[Routledge Studies in Global Student Mobility] Roy Y. Chan (Editor), Krishna Bista (Editor), Ryan M. Allen (Editor) - Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education During COVID-19_ International Perspectives and

“This timely book on the effects of COVID-19 on the already rapid
growth of online higher education provides valuable insights and informa-

tion on the nature and possible consequences of these effects, including
the widening of a digital education gap between institutions and countries
capacities to successfully respond to rapidly increasing demands for opti-
mal digital teaching and learning. This book also provides valuable solu-
tions to COVID-19 related online education challenges, including for the
accelerated need for the rapid development of widely accessible as well as
optimal online education supporting technology, teaching and learning
practices, and also an underlying online education wisdom that will make
these advances possible.”
– Stephen McKenzie,
Senior Lecturer & Online Course Developer,
The University of Melbourne, Australia
“As educators kept teaching through the COVID-19 pandemic, online

education and information and communication technologies (ICT)
took on prominent roles. It is clear that the judicious use of the lessons
learned stands to elevate higher education beyond where we were before.
By underlining the wins, and alerting us to the losses, this volume pro-
vides faculty developers and instructors alike with keyways to capitalize
on higher education’s response to the pandemic. The global perspectives
provided are particularly valuable.”
– Regan A. R. Gurung,
Professor & Interim Executive Director, Center for Teaching
and Learning, Oregon State University, USA
“Even more valuable than the insights Dr. Chan, Dr. Bista, and Dr. Allen
make to our understanding of the challenges and opportunities that
emerged in higher education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic
is the timely and essential message carried throughout, that the future of
traditional higher education hinges on its willingness to commit to and
insist on equity and opportunity in the classroom through the use of evi-
dence-based teaching practices that make possible success for all learners.
COVID-19 has shed light on an increasingly questionable valuable propo-
sition of many institutes of higher education – the insights in this work
allow administrators, researchers, and practitioners to reflect on and more
importantly improve on their current practices by implementing strategies
to better serve their core customers resulting in better outcomes for all.”
– Patrick Dempsey,
Director, Office of Digital Teaching & Learning,
Loyola University Maryland, USA
“The COVID-19 pandemic has forced education to ‘go online.’ The chal-
lenges facing those outside distance education practice as they move into
digitally-mediated teaching are manifold, reaching beyond the classroom
and lecture hall into the administrative offices of all higher education pro-
viders, and right into the life context of each student. This book asks the
question this situation now requires us to confront: Based on our experi-
ences and what we have since come to know, how do we ‘go online’ in
ways that provide effective education for all?”
– Mark Nichols,
Executive Director, Learning Design & Development,
The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand
“This volume includes valuable perspectives on a dramatically altered

higher education landscape. Higher education researchers, faculty, admin-
istrators, and students will benefit from this research, which sheds light
on effective and equitable teaching and learning practices. It includes a
compelling firsthand account of a scholar-practitioner and his observa-
tions on how members of the higher education community grappled with
the sudden transition to the virtual learning environment, including how
cyber identities interact across political boundaries.”
– Matthew J. Camp,
Director of Government Relations, Teachers College,
Columbia University, USA
“This book is a very timely initiative about the impacts and consequences
of COVID-19 in higher education. The need of going on-line, caused by
the pandemic, had various impacts, both on our students and also on our
lecturers, with a need to adjust procedures and practices. This became a
digital transformation crucial aspect that changed our practices forever.
Before, this changing process would probably have taken decades, and
suddenly it became a reality in a few months. This book is an instrument
that analyses these changes and the impacts of being on-line, drawing les-
sons to improve our practices. Moreover, it addresses the changes required
to be addressed by all stakeholders, and also sheds light on our future
post-pandemic. A very worthwhile book!”
– Pedro Isaias,
Associate Professor, The University of New South Wales, Australia
“This book comes at a critical time in the era of COVID-19 and provides
important insights into the application of online teaching and learning
during the sad menace of the global pandemic. The fact that it is inter-
national in scope adds significantly to its value to the field of comparative
higher education, making it a must read for serious teacher-scholars and
practitioners of distance education. As an educational leadership professor
for over four decades, I consider this book an essential textbook for those
studying the future of online teaching and learning in higher education. I
highly recommend anyone teaching remotely for the first time to read it.”
– Anthony G. Picciano,
Professor, Hunter College and Graduate Center,
The City University of New York (CUNY), USA
“This book excellently examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

on global higher education. More significantly, through investigating best
practices in various contexts, this book also points the feasible development
paths of online teaching and learning in post-pandemic higher education.”
– Weiyan Xiong,
Research Assistant Professor & Program Director,
Lingnan University, Hong Kong, China
“Dr. Chan, Dr. Bista, and Dr. Allen remind us that higher education
throughout the world has struggled through the pivot to online learning
during the pandemic. Their book is the definitive source on the challenges
faced by administrators, faculty, and students globally and the lessons
learned that can improve distance education in the future.”
– Linda B. Nilson,
Founding Director, Office of Teaching Effectiveness and Innovation,
Clemson University, USA
“This timely volume brings a much-needed global perspective to conver-

sations on the post-pandemic university. Specifically, Dr. Chan and co-
authors provide an important counterweight to the predominantly North
American centric discussions about higher education during the pandemic.
As we begin the process of planning our post-pandemic higher education
future, the global perspective and international examples that Dr. Chan
and colleagues bring to analyzing teaching and learning during COVID-
19 will be essential reading for the leaders of colleges and universities.”
– Joshua Kim,
Director of Online Programs and Strategy,
Dartmouth College, USA
“This comprehensive volume highlights not just the challenges but also
the solutions and opportunities that have arisen as a result of the swift and
rapid changes in education brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Educators and administrators will find this series of articles enlightening
and helpful as they plan ahead to address disparities regarding connection
and access within a global context, and effectively integrate digital infra-
structures to ensure a robust and equitable online learning ecosystem.”
– Linda D. Bloomberg,
Professor & Associate Director of Faculty Support
and Development, Northcentral University, USA
“This important collection provides a view of how faculty around the
world have responded to the need to move instruction online in the wake
of the pandemic. The emphasis on efforts to adapt active learning strate-
gies for online delivery is particularly welcome. Documenting the student
experience of this rapid shift online highlights the inequities heightened
by the sudden transition and raises important questions for how we move
forward both online and on campuses.”
– Gary Natriello,
Ruth L. Gottesman Professor in Educational Research,
Teachers College, Columbia University, USA
“Online education has existed for decades, but it took the catalyst of
COVID-19 for most of higher education to use it extensively. This book
provides an excellent selection of pandemic perspectives illustrating com-
mon challenges and techniques of successful programs.”
– Dan Hillman,
Associate Director of Instructional Design, Boston University, USA
“I appreciate the diverse, global perspectives shared in this collection –

along with the authors’ timely response to share ideas, practices, and chal-
lenges that represent the rapidly evolving state of higher education today.”
– Amber Dailey-Hebert,
Director of Faculty Center for Innovation
& Professor, Park University, USA
“I recommend this book for its important lessons on how ICT can and
should support effective learning in curricular and co-curricular settings
and because it helps educators improve models hastily implemented dur-
ing the emergency transition to online instruction. Although COVID-19
will pass, we could be looking at a reshaped online and distance education
landscape for years to come and this book helps us prepare for other dis-
ruptive future events.”
– Daniel Chatham,
Visiting Professor, International Education Management,
Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, USA
“This remarkable volume of international perspectives on higher educa-

tion during the Covid-19 pandemic will engage, inspire, and inform mul-
tiple audiences. Teachers, researchers, and administrators alike will find the
culturally grounded information on online learning and assessment invalu-
able. As an historical imprint, this book documents admirable examples
of pedagogical creativity and innovation. Perhaps most importantly, the
narratives and data presented in each chapter are sure to animate discus-
sions concerning equity, affordability, and the dignity of student learners
in virtual spaces for years to come.”
– Michael Lanford,
Assistant Professor of Higher Education, University of North Georgia, USA
Online Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education during COVID-19
This timely volume documents the immediate, global impacts of the coro-
navirus pandemic (COVID-19) on teaching and learning in higher educa-
tion. Focusing on student and faculty experiences of online and distance
education, the text provides reflections on novel initiatives, unexpected
challenges, and lessons learned.
Responding to the urgent need to better understand online teaching
and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, this book investigates how
the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) impacted
students, faculty, and staff experiences during the COVID-19 lockdown.
Chapters initially look at the challenges faced by universities and educators
in their attempts to overcome the practical difficulties involved in develop-
ing effective online programming and pedagogy. The text then builds on
these insights to highlight student experiences and consider issues of social
connection and inequality. Finally, the volume looks forward to asking
what lessons COVID-19 can offer for the future development of online
and distance learning in higher education.
This engaging volume will benefit researchers, academics, and educators
with an interest in online teaching and eLearning, curriculum design, and
more, specifically those involved with the digitalization of higher educa-
tion. The text will also support further discussion and reflection around
pedagogical transformation, international teaching and learning, and edu-
cational policy more broadly.
Roy Y. Chan is Assistant Professor of Education and Director of the

