, it is worthy to point out that David was considering his WTC including the written mode of communication. Except 7 (David) I am more willing to ask and answer questions in online classes using English because I could type texts in the chat box. And especially for big classes, it was easier for me to do so in online classes because when there were many people in a face-to-face class, I felt people were watching me. I also did not want to show myself to be industrious or waste the class time. So, when the class size was big, the peer pressure was less in online classes, making me more willing to communicate when compared to face-to-face ones.

Clare was less willing to communicate in most aspects in online classes, and she gave a ‘1’ (definitely not willing) to asking questions in both online and face-to-face classes. When explaining her low ratings, she repeatedly mentioned the difficulty in decoding the non-verbal behaviours. She could not ‘understand what coursemates felt without being able to see their gestures and facial expressions’, and she ‘could not easily disagree with the others’ or receive ‘encouragement from the teacher’, thus limiting her WTC. Similar to the findings on classroom interaction, some characteristics – this time eye contact and other non-verbal behaviours – in online classes can be both enabling and constraining. On one hand, the lack of direct eye contact in online classes, reported as not being ‘watched’ by the students, reduces their anxiety and enhances their WTC (see also Excerpt 3, 4, and 5 above). On the other hand, it is also due to the lack of eye contact and non-verbal behaviours that Clare did not receive sufficient feedback from the teacher and peers, constraining how willing she was in communicating with the others.

4.3  Classroom Enjoyment Students completed a questionnaire during the interview to report on their classroom enjoyment in online and face-to-face classes (see Table 2). Anna and Bonnie thought that classroom enjoyment was similar, and each of them only reported a slight difference in two out of the six items. Clare and David held different opinions. They generally enjoyed face-to-face classes more, with Clare reporting a contrast of her enjoyment in all six items.

Students’ Experience in Online Teaching and Learning: An Investigation into EMI…

171

The students explained their ratings in the interviews. Anna started off reporting that the classroom enjoyment of online and face-to-face classes was ‘similar’. She enjoyed both types of classes (with ratings of four and five), but suggested a small preference for online classes, recalling that different parties had put more effort into making the classes enjoyable. She herself was more ‘proactive’, lecturers were ‘more supportive and interactive because they felt the need to attend to students’ needs’, and peers used the chatroom functions to ‘type jokes and funny responses to make the classes more enjoyable anytime they want’. This final point indicates that the written mode was being relied on by some students to enhance their learning experience and classroom enjoyment. Bonnie (Except 8) also began by saying that she enjoyed online and face-to-face classes without much difference, but she emphasized that her enjoyment depended on the teacher more than the delivery mode of classes. Therefore, all her ratings related to the EMI teacher (items 2b to 2d) were the same for online and face-to-face classes. However, she had a slight preference for face-to-face classes because ‘she could laugh together with her peers when the teacher or peers gave some funny examples’. Such an explanation is also related to the psychological distance and emotional support in online classes mentioned above. Except 8 (Bonnie) There was not much difference in terms of classroom enjoyment. If the teacher is encouraging, s/he will be regardless of the class being online or face-toface. As for the learning atmosphere, perhaps it was slightly better in face-toface classes because we could laugh together when the teacher or peers gave some funny examples.

The classroom enjoyment brought by physical presence in face-to-face classes was echoed by Clare and David. Clare explained that ‘some activities, games, and discussion were easier to conduct in face-to-face classes’, thus making them more ‘interactive’. David reported that some teachers ‘did not know how to offer help to students and find ways to make classes more enjoyable’. Importantly, all students when explaining their classroom enjoyment related to some kind of interaction that can be brought up in class, though with some nuanced differences. For example, Anna found that the lecturers attended to the needs of students and were ‘supportive and interactive’, whereas David suggested otherwise. All these similar and different views, however, converged to the themes of teacher’s role and classroom atmosphere in promoting classroom enjoyment.

172

D. Fung

5  Discussion To summarize the findings, with regard to RQ1, online classes can be described as promoting more TS interactions but less SS interactions (especially the informal peer talks). WTC also generally mirrors the findings of classroom interactions in that students (3 out of 4) had enhanced WTC in whole-class TS interactions, but less in SS interactions. As for classroom enjoyment, results were mixed. Regarding RQ2, the major factors which affected WTC in online classes were physical and psychological distance, anxiety, and class size. As for classroom enjoyment, in addition to the physical and psychological distance, the teacher factor and the interactive nature of the classroom were also contributing to enjoyment. These findings agree to some extent with relevant previous research explored in the literature review. For example, the teacher factor is an important one which influences classroom interaction (e.g., Querol-Julián, 2021) and classroom enjoyment (e.g., Fraschini & Tao, 2021). Physical and psychological distance, or whether students perceived themselves as being ‘watched’, or as what previous research has termed social presence (e.g., Le et al., 2018), is crucially related to WTC. At the same time, these findings are novel and illuminating given the lack of research comparing face-to-face and online synchronous EMI lessons, and three implications are noteworthy. First, teachers can try to maximize the benefits that come with the features of online classes – the physical and psychological distance. If the distance can give rise to more TS interactions, lowered anxiety, and enhanced WTC, teachers can improve the quality of their TS interactions by using, for instance, questioning and feedback more effectively to promote learning in EMI contexts (Yip, 2004). More output-prompting feedback can have the potential to enhance students’ learning. Without taking the advantage of the lowered anxiety level in online classes to encourage students’ output will be a missed opportunity for learning. The distance, however, is also a constraining factor because of the little SS interactions observed online. Given that SS interactions tend to induce even less anxiety (Philp et al., 2014), the reasons underlying the low WTC in SS interactions need further exploration. The present study provides some initial insights that this could be due to the little opportunities for informal chats and rapport building. Group size also matters (Cao & Philp, 2006), and a smaller group would make students more ‘responsible’ to contribute to group discussion. Teachers can, therefore, help students see the need of interactions by, for instance, setting more meaningful output tasks. It is understood, however, that having students see the benefits and need of interactions may not necessarily give rise to actual communication behaviour (An & Thomas, 2021). Therefore, heightening students’ WTC is also important. One way to enhance students’ WTC is through promoting classroom enjoyment, as they tend to correlate with each other (Lee, 2020). Interestingly, the present study does not reveal the same level of correlation possibly because of the small sample size, or because WTC in online synchronous EMI contexts depends on other factors. However, making the classroom environment more enjoyable should not dampen, and rather enhance, WTC. More effort can be made by the teacher to create

Students’ Experience in Online Teaching and Learning: An Investigation into EMI…

173

a more interactive classroom with more positive atmosphere. Particularly, because some learners like David preferred the written mode of communication so that they did not obstruct the classroom learning environment or give the impression of showing off their English (Tomita & Spada, 2013), both the written and spoken mode of interaction can be encouraged to improve the classroom learning environment. This is also supported by Anna’s comment that she enjoyed the jokes typed in the chat box and laugh with other students. This is not to say that students do not need to interact orally, but that oral and written communication can serve different purposes.

6  Conclusion Online classes are becoming more prevalent across the globe, with COVID-19 speeding up the process of flipping some classes online and blended learning being more commonplace. However, there is a lack of research on the implications of turning classes, especially EMI ones, online. This study is one of the first in exploring how classroom interactions, WTC, and classroom enjoyment could be different in these synchronous online classes. While this research is a small-scale one, it does give rise to some promising results. For example, there were more TS interactions, and more students had their WTC enhanced rather than dampened. However, classroom enjoyment required more attention by education practitioners to create a more interactive and positive atmosphere. It is hoped that more research in this area is conducted so that educators can be informed how best to build upon the benefits and address the limitations of online teaching and learning, ultimately enhancing the quality of EMI lessons.

References An, J., & Thomas, N. (2021). Students’ beliefs about the role of interaction for science learning and language learning in EMI science classes: Evidence from high schools in China. Linguistics and Education, 65, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2021.100972 An, J., Macaro, E., & Childs, A. (2021). Classroom interaction in EMI high schools: Do teachers who are native speakers of English make a difference? System, 98, 1–12. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102482 Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34(4), 480–493. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2006.05.002 Cao, Y., & Wei, W. (2019). Willingness to communicate from an English as an International Language (EIL) perspective: The case of Macau. System, 87, 102–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2019.102149 Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.

174

D. Fung

Dewaele, J.-M., & Dewaele, L. (2018). Learner-internal and learner-external predictors of willingness to communicate in the FL classroom. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 2(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.37 Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 237–274. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.2.5 Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P.  D. (2016). Foreign language enjoyment and foreign language classroom anxiety: The right and left feet of FL learning? In P. D. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 215–236). Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44(3), 449–491. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­1770.1994.tb01114.x Fraschini, N., & Tao, Y. (2021). Emotions in online language learning: Exploratory findings from an ab initio Korean course. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1968875 Freiermuth, M. R., & Huang, H.-C. (2012). Bringing Japan and Taiwan closer electronically: A look at an intercultural online synchronic chat task and its effect on motivation. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 61–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811423341 Kissau, S., McCullough, H., & Pyke, J.  G. (2010). Leveling the playing field: The effects of online second language instruction on student willingness to communicate in French. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 277–297. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon. Le, T. V., Cunningham, U., & Watson, K. (2018). The relationship between willingness to communicate and social presence in an online English language course. JALT CALL Journal, 14(1), 43–59. Lee, J. S. (2020). The role of grit and classroom enjoyment in EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–17. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/01434632.2020.1746319 Lee, J. S., Xie, Q., & Lee, K. (2021). Informal digital learning of English and L2 willingness to communicate: Roles of emotions, gender, and educational stage. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1918699 Li, C., Jiang, G., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). Understanding Chinese high school students’ foreign language enjoyment: Validation of the Chinese version of the Foreign Language Enjoyment scale. System, 76, 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.06.004 Lingnan University. (2020, June 24). LU study reveals over 60% of Hong Kong university students have found online learning not as effective as face-to-face teaching during COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.ln.edu.hk/news/20200624/lu-­study-­reveals-­over-­60-­of-­hong-­kong-­ university-­students-­have-­found-­online-­learning-­not-­as-­effective-­as-­face-­to-­face-­teaching-­ during-­covid-­19-­pandemic/ Lo, Y.  Y. (2015). How much L1 is too much? Teachers’ language use in response to students’ abilities and classroom interaction in Content and Language Integrated Learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13670050.2014.988112 Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­4781.2007.00623.x MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­4781.1998.tb05543.x

Students’ Experience in Online Teaching and Learning: An Investigation into EMI…

175

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199004027 Maleki, Z., & Pazhakh, A. (2012). The effects of pre modified input, interactionally modified input, and modified output on EFL learners’ comprehension of new vocabularies. International Journal of Higher Education, 1(1), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v1n1p128 Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interactions and second language learning. Routledge. Querol-Julián, M. (2021). How does digital context influence interaction in large live online lectures? The case of English-medium instruction. European Journal of English Studies, 25(3), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825577.2021.1988265 Querol-Julián, M., & Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2019). The impact of online technologies and English medium instruction on university lectures in international learning contexts: A systematic review. ESP Today, 7(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2019.7.1.1 Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House. Tomita, Y., & Spada, N. (2013). Form-focused instruction and learner investment in L2 communication. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 591–610. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-­4781.2013.12031.x Tsui, A. B. M., & Tavares, N. J. (2021). The technology cart and the pedagogy horse in online teaching. English Teaching and Learning, 45(1), 109–118. United Nations. (2020, August). Policy brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond. https:// www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-­content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_ covid-­19_and_education_august_2020.pdf Yip, D.  Y. (2004). Questioning skills for conceptual change in science instruction. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2004.9655905 Young, B. (2022, Jan 31). Hong Kong universities taking the chance to innovate and upskill as Covid-19 drives online and mixed-mode learning. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/special-­r eports/article/3163077/hong-­kong-­u niversities-­t aking-­ chance-­innovate-­and-­upskill-­covid-­19 Zacharias, N. T. (2012). Qualitative research methods for second language education: A coursebook. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Problematising E-Pedagogies Fei Victor Lim

Abstract  This chapter challenges the notion of e-pedagogies and explores what it means for language learning in the Singapore secondary school context. It discusses the reflection of a Singapore English Language teacher in implementing digitally-­ mediated teaching during the ‘home-based learning’ period amid the pandemic and explores the implications of the experience on the understanding of what e-­pedagogies are. During the period of home-based learning, teaching and learning activities were conducted through video-conferencing, learning platforms, and multimedia resources to digitalise the delivery of the lessons. It has been well-­recognised that the effectiveness of digitally-mediated learning is not the technologies but how they are used by the teachers as designers of learning. In the Singapore context, some teachers have found it challenging to design effective home-based learning experiences for their students given the lack of training and limited opportunities for teachers to design digitally-mediated learning previously. The experience with home-based learning has highlighted the importance of preparing teachers to design for effective digitally-mediated learning experiences. I problematise the notion of e-pedagogies as a new set of pedagogical practices by highlighting the shared fundamentals of teaching in both the physical classroom and online space. Pedagogies are based on the learning theories of behaviourism and social constructivism, albeit with different pedagogical expressions shaped by the affordances of the medium. This is exemplified with pedagogical approaches, such as the conversational framework and the reflexive pedagogy, which, while promoted by the affordances of teaching in a digital environment, is equally relevant in their application for classroom instruction. Rather than advancing the notion of a unique set of pedagogies for online teaching, understanding the materiality in which the practice is situated and thinking of the entire interaction scenario in which the technologies are embedded can be more productive in drawing out the commonalities in pedagogical principles across media. Such an orientation can allay the teachers’ anxieties towards online teaching and build on, rather than ignore, their deep reservoirs of pedagogical knowledge accumulated from years of experience in classroom instruction. F. V. Lim (*) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_12

177

178

F. V. Lim

1  Shift Towards Online Learning 2020 will go down in history as the epochal year in which the teaching and learning experience is radically transformed by digitalisation. The changes shaped by various societal responses to the pandemic have led to researchers coming together from over the world to reflect on the shifts and their implications on our lives (Adami et al., 2020; Peters et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the lockdowns of cities and the closures of workplaces and schools all over the world. In Singapore, for example, a lockdown, euphemistically described as a ‘circuit-breaker’ to control and break the community transmission of the virus, was instituted in April 2020 and lasted for 2  months before a gradual phased re-opening was permitted in June. Corresponding to the circuit-breaker measures, schools implemented ‘home-based learning’ for 1 month in April and brought forward the traditional mid-year school holidays from June to May instead. The regulations on social distancing and the restrictions on physical interactions have required teachers and students, prejudices aside, to participate in the digitalisation of teaching and learning experiences. The Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE), in a Parent Kit on Home-Based Learning, was careful to allay the parents’ concern over excessive screen-time and interaction with the computer. Home-based learning was described to consist of any of the following: (1) E-learning (for example, online assignments through the Student Learning Space (SLS) or other online learning platforms), (2) E-mail messages (for example, notes or worksheets through e-mail), and (3) Hardcopy assignments (for example, worksheets or textbooks) (Ministry of Education, 2020). MOE also assured parents that schools will continue to “provide instruction and support for students during the home-based learning period” and that students with “the ongoing support of their teachers and other school personnel will continue to work from home or from school” (Kurohi, 2020). The conscription towards home-based learning has made participation with digitally-­mediated teaching and learning (involving e-learning and e-mail messages, and the digitalisation of hardcopy assignments) compulsory for all teachers and students. The experience, based on a review by the MOE, has led to “mass acceptance of online learning” in Singapore (Ong, 2020). This was a significant development as the openness and acceptance towards online learning amongst Singapore teachers have been elusive, with many previously expressing scepticism on the effectiveness of online learning (Hui, 2020; Lam, 2020; Lee & Yong, 2020). In addition, before the home-based learning experience, teachers have had few opportunities to design online learning beyond the perfunctory annual e-learning day, which schools were to conduct as part of learning continuity planning for crisis management. Some teachers have found it challenging to design effective home-based learning experiences for their students, given the lack of training, practice, and opportunities for teachers to design digitally-mediated learning previously. Notwithstanding, despite many teachers’ lack of familiarity and practice with digitally-mediated teaching, there have been stories of interesting online lessons designed for language

Problematising E-Pedagogies

179

learning reported. For example, English teachers from a primary school created videos of their teaching using the familiar PowerPoint tool and uploaded them on the Singapore Student Learning Space, an online learning portal developed by the MOE.  The teachers also shared creative ideas, such as a virtual ‘pyjamas party’ where students wore pyjamas and brought their soft toys to a video meeting for a Primary 2 English lesson on the topic of dreams. The continuity of teaching and learning is made possible in part because of the advancement of video-conferencing technology, such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, WebEx, Google Classroom, and Skype. Platforms that were perhaps once foreign but are now increasingly familiar to teachers and students. While the technology may offer different ways of teaching and new opportunities in the design of learning experiences, it has been well-recognised that it is not the technology but the teacher’s pedagogy that makes the ultimate difference (Moseley et al., 1999; Oliver et al., 2007; Petko, 2012; Lim, 2021). This is perhaps best aphoristically expressed in the OECD’s report that “technology can amplify great teaching, but great technology cannot replace poor teaching” (OECD, 2015, p. 19). The experience with home-based learning has highlighted the importance of equipping teachers with the pedagogies to design for effective digitally-mediated learning experiences and has cultivated both acceptance and recognition amongst teachers of the value of technologies for learning. With this valuing, the MOE has also announced the intention in the post-pandemic education normal to “complement classroom teaching with home-based learning, and make home-based learning a permanent and regular feature of education…. [occurring] perhaps once a fortnight” (Ong, 2020). This policy move consolidates the advances made in the digitalisation of education through the crisis and institutionalises it as part of the new normal of schooling. This, however, places a demand on teachers to develop the pedagogies to design for meaningful digitally-mediated teaching and learning, given that online learning is now no longer an exception but will be the norm. How then can the teacher use technology to design a meaningful learning experience for their students? The notion of e-pedagogies has been proposed by some scholars (for example, Baldiņš, 2016; Bjørke, 2016; Mehanna, 2004), suggesting that there is a specific set of knowledge and skills that a teacher can deploy for digitally-mediated teaching. Given that most teachers can be expected to be already fluent in the pedagogy of teaching and learning in the physical classroom, it is of interest to examine how similar and different the notion of ‘e-pedagogies’ is from what they already know. This will inform the extent and nature of professional development required to equip teachers to design online learning experiences. Such understandings can enable policy makers, curriculum planners, and teacher educators to meet the teachers where they are, building on what they already know to help them navigate and design meaningful digitally-mediated teaching and learning experiences. In particular, this chapter problematises the notion of ‘e-pedagogies’ within the context of language learning. It discusses the reflections of an English Language teacher in Singapore on her experience of teaching during the home-based learning period and maintains that the fundamentals of effective teaching and learning of

180

F. V. Lim

language remain consistent regardless of the medium of delivery. The chapter argues that it is less productive to foreground the differences between e-pedagogies and pedagogies in the physical classroom and introduce the notion of a unique set of pedagogies for online teaching. Instead, it can be more productive in drawing out the commonalities in pedagogical principles across media to build on teachers’ pedagogical knowledge accumulated from years of experience in classroom instruction to advance digital learning.

2  Teaching During the Pandemic In this section, a first-hand reflection from an English Language teacher on her experiences teaching during home-based learning and her views on e-pedagogies are discussed. Ava (pseudonym) has more than 15 years of teaching experience in a public secondary school in Singapore. She is a participant in a research project on multiliteracies, of which the author is the principal investigator, and has agreed to provide her perspectives on her teaching experiences during the pandemic over an e-mail interview. While Ava’s experience is subjective and personal, it offers valuable insights into what a teacher has gone through in response to the shift towards online learning and surfaces implications on our understanding of e-pedagogies. The sudden transition to home-based learning was a “steep learning curve” for Ava, given that she did not have many opportunities to practise designing online learning experiences in the many years of teaching in the school. Nonetheless, she found the experience “enriching” and gamely participated in “experimenting with the different apps to facilitate the teaching, assessing, and giving feedback effectively”. It was evident that technology was a concern, given her self-confessed lack of familiarity with what the apps offered. Hence, there was a need for her to spend time “experimenting” with the different apps. Additionally, the limitations of technology caused a challenge to the students, such as being “unable to access or complete some activities because some of their devices do not have the app or function”. This, to Ava, was “frustrating at times”. Notwithstanding, Ava soldiered on and reflected that she had designed online English Language lessons that both “went well and not so well”. One lesson she was particularly pleased with was about the “different techniques of warming up the vocal cords and body before the start of a drama class”. Like how she would conduct the class in a physical classroom, she conducted the lesson live over video conference. She recalled that “most of the students turned on the video camera”, and she managed to get the majority of the students to “follow [her] instructions to stretch their bodies and to hum along a tune to warm up their vocal cords”. Ava reflected that she liked the lesson because “It was interactive and the students were engaged with the tasks”. This was despite the constraints of online interaction over video-conferencing. This online lesson approximated what she would have done sans technology in the physical classroom to a large extent. As such, she reflected

Problematising E-Pedagogies

181

that the pedagogy, apart from the technicalities of navigating the digital interface, was not dissimilar. Ava also shared about an online lesson she designed that did not go so well. The lesson was on learning how to answer questions from a comprehension passage. Similarly, Ava wanted to approximate the familiar classroom experience by having students read the passage before the lesson and “raise questions about the text during” the video conferencing. However, Ava was disappointed as the “students were not prepared and did not read the text in advance before the lesson”. This was despite her giving “a list of the perceived challenging vocabulary words and the meanings [were] given earlier to ease the reading of the text”. She observed that many of the students “were unable to respond well to questions related to these words” and concluded that “such a lesson is only effective if the students carried out the pre-lesson task off-screen diligently”. From Ava’s reflections, it seems that the lesson did not go well because the students did not prepare as instructed. This issue was not peculiar to the affordances of the digital medium and could have occurred in the physical classroom as well. Nonetheless, it could also be likely that given the concern to limit screen-time for video-conferencing, students were expected to make more preparations offline before the online interaction. Given that students may not have been accustomed to such expectations, it is worth exploring further how they can be encouraged towards greater ownership and self-directed learning in future designs. Ava was also asked to describe her ideal online lesson. She elaborated that it should be “a good mix” of activities that can “enable the students to participate in real-time and self-paced tasks” with a “combination of online tasks and paper and pen work”. She emphasised the need for simplicity and ease in the use of technological interface and that it “should be a one-stop platform where students are able to learn the knowledge, do the tasks, submit the responses and receive feedback”. Perhaps, based on her experience of having students navigate across multiple platforms, she highlighted that “it will be exceedingly challenging if they have to visit multiple platforms, apps and tools to complete one lesson”. Ava’s responses highlighted the critical role of technology to facilitate, rather than complicate, the learning experience. A blended approach involving aspects of both online and offline activities seems to be the signature of Ava’s ideal lesson. This is also consistent with the MOE’s definition of home-based learning as described in the earlier section. When probed to reflect on the similarities and differences in designing for an online lesson compared to a face-to-face lesson, Ava felt that she has to put in “a lot more thought” in the design of the online lesson. She explained that there was “a need to think through the process of learning as a student and pre-empt the possible questions that the student may face”. She also felt that she needed to provide “more scaffolding of the series of the tasks to be completed and explicit instructions”. The greater effort she reported in designing online lessons could stem from her relative unfamiliarity with the medium itself. In particular, the preparation she mentioned would have been relevant in the planning of a face-to-face lesson as well, perhaps especially so for a novice teacher.