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) Program in Leadership and Professional
Practice in the Helen DeVos College of Education at Lee University,
Tennessee, USA.
Krishna Bista is Professor of Higher Education in the Department of

Advanced Studies, Leadership and Policy at Morgan State University,
Maryland, USA.
Ryan M. Allen is Assistant Professor of Practice in the Attallah College of

Educational Studies at Chapman University, California, USA.
Routledge Studies in Global Student Mobility
Series Editors: Krishna Bista and Christopher Glass
Routledge Studies in Global Student Mobility offers a scholarly forum for

original and innovative research which explores, explains, and increases
understanding of issues and opportunities relating to international stu-
dent mobility in K–12, higher education, and beyond. Consisting of peer-
reviewed authored and edited volumes, the series advances theoretical
understanding and identifies best practices for educators and professionals
involved in study abroad.
As an interdisciplinary scholarly venue, the series showcases new ideas
and fresh perspectives relating to international student mobility, study
abroad, exchange programs, student affairs from the US and around the
world, and from a wide range of academic fields, including student affairs,
international education, and cultural studies.
This series is produced in collaboration with the Comparative and
International Education Society (CIES) Special Interest Group (SIG) Study
Abroad and International Students, Society of Transnational Academic
Researchers (STAR) Scholars Network, and Open Journals in Education.
Books in this series include:
Inequalities in Study Abroad and Student Mobility
Navigating Challenges and Future Directions
Edited by Suzan Kommers and Krishna Bista
International Students at US Community Colleges
Opportunities, Challenges, and Successes
Edited by Gregory F. Malveaux and Krishna Bista
Critical Perspectives on Equity and Social Mobility in Study Abroad
Interrogating Issues of Unequal Access and Outcomes
Edited by Chris R. Glass and Peggy Gesing
The Experiences of International Faculty in Institutions of Higher
Education
Enhancing Recruitment, Retention, and Integration of International Talent
Edited by Chris R. Glass, Krishna Bista, and Xi Lin
Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education during
COVID-19
International Perspectives and Experiences
Edited by Roy Y. Chan, Krishna Bista, and Ryan M. Allen
Impacts of COVID-19 on International Students and the Future of
Student Mobility
Edited by Krishna Bista, Ryan M. Allen, and Roy Y. Chan
For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.rout-

ledge.com/go/routledge-studies-in-global-student-mobility
Online Teaching and
Learning in Higher
Education during
COVID-19
International Perspectives
and Experiences
Edited by
Roy Y. Chan,
Krishna Bista, and
Ryan M. Allen
First published 2022
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa
business
© 2022 selection and editorial matter, Roy Y. Chan, Krishna Bista,
Ryan M. Allen; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Roy Y. Chan, Krishna Bista, Ryan M. Allen to
be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of
the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Chan, Roy Y., 1986-editor. | Bista, Krishna, 1980-editor. | Allen, Ryan M., editor.
Title: Online teaching and learning in higher education during COVID-19: international
perspectives and experiences / edited by Roy Y. Chan, Krishna Bista, Ryan M. Allen.
Description: New York, NY: Routledge, 2022. | Series: Routledge studies in global student
mobility | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021007882 | ISBN 9780367647155 (hardback) | ISBN
9780367647179 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003125921 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Education, Higher--Computer-assisted instruction--Case studies. |
Instructional systems--Design--Case studies. | Social distancing (Public health) and
education--Case studies. | COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020---Case studies.
Classification: LCC LB2395.7 .O67 2022 | DDC 378.1/7344678--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021007882
ISBN: 978-0-367-64715-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-64717-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-12592-1 (ebk)
Typeset in Galliard
by Straive, India
Contents
List of Figuresxii
List of Tablesxiii
About the Editorsxiv
Foreword by Gerardo L. Blancoxvi
Acknowledgmentsxviii
PART I
Innovative Forms of Online Teaching, Learning,
and Assessment during COVID-19 1
1 Is Online and Distance Learning the Future in Global

Higher Education? The Faculty Perspectives during
COVID-19 3
ROY Y. CHAN, KRISHNA BISTA, AND RYAN M. ALLEN
2 Designing Authentic Online Courses Intra-and Post-

Pandemic 13
MICHELLE RIPPY AND MONICA MUNOZ
3 Pandemic Pedagogy: Disparity in University Remote

Teaching Effectiveness 28
LINDA DAM
4 Learning Management Systems and Synchronous

Communication Tools: Enablers of Online Education
during COVID-19 39
DARREN TURNBULL, RITESH CHUGH, AND JO LUCK
x Contents
5 Online Teaching and Learning during COVID-19:
Flexible Harmonies in Higher Education 50
DAWN JOSEPH, ROHAN NETHSINGHE, AND ALBERTO
CABEDO-M AS
6 The Effectiveness of Authentic Assessments during

COVID-19: A Case of RMIT University in Vietnam 69
HUY PHAM, BINH NGUYEN THANH, THAI VU HONG NGUYEN,
AND JAIN UPASANA
PART II
Impacts of Distance Education on Students,
Social Inclusion, and Access during COVID-19 79
7 Life in 280 Characters: Social Media, Belonging, and

Community during the COVID-19 Pandemic 81
JACK REED AND CATHERINE DUNN
8 “The Course Is No Longer Great”: The Need

for Socially Meaningful Online Instruction for
International Students 93
VANDER TAVARES
9 Expanding Equitable Access or Exacerbating

Existing Barriers? Reexamining Online Learning for
Vulnerable Student Populations 107
ROMANA MANZOOR AND WAYNE BART
10 Using Information Communication Technologies for

Interactive Open and Distance Learning Experiences
in the Era of COVID-19 120
MMABALEDI SEELETSO
11 Suddenly Online: How Russian Students Switched to

Distance Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic 134
IVAN GRUZDEV, EVGENIIA SHMELEVA, RAMAN KALININ, AND
KSENIIA VILKOVA
Contents xi
PART III
COVID-19 as a Catalyst of Change – Lessons
for the Longer Term 151
12 Could COVID-19 be a Catalyst for Disruption in

Higher Education? 153
RAFFAELLA BORASI, RICHARD DEMARTINO, NATHAN HARRIS,
AND DAVE MILLER
13 Global Higher Education and COVID-19: A Virtual

Autoethnography of a Faculty 167
ANATOLY OLEKSIYENKO
14 Sustaining Liberal Education by Online Learning in

the Era of Global Crises: The Case of Community
Colleges in COVID-19 Hong Kong 181
HEI-H ANG HAYES TANG, BEATRICE Y. Y. DANG,
ROSALIND LATINER RABY, AND JOANNA W. Y. YEUNG
15 Students’ Experiences with Distance Learning under

COVID-19: Critical Perspectives from an Indian University 199
MOUSUMI MUKHERJEE, TATIANA BELOUSOVA, AND
DEEPAK MAUN
16 Teacher Education in Times of Disruption: Lessons

Learned from Teaching and Learning in Australian
Universities during the COVID-19 Pandemic 215
EDEN C. STEPHENS AND JEN SCOTT CURWOOD
17 The Expansion of E-learning in the UAE: Implications

and Opportunities in the Post-COVID-19 Era 229
SHYTANCE WREN
Epilogue 241
Index 244
Figures
2.1 Pandemic Pedagogy 18

5.1 Graphic Representation of TPACK 53
6.1 Modified Authentic Assessment Model 75
15.1 Comparative Gross Enrollment Ratios for ODL
and Regular (On-Campus) Courses in India 200
15.2 The CoI Framework 207
Tables
4.1 Synchronous Tools and Their Application to Summative

Assessment44
11.1 Difficulties with the Distance Learning
Format (N = 17,618) 138
11.2 Independent Variables (N = 17,618) 139
11.3 Dependent Variable – Preference for Distance Learning
over Traditional Face-to-Face Learning in Original and
Binary Format (N = 16,718) 141
11.4 Factors (N = 17,618) 142
11.5 Factor Scores by Student Characteristics (N = 17,618) 143
11.6 Regression Results (N = 17,618) 145
About the Editors

Practice in the Helen DeVos College of Education at Lee University.
Previously, Dr. Chan served as the Director of TRIO Student Support
Services, where he oversaw the day-to-day operations of the program and
managed a budget of $1.3 million funded by the U.S. Department of
Education. His research interest includes cross-border and transnational
higher education, study abroad, college access and completion, and edu-
cational philanthropy. Dr. Chan currently serves as Senior Chair-Elect
of the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) Study
Abroad and International Students (SAIS) Special Interest Group, and
previously served as an advisor to the Forum on Education Abroad’s
Data Committee. His latest books include Impacts of COVID- 19 on
International Students and the Future of Student Mobility (Routledge,
2021), The Future of Accessibility in International Higher Education (IGI
Global, 2017) and Higher Education: A Worldwide Inventory of Research
Centers, Academic Programs, Journals and Publications (Lemmens Media,
2014). Dr. Chan holds a Ph.D. in history, philosophy, and policy in educa-
tion from Indiana University Bloomington; an M.A. in higher education
administration from Boston College; an M.Ed. in comparative higher edu-
cation from the University of Hong Kong; and a B.A. from the University
of California, Irvine.