182

F. V. Lim

Nonetheless, the emphasis on scaffolding and explicit instruction could be more pertinent in the digital medium as more independent learning, without the presence of a physical teacher all the time, is expected of the students. Ava highlighted that not all lessons would be conducted via video conferencing. Hence, the “students need to be guided well such that [they are] able to navigate the different online sections and complete the tasks independently”. Regarding similarities in the design of online and face-to-face lessons, Ava expressed the common principle that “the resources curated and tasks set for both… should be personalised and relevant to the students”. Ava also reflected on the differences between implementing an online lesson and a face-to-face lesson. In this, she expressed concern about the students’ access to technology. As such, she was mindful not to “include activities where the students are required to download a certain app” as their devices may not support it. She felt that such technical considerations were similar in a face-to-face lesson if technology was used as part of the learning experience. Specifically, she highlighted that in both learning scenarios, “students may need to be taught how to use the functions of specific application before they are able to commence the task using that app”. As such, the concerns surfaced was oriented towards ensuring the readiness of the students rather than the pedagogical practices of the teacher. Ava emphasised that in the implementation of the online lesson, particularly asynchronous activities, “some of the students’ concerns cannot be addressed immediately” and that it would “take some time” for her “to understand how to meet the various needs of the students virtually”. Ava was asked about the pedagogies she found similar between online and face-­ to-­face lessons. She gave examples that certain thinking routines she used in the physical classroom, such as ‘See, Think, Wonder’ and instructional practices, such as ‘Think-Pair-Share’, were applicable to online learning through video-­ conferencing as well. When asked about the pedagogies she found different for online and face-to-face learning, Ava reported that she felt that there was no difference. It suggests that nothing came immediately to the experienced teacher’s mind when she mulled over the possibility of pedagogical practices unique to the specific medium. This reflection also contributes to the conjecture, discussed in the next section in this chapter, that perhaps beyond the materiality of the medium, there may be more commonalities than differences in the pedagogical practices of teaching in a physical classroom and online. Notwithstanding, there are additional supports that teachers would need in the design and implementation of online learning. Ava articulated a desire for curated resources such as “a summary of the suitable free apps for the subjects”. She also requested “simple training” on apps such as “[how] to record a video, to mark online or even how to set up a zoom session”. Significantly, the expressed interest and focus seemed to centre on learning the features and affordances of the technology, rather than specific instructional strategies or e-pedagogies associated with the digitally-­mediated teaching. It may be that the notion of ‘e-pedagogies’ is more abstract than a tangible list of curated resources and hence not mentioned. However, consistent with Ava’s other responses, it may well be that she was confident that the

Problematising E-Pedagogies

183

pedagogies for digitally-mediated teaching were not a concern as it was perceived to be similar to that of face-to-face teaching, with further specific attention given the materiality of the technological medium. The interview concluded with the final question on the advice Ava would give to a novice teacher on online learning. Ava encouraged the teacher not to be “too intimidated by the mountain of apps” and “discuss with fellow teachers about the various apps they have tried and be courageous to experiment with a few apps”. She pointed to the “rich sharing in the community of fellow colleagues in the fraternity of the successful apps used” as well as the availability of lessons for adaptation on “the MOE [Ministry of Education] library and Community Gallery in the Singapore Student Learning Space”. Notably, her advice centred on the technology, that is, the curation of apps and digital lesson resources, rather than on the e-pedagogies required. Ava adds that “empathy is the key when designing and implementing online lessons” and that when the teacher knows “how our student learners learn, it will be easier for the teachers to design student-centred lessons.” She concludes that “the rule of the thumb when one feels overwhelmed is to keep it simple and stick to what the students know best to operate. The key is not to overload and stress the students to spend much time to figure out how to use a particular app to complete the task”. Through this, Ava neatly summarises the wisdom gleaned from her experience in teaching during the pandemic  – that sensible technology choices and sound pedagogical principles tried and tested from her years of classroom teaching are reliable staves in her maiden foray into the realm of online teaching and learning.

3  Unpacking ‘E-Pedagogies’ Ava’s experience and reflections on designing online learning during the home-­ based period point towards the recognition that the pedagogical practices are largely similar in both face-to-face instruction and digitally-mediated teaching, except for the additional considerations given to access and choice of technology used. It is, therefore, of interest to examine the notion of ‘e-pedagogies’, which is gaining popularity and currency, no less in part because of the responses of educators to the need for remote learning due to the pandemic. The notion of ‘e-pedagogies’ implies that there is a different and distinct set of instructional strategies for digitally-mediated teaching. It is introduced as a new branch of pedagogy that focuses on how teachers can use digital technologies for the teaching and learning of digital natives (Baldiņš, 2016). E-pedagogies involve providing learners with the opportunity to acquire knowledge in the digital environment to develop communication skills in social networks and cultivate the learners’ sense of responsibility towards processes occurring in the digital environment (Baldiņš, 2016). The definition signals an expansion beyond the design of learning experiences through instructional practices also to include the development of learner’s outcomes such as collaboration and communication skills, awareness of ethical principles in using digital tools, self-regulatory skills online, and digital

184

F. V. Lim

safety. As such, in online learning, the focus goes beyond the learning of the subject knowledge, such as the language skills to be developed, to also include the other competencies and literacies that the students would need to develop in working with technology and in a digital environment. In other words, e-pedagogies are to bring about both subject mastery and digital literacies in students. The latter has often been neglected when teachers shift their teaching from the physical to the online medium because of the prior focus on the teaching of content. However, as Ava suggested, there are additional considerations related to technology in digitally-­ mediated teaching – and a significant aspect is the processes of meaning-making and learning in the digital environment, which students need to be guided and supported. In the context of language learning, it is important to identify the pedagogical support needed when the medium changes from the physical to the digital, such as in digital reading (Lim & Toh, 2020), digital writing (Lim & Phua, 2019), and digital multimodal composing (Liang & Lim, 2021). Beyond the new learning outcomes of digital literacies expected, however, are there differences in the pedagogies between physical and online teaching? Mehanna (2004) examined the e-pedagogies used across learning platforms and systems and identified nine instructional strategies beneficial for online learning. They are: (1) identifying similarities and differences, (2) summarising and note-taking, (3) reinforcing effort and providing feedback, (4) homework and practice, (5) non-­linguistic presentation, (6) cooperative learning, (7) setting objectives, (8) generating and testing hypotheses, and (9) questions and cues. While described as e-pedagogies, it is noteworthy that the same instructional strategies can be found, and in fact, are founded on the common premises as the teachers’ pedagogies in the physical classroom. This is consistent with Ava’s reflections that the fundamentals in teaching approaches between the physical and online environments are more similar than different.

4  Common Theories of Learning The common premises of pedagogies are based on the established learning theories of behaviourism by B.F.  Skinner, constructivism by Jean Piaget, and social constructivism by Lev Vygotsky. Behaviouristic instruction is a didactic pedagogical approach in which the teacher is the authority in charge of transmitting the knowledge across to the students, and learner-learner interaction is limited (Carroll, 1990). Pedagogical expressions of behaviourism in the physical classroom is epitomised by the teacher standing in front of the whiteboard pontificating. Likewise, in online learning, pedagogical expressions of behaviourism are evident when the teacher live-streams a lecture or uses videos to disseminate the subject knowledge. Constructivism focuses on the students as active and self-directed learners who construct knowledge based on what they already know (e.g., Dewey, 1938; Piaget, 1954). The student learns by accommodating the new knowledge they experience and assimilating them with what they already know. In this sense, the student

Problematising E-Pedagogies

185

‘constructs’ knowledge in mind. Kalantzis and Cope (2020, p. xxii) explain that it “is not that the former excludes the social, and the latter the individual because both include the social and the individual in their accounts… but the focus on mind in Piaget in contrast to media in Vygotsky”. Social constructionism focuses on learning through problem-solving in a community of practice in an authentic context in collaboration with others. The teacher is learning along with the students in actively co-creating new knowledge. Learning occurs in experiences when the novices learn with more advanced peers who scaffold their learning in the zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962). For example, the more experienced peers provide advice to less experienced learners but not answers, which may occur in the online communities of practice (Newon, 2011). Learning occurs through social interaction, and the learners’ competence develops through socio-cultural development (Vygotsky, 1978). Likewise, pedagogical expressions of constructivism and social constructivism can be evident in both physical and online learning. Group discussions and collaborative projects in the physical classroom provide opportunities for social meaning-making and the co-construction of knowledge. Similarly, in online learning, pedagogical expressions of social constructivism are in the form of group discussion, which can happen in ‘break-out rooms on video-conferencing platforms and online discussion forums and threads.

5  Different Pedagogical Expressions As such, undergirded by the same learning theory, there can be different pedagogical expressions in both physical and online learning. Rather than describe the pedagogical expressions in digitally-mediated learning as ‘e-pedagogies’, some scholars have attempted to develop an integrative pedagogical framework that are relevant to both face-to-face instruction and digitally-mediated teaching. An example is the Conversational Framework developed by Diana Laurillard. In the framework, she combines the various learning theories with the goal of helping teachers to design, implement, evaluate, reflect, and redesign the kind of support and learning environment that makes it more likely that all students engage in the learning activities, and therefore achieve their intended learning outcomes (Laurillard, 2012). Particular attention is paid to the tools to support learning design. While not limited to technology, she draws attention to the development of “computational tools to support the representation of learning designs and to allow others to adapt the designs” as a key consideration in the pedagogy of teachers (Laurillard et al., 2018). The conversational framework supports a pedagogy that facilitates a process of learning that is premised on continual iterations between teachers and learners, learners and other learners, and between the levels of theory and practice. Iterative learning involves the students’ active engagement in the goal-action-feedback-reflection-adaptation-­­ revision cycle regardless of the medium of instruction. In this light, while the Conversational Framework has often been used to guide the design of

186

F. V. Lim

digitally-mediated learning, being based on the theories of learning, it is relevant for both online and physical learning. Notwithstanding, scholars have also argued that the learning theory of behaviourism and (social) constructionism, in and of itself, is inadequate in optimising learning in the digital environment. Kalantzis and Cope (2020, p. xxiii) propose a ‘reflexive pedagogy’ that “qualifies and extends constructivism” with “elements of didactic pedagogy for a balanced repertoire of pedagogical practices”. Characteristics of reflexive pedagogy include providing a high degree of scaffold for social learning and having students produce ‘knowledge artefacts’ such as texts, infographics, videos, and simulations. Other characteristics of a reflexive pedagogy include facilitating students as co-creators of knowledge, validating and leveraging learner differences in the teaching, and designing learning sequences that are “alternately experiential, conceptual, analytical, and applied” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2020, p. xxvi) as well as rebalancing the cognitive with the socio-material in the design of learning experiences (Lim et  al., 2022). As such, “a repertoire of instructional practices, didactic in some moments, constructivist in others” is the essence of a reflexive pedagogy. A reflexive pedagogy can be expressed both in the physical classroom and in the digital environment as well. While prompted by the affordances of the digital learning environment and argued to be relevant towards preparing learners in the digital era, the proposal of the reflexive pedagogy is clearly not limited to online learning. Given its stance in selecting the best from the popular learning theories, a reflexive pedagogy is relevant for both physical and online learning and is not an ‘e-pedagogy’ in that sense.

6  Implications What then are e-pedagogies? Bateman (2019) has questioned the usefulness of the distinction between digital and non-digital media and argued that we should focus instead on the ways meanings are made in the digital environment and how these practices are shaped by materiality. Extending this to the notion of e-pedagogies, which suggests a specific set of instructional strategies for online teaching, perhaps it is more productive to recognise that there is a common set of pedagogies built on the foundations of learning theories, albeit expressed differently through the different learning tools and environment (Lim & Tan-Chia, n.d.). While the teaching practices may respond and adapt to the affordances of the technologies and the materiality of the medium, they remain, nonetheless, constant in their theoretical foundations and epistemologies This is not to say that the medium does not matter – it does. However, rather than focusing on the different nature of the practice, understanding the materiality in which the practice is situated and thinking of the entire interaction scenario in which technologies are embedded is crucial and productive in drawing out the commonalities in pedagogical principles across media (Bateman, 2019; Bateman et al., 2017). The argument made here, through Ava’s reflections and the review of literature, is

Problematising E-Pedagogies

187

that the fundamentals of teaching are consistent, albeit with different pedagogical expressions based on the affordances of the medium. As teachers are increasingly expected to design for digital learning experiences, this recognition can allay the teachers’ anxieties towards online teaching and build on, rather than ignore, their deep reservoirs of pedagogical knowledge accumulated from years of experience in classroom instruction. Acknowledgements  The author would like to thank the participating teacher for sharing her reflections for this study. This chapter is an outcome from the project, DEV 01/18 VL Integrating Multiliteracies into the English Language Classroom: Developing an Instructional Approach to Teach Multimodal Literacy (Critical Viewing and Effective Representing of Multimodal Texts), which was funded by the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) under the Education Research Funding Programme and administered by National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Singapore MOE and NIE. The research has received clearance from the NTU-Institutional Review Board [IRB-2019-2-038].

References Adami, E., Al Zidjaly, N., Canale, G., Djonov, E., Ghiasian, M.  S., Gualberto, C., Karatza, S., Lim, F.V., Pedrazzini, A., Pirini, J., Wildfeuer, J., & Zhang, Y. on behalf of The PanMemic Collective. (2020). PanMeMic Manifesto: Making Meaning in the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Future of Social Interaction. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies. Baldiņš, A. (2016). Insights into e-pedagogy concept development. Procedia  – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 231, 251–255. Bateman, J.A. (2019, Jun 20–22). Digital: Is that even a thing? In Colloquium on multimodality 2.0: New theories, new methods, new chances [Presentation at conference]. Approaches to multimodal digital environments: From theories to practices (A-Mode) International Conference. Bateman, J. A., Wildfeuer, J., & Hiippala, T. (2017). Multimodality. Foundations, research, analysis. A problem-oriented introduction. De Gruyter. Bjørke, S.Å. (2016, June). 3 E-pedagogy. E-teaching and e-learning. https://eteachingandlearning. wordpress.com/e-­pedagogy/ Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg funnel. MIT Press. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). The things you do to know: An introduction to the pedagogy of multiliteracies. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design (pp. 1–36). Palgrave. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. Hui, J. (2020, April 6). What Singaporean students think of home-based learning. Youth.sg. https://www.youth.sg/Our-­Voice/Opinions/2020/4/What-­Singaporean-­students-­think-­of-­ home-­based-­learning Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2020). The digital learner  – Towards a reflexive pedagogy. In M. Montebello (Ed.), Handbook of research on digital learning (pp. xviii–xxxi). IGI Global. Kurohi, R. (2020, April 3). Singapore schools to shift to full home-based learning from April 8 to May 4 amid Covid-19 pandemic. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ education/schools-­to-­shift-­to-­full-­home-­based-­learning-­from-­april-­8

188

F. V. Lim

Lam, E. (2020, June 2). Polytechnic students struggle with home-based learning as handson projects go online. Youth.sg. https://www.youth.sg/Our-­Voice/Opinions/2020/6/ ­ polytechnic-­students-­struggle-­with-­home-­based-­learning-­as-­hands-­on-­projects-­go-­online Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science. Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge. Laurillard, D., Kennedy, E., Charlton, P., Wild, J., & Dimakopoulos, D. (2018). Using technology to develop teachers as designers of TEL: Evaluating the learning designer. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(6), 1044–1058. Lee, M., & Yong, J.Y. (2020, May 20). Missing time spent in school, selected students who returned for classes say they’re glad to be back. Today. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/missing-­time-­spent-­in-­school-­selected-­students-­who-­returned-­classes-­say-­they-­glad-­ to-­be-­back Liang, W. J., & Lim, F. V. (2021). A pedagogical framework for digital multimodal authoring in the english language classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(4), 306–320. Lim, F. V. (2021). Designing learning with embodied teaching: Perspectives from multimodality. Routledge. Lim, F.  V., & Phua, Y.  C. J. (2019). Teaching writing with language feedback technology. Computers & Composition, 54(102518). Lim, F. V., & Tan-Chia, L. (forthcoming). Designing learning for multimodal literacy: Teaching viewing and representing. Routledge. Lim, F. V., & Toh, W. (2020). How to teach digital reading? Journal of Information Literacy. Lim, F. V., Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2022). A metalanguage for learning: Rebalancing the cognitive with the socio-material. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 830613. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fcomm.2022.830613 Mehanna, W. N. (2004). e-Pedagogy: The pedagogies of e-learning. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 12(3), 279–293. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ821507.pdf Ministry of Education. (2020, March 31). Coronavirus: A guide to preparing your child for home-based learning. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ coronavirus-­a-­guide-­to-­preparing-­your-­child-­for-­home-­based-­learning Moseley, D., Higgins, S., Bramald, R., Hardman, F., Miller, J., Mroz, M., et  al. (1999). Ways forward with ICT: Effective pedagogy using information and communications technology for literacy and numeracy in primary schools. Teacher Training Agency. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/ educol/documents/00001369.htm Newon, L. (2011). Multimodal creativity and identities of expertise in the digital ecology of a world of Warcraft Guild. In C. Thurlow & K. Mroczek (Eds.), Digital discourse: Language in the new media (pp. 131–153). Oxford University Press. OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-­en Oliver, R., Harper, B., Wills, S., Agostinho, S., & Hedberg, J. (2007). Describing ICT-based learning designs that promote quality learning outcomes. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp.  64–80). Routledge. Ong, Y.K. (2020, June 28). Opening address by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for education at the 2020 schools and institutes of higher learning combined workplan seminar. The Ministry of Education. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/opening-­address-­by-­mr-­ong-­ye-­kung-­ minister-­for-­education-­at-­the-­2020-­schools-­and-­institutes-­of-­higher-­learning-­combined-­ workplan-­seminar Peters, M.  A., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur, R., Hong, M., Hwang, Y., Zipin, L., Brennan, M., Robertson, S., Quay, J., Malbon, J., Taglietti, D., Barnett, R., Chengbing, W., McLaren, P., Apple, R., Papastephanou, M., Burbules, N., … Misiaszek, L. (2020). Reimagining the new pedagogical possibilities for universities post-Covid-19. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–44.

Problematising E-Pedagogies

189

Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the ‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating teachers’ ­constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1351–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compedu.2011.12.013 Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books. Selander, S. (2008). Designs for learning – A theoretical perspective. Designs for Learning, 1(1), s. 10–s. 22. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. The MIT Press. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous Collaborative Writing Task Jookyoung Jung and Xuehua Fu

Abstract For the past decade, along with the rapid development of video-­ conferencing applications and Web 2.0 tools, web-based collaborative writing (CW) has become increasingly common in second language (L2) instruction. This chapter introduces how video-conferenced CW can be implemented in a Zoom-mediated university course, focusing on interactional patterns that EFL learners exhibit during collaborative tasks and potential mediating factors that may affect their performance. To this end, three focal pairs of EFL learners were examined to identify unique features in their interactional patterns and noticeable factors that seemed to mediate their perception and performance in video-conferenced collaboration. The participants were students attending a Zoom-mediated postgraduate-level course, and they were required to collaboratively wrote suggestions to their peers’ assignment using Office 365 shared documents. Qualitative analysis of the audio-recorded pair discussions revealed that their interactional patterns were highly unique across pairs in terms of equality and mutuality Damon & Phelps (Int J Educ Res 13(1):9–19, 1989). In addition, post-task survey responses and interview comments further showed that there were various mediating factors in video-conferenced collaboration, such as self- and peer-role perception, the individual gap between peers, mutual familiarity in each pair, and the video-based communication mode. The findings of this case study highlight the pedagogical potential of video-conferenced CW tasks and important factors that need to be considered when implementing video-­ conferenced collaborative tasks in English-mediated courses.