Maryland. His research focuses on college student experiences, faculty-
student relationships, and cross-cultural teaching and learning strategies
in higher education. Previously, Dr. Bista served as the Director of Global
Education at the University of Louisiana at Monroe, where he was Chase
Endowed Professor of Education in the School of Education. Dr. Bista
is Founding Editor of the Journal of International Students, a quarterly
publication in international education. He is also Founding Chair of the
SAIS SIG at the CIES. He has reviewed several book projects related to
About the Editors xv
educational research, international and comparative education series for
Routledge, SAGE, Palgrave MacMillan, and Bloomsbury publications.
His latest books are Higher Education in Nepal (Routledge, 2020) and
Global Perspectives on International Experiences in Higher Education:
Tensions and Issues (Routledge, 2019).

Educational Studies at Chapman University. His research interest includes
international and comparative education, globalization of higher educa-
tion, international students and study abroad, and educational technology.
Dr. Allen’s work can be seen in various publications, such as University
World News, Journal of Studies in International Education, and Compare:
A Journal of Comparative and International Education. Prior to this
book project, he coedited Kuo Ping Wen: Scholar, Reformer, Statesman
(Long River Press, 2016). Dr. Allen holds a Ph.D. in international and
comparative education from Teachers College, Columbia University, an
M.A. in international relations from Yonsei University, and a B.A. from
the University of Central Oklahoma.
Foreword by Gerardo L. Blanco
The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a rare true global event. While

many local events may be broadcast worldwide as a consequence of global-
ization, the pandemic has transcended national and regional boundaries,
generations, social classes – in short – the many categories utilized to make
sense of society. The pandemic has also served as a catastrophic reminder of
the absolute necessity of higher education for knowledge generation and
human well-being. The editors of this volume have gathered an impres-
sive array of voices that bring together individual experiences from the
faculty and student perspective, with national and global dimensions, to
analyze the acceleration and increased sophistication of online instruction
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Teaching and Learning
in Higher Education during COVID-19: International Perspectives and
Experiences stands as proof of the resilience of higher education, of the
commitment of faculty members around the world to ensure instructional
continuity, of the creative problem solving of administrators and policy
makers, and of the will of students to keep learning. This book also stands
as proof of all the work still to take place.
In the aggregate, the perspectives that Dr. Chan, Dr. Bista, and Dr.
Allen bring together in this volume tell a story of professionalization and
collaboration leading the way to reimagine the teaching and learning
process. While faculty members are often accused of being reluctant to
change, this volume provides important accounts of how multiple stake-
holders within universities around the world came together and demon-
strated universities’ ability to rapidly adapt. The pandemic continues to
provide opportunities to increase collaboration, to promote faculty devel-
opment, and to deepen reflection on teaching. Despite the heartbreak and
despair that the pandemic has brought about, epistemic humility has been
an unexpected gift to higher education in these challenging times. While
often expected to speak as experts, faculty members found that the need
to adapt to this crisis sparked curiosity, learning, and knowledge exchange.
At a time of isolation, when many of us feel disconnected from the tradi-
tional spaces that allow us to share ideas and experiences with colleagues,
this volume attests to the new global communities of practice that have
Foreword by Gerardo L. Blanco xvii
emerged in a less hierarchical, global space for exchanging ideas on teach-
ing and learning. We all have our own stories of exchange, sharing tips
with colleagues on how to cope with screen fatigue, the policies we enact
for webcam use in class, and even how to fit more students on the screen.
I am, for instance, very grateful for the support that instructional design-
ers and media producers at my university’s Center for Digital Innovation
in Learning provided me. This is one of the reasons why this book is so
deeply relatable and at the same time so significant. At a time when higher
education has been challenged and tested, the editors and contributors of
Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education during COVID-19:
International Perspectives and Experiences provide a synthesis of valuable
lessons, along with inspiring narratives of change, punctuated by insights
and reflections, with a focus on improvement.
Anyone involved with teaching and learning in higher education, uni-
versity administration, student affairs and services, and educational policy
making will benefit greatly from the global perspectives compiled in this
volume. This book is truly a symbol of hope representing the very best
that higher education has to offer.
Gerardo L. Blanco is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and
Higher Education and Academic Director of the Center for International
Higher Education at Boston College’s Lynch School of Education and
Human Development. Prior to joining Boston College, he served on the
faculty of the University of Massachusetts Boston and at the University of
Connecticut. His research explores the intersections of quality and inter-
nationalization in higher education and is motivated by a commitment
to global social justice and a deep curiosity for the ways higher educa-
tion institutions define, improve, and communicate their value to differ-
ent stakeholder groups. The author of over 30 journal articles to date,
his research has been published in Higher Education, Studies in Higher
Education, the Comparative Education Review, and the Review of Higher
Education. In 2017, he received the “Best Research Article Award” from
the CIES Higher Education SIG. In 2014 and 2020, his work received
honorable mentions from the same organization. Dr. Blanco has been
a visiting faculty member at Shaanxi Normal University (China), visit-
ing expert at the International Centre for Higher Education Research
(INCHER) at the University of Kassel (Germany), and teaching fellow at
the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin (Poland).
Acknowledgments
The editors of this book are extremely grateful to several teacher-scholars,

practitioners, and policymakers who have supported our project since the
COVID-19 global pandemic in January 2020. In particular we are most
grateful to Elsbeth Wright, our acquisitions editor at Routledge for her
encouragement, coordination, and support through the project. We are
also grateful to AnnaMary Goodall, who provided editorial assistance
since the beginning of this project. Special thanks to Dr. Chris Glass and
colleagues in the Routledge Student Mobility Series, as well as at the STAR
Scholars Network and Critical Internationalization Studies Network. We
also appreciate the support of colleagues whom we worked with over
the years at the Open Journals in Education, a consortium of the profes-
sional journals, the CIES’s SAIS SIG, the Association for the Study of
Higher Education (ASHE) Council on International Higher Education,
the Journal of International Students, and the Journal of Comparative &
International Higher Education.
We would also like to acknowledge the help of all the scholars who were
involved in this project and, more specifically, to the authors and reviewers
who took part in the review process. We are most grateful for our copy-
editor, Melissa Brown Levine, who provided initial comments and edits
throughout our manuscript. We also thank Gerardo L. Blanco from the
Boston College Center for International Higher Education (CIHE), who
served as the foreword for our book. We acknowledge support from both
CIES and ASHE, who helped disseminated the call for chapter proposals
in spring 2020. Without their support, this book would not have become
a reality.
At Lee University, Dr. Chan would like to thank his colleagues and
Ed.D. students, who provided suggestions and feedback in this proj-
ect. At Morgan State University, Dr. Bista would like to thank his
colleagues for their encouragement and support, including gradu-
ate students and graduate assistants in the Department of Advanced
Studies, Leadership, and Policy. At Chapman University, Dr. Allen is
grateful to his colleagues and graduate students in the Attallah College
of Educational Studies.
Acknowledgments xix
Special thanks to the following reviewers who assisted us in review-
ing manuscripts received for this book, Online Teaching and Learning
in Higher Education during COVID-19: International Perspectives and
Experiences. It would not have been possible to finalize the selected chap-
ters without their evaluations and constructive feedback.
Chapter Reviewers
Adam Grimm, Michigan State University, U.S.A.
Adriana Medina, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, U.S.A.
Alia A. Ammar, Drexel University, U.S.A.
Aliya Kuzhabekova, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan
Andrea Shelton, Texas Southern University, U.S.A.
Andrej Novak, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Andrew Kelly, American Enterprise Institute, U.S.A.
Benjamin H. Nam, Shanghai International Studies University, China
Bernardo N. Caslib Jr., University of the Philippines Manila, Philippines
Shawn Conner-Rondot, Indiana University, U.S.A.
Bethia Jikpamu, University of Toronto, Canada
Bushra Nayeem, University of Kansas, U.S.A.
Chris R. Glass, Old Dominion University, U.S.A.
Ella Carter, Center for Energy Education, U.S.A.
Eva Janebova, Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic
Gerardo L. Blanco, Boston College, U.S.A.
Jamie Mullaney, Goucher College, U.S.A.
Ji Yeon Bae, University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Krishna Bista, Morgan State University, U.S.A.
Louisa Hill, University of Leeds, U.K.
Mary Eppolite, Mahidol University, Thailand
Michael Kung, University of Florida, U.S.A.
Prashanti Chennamsetti, Texas A&M University, U.S.A.
Romana Manzoo, American Islamic College, U.S.A.
Roy Y. Chan, Lee University, U.S.A.
Ruth Lu, The Ohio State University, U.S.A.
Ryan M. Allen, Chapman University, U.S.A.
Shabeer Hussain Amirali, Bradley University, U.S.A.
Sharon Obasi, University of Nebraska at Kearney, U.S.A.
Tirtha Raj Timsina, Tribhuvan University, Nepal
Tony Lee, Texas A&M University-Commerce, U.S.A.
Vander Tavares, Sheridan College, Canada
We also thank the following who read our manuscript and provided
excellent endorsements for this book:
• Amber Dailey-Hebert, Director of Faculty Center for Innovation &

Professor, Park University, U.S.A.
xx Acknowledgments
• Anthony G. Picciano, Professor, Hunter College and Graduate Center,