J. Jung (*) · X. Fu Department of English, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. K. H. Pun et al. (eds.), The Use of Technology in English Medium Education, English Language Education 27, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99622-2_13

191

192

J. Jung and X. Fu

1  Introduction From both cognitive-interactionist (Long, 1996) and sociocultural perspectives (Donato, 1994, 2004; Storch, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 1998), collaborative writing, i.e., co-authoring of a shared text by multiple writers (Storch, 2013), has long been deemed to promote acquisitional opportunities for L2 learners by enabling them to engage in language-related episodes (LREs) and thereby enhance metalinguistic awareness in the L2 (Swain, 2000). That is, while constructing a text together, L2 learners can monitor and reflect on their target language (TL) use (Swain & Watanabe, 2012) while providing mutual scaffolding that enables them to use more complex and accurate TL that could be beyond their current independent L2 writing capacity (Donato, 1994; Storch, 2002). With the advancement of technology-­ mediated learning, web-based collaboration has opened the new possibility to provide L2 learners with chances to be exposed to authentic L2 input and engage in meaningful use of the TL. Under the pandemic situation triggered by the outbreak of the COVID-19, technology-mediated teaching and learning is increasingly becoming the norm, and thus the medium of L2 collaboration has extended to diverse web-based platforms. Video-conferencing applications such as Zoom and Skype and Web 2.0 tools such as Google Docs and wiki, in particular, have accelerated the movement of the channel of peer collaboration onto online space. Previous findings, however, revealed that web-based CW might not guarantee mutual benefits for learners and improved writing quality (Arnold et al., 2012; Bradley et al., 2010; Li & Zhu, 2017), and thus highlight the need to examine possible mediating factors that affect the nature of technology-mediated CW performance. In addition, most studies have focused on asynchronous CW, while synchronous virtual collaboration has received relatively little attention. Against this background, this chapter will present various interactional patterns that can emerge from video-conferenced CW and potential moderators that warrant further attention. In the following section, the pedagogical rationale of CW will be reviewed first, followed by empirical studies on asynchronous and synchronous computer-mediated CW.

2  Literature Review 2.1  Collaborative Second Language Writing The pedagogical potential of CW has received keen interest from researchers, and previous findings have shown that collaboration has a beneficial impact on L2 learners’ interaction as well as their written products. Most notably, Storch (2002) explored ESL students’ CW performances to identify any noticeable interactional patterns emerging from their peer discussions. She found that CW promoted learners’ negotiation for meaning as well as form and led them to share joint responsibility for their written product. In addition, the texts produced by pairs or groups were shown to be linguistically more complex and accurate than individually written

Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous…

193

texts, demonstrating that collaboration helped the ESL learners move beyond their development level owing to the mutual help they could receive within the pairs and the groups. The beneficial impact of CW has repeatedly been reported regarding the richer content, clearer structure, and genre-specific literacy skills (Shehadeh, 2011) such as writing for academic purposes (Sun & Chang, 2012), underscoring pedagogical usefulness of CW in L2 instruction. Previous studies, however, also identified several concerns that warrant attention from both researchers and teachers (Arnold et al., 2012; Bradley et al., 2010; Li & Zhu, 2017; Storch, 2001a). First of all, we cannot guarantee that the nature of the learners’ peer interaction will be collaborative, as they may feel uncomfortable commenting on what is written by their partners or group members in terms of content as well as language (Lee, 2010; Peretz, 2003; Storch, 2005). It has also been reported that CW does not necessarily result in improved quality in the writing process and product, especially when learners doubt each other’s authority or hesitate to provide feedback to each other (Li & Zhu, 2013; Strijbos & Sluijsmans, 2010; Watanabe, 2008). In the affective dimension, there could be learners who feel isolated and left out in the assigned pair or group, negatively influencing the power dynamics of CW performance (Boling et al., 2012). That said, it is essential to analyze the patterns of learner interaction in CW to identify important factors that promote learner collaboration and thereby extract theoretical and pedagogical implications for how to better utilize CW in L2 instruction. Storch’s (2002) framework for analyzing L2 learners’ dyadic interaction in CW, in particular, has spawned several studies on L2 learners’ interactional patterns in collaborative L2 writing tasks. As shown in Fig. 1, based on Damon and Phelps’s (1989) indices of equality, i.e., the degree of comparable control over the shared High mutuality

4 Expert/Novice

1 Collaborative

Low equality

High equality

3 Dominant/Passive

Low mutuality

Fig. 1  Storch’s (2002) dyadic interaction model

2 Dominant/Dominant

194

J. Jung and X. Fu

task and mutuality, i.e., the degree of responding to each other’s engagement in the collaboration, Storch (2002) suggests four types of dyadic interactional patterns that can be found in learner collaboration, namely, dominant-dominant, dominant-­ passive, expert-novice, and collaborative. Storch further claims that collaborative and expert-novice patterns tend to entail a larger amount of scaffolding and co-­ construction of knowledge, providing more acquisitional opportunities for L2 learners. This framework has also been applied to computer-mediated CW, as presented in the following review.

2.2  C  ollaborative Second Language Writing in the Technology-Mediated Mode How L2 learners perform CW tasks in the computer-mediated mode has received increasing attention. Web 2.0 technology that enables multiple users to share and edit a document collaboratively, such as Google Docs, wiki, and Office 365, as well as video-conferencing applications, such as Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams, and Google Hangout, have further provided learners with online channels for instant communication (Li, 2018; Loewen, 2020). In terms of the temporality of communication in CW, there have been two strands of research, i.e., asynchronous web-based CW in which learners contribute their ideas to the shared document via delayed communication, and synchronous web-based CW that entails real-time communication in diverse modes (e.g., text-chat, voice-chat, and video-conferenced) to co-­ construct a text simultaneously. Asynchronous web-based CW.  Most studies that explored asynchronous web-­ based CW revolved around the pedagogical potential of the wiki, i.e., a hypertext that is collaboratively constructed by multiple users (e.g., Arnold et  al., 2012; Bradley et al., 2010; Kessler, 2009; Li & Zhu, 2013). The advent of the wiki has attracted substantial interest from many L2 writing researchers who wanted to examine its pedagogical potential as a learning tool to develop L2 writing proficiency. Bradley et al. (2010), for instance, analyzed wiki revision history that was recorded during university ESL students’ CW performances in small groups and found three different interactional patterns. First, there were cases wherein participants provided very little mutual scaffolding and made a limited contribution to the CW task, and thus only a few members had to accomplish the writing task. Second, some groups exhibited the participants working in parallel, without commenting on each other’s writings, which was termed “cooperative.” The last pattern was “collaborative,” where participants performed the writing task more organically, discussing both content and form in the process of co-construction of the text. In a similar vein, Arnold et al. (2012) also reported the cooperative and the collaborative interactional patterns, confirming that the group CW task does not guarantee that the interaction among the group members would be collaborative; thus, the instructor’s external intervention would be imperative.

Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous…

195

Going one step further, Li and Zhu (2013) examined how EFL learners engaged in three CW tasks using wiki by analyzing wiki revision history as well as the participants’ discussions and page modules. Drawing upon Damon and Phelps’s (1989) notion of mutuality and equality and Storch’s (2002) dyadic interaction model, this study identified three interactional patterns: collaborative, authoritative/responsive, and dominant/withdrawn. A collaborative pattern entailed collective and equal contribution to the co-constructed texts and active discussion with group members to resolve any content- or form-related concerns. They further commented that this pattern would provide the most learning opportunities to L2 learners, as group members can equally benefit from the CW experience and participate in the CW more actively. On the other hand, in the authoritative/responsive pattern, one group leader typically served as a dominant role, and other members actively responded to the dominant member’s suggestions. The dominant/withdrawn pattern involved group members who took a passive role, not participating in the group discussions and making only marginal contributions to the writing task. By identifying these three interactional patterns, Li and Zhu stress that CW may not warrant mutual benefits to L2 learners or improved quality of the writing products, claiming that more research is needed to understand how to better promote “collaborative” interactional pattern in CW. Recently, researchers steered their attention toward dynamicity and fluidity in the L2 learners’ interactional patterns within the same group across different CW tasks (e.g., Li & Kim, 2016; Li & Zhu, 2017; Wang, 2019). Most notably, Li and Zhu (2017) explored how EFL learners in a college course would change the way they interact with their peers when engaging in two wiki-based tasks, i.e., writing a research proposal versus writing an article summary paper. The analysis of interaction history in the wiki log, survey responses, and interview comments revealed that collaborative interactional patterns occurred most frequency when the group shared convergent writing goal, positive attitudes toward the CW task, and perception about the group as a collaborative agency. By contrast, when participants had divergent goals, taking a more individual and negative attitude towards the CW task, the group tended to exhibit a dominant/defensive pattern. In addition, it was further found that each group changed their interactional patterns across the writing tasks, showing that interaction in CW could be highly unique and dynamic, depending on the perception and interpretation of task goals. Synchronous web-based CW. Unlike asynchronous web-based CW that entails delayed communication between learners, synchronous CW allows learners to engage in instant and real-time communication during their CW task in an online platform. The mode of communication for synchronous web-based CW may vary, such as text-chat, audio-chat, and video-conferenced interaction. Cho (2017), for example, investigated whether the communication mode, i.e., text-chat versus audio-chat, affected ESL learners’ performance in CW using Google Docs. Based on Damon and Phelps’s (1989) equality and mutuality, Cho found distinct interactional patterns emerging from the different communication modes. To be more specific, participants who used audio-chat tended to engage in collaborative interactional

196

J. Jung and X. Fu

patterns, whereas those who communicated using text-chat showed facilitator/participant patterns. In addition to the communication mode, this study further revealed additional factors that mediated the participants’ interactional patterns, such as participants’ goal orientation, perceived role within a group, and attitudes toward peer feedback. Overall, collaborative interactional patterns were promoted when the participants communicated with each other via voice-chat, shared identical task goals and had a clear understanding of self-and peer roles within the group. More recently, Jung (2020) explored how different task features would affect EFL learners’ performance in Zoom-mediated synchronous CW. In this study, the CW task was writing suggestions to peers’ assignments using Office 365 shared document. The suggestion-giving task was manipulated in terms of the required discourse structure (i.e., listing suggestions as bullet-pointed sentences versus composing a coherent and polite letter of suggestions) and the number of group members (i.e., pairs versus groups of three or four). Transcribed recordings of the group discussions, written suggestions, and post-writing survey responses revealed that each pair or group had highly unique patterns of interaction, and most of the group discussions were meaning-based with only limited attention to accurate language use. In addition, working in larger groups and providing their suggestions in the form of a coherent letter were reported considerably more demanding compared to working in pairs and listing bullet-pointed suggestions. That said, the findings of this study confirmed that learners’ peer interaction during web-based CW task is highly sensitive to numerous task- and peer-based factors. Thus far, however, research into synchronous web-based CW is only scant, and mediating factors that may affect EFL learners’ interactional patterns have not received much attention by researchers. Against this background, to cast meaningful pedagogical implications on how to better design and implement video-­ conferenced CW, this chapter reports a small-scale classroom-based case study that explored dyadic interactional patterns of video-conferenced CW tasks and emerging mediating factors in the learners’ collaboration. To be more specific, the following research questions were addressed in this case study: 1. What interactional patterns do EFL learners exhibit when performing video-­ conferenced CW mediated by Zoom and Office 365? 2. What are potential mediating factors that affect EFL learners’ performance in video-conferenced CW mediated by Zoom and Office 365?

3  The Study 3.1  Instructional Setting The present classroom-based case study was conducted in a Zoom-mediated university course designed to assist pre-service and in-service English teachers in better applying their understanding of instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) into

Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous…

197

their teaching practices. In this course, students were required to present lesson plans based on their understanding of ISLA and would receive suggestions from their peers on improving the lesson plan. In this course, all students were explicitly instructed to turn on their videos during the entire class hours.

3.2  Participants Three focal pairs, Dyads 1, 2, and 3, were selected for microanalysis of the transcripts, written suggestions, post-writing survey responses, and interview comments. The six participants were female, whose English proficiency level was advanced. The members of Dyad 1, students A and B, were both in-service English teachers with 3- to 5-year-long experiences, and it was their first time assigned together as a pair. Students C and D in Dyad 2 were both English tutors with some mutual familiarity with each other, as they took the same course in the previous term. Students E and F in Dyad 3, on the other hand, were close to each other for more than 5  years since their undergraduate studies. E was a part-time English teacher at a private language institute, and F had no teaching experience.

3.3  Suggestion-Giving Task As briefly mentioned above, an important component in this course was reviewing peers’ lesson plans and generating constructive suggestions for the lesson plan. In order to do this task, students were paired up and put into Zoom breakup rooms after each lesson plan presentation so that they could discuss together the lesson plan and write suggestions for the presenter on the Office 365 shared document. The three pairs in this study engaged in two suggestion-giving tasks for two lesson plans that varied in terms of the presenters’ teaching experiences, topic/content, target linguistic feature, and intended group of students. To be more specific, the first lesson plan was designed by an in-service teacher, targeting primary three students who were learning how to describe past events using the simple past tense. The second lesson plan was constructed by a pre-service teacher whose target students were 8-year-old elementary students learning English words of family members.

3.4  Post-writing Survey and Semi-structured Interview Immediately after the two CW tasks, the participants were asked to complete a post-­ writing survey constructed and administered using the Google Form. This was to collect their demographic information as well as their subjective evaluation of their performances in the CW tasks. They also participated in semi-structured interviews

198

J. Jung and X. Fu

that were conducted in Chinese, i.e., their first language, which was to encourage them to report their comments freely without any linguistic obstacle. The interview questions were tailor-made based on the interaction transcripts, probing their specific moves or comments when performing the CWs and potential factors that might influence their interactions.

3.5  Procedure The students first read research information sheets and signed participation consent letters. Then, one week ahead of each class, the instructor distributed the presenters’ lesson plans to the entire class so that the students could review the lesson plans and prepare some suggestions before joining the class. The class began with the first student’s presentation on his lesson plan (henceforth, LP1), which was delivered via PPT slides using the screen-share function of the Zoom. Once the first presentation was done, all the other students were assigned to Zoom breakout rooms in pairs so that the presenter could have an individual feedback session with the instructor. In a breakout room, pairs discussed how to improve LP1 and wrote their suggestions on a shared Office 365 document together. Ten minutes were allowed for this CW task completion, and the pairs were called back to the main Zoom meeting room to listen to the second student’s presentation on her lesson plan (henceforth, LP2). The same procedure was repeated for LP2. The three pairs voluntarily audio-recorded their interactions when performing the two CW tasks (i.e., collaborative writing suggestions to LP1 and LP2) and sent the files to the researchers. Then, the participants answered the post-writing survey upon completing the CW tasks and participated in the interview with the researchers. The interview questions were based on the transcripts of participants’ discussions during CW activities.

3.6  Analysis Audio recordings of pair interactions during the CW tasks as well as interview comments were transcribed verbatim, using an online transcription tool (www.iflyrec. com) accompanied with the researchers’ proofreading. The transcripts of the CW interactions were qualitatively annotated following Damon and Phelps (1989), Storch (2002), and Li and Zhu (2013). Firstly, the equality between the two students in each pair was examined by counting the number of words and turns produced and the number of suggestions generated by each student. Next, mutuality was assessed in terms of the amount of engagement with decision-making episodes (henceforth, DMEs), which were defined as episodes in which the participants jointly made decisions on how to perform the suggestion-giving CW tasks (Cho, 2017; Storch, 2001b) (for example, see Excerpt 1). More specifically, each DME was categorized into interactive/low, interactive/medium, interactive/high, or no response,

Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous…

199

depending on the degree of engagement in each other’s ideas. Interactive/low was labelled when the pair showed only limited interaction or ignored each other’s request for assistance. Interactive/medium, on the other hand, was annotated if the pair demonstrated involvement with each other’s suggestions or provided scaffolding to each other. Interaction/high was marked if the pair was very active in developing and writing suggestions collaboratively. Next, to see if there were any noticeable mediating factors, the present study analyzed comments collected from the semi-structured interviews by annotating emerging mediating factors from the transcript (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Thus, rather than applying existing categories such as the activity model (Engeström, 2015) as done in Cho (2017), an emic approach was taken to single out factors that influenced the three focal pairs. In total, seven potential mediating factors emerged, i.e., (a) role assignment and assumption, (b) perceived individual gaps between the participants within a pair, (c) familiarity with the topics, (d) perceived task goal (e.g., product- versus process-oriented), (e) understanding about the task structure, (f) video-mediated communication, and (g) mutual familiarity within a pair. Frequency was counted for the annotated codes to identify important mediators in CW interaction.

4  Results 4.1  I nteractional Patterns in the Synchronous Video-Based CW As shown in Fig. 2, the three pairs exhibited distinct interactional patterns in their Zoom-mediated CW tasks. Dyad 1 showed an authoritative/responsive pattern that entailed high mutuality but low equality between the students (A and B). Dyad 2 was categorized as authoritative/participants, manifesting low mutuality and low equality between the students C and D, whereas Dyad 3 was labelled collaborative considering the high mutuality and high equality between the students E and F. More detailed characteristics of the three dyads are summarized in Table  1, showing similarities and differences among them along the dimensions of equality and mutuality. In the following section, the interactional pattern of each dyad will be examined more in detail. Dyad 1: Authoritative/responsive. In Dyad 1, student A took an authoritative role, and student B actively responded to A’s ideas and suggestions. More specifically, A produced nearly twice as many words as B (see Table 2). However, A and B produced a similar number of turns and suggestions, indicating that B actively participated in the pair discussion, and A was willing to accept B’s ideas and contributions. Excerpt 1 shows how authoritative A and responsive B co-constructed their discourse as well as the suggestion together. For example, B first suggested revising the vocabulary learning activity, pointing out that it only addressed receptive

200

J. Jung and X. Fu

Fig. 2  Three interactional patterns in the current research. (Source: Fu, 2021)

knowledge about the target words. A responded to B’s suggestions, helping her elaborate the idea more in detail by providing several useful terms and concepts such as mechanical drill, TPR, and timed game activity. As a result, B’s suggestion, combined with A’s support, was developed into a finalized suggestion as manifested in the written product. Excerpt 1 B: um… At the beginning of the lessons, students will read the vocabulary and do the actions, right? A: Yes. B: I, I think maybe this game can also be done in a different way because when they read the vocabulary, when they read the words, it’s like… A: Mechanical drill. B: um… Yeah.. So it’s like practising their receptive knowledge. Maybe it can be done like one student, um… they can, um… Two-person, two persons in a pair. One student does the action. And the partner can guess the word. A: Yeah. So TPR so it’s more like embodied. And also um what I like to do in my class is I’ll make it a time activity. (…) B: And make it more challenging to make them more focused on the activity. A: Yes.

Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous…

201

Corresponding Text Part • Read the vocab: receptive knowledge. Warm-up game can also be done in this way: One student does the action and the partner guess the word: productive knowledge. Note. Participants’ linguistic errors in the excerpt and the text were kept as they were (Source: Fu, 2021).

Table 1  Interactional patterns of the three focal dyads

Equality

Dyad 1 (A and B): Authoritative/responsive A and B made an unequal contribution to the discussion and the suggestion writing.

Dyad 2 (C and D): Authoritative/participant C and D made an unequal contribution to the discussion and the suggestion writing.

A took the most responsibility in the pair discussion and generated more ideas, and sometimes incorporated B’s ideas in the co-constructed text. B acknowledged and accepted A’s leadership and responded appropriately to A. B also provided her own ideas, often with A’s assistance. An individual contribution made by A and B was clearly manifested in the finalized written text.

C took the most responsibility for the pair discussion and produced most suggestions contained in the finalized written text.

Mutuality A and B exchanged ideas actively and generated ideas together. Their discussion occasionally included monologue and silence.

Dyad 3 (E and F): Collaborative E and F produced nearly the same number of ideas and made a comparable contribution to the discussion. The suggestions contained in the finalized text were equally from both E and F.

D made only limited participation in the pair discussion and accepted most of C’s ideas, frequently simply replying “yes” to D. The remaining suggestions contained in the finalized written text were mostly from C, and little evidence of co-construction of the text could be found. C and D did not exchange ideas with each other, and their discussion involved frequent and extended silence and many monologues produced by C.

E and F exchanged ideas actively and engaged in the process of co-construction of the pair discussion and written text.

202

J. Jung and X. Fu

Table 2  The level of equality of the three pairs Interactional Task Dyads patterns LP1 1 Authoritative/ responsive 2

Authoritative/ participant

3

Collaborative

LP2 1

Authoritative/ responsive

2

Authoritative/ participant

3

Collaborative

Verbal discussion No. of No. of Student words turns A 527 14 B 299 13 C 787 19 D 250 43 E 189 10 F 185 10 A 336 7 B 96 7 C 348 10 D 184 10 E 184 10 F 206 9

Words/ turn 40.5 21.4 41.4 5.8 18.9 18.5 48 13.7 34.8 18.4 18.4 20.3

No. of suggestions A: 2 A+ B: 2 C: 2 C + D: 1 E + F: 2 A: 2 B: 2 C: 2 E + F: 2

Source: (Fu, 2021)

In the post-writing interview, B commented that she tried to make timely responses to A, making frequent and short responses such as “yes” or “uh-huh,” mainly to demonstrate her close attention to A’s remarks. She further added that the pair made a conscious effort to balance each other’s contribution to their co-­ constructed writing, trying to include an equal number of suggestions produced by each. A also reported that she attempted to encourage B’s participation when B struggled to generate new ideas during their discussion. For instance, when B initiated an idea but failed to develop it further, A did not push B to complete her idea but rather provided a new suggestion and asked B’s evaluation on it. This facilitated their interaction considerably, rendering their discussion highly productive and mutually supportive. That said, A could be regarded as a very competent expert (Storch, 2002) in Dyad 1, providing timely and useful scaffolding to B to complete their CW task successfully. Dyad 2: Authoritative/participant. In Dyad 2, C was the dominant student, as revealed in Excerpt 2, producing most words produced from Dyad 2. Also, C’s turns often appeared as long monologues, during which D made only very short replies such as “yes” or “uh.” C dominated the pair work in terms of not only the number of words produced but also the number of suggestions that were contained in the finalized written product. Out of the three suggestions provided to LP1, two suggestions were from C, and both suggestions for LP2 were also generated by C exclusively. In the interview, C admitted that she felt the pair work as her independent task rather than a collaborative one.

Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous…

203

Excerpt 2 C: So I put two suggestions. One is for application. (…) (D: yeah), (…) So the first one is application (…). So I would suggest the teacher to present a 15 uses of past tense verbs on the blackboard to remind and support students to carry out the worksheets because he delivered, do you remember he delivered worksheets for the students to complete? (D: Yeah.) So I would suggest (…). (D: Yeah.) The other one is, (…). (D: Yeah.) Just to address the the, the like morphological learning points to the to the to the students. The conclusion part. D: Yeah.