The City University of New York (CUNY), U.S.A.
• Dan Hillman, Associate Director of Instructional Design, Boston
University, U.S.A.
• Daniel Chatham, Visiting Professor, International Education
Management, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at
Monterey, U.S.A.
• Gary Natriello, Ruth L. Gottesman Professor in Educational Research
Teachers College, Columbia University, U.S.A.
• Gerardo L. Blanco, Associate Professor and Academic Director, Boston
College Center for International Higher Education (CIHE), U.S.A.
• Joshua Kim, Director of Online Programs and Strategy, Dartmouth
College, U.S.A.
• Linda B. Nilson, Founding Director, Office of Teaching Effectiveness
and Innovation, Clemson University, U.S.A.
• Linda D. Bloomberg, Professor and Associate Director of Faculty
Support and Development, Northcentral University, U.S.A.
• Mark Nichols, Executive Director, Learning Design and Development,
The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand
• Matthew J. Camp, Director of Government Relations, Teachers
College, Columbia University, U.S.A.
• Michael Lanford, Assistant Professor of Higher Education, University
of North Georgia, U.S.A.
• Patrick Dempsey, Director, Office of Digital Teaching and Learning,
Loyola University Maryland, U.S.A.
• Pedro Isaias, Associate Professor, The University of New South Wales,
Australia
• Regan A. R. Gurung, Professor and Interim Executive Director,
Center for Teaching and Learning, Oregon State University, U.S.A.
• Stephen McKenzie, Senior Lecturer and Online Course Developer,
The University of Melbourne, Australia
• Weiyan Xiong, Research Assistant Professor and Program Director,
Lingnan University, Hong Kong, China
Part I
Innovative Forms of Online

Teaching, Learning,
and Assessment during
COVID-19
1 Is Online and Distance
Learning the Future in
Global Higher Education?
The Faculty Perspectives
during COVID-19
Roy Y. Chan, Krishna Bista,
and Ryan M. Allen
Introduction
The demand for online and distance education has expanded dramati-
cally around the world since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic in early 2020. Most notably, the ongoing and evolving global
COVID-19 restrictions have heightened the importance of online teach-
ing and learning in higher education broadly and international education
particularly (Dwivedi et al., 2020; Paudel, 2021). Today, the pandemic
has presented the world with never-before-seen global challenges. Many
colleges and universities have been grappling with unclear recruitment pri-
orities and severe financial constraints while at the same time collaborating
and cooperating with new industry partners and philanthropic organiza-
tions to navigate the shifting COVID-19 landscape (de Wit & Altbach,
2021). Institutions of higher education, especially those from middle- and
upper-income countries, have purchased and deployed new technologies
and approaches (face-to-face, online, synchronous, asynchronous) in all
departments as a direct consequence of the pandemic, yet there has been
little consideration of how those information and communication tech-
nologies (ICT) will be used for the future (Altbach & de Wit, 2020). As
many postsecondary institutions continue to confront the challenges of
remote instruction, the need to understand the purposes and functions
of online teaching and learning is vastly needed not only to prepare stu-
dents for the complexity of digitalization but also to help prepare them for
the globally competitive knowledge-based economy (Oleksiyenko et al.,
2020).
The most common way to provide students with remote instruction
is the use of audio and video conferencing (e.g., Zoom, Google Meet,
Skype). Since the COVID-19 lockdown, the use of audio and video
conferencing has become crucial for faculty members and staff to pres-
ent content in multiple ways and formats. According to the International
4 Roy Y. Chan et al.
Association of Universities’ (IAU, 2020b) global survey on the impacts
of COVID-19, two-thirds of the responding institutions worldwide have
replaced classroom teaching with distance learning. In the United States,
the American Council on Education (ACE, 2020) COVID-19 survey of
268 college and university presidents found that more than half (55%)
planned to offer “predominantly online, with some in-person instruction”
in the spring 2021 semester, which meant that the entire academic year
would be online. The integration of hybrid and blended learning formats
has provided students with added convenience, flexibility, and a safety
net to pursue tertiary education at a distance. Furthermore, video con-
ferencing and learning management systems (e.g., Canvas, Blackboard,
Moodle) have helped students who are unable to attend in the real world
to optimize learning remotely. Although online and distance education
has grown substantially over the past decade, and most notably since the
COVID-19 lockdown, limited research has examined the role of distance
education in shaping accessible learning. Furthermore, very few studies
have examined the impacts of COVID-19 on student success during the
transition to online learning.
In this introductory chapter of the book, we discuss how the world-
wide COVID-19 pandemic has radically changed the status quo in global
higher education, with faculty members and staff forced to engage in
developing professional development opportunities (teaching training) to
stay competitive and relevant for its constituents (students, alumni, par-
ents, policy makers). Specifically, we illustrate how the expansion of ICT
and information technology specialists has affected institutions’ abilities
to survive in the future, as several colleges and universities begin to shut
down (The College Crisis Initiative (C2i), 2021). We also share how the
COVID-19 restrictions have widened the digital gap across all teaching
and learning spaces (due to the lack of a national response to the public
health crisis), while exacerbating economic and structural inequalities with
regards to ICT access (i.e., Internet, electricity, computers) among histori-
cally vulnerable populations (e.g., rural children, families of color, students
with disabilities, students of refugee status; Salmi, 2021). As technologi-
cal advancements and travel bans continue to grow around the world, we
highlight the changing examples, patterns, and frameworks afforded by
online and distance education from an international and comparative lens.
We also provide alternative assumptions, paradigms, and reflections for
teacher-scholars and advanced practitioners to consider that will inspire,
challenge, and connect them during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Key questions that are asked include how do scholars, policy makers, and
practitioners move from talking head to active learning remotely? How
do they make learning valuable and successful when teaching virtually?
How do they proactively engage faculty, staff, students, and alumni with
the goal of building and sustaining authentic relationships online? How
do they best support their students with plans for intercultural learning
Is Online and Distance Learning the Future 5
and study abroad virtually? And how do they redesign and deliver remote
courses that emphasize field-based and experiential learning? Ultimately,
we seek to equip and empower researchers, governments, health officials,
policy makers, and stakeholders with the broad understanding needed to
enhance the quality of online teaching and learning in higher education as
set forth by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

during COVID-19
The COVID-19 crisis has rapidly accelerated the digital transformation of
education globally, as colleges and universities have had to make numerous
changes to their teaching styles, research processes, and collaborative rela-
tionships. The most dramatic change is the shifting modes of instruction
from once fully residential-only learning to fully online, remote, or hybrid
learning environments. This inevitably has created myriad challenges for
students in low- and middle-income countries, with many expressing con-
cerns that learners are unable to access the Internet due to low broadband
connection (Mseleku, 2020). The International Association of Universities
report (2020a) has identified three main challenges to online and distance
education: (1) technical infrastructure and accessibility, (2) distance learn-
ing competencies and pedagogies, and (3) the field of study. The report
concludes that the growing digital divide and socioeconomic inequalities
with large groups of students, the disparities in online learning, and the
lack of teaching preparation by the faculty are a few notable challenges and
topics in the field of higher education and international education.
Today, one can argue that the rapid transition to online and distance
education is ubiquitous of necessity (Altbach & de Wit, 2020). More stu-
dents than ever before are learning from a distance at home, as COVID-19
infections continue to rise around the world. The ongoing pandemic has
not only impacted how educational administrators, faculty, and students
communicate with each other but has also redefined online teaching and
learning in drastic ways. Past studies have shown that many faculty and
staff struggle to teach students online in the most effective way, as global
demand for distance learning degrees dwindles (Day et al., 2021; Kemp,
2020). With this shift, recent research has suggested an increased disen-
gagement for and use of new digital resources and technological advance-
ments in developing countries (Mseleku, 2020). To ensure equitable
access, support, and learning for as many students as possible – including
disabled and refugee students – we believe that colleges and universities
must redirect resources to expand professional development opportunities
in virtual teaching and to invest heavily in supporting inclusive and equi-
table online learning experiences. As current teacher-scholars and practi-
tioners in the academy, we believe it is vital for educators to meet student
communication needs and how they are taught from a distance.
Opportunities and Challenges to Online and Distance
Education
The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically worsened inequalities within
domestic higher education sectors and between countries (de Wit &
Altbach, 2021). Globally, one of the biggest challenges in the era of mass
higher education pertains to the issue of quality, as both students and
faculty have argued that remote learning is “inferior” and not of the same
quality as face-to-face instruction (Shim & Lee, 2020). A survey from
Means and Neisler (2020) reported that student satisfaction and motiva-
tion have significantly decreased during the pandemic, with half of U.S.
students expressing dissatisfaction with their learning after their course
went online. As noted by Altbach and de Wit (2020), “The lack of motiva-
tion of students for online delivery will become an issue with the cohort
planning to enter higher education this fall” (p. 3). While one can argue
that the delivery of online and distance education is far more costly than
traditional face-to-face instruction, numerous challenges and uncertainties
remain with regards to the quality of remote instruction, the increased
workload without formal compensation, and the limited resources avail-
able to prepare faculty for online instruction (Day et al., 2021).
To best prepare our students for the rising complexity of digitaliza-
tion, faculty members and instructional designers must implement new
pedagogical approaches and practices to support student learning (study,
work, teach, language, volunteer abroad, international student services,
and career services). Higher education needs to prepare for a different
future in which we educate young adults and adult learners for responsible
citizenship. The use of ICTs requires learners to adapt and integrate new
learning skills and competencies in the classroom (ElSaheli-Elhage, 2021).
When faculty members work to implement evidence-based teaching prac-
tices, whether in-person or online, they are also working to create more
inclusive learning environments that promote equity. Achieving equity
requires that educators teach with practices that embrace the diversity of
their students’ backgrounds.
The challenge, however, is that many faculty members are resistant to
implement evidence-based teaching practices in the classroom that foster
more inclusive online learning environments (Gratz & Looney, 2020).
Specifically, faculty members from lower- and middle-income countries
are often wary of teaching online courses because they have had limited
exposure to or training in remote instruction, let alone have experience
with developing high-quality online courses (Altbach & de Wit, 2020).
This is highly evident among faculty members holding over ten years of
teaching experience who may complain that online teaching takes more
time to prepare for than traditional face-to-face courses (Cutri & Mena,
2020). Some faculty members may also argue that remote instruction
can decrease student learning outcomes and that the use of distance and
hybrid learning approaches has led to negative student experiences due
to a disconnect with the faculty (Day et al., 2021). While professional
development opportunities (faculty training) are available at both the fed-
eral and institutional levels, many professors have expressed displeasure
with online learning due to either their inability to communicate clearly or
their discomfort with modifying their teaching style. Despite these myriad
challenges, the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed many developing and
developed countries to expand connectivity for higher education institu-
tions and their students.
A few notable benefits of online and distance learning include the ability
to reach new and previously underserved student populations, the ability
to adapt and change to meet individual needs, and the capacity to innova-
tive remotely within the classroom (Dhawan, 2020). New partnerships
and opportunities have been born from the necessities brought by the
pandemic. The expanding role of online and distance education has also
encouraged several institutions of higher education to offer international
joint and dual degrees, to teach courses collectively or simultaneously,
and to conduct research collaboratively (Salmi, 2021). In other words,
key technological innovations and effective cross-unit collaborations and
investments will be significant for institutions seeking to generate revenue
and recruit international distance learning students in the post-COVID
era. Effective online learning is highly dependent on faculty training.
Faculty members who are open to change are more likely to experience
higher levels of satisfaction toward online and distance education than less
experienced faculty (Cutri & Mena, 2020).
In short, we believe that educators must work together to develop
innovative, inclusive and equitable online learning environments for stu-
dents to succeed in higher education. At the same time, we also believe
that the academy must be prepared for any future pandemics, disasters, or
other disruptions and expand on the current models developed and imple-
mented during the emergency transition to remote instruction (Affouneh
et al., 2020). Faculty should embrace research-based teaching practices
and determine the most effective ones during (and after) the pandemic to
enhance student learning.
Organization of the Book

This book provides a broad range of issues pertaining to online teaching
and learning in global higher education. The chapters selected in this book
bring a unique perspective to how online and distance education should
be leveraged to facilitate student mobility and integrated as an element in
the “multiplicity” of future offers. The book is divided into three parts.
The first section of the book includes five chapters that discuss the
nature and effectiveness of innovative forms of online teaching, learning,
and assessment adopted during and after the pandemic. In Chapter 2,
Michelle Rippy and Monica Munoz describe the process of designing
authentic online courses during and post-COVID-19 pandemic through
training, design, and pedagogy. In Chapter 3, Linda Dam uses social
media platforms to provide a qualitative thematic analysis of key debates,
highlighting the disparity in university remote teaching effectiveness dur-
ing a pandemic. In Chapter 4, Darren Turnbull, Ritesh Chugh, and Jo
Luck explore the case for incorporating synchronous tools, such as video
conferencing and live chat into online testing strategies to improve the
validity and effectiveness of assessment delivery. Dawn Joseph, Rohan
Nethsinghe, and Alberto Cabedo-Mas use narrative inquiry methodol-
ogy to highlight current challenges, dilemmas, and opportunities that they
have encountered in relation to student learning and working from home
using a range of interactive multimedia tools. Finally, in Chapter 6, Huy
Pham, Binh Nguyen Thanh, Thai Vu Hong Nguyen, and Upasana Jain
investigate the effectiveness of authentic assessments during the COVID-19
period to determine whether authentic assessments work better (or worse)
at RMIT University, Vietnam.
The second section of the book includes five chapters that address the
impact of distance education on students, social inclusion, and access dur-
ing COVID-19, with special attention to student well-being and social
inequalities. In Chapter 7, Jack Reed and Catherine Dunn describe how
the use of social media in higher education has increased students’ sense
of belonging and community development, especially in developing coun-
tries where remote learning is limited. In Chapter 8, Vander Tavares draws
on teacher research to show that the switch to online delivery in Canadian
universities has limited international students’ ability to engage in mean-
ingful social interaction with the faculty and consequently, affected their
overall sense of community. Romana Manzoor and Wayne Bart present
evidence-based information in Chapter 9 on how online learning has
expanded and exacerbated access to higher education for vulnerable and
underrepresented students. In Chapter 10, Mmabaledi Seeletso describes
that the use of ICTs in Botswana, Africa, may facilitate further social exclu-
sion and digital divide in higher education because of the COVID-19 pan-
demic. Lastly, in Chapter 11, Ivan Gruzdev, Evgeniia Shmeleva, Raman
Kalinin, and Kseniia Vilkova use survey data from more than 18,000
undergraduate students to show how the shift to online and distance edu-
cation has created numerous challenges for students in Russian public uni-
versities. They conclude that the most common difficulties students face
in Russia are poor Internet connection, lack of interaction with peers and
faculty, insufficient self-regulated learning skills, and inadequate space to
study at home.
The third and final section of the book includes six chapters that address
specific case studies of lessons learned from teaching and learning remotely
during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Chapter 12, Raffaella Borasi, Richard
DeMartino, Nathan Harris, and Dave Miller combine entrepreneurship,
pedagogy, business, and higher education organizational theory to show
that COVID-19 could be a catalyst for disruption in higher education.
In Chapter 13, Anatoly Oleksiyenko employs virtual autoethnography
in the online community of global higher education to enable a better
understanding of the diverse and conflicting narratives and memories that
shape our increasingly cyber-bound societies. In Chapter 14, Hei-hang
Hayes Tang, Beatrice Y. Y. Dang, Rosalind Latiner Raby, and Joanna W.
Y. Yeung investigate the rise of online learning in Hong Kong commu-
nity colleges and examine the implications for a possible paradigm shift
of liberal education in light of synergizing virtual and face-to-face teach-
ing. In Chapter 15, Mousumi Mukherjee uses an online survey of 106
students from a private university in India to discuss the pros and cons of
mainstream online distance learning in the middle of the global pandemic.
She concludes that the COVID-19 lockdown and social distancing norms
might reshape online and distance education for many years to come. In
Chapter 16, Eden Stephens and Jen Scoot Curwood examine how teacher
education within Australian higher education institutions has been rei-
magined in the online sphere and provides several benefits and hindrances
that have resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic. Lastly, in Chapter 17,
Shytance Wren uses diffusion innovation theory to show that the blended
learning model should be implemented in the United Arab Emirates pub-
lic higher education institutions.
The book concludes with a short epilogue from the editors that high-
lights key overarching messages and commonalities from the 17 chapters.
We anticipate that these chapters will empower educators, administrators,
practitioners, policy makers, and families with new ideas, principles, and
advice that they can apply this academic year and beyond. A few guiding
questions in this book are as follows:
• How do we make learning valuable and successful when teaching

virtually?
• How do we proactively engage faculty, staff, students, and alumni with
the goal of building and sustaining authentic relationships online?
• How do we redesign and deliver remote courses that emphasize field-
based and experiential learning?
• How do we best support our students with upcoming plans for inter-
cultural learning and study abroad virtually?
• How do we move from talking head to active learning remotely?
Bios
Roy Y. Chan, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Education and
Director of the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) Program in Leadership
and Professional Practice in the Helen DeVos College of Education at
Lee University, Tennessee. Previously, Dr. Chan served as the Director of
TRIO Student Support Services, where he oversaw the day-to-day opera-
tions of the program and managed a budget of $1.3 million funded by
the U.S. Department of Education. His research interest includes cross-
border and transnational higher education, study abroad, college access
and completion, and educational philanthropy. Dr. Chan currently serves
as Senior Chair-Elect of the Comparative and International Education
Society (CIES) Study Abroad and International Students Special Interest
Group and previously served as an advisor to the Forum on Education
Abroad’s Data Committee. His latest books include Impacts of COVID-19
on International Students and the Future of Student Mobility (Routledge,
2021), The Future of Accessibility in International Higher Education (IGI
Global, 2017) and Higher Education: A Worldwide Inventory of Research
Centers, Academic Programs, and Journals and Publications (Lemmens
Media, 2014). Dr. Chan holds a Ph.D. in history, philosophy, and pol-
icy in education from Indiana University Bloomington; a M.A. in higher
education administration from Boston College; a M.Ed. in comparative
higher education from the University of Hong Kong; and a B.A. in crimi-
nology, law & society from the University of California, Irvine.
Krishna Bista, Ed.D., is a Professor of Higher Education in the