Corresponding Text Part • Application – the teacher is suggested to present the frequently used past-tense verb to remind and support the students to carry out the worksheets (as the proficiency of students are of various levels). • In the conclusion session, the teacher is suggested to review the past tense verbs and remind students that verb tense changes when describing things that happened in the past. Note. Participants’ linguistic errors in the excerpt and the text were kept as they were (Source: Fu, 2021). C and D did not engage in many discussions when it comes to mutuality, and most of their DMEs exhibited low interactivity or sometimes even lacked any response (see Table 3). At first, C tried to encourage D’s active participation in the pair work by asking her opinions or appealing the difficulty in coming up with additional suggestions for the given lesson plan, but D made only a few responses and very little feedback. This passive attitude of D gradually led C to take full responsibility for their pair work. Table 3  The level of mutuality of the three pairs Interactional Dyad patterns 1 Authoritative/ responsive 2

Authoritative/ participant

3

Collaborative

Source: (Fu, 2021)

Task LP1 LP2 Sum LP1 LP2 Sum LP1 LP2 Sum

Total DMEs 5 4 9 4 6 10 5 4 9

Interactive/ low 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0

Interactive/ medium 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 2 3

Interactive/ high 3 3 6 1 1 2 4 2 6

No response 1 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 0

204

J. Jung and X. Fu

Dyad 3: Collaborative. Dyad 3 shows a high level of mutuality and equality, which could be labelled as a collaborative interactional pattern. Regarding the number of words, E and F made nearly equal contributions to their discussions, and the suggestions included in the finalized suggestion writing were equally from both of them. They actively negotiated and co-constructed suggestions for the given LPs, as can be seen in Excerpt 3. In this excerpt, E first pointed out that the lesson plan did not consider how to provide lexical help to students, and F accepted this view and expanded it further. Finally, they collaboratively construct a suggestion, as surfaced in the finalized written text. Excerpt 3 E: (…) the whole class can be much interesting by adding some activities. F: But what about those students cannot really have, um, how to say, much vocabulary about how to describe their weekends. (…) They can not really describe what they were doing in the weekend because they didn’t know the vocabulary.(…) Do you know what I mean? E: Yeah. I, I, I know. I’m thinking about whether the teacher can just ask the students to add out what they did on weekend. F: In the blackboard? E: On their seats. But when they say “I did what”, they can just act out use some gestures. F: And when other students cannot understand this meaning, the teacher can show the meaning to all the students. E: And using her body in her class um. or in his lesson plan.

Corresponding Text Part • The teacher gives many opportunities for students to practice their speaking and writing. However, we are thinking about whether it can be more interesting. For example, the teacher can encourage students to act out what they did on weekend and tell them the meaning of unfamiliar words. It will make the whole lesson more active and make the students more engaging. Note. Participants’ linguistic errors in the excerpt and the text were kept as they were (Source: Fu, 2021).

When it comes to mutuality, most DMEs in this dyad were highly interactive, and all of the DMEs included adequately acknowledged responses. In other words, E and F engaged in highly interactive and collaborative pair discussions, taking equivalent responsibility for their pair work.

Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous…

205

4.2  M  ediating Factors of Interactions in Synchronous Video-­Conferenced CW In order to identify mediating factors that affected the participants’ performance in synchronous video-conferenced CW tasks, post-writing survey responses and semi-­ interview comments were qualitatively analyzed by annotating codes from the transcripts. This section reports four factors that emerged as influential mediators of the three pairs’ interactions. Perceptions towards self-role and peer-role. One of the most salient mediating factors that were commonly mentioned by the six participants was the perceived self- and peer-role within each pair, and it was found that their perceived roles overall corresponded with their interactional patterns. For instance, in the case of Dyad 1, the authoritative student A reported that she regarded her role as an idea-sharer and considered B as her co-worker. This perception is reflected in her performance in Dyad 1, wherein she constantly initiated pair discussions and proposed her ideas first while trying to accept and expand B’s ideas in their joint writing tasks. On the other hand, B regarded her role as a supporter in the pair work with A. For example, B commented in the interview, saying “In many cases, I didn’t choose to be the first person to talk because it would embarrass me and I prefer to listen to others first,” and thus she listened to A first and responded to her ideas by providing timely feedback. Next, C in Dyad 2 commented that she viewed her role as a mentor, as she thought D was not interested in participating in the discussion. For instance, she reported, “I wanted to be a collaborator, but I had to be a mentor because I thought my peer was not well-prepared. She didn’t give comments on my ideas and proposed only very few new ideas.” Having determined that she had to be responsible for the pair work, C produced long monologues, which was often followed by extended silence and very few meaningful responses. In the interview, D mentioned that she did not want to intervene in C’s utterances, as she considered herself as a student in the pair work. D added that C seemed to be superior in terms of both knowledge and linguistic ability and hence did not want to interrupt C’s lead. Accordingly, she opted for delaying her responses to what C proposed and tried to understand C’s ideas and suggestions. In other words, the mismatch of self-and peer roles in Dyad 2 resulted in very little meaningful interaction and C’s dominance in their discussion. In Dyad 3, both participants reported that they perceived themselves and their peers as co-workers, taking equal responsibility for the pair work throughout the entire process. To be more specific, when one proposed an idea, the other showed interest in the idea and expanded it further so that the idea could be collaboratively developed into a well-conceived suggestion and thereby included in the written product. They further commented that they were very conscious about this shared responsibility in their decision-making process, which led to the equally shared ownership of the written product. This perception can be encapsulated with F’s comment in the interview, “It was a joint work, not just my work.” Perceived individual gaps between peers. Another important mediating factor closely linked to the perceived self- and peer-roles was perceived individual gaps

206

J. Jung and X. Fu

between peers, such as English proficiency, teaching experiences, and knowledge about the ISLA theories. Dyad 2, which included substantially skewed contributions made by each student, clearly shows how perceived gap within pairs could affect the dynamics of pair interactions during video-conferenced CW tasks. As briefly reported earlier, one of the reasons why D partook only minimally in the pair discussion was her judgment that C seemed superior in terms of her teaching experiences, English proficiency, and understanding of ISLA, which implicitly granted C to dominate their interaction. However, C did not want to take full responsibility for the pair work, as she could not get any meaningful feedback from D, which eventually led her to feel anxious and doubtful about the validity of her suggestions. In a similar vein, F also mentioned that she would reduce the degree of her contribution in the pair work if she felt overwhelmed by the peer’s superior linguistic or academic competence. Also, A, the authoritative participant in Dyad 1, reported that working with a peer with long teaching experiences would lead her to pay closer attention to the peer’s opinions, as she wants to learn from the more experienced peer. A also commented on working with peers who seemed to have no or fewer teaching experiences. Specifically, she mentioned that she assumed that B had shorter-­ time teaching experiences and thus felt that she needed to initiate and lead the discussion by presenting her ideas first and eliciting B’s feedback on the ideas. In this regard, when the perceived individual gap between the participants is apparent, it seems to negatively impact both the less competent participant and the more competent one. C, the dominant participant in Dyad 2, reported that it was not only difficult to work with a peer who was unwilling to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion but also unfair in terms of the allocation of the workload, as she often had to complete the CW tasks with very limited peer assistance. Mutual familiarity. Another major mediating factor that emerged from the interviews was the mutual familiarity, which seemed to have promoted the participants’ collaboration. This particularly stood out in Dyad 3 that demonstrated a collaborative interactional pattern with high levels of equality and mutuality. E and F were close friends, and thus they felt very comfortable when they were assigned to the same pair. Both reported that the close personal relationship enhanced their collaboration during the CW tasks, and they did not feel nervous or anxious when they were sharing their ideas with each other. However, it should be pointed out that mutual familiarity is not a prerequisite for a smooth and efficient collaboration, and Dyad 1 could be a good example. A and B in Dyad 1 had not had close private contact prior to the CW task, and hence they were relatively not familiar with each other. While they both admitted that the mutual familiarity would certainly help them feel relaxed and share each other’s ideas freely, and they also added that working with unfamiliar peers would enable them to learn new perspectives and pedagogical insights and promote peer interaction. Video-based communication mode. As described earlier, the Zoom-mediated course required all students to turn on their videos, and this was commonly mentioned as one factor that affected their CW performance. To be more specific, being able to see each other’s faces was pointed to as a facilitator of their collaboration, simulating face-to-face peer interaction. B, for instance, mentioned, “When I turned on the video, I felt it was more like a face-to-face class because we can see each

Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous…

207

other. It was not like talking to nobody as the video was turned off.” In a similar vein, D made an interesting comment that watching not only the peer’s face but also her own face led her to monitor her own performance and to pay closer attention to C’s utterances. She said, “In the previous courses, I didn’t turn on the video because sometimes I didn’t want to say anything. Turning off the video made that situation less embarrassing. While in this course I had to find something to say, or it would be very strange, because my partner is looking at me.” In addition, there was a comment on the importance of non-linguistic signals in interaction, such as bodily gestures or facial expressions, which often facilitated interpersonal communication. E, for example, stated that observing F’s facial expressions helped her quickly notice if F had any difficulty understanding her ideas or disagreement with her suggestions and thereby made prompt remedies and adjustments. However, having videos turned on was also shown to place an additional psychological burden on the participants. Some participants commented that constantly showing their faces did not allow them to avoid any embarrassing moment, such as making linguistic errors when speaking in English or proposing unwelcomed ideas, and hence they felt greater pressure and speaking anxiety. This was particularly the case when they felt that they were paired up with a more competent peer, often making them withdraw from the peer interaction with only marginal responses. Some added that showing their faces sometimes made them feel they were constantly judged by their peers, and hence they had to observe the peer’s facial expressions very closely to cope with any disparity in the co-constructed discourse and the writing task promptly.

5  Discussion The present small-scale and classroom-based case study examined three pairs’ performances in synchronous video-conferenced CW tasks to identify interactional patterns and potential mediating factors. Careful inspection of the audio recordings of their pair work, written suggestions, and their responses to post-writing surveys and interviews revealed that each pair engaged in distinct interactional patterns, and diverse peer-based factors affected their performance in the CW tasks.