Department of Advanced Studies, Leadership, and Policy at Morgan State
University, Maryland. His research focuses on college student experiences,
faculty-student relationships, and cross-cultural teaching and learning
strategies in higher education. Previously, Dr. Bista served as the Director
of Global Education at the University of Louisiana at Monroe, where he
was Chase Endowed Professor of Education in the School of Education.
Dr. Bista is Founding Editor of the Journal of International Students,
a quarterly publication in international education. He is also Founding
Chair of the Study Abroad and International Students Special Interest
Group (SIG) at the CIES. He has reviewed several book projects related
to educational research, international and comparative education series
for Routledge, SAGE, Palgrave MacMillan, and Bloomsbury publica-
tions. His latest books are Higher Education in Nepal (Routledge, 2020),
and Global Perspectives on International Experiences in Higher Education:
Tensions and Issues (Routledge, 2019).
Ryan M. Allen, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Practice in the Attallah

College of Educational Studies at Chapman University, California. His
research interests include international and comparative education, global-
ization of higher education, international students and study abroad, and
educational technology. Dr. Allen’s work can be seen in various publica-
tions, such as University World News, Journal of Studies in International
Education, and Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education. Prior to this book project, he coedited Kuo Ping Wen: Scholar,
Reformer, Statesman (Long River Press, 2016). Dr. Allen holds a Ph.D. in
international and comparative education from Teachers College, Columbia
University; an M.A. in international relations from Yonsei University; and
a B.A. in public relations from the University of Central Oklahoma.
References
ACE. American Council on Education. (2020). College and university presidents
respond to COVID-19: 2020 fall term survey, part II. ACE.
Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2020). Responding to COVID-19 with IT: A trans-
formative moment? International Higher Education, 103, 3–4.
Affouneh, S., Salha, S., N., & Khlaif, Z. (2020). Designing quality e-learning envi-
ronments for emergency remote teaching in coronavirus crisis. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 11(2), 1–3.
Cutri, R. M., & Mena, J. (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.
Day, T., Chang, I-Chun C., Chung, C. K. L., Doolittle, W. E., Housel, J., &
McDaniel, P. N. (2021). The immediate impact of COVID-19 on postsecond-
ary teaching and learning. The Professional Geographer 73(1), 1–13.
de Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Fighting for funding against inequality post-
COVID-19. International Higher Education, 105, 3–4.
Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22.
Dwivedi, Y., Hughes, L., Coombs, C., Constantiou, I., Duan, Y., & Edwards, J.
(2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information management research
and practice: Transforming education, work and life. International Journal of
Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102211
ElSaheli-Elhage, R. (2021). Access to students and parents and levels of prepared-
ness of educators during the COVID-19 emergency transition to e-learning.
International Journal on Studies in Education, 3(2), 61–69.
Gratz, E., & Looney, L. (2020). Faculty resistance to change: An examination of
motivators and barriers to teaching online in higher education. International
Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 10(1), 1–14.
IAU. International Association of Universities. (2020a). Regional/National per-
spectives on the impact of COVID-19 on higher education. IAU.
IAU. International Association of Universities. (2020b). The impact of COVID-19
on higher education around the world: IAU Global Survey Report IAU.
Kemp, N. (2020). Distance learning and global demand. International Higher
Education, 103, 5–6.
Mseleku, Z. (2020). A literature review of e-learning and e-teaching in the era of
COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research
Technology, 5(10), 588–597.
Means, B., & Neisler, J., with Langer Research Associates. (2020). Suddenly
online: A national survey of undergraduates during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Digital Promise.
Oleksiyenko, A., Blanco, G., Hayhoe, R., Jackson, L., Lee, J., Metcalfe, A.,
Sivasubramaniam, M., & Zha, Q. (2020). Comparative and international
higher education in a new key? Thoughts on the post-pandemic prospects of
scholarship. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1838121
Paudel, P. (2021). Online education: Benefits, challenges and strategies during
and after COVID-19 in higher education. International Journal on Studies in
Education, 3(2), 70–85.
Salmi, J. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on higher education from an equity per-
spective. International Higher Education, 105, 5–6.
Shim, T. E., & Lee, S. Y. (2020). College students’ experience of emergency
remote teaching due to COVID-19. Children and Youth Services Review, 119,
105578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105578
The College Crisis Initiative (C2i). (2021). COVID-19 Data Dashboard. https://
collegecrisis.shinyapps.io/dashboard/
2 Designing Authentic
Online Courses
Intra- and Post-Pandemic
Michelle Rippy and Monica Munoz
Introduction
In these unprecedented times during the COVID-19 pandemic, extraor-
dinary measures have been taken in higher education to ensure continuity
of teaching. While every institute of higher education likely has contin-
gency planning for the short term, many did not have long-term continu-
ity plans for the transition from in-person courses to an online modality.
As educational institutions briefly weighed the options of remaining fully
operational, reducing services, or closing, national health orders forced
universities and colleges to close in March 2020. The COVID-19 pan-
demic affected over 90% of students worldwide in the spring of 2020,
sparking an emergency transformation to distance learning, requiring
pivoting and agility. Without knowing the time frame for shelter-in-place
orders to end, there was planning needed for a possible return to the
classroom (Hollweck & Doucet, 2020). Similar actions to those during
the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 occurred when university terms were
canceled, with schools internationally moving to an online modality in
spring 2020 (Trilla et al., 2008). With the invention of the Internet and
the increasing popularity of online coursework, higher education was now
able to continue in a modified fashion to sustain student learning.
While online coursework and distance learning is not a new method of
education, the sudden transition to online coursework left some faculty
members scrambling to redesign courses to a modality they may never have
taught in. The focus was initially on personal and student safety, with the
second priority being learning continuity (Berry et al., 2020). The move-
ment from face-to-face material to an online format is not sufficient to
provide high-caliber education, as a poor course design can leave students
feeling isolated and without support (Miller, 2011). Authentic learning,
with learner engagement in assignments that relate to real issues and topics
in the discipline, is a vital part of online learner success (Herrington et al.,
2010). Developing an online course can take weeks of full-time work,
particularly when incorporated with best practices and quality assurance
through a formal review process, such as Quality Matters, Inc. Quality
online courses support students and allow them to persist through the
end of their program of study (Stavredes & Herder, 2013). Combining
14 Michelle Rippy and Monica Munoz
quality online courses with authentic learning objectives to increase stu-
dent success would include critical thinking, problem-based learning, and
reflective work (LaPrade et al., 2014; Stavredes & Herder, 2013). While
the stigma of online learning and technology challenges linger, online
learning has shown to have no significant impact on grades when com-
pared to in-person learning, although research has not been conducted
on a forced online modality (Fonolahi & Khan, 2014). Continuing to be
pragmatic when creating online courses and being mindful of technologi-
cal and human limitations can assist with improving student success and
learning during the most challenging of times.
Literature Review
Online education is not a new invention for higher education, though it
has been more widely adopted in the past two decades. There are over
14 million college-level students who have taken online courses, an increase
from the 2.2 million students taking online courses in 2001 (Holly et al.,
2008). The higher prevalence of online education has led to an increase
in tools and technology available for quality and authentic teaching in a
virtual environment. A strong pedagogy can support technology, as well
as overcome online challenges (Waterhouse, 2005). Pedagogy in online
courses is commonly overlooked for adherence to technology standards
and the use of learning management platform tools, which can create an
overwhelming cognitive load on both students and faculty. Online peda-
gogy should be informed by instructional design theory and practice to
create an authentic learning experience (Nilson & Goodson, 2019). The
implementation of a successful online pedagogy generally occurs from trial
and error and competes with the technology upgrades and wide ranges of
programs and tools that sell claims of increased interactions. The focus on
updated technology can sometimes shadow known best practices of face-
to-face courses (Zhang & Walls, 2009). The transition in March 2020 to
online learning, within days of shelter-in-place and other pandemic orders,
created tens of thousands of new online educators without the time for
proper training or course redesign.
There have been minimal publications about teaching during a pan-
demic or a sudden transition to a different teaching modality, as the world
has not experienced a pandemic of COVID-19 proportions in the past
100 years. Concerns of exposure to H1N1 during the swine flu outbreak
were expressed by elementary school teachers, as children appeared to be
the most vulnerable to the deadly disease (Howard & Howard, 2012).
Action plans were created for teachers in Nova Scotia, including cleaning
requirements and reporting of absences, but no guidance was provided
for continuity of teaching. The teachers felt an intense responsibility for
the safety of their students, which affected their pedagogy with the extra
stressors and pandemic preparedness (Howard & Howard, 2012). During
Online Courses Intra- and Post-Pandemic 15
the immediate transition to online learning during COVID-19, there was
not time for many educators to transition to using authentic learning prac-
tices in online courses, particularly with the daily personal challenges the
pandemic caused.
Authentic learning can take many shapes, from project-based learn-
ing to collaboration and reflection. Authentic learning experiences can
include a community or future career connection, a challenging inquiry,
creation of a justification for a solution, and use of an outside audience
(Laur, 2013). Reflection can assist students with learning the material,
and reflection by faculty can increase institutional effectiveness in teach-
ing (LaPrade et al., 2014). While having an outside audience or guest
speaker may have been difficult to schedule in the past, the transition to
an online format can allow for community members to join the course via
video conferencing. No matter the curriculum, a current challenge in the
field can be brought forth as an inquiry with the incorporation of real-
world experiences. During a pandemic, obtaining experience in the com-
munity may not be feasible, but simulated experiences and activities built
into the course can be added (Laur, 2013). Collaborative learning can
increase understanding of content and encourage analysis, research, and
appreciation for classmates (McFarlane, 2015). Authentic learning can be
transitioned to online learning through synchronous and asynchronous
practices using basic educational tools and a learning management system.
Creating an online course should begin with constructing a framework
of the course and module learning objectives. A curriculum built on learn-
ing objectives allows for assignments, tests, and projects to be aligned with
the learning goals for the course (Stavredes & Herder, 2013). The use
of backward course design, in which one starts with the end goals then
builds the curriculum, can assist in developing the assignments or tasks
for students that can directly assist with meeting the learning objectives.
When designing a course, an educator should begin with the assessment
to meet the learning goals and then build the course materials and choose
a textbook by aligning all work with the assessment (Wiggins & McTighe,
2005). A piecemeal approach of adding assignments and technology can
create chaos in an online course, as planned systematic changes aligning
with course goals can increase student success (Weimer, 2002). Just as
students will complete their course assignments when they have time dur-
ing the week, it is rare that faculty members will have uninterrupted time
to create and organize course content or sufficient time to plan for course
facilitation.
Once the course design is created, course delivery becomes the focus.
Course design should occur before the start of the semester, similar to
planning face-to-face courses. Faculty members have the responsibility
to empower learners, engage students in the material, and show enthu-
siasm for the topic (Conrad & Donaldson, 2012). Faculty delivery of
course content can create a transformative learning experience, leading
to a change in the student (Conrad & Donaldson, 2012; Meyers, 2008).
Creating an engaging environment can be more challenging in an asyn-
chronous course; however, tools like YouTube and other vetted online
technologies can be utilized to create an immersive educational experience
(Buzzetto-More, 2015). A faculty member can face discomfort with creat-
ing and delivering material in online courses or having an assignment not
work out as expected (Smith, 2015). While creativity in online courses is
encouraged to increase engagement, an overload of technology when fac-
ulty and students are not fully competent can result in frustration and dis-
couragement (Sinclair, 2018). One would normally have time for trial and
error or possibly only one online course per semester to seek feedback and
promote deep learning and retention; however, the pandemic has changed
our normal pedagogy and routine.
Pandemic Pedagogy
In-person courses cannot be fully translated into online courses due to
the loss of live interactions with classroom dynamics. Faculty members, as
classroom facilitators, have the responsibility to inspire students, encour-
age collaboration, build curriculum, and focus on the success of the learner
(Beaudoin, 1990; Holly et al., 2008). The work of the faculty member in
online courses is heightened, as the curriculum and organization of the
online course can significantly encourage or limit student success. With an
uncertain time line for returning to campus, many faculty members have
received conflicting information about expectations and safety measures
(Hargreaves, 2020). While faculty members remain in flux about campus
repopulation, an exploration into technology to support online courses
can occur.
The rapid transition to online learning left some members of the cam-
pus community without the required technology tools or Internet access,
thus increasing the inequities that could normally be camouflaged when
students are in a classroom (Williamson et al., 2020). Students found
themselves sharing one computer among their school-aged siblings, using
a phone as a hot spot to access their coursework, and losing the quiet
study place the university library once provided. Monetary concerns were
heightened with mass layoffs, and people working in grocery stores had
mandated overtime, which reduced time to spend on coursework. Faculty
who were looked to for answers about how the semester would proceed
but could not provide answers were faced with student concerns and
their own public health questions (Godley, 2020). The focus turned from
coursework to basic survival, creating challenges for faculty members to
continue to engage students.
Pandemic pedagogy requires trauma-informed practices to be utilized,
as the circumstances of the pandemic have arguably affected everyone.
Through the realization of the direct or indirect impact of trauma, faculty
need to be aware of potential trauma and seek to not retraumatize victims
(Harrison et al., 2020). Even if the students were not directly impacted
by the pandemic, vicarious trauma and cumulative trauma may be present
based on past experiences (Devilly et al., 2009). Faculty members should
also recognize their own burnout and compassion fatigue, as self-care can
be lost while trying to support students.
In addition to the pandemic, the United States of America has expe-
rienced social unrest relating to racial injustices (Buchanan et al., 2020).
While updating online coursework to include pandemic pedagogy, a social
justice lens should be added to increase equity and inclusivity. Creating a
community within the course can assist students in supporting each other
and decrease isolation (Rippy & Munoz, 2019). A sense of community is
particularly vital during a pandemic, as students who are used to human
interaction have likely been separated from society for many months. An
online community can include the creation of asynchronous discussion
groups where multiple interactions between students are required while
engaging in the learning process (Kranzow, 2013). Since the pandemic
has affected everyone, this can be a common thread in early discussions
and introductions, with the sensitivity that some students may have expe-
rienced more trauma from the pandemic than others.
The movement of courses to an online format forced students and fac-
ulty alike to use new systems and tools. The lack of the ability to commu-
nicate in person also increased the amount of electronic communication
in the form of email, direct messages, or other electronic platform tools.
Cognitive load theory outlines the amount of information people can pro-
cess with memory and schema constraints (Van Gerven et al., 2002). With
the limitations humans have in working memory, extraneous work that is
not aligned with the task required should be avoided (Chun-Ying et al.,
2011). Reducing the number of tools used in each course and sending
succinct communication with vital information on a regular schedule can
assist with avoiding cognitive overload.
Though learning is virtual, impactful and authentic learning can still be
achieved with faculty training and implementation. Aligning the work to
the course learning objectives instead of creating additional assignments
to make up for lost class time can reduce cognitive overload and increase
understanding of the material (Chun-Ying et al., 2011). Whether the
course is synchronous or asynchronous in nature, authentic assignments
that support and enhance course goals can allow for in-depth learning and
understanding of the topic when related to real-life situations (Herrington
et al., 2010). Coursework can be designed around a realistic situation or
challenge, incorporating complex critical thinking that can help the stu-
dent thrive in a similar circumstance in the future.
Figure 2.1 encompasses the vital aspects of pandemic pedagogy displayed
visually. However, the figure is not inclusive of all possible components of
pandemic pedagogy, as future circumstances such as increased wildfires
Figure 2.1 Pandemic Pedagogy.
may continue to change the landscape of higher education. The basis of

pandemic pedagogy can begin to highlight necessary considerations when
responding to other crisis situations.
Case Study
California State University East Bay (CSUEB) is part of the 23-campus
California State University system situated in the San Francisco Bay Area.
CSUEB has approximately 12,000 students enrolled in undergraduate
coursework and approximately 2,000 students enrolled in graduate stud-
ies (Institutional Research, 2020). CSUEB is one of the most ethnically
diverse campuses in the United States with nearly 40% of students iden-
tifying as Hispanic (Suneson, 2020). Over 60% of the students are first-
generation college students, more than 60% of students are female, and 81%
of undergraduate students are enrolled in 12 or more units (Institutional
Research, 2020). The mission of CSUEB is to advance knowledge, cul-
ture, and learning, as well as prepare students for the workforce.
The Office of the Online Campus (OOC) at CSUEB was a fully
established and operational office prior to the pandemic. The OOC was
established in 2013, with no formalized personnel dedicated to online
course design prior to this. The OOC is managed by a senior director and
staffed with two senior eLearning specialists, one eLearning specialist, one
instructional designer, two learning management system administrators,
and one administrative assistant (CSUEB, 2020). The OOC provides sup-
port to faculty who teach online or hybrid courses and those who utilize
the learning management system. CSUEB has encouraged quality online
and hybrid courses by offering certification programs and grants to faculty
members since 2013. In fall 2019, 19% of faculty taught online courses,
and most faculty members had not completed any formal online education
training. Faculty attendance for online education-related workshops was
historically low pre-pandemic, as there was not a university initiative to
increase online coursework development.
On Tuesday, March 10, 2020, after the end of the business day, the entire
campus community received an email from the Office of the President
stating that administrators were in regular contact with local county health
departments and the California State Department of Public Health. The
email outlined that the university would be transitioning to online learn-
ing starting March 11, 2020, to assist with mitigating COVID-19 spread
and to keep our campus community members safe. Due to the sudden
change in modality, the university canceled courses from March 11, 2020,
to March 15, 2020, to allow faculty members to prepare for the transi-
tion to online courses. Faculty were directed to the OOC for resources,
online tools, and technical support. The OOC scheduled daily open office
hours and multiple workshops on how to use the learning management
system and other platforms to support faculty in the transition. Courses
were planned to be online from March 16 to April 12, 2020, and all rede-
signed in-person courses were to continue in a synchronous format on the
previously scheduled day and time. The online format was scheduled to
be revisited on April 8, 2020, to determine if the pandemic would allow
for the campus to be repopulated. With the worsening of the pandemic in
California, courses remained online for the remainder of spring 2020, all
of summer 2020, and the majority of courses transitioned to online learn-
ing for fall 2020.
Immediately after the transition to an online modality, the OOC started
creating and updating a vast amount of content to better support fac-
ulty during the transition. Available content for faculty learning included
how to use video conferencing, adding assignments to the learning man-
agement system, how to record lectures, how to create and grade exams
and writing assignments, and the online equivalence of face-to-face seat
time (Office of the Online Campus, 2020). Multiple weekly courses were
offered by the OOC via video conferencing on the basics of online learn-
ing, including using the learning management system and communication
strategies. Both authors and other members of the OOC created a spread-
sheet of online equivalencies for common in-person course assignments
and projects, including university-sponsored tools, and a description of
how the assignment can be transitioned. The availability of content online,
as well as continued OOC weekday office hours and 24-hour access to
learning management system assistance, provided many layers of support
to faculty. Since most CSUEB faculty members have not taught their
entire course load in an online format, administrators recognized the need
for faculty to receive in-depth training from OOC personnel. Funds from
Academic Affairs supported $500 grants for faculty members to complete
online educational institutes in summer 2020 to improve skills and knowl-
edge and increase student success during distance learning.
Virtual Summer Institute