5.1  Interactional Patterns in Video-Conferenced CW Tasks The interactional patterns of the three pairs were shown to be highly stable within the same pair and across the two CW tasks. This finding can be contrasted to previous studies (e.g., Li & Zhu, 2017) in which small groups showed different interactional patterns across tasks, implying potential task effects on web-based CW performance. In the present study, students worked in pairs, which allowed them to follow a specific pattern during interaction than in small groups, in line with Storch (2002)’s observation. Meanwhile, the two CW tasks were identical in terms of the

208

J. Jung and X. Fu

structure and required outcome, i.e., reviewing a lesson plan and providing constructive suggestions, which might have also led to similar peer interaction. The participants, however, exhibited distinct interactional patterns across pairs, supporting the uniqueness and dynamicity in web-based CW reported in previous studies (e.g., Arnold et al., 2012; Li & Kim, 2016; Li & Zhu, 2017). Students E and F in Dyad 3, for instance, showed a highly balanced contribution to the pair work and shared responsibility for the CW tasks. The written outcome also evinced their mutual scaffolding and suggestions proposed by each, showing that their interactional pattern could be labelled as collaborative (Storch, 2002). Participants in Dyad 1 were highly cooperative, but student A clearly led the peer discussion, showing the authoritative/responsive pattern (Li & Zhu, 2013). Although A’s role was not authoritarian but authoritative (van Lier, 1996), it was clear that A initiated and controlled the pair work, trying to encourage B to respond to her ideas consistently. Accordingly, the two participants in Dyad 1 showed high mutuality but low equality, making unequal contributions to the CW task performance. Dyad 2, on the other hand, demonstrated highly skewed interaction with low equality and low mutuality, in which C dominated the entire discussions and produced most suggestions, and thus their interactional patterns were labelled as authoritative/participant. According to the interview comments, D did attempt to participate in the pair discussion more actively, but she was overwhelmed by C’s superior competence in English as well as teaching experiences and thus handed over the entire responsibility to C. This had an adverse impact on C as well, given that she was also discouraged by D’s passive attitude. At first, C tried to elicit D’s participation in their pair work, but the lack of response and the silence of D only led C to feel depressed and to focus on completing the CW tasks without consideration of D’s engagement. This indicates that peerbased factors appear to have a significant mediating impact on L2 learners’ performances in video-conferenced CW tasks. That said, the next section will discuss how peer-based factors may affect the way L2 learners engage in peer interactions during CW tasks and the resulting outcome text.

5.2  P  eer-based Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced CW Tasks As discussed above, while performing the same CW tasks, the pairs exhibited unique interactional patterns, which seemed mainly to result from peer-based factors. In the same vein, the intra-pair stability (i.e., similar interactional pattern across the two CW tasks) indicates that the peer-based influence may persist in affecting the pair dynamics, overriding any task impact (i.e., commenting on different lesson plans). Most of all, the participants’ perceived self-and peer roles emerged as an influential factor in the present video-conferenced CW task. That is, it appears important for learners to perceive each other as co-workers sharing equivalent responsibility of the CW task (Watanabe, 2008). If perceived self-and peer roles do

Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous…

209

not match, as in the case of Dyad 2, learners will struggle in fine-tuning their relative roles and responsibilities, which could lead to complaints, passive or negative attitude towards the task, and low satisfaction with task performance (Cho, 2017). The coding results of the interview comments further revealed that the perceived individual gaps within the pair, such as peer’s English proficiency (e.g., speaking fluency, writing dexterity, vocabulary knowledge) and long teaching experiences, seemed to serve as a determinant role in establishing roles within each pair (Watanabe, 2008). That is, after exchanging a few turns, they implicitly and instantly assessed each other’s linguistic, theoretical, and pedagogical competence. English speaking proficiency, in particular, emerged as a key factor that determined the peer dynamics in the present video-conferenced CW task. To be more specific, less proficient learners often felt somewhat insecure concerning their competence in the CW task, and hence consciously or unconsciously conceptualized their roles as a learner, participant, or responder, which led them to reduce the proportion of their responsibility and contributions in the peer discussion (Kang, 2005). The perceived gap in teaching experiences was another powerful factor that affected perceived roles within the pair and thereby the eventual interactional pattern. The participants in the present study reported that they positioned themselves as learners when paired up with a peer who seemed to have more teaching experiences, and hence they decided to listen and gain insights from the experienced peer rather than commenting on the proposed ideas or generating their own ideas. This, in turn, led the more experienced learner to complain about the unequal workload, as they had to lead the discussion, provide scaffolding to their peers, and produce most suggestions that were included in the finalized texts. In sum, disparities in English proficiency, especially speaking fluency, and teaching experiences, which could be closely associated with the completion of CW tasks, seemed to affect learners’ positioning and thereby changed the way they interacted with their peers in each pair. As shown in previous studies (e.g., Cho, 2017; Li & Zhu, 2017; Wang, 2019), the mutual familiarity within each pair emerged as another important factor that mediated the participants’ peer interaction in terms of both mutuality and equality. A possible explanation for this finding is that a personal relationship established before peer collaboration effectively removed the affective tension and the socializing need that adds additional complexity to the peer dynamic, promoting a willingness to communicate and facilitate peer interaction (Cao & Philp, 2006). However, it should be noted that the lack of mutual familiarity did not necessarily incur the sense of insecurity and further harm peer interaction (e.g., Kang, 2005). The participants of the present study overall had strong motivation towards the CW tasks with relatively high English proficiency, which could have helped them overcome and control the possible negative impact caused by the lack of acquaintance within each pair. This shows that assisting learners to feel confident about their ability to perform the CW task successfully may effectively cancel out any adverse impact of unfamiliarity between pairs. Hence, course instructors may need to provide sufficient guidelines and support to help students better cope with unfamiliarity with peers in collaborative tasks.

210

J. Jung and X. Fu

In line with Cho’s (2017) study that confirmed the modality impact on peer interaction during computer-mediated CW tasks, the present study revealed that video-­ based communication seemed an additional factor that mediated peer interaction, exerting both facilitative and debilitative impact. First, seeing each other’s faces clearly simulated face-to-face interaction in that video-conferenced mode enabled instant communication combined with visual clues such as facial expressions and gestures (Jepson, 2005; Lee, 2007). The participants mentioned that they constantly observed the peer’s face as shown in the video, and any non-linguistic signals of confusion or misunderstanding prompted them to quickly adjust their previous utterances and resolve communication breakdown instantly. On the other hand, turning on the video and exposing their faces during the CW tasks also placed an additional affective burden on the participants. They had to constantly indicate their close attention to the peer’s contribution while monitoring the peer’s physical reactions, and this non-interrupted mutual gaze seemed to trigger so-called Zoom fatigue (Bailenson, 2021). In addition, if any sign of disagreement (e.g., frowning, raising eyebrows, or pursed lips) or lack of interest or attention (e.g., half-open eyelid, immobile head, or vacant gaze) was shown in the peer’s face, learners felt more anxious and nervous, assuming that their contribution was not accepted by the peer. This finding coincides with Yanguas and Navarro’s (2014) study that reported the increased level of language anxiety when each other’s faces were shown.

6  Conclusions The present study examined interactional patterns of three focal pairs and identified potential mediating factors in their performances in video-conferenced CW tasks. The findings of this study manifest that all three pairs engaged in distinct types of interactions, indicating that simply assigning students into pairs does not guarantee collaborative interaction in video-conferenced CW tasks. Also noteworthy is that peer-based factors emerged as influential mediators, changing the way the participants performed the CW tasks (Liang, 2010). That is, when students are paired up with peers who have comparable competence, assured that they are co-workers sharing equivalent responsibilities, they become more likely to engage in collaborative interactional patterns that entail most learning opportunities. In addition, mutual familiarity seems to promote learners’ peer interaction, although learners with high language proficiency and task-performing competence can overcome the lack of familiarity with their peers. Lastly, the video mode appears to facilitate active participation in pair discussion, although it may increase the level of language anxiety and psychological tension to some extent. This study, of course, is not free from limitations. First, due to the nature of small-scale and classroom-based case study, the number of participants was very small (n = 6), and some variables could not be controlled effectively. For instance, the characteristic of the lesson plans could not be controlled, and thus it is possible that the unique nature of each lesson plan could have modulated the peer

Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous…

211

interactions during the CW tasks. In a similar vein, only one task type, i.e., providing suggestions to lesson plans, was included in this study, and thus there is a need for more studies that include diverse CW types in the video-conferenced mode. Regardless of the limitations mentioned earlier, this study extends the line of research into the technology-mediated CW tasks by addressing EFL learners’ interactional patterns in video-conferenced mode. To be more specific, by utilizing Zoom and Office 365, which are becoming increasingly common under the pandemic situation triggered by COVID-19, the findings of this study reveal some meaningful pedagogical implications. For instance, course instructors who are using video-conferencing applications and Web 2.0 tools may need to consider mutual familiarity and individual gaps between learners as important factors when assigning students into pairs. In addition, it would be highly recommendable to monitor pairs very closely and provide appropriate scaffolding, such as clear task instructions and guidelines, exemplar task output, and useful task template, so that learners can engage in lively and balanced discussions even when working with an unfamiliar peer (Jung & Fu, 2021). Also, encouraging learners to turn on their videos will help to simulate face-to-face peer collaboration in online and synchronous courses.

References Abrams, Z. I. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29(4), 489–503. Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 314–342. Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics and revision processes in wikis. Calico Journal, 29(3), 431–448. Bailenson, J. N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for causes of Zoom fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030 Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 118–126. Bradley, L., Lindström, B., & Rystedt, H. (2010). Rationalities of collaboration for language learning in a wiki. ReCALL, 22(2), 247–264. Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34(4), 480–493. Cho, H. (2017). Synchronous web-based collaborative writing: Factors mediating interaction among second-language writers. Journal of second language writing, 36, 37–51. Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 9–19. Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-­ language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Delaware. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Ablex. Donato, R. (2004). 13. Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 284. Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding. Cambridge University Press.

212

J. Jung and X. Fu

Fu, X. (2021). Interactional patterns and mediating factors in video-conferenced collaborative writing among Chinese EFL learners. MA research project, Department of English, Chinese University of Hong Kong, SAR. Huang, M. (2004). The use of process writing and internet technology in a Taiwanese college English writing class: A focus on peer reviews. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University. Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—And negotiated interaction—In text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 79–98. Jung, J. (2020). The effects of task variations on L2 learners’ Zoom-mediated synchronous collaborative writing performance. Paper presented at the eLearning Forum Asia (eLFA 2020), Hong Kong. Jung, J., & Fu, X. (2021). The impact of pragmalinguistic support on video-conferenced collaborative suggestion-giving task. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-­2021-­0138 Kang, S.-J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33(2), 277–292. Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79–95. Lantolf, J.  P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (Vol. 78). Oxford University Press. Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40(4), 635–649. Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-media collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260–276. Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882–904. Li, M., & Kim, D. (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25–42. Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61–82. Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017). Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 96–120. Liang, M.-Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-­ related discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 45–64. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 605–651. Long, M.  H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic. Loewen, S. (2020). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. Routledge. Peretz, A. (2003). Teaching scientific/academic writing: A place for new technologies. Paper presented at the European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing conference, Budapest. Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects & student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286–305. Storch, N. (2001a). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 29–53. Storch, N. (2001b). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its effect on grammatical development. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, The University of Melbourne, Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11343/38809 Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.

Interactional Patterns and Mediating Factors in Video-Conferenced Synchronous…

213

Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699954 Strijbos, J. W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, Elsevier, 20, 265–269. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage. Sun, Y., & Chang, Y. (2012). Blogging to learn: Becoming EFL academic writers through collaborative dialogues. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 43–61. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J.  P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2012). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 1–8. Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the curriculum: Awareness, autonomy & authenticity. Addison Wesley Longman. Wang, L. (2019). Effects of regulation on interaction pattern in web-based collaborative writing activity. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(8), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958822 1.2019.1667831 Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer–peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605–635. Yanguas, Í. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 72–93. Yanguas, Í., & Navarro, G. (2014). Learners’ anxiety in L2 interaction: Video, chat or face-to-face? The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 3(1), 5–23.