A Virtual Summer Institute (VSI) was created by the CSUEB OOC and
the Office of Faculty Development at the request of the associate provost.
In April 2020, an electronic message was sent to all faculty from the Office
of Academic Affairs offering tenured, tenure-track, and lecturer faculty
an opportunity to complete the 2020 VSI. The VSI was the first of its
kind at CSUEB, aligned with the California State University Chancellor
Office’s commitments to providing quality online and hybrid programs to
our students. The VSI offered training and one-on-one interactions with
personnel from the OOC and Faculty Development to assist with follow-
ing Quality Matters (QM) standards for quality online coursework. The
institute offered training and technical support to a multitude of online
learning platform features and integrated tools to assist with course design
and student success.
With the sudden modality switch in March 2020 to fully online courses,
there was no time for faculty to receive additional training on online
courses prior to the end of the spring 2020 semester. To allow time to
create a curriculum and provide a break for faculty between the spring
2020 and summer 2020 semesters, the VSI sessions were held in late June
and mid-July with three cohorts of faculty members. The training was
completed through distance learning using asynchronous and synchro-
nous methods. Six hours of synchronous training were provided on the
first and third days, with the middle day allowing for asynchronous course
adaptations and individual consultations with OOC personnel.
Faculty members’ eligibility to participate in the VSI included those
who had never completed QM coursework through Faculty Development
or the OOC to allow those with very limited or no online teaching experi-
ence to have the opportunity to complete coursework. Participation in the
VSI was completely voluntary and faculty self-submitted their information
through an online form. The OOC and Faculty Development reviewed
and rated the applications, awarding positions to faculty with the least
experience in online learning. There were 48 faculty members assigned to
the first cohort in late June and 112 in July for two simultaneous sessions.
All faculty who applied were admitted to the institute, and those who
started the VSI successfully completed the coursework while working with
eLearning specialists to further develop their online courses.
Following the VSI, faculty were assigned to a dedicated eLearning spe-
cialist for direct and personalized assistance to review their fall 2020 online
courses and provide suggestions to increase student success. Faculty mem-
bers also received sponsorship from the OOC for a future QM Improving
Your Online course or Applying the Quality Matters Rubric course.
Faculty members continued to work with their assigned eLearning spe-
cialist and increasingly participated in OOC open office hours and profes-
sional development webinars for additional support.
VSI Curriculum
The VSI had four learning objectives, which were aligned with each seg-
ment of the course. Showing the learning objectives and alignment of
the work is the best practice for online teaching (Quality Matters, 2020).
The learning objectives were to plan and design the first online course for
the faculty member, demonstrate knowledge of the learning management
system and integrated tools, design an accessible online course, and imple-
ment strategies and practices that aligned with local shelter-in-place orders
due to the pandemic. The structure and layout of the syllabus showed
each module and the topics for discussion in each component, along with
required deliverables, such as a course syllabus. Examples of authentic
assignments in a variety of concentrations were provided to spark ideas for
incorporating authentic work into courses.
The course schedule was broken down into modules, including an
introduction, the purpose of VSI, and information on how to work the
video conferencing platform. The first-day coursework included the course
outline, the importance of the syllabus, suggestions for syllabus informa-
tion, the learning management system and its components, synchronous
interaction hints and tips, universal design for learning, and accessibility in
online courses. The second day was used for independent, asynchronous
work on courses with open OOC office hours and one-on-one meetings
with assigned eLearning specialists. The third day started with a review of
student engagement opportunities through tools and activities, student
assessments and options for assessment, engagement tools in the learning
management system, the grading center, and rubrics.
Components of authentic learning, such as project-based learning,
small-group discussion, and inquiry-based learning techniques were dis-
cussed in detail to emphasize the value and necessity of authentic learning
in an online course format. The curriculum also focused on components
not directly related to online coursework, including trauma-informed,
equity-minded, inclusive pedagogy. Representatives from the Counseling
Center and Office of Diversity shared data and information about our
campus and how faculty could support students. While informing faculty
about the trauma students were facing, faculty members were better able
to create innovative ways to accommodate all students and their individual
needs. By including the need for designing with equity in mind, faculty
were reminded of the university’s diverse student population and how
many students are faced with challenges that may be unknown to their
professors.
Through discussions of pandemic pedagogy, faculty were given a chance
to experience authentic learning techniques, as the VSI was designed to
model the approaches and provide space for faculty to take on the role
of their learners. A sandbox course without student data was provided
for faculty to apply what they learned and reflect in small-group break-
out sessions. To model the best practice of inquiry-based learning, faculty
were encouraged to ask questions throughout presentations and become
familiar with tools and techniques by applying them in their sandbox
courses. Faculty members were encouraged to develop authentic assign-
ments related to their courses in their sandboxes, as well as syllabi that
included necessary inclusivity for learners regarding technology, peda-
gogy, and accessibility. Regular and detailed feedback was provided to VSI
participants, modeling best practices recommended for faculty to provide
to students in online courses.
An equity-minded curriculum was applied throughout each presenta-
tion, allowing faculty members to learn to support their students at each
step of the design process. Consideration of the accessibility of course
materials encompassing different types of learners and the diversity of stu-
dents was discussed, as well as providing resources for food and shelter,
which was discussed at length. The online environment is not the same as
the face-to-face classroom environment, and ensuring our faculty knew
how to handle situations online was vital to creating a safe, warm, and
welcoming environment for all students.
Providing alignment to each section of the curriculum allowed faculty
to visualize how to build a more supportive and inclusive online environ-
ment. Alignment of course material can be demonstrated through sharing
course examples, as well as providing scaffolded assignments to faculty to
reduce the overwhelming nature of the task. By incorporating authentic
learning and inspiring faculty to reduce the use of multiple-choice exams,
faculty created innovative content and constructed active learning activi-
ties that supported student engagement in the new online learning envi-
ronment. Encouraging these authentic learning experiences and providing
faculty with information about how underrepresented minority students,
specifically how African American males are 14.29% less likely to suc-
ceed in asynchronous courses than face-to-face courses, the VSI strived
to inspire faculty members to reimagine teaching online (Wood, 2018).
While the VSI came at a financial cost, it is believed that the training and
insight provided will have a beneficial and productive impact on students.
Discussion
The formation and structure of the VSI offered over 150 faculty members
with minimal experience in online course design the opportunity to col-
laborate with peers on transitioning their face-to-face courses to an online
modality. After the VSI, the OOC received requests for hard-copy materi-
als, additional time and space for more exploratory learning, and a longer
time frame to combat cognitive overload during course redesign. Informal
feedback regarding VSI improvements included additional support for
course content accessibility, learning new educational technologies, and
more videos with how-to guides for later review. Additional comments
included appreciation for the availability of eLearning specialists, the depth
of the material despite the creation in a short time, and the hints and tips
surrounding the availability and use of technologies.
The VSI can be adapted internationally in whole or partially with seg-
mented professional development opportunities. Coursework can include
explaining and creating authentic assignments, as well as a component
in best practices for impactful online learning, cognitive overload, and
trauma-informed education. An additional area of coursework can include
the use of online tools, how to build an online community in each course,
and developing an online pedagogy aimed at student success. The profes-
sional development can be offered via an online video conferencing format
or in prerecorded video sessions for faculty to view in their own time.
The creation of a certification program when completing all segments is
recommended to encourage participation and provide participants with
an item to add to their teaching portfolio or dossier, especially if there are
no available funds.
Challenges of developing the curriculum included limited time, lim-
ited funding, equity regarding the faculty members who were targeted to
attend, and limited facilitator input during the course creation. Soliciting
support from other departments on campus will help to develop a richer
and in-depth curriculum that includes additional aspects of pandemic ped-
agogy. An additional challenge was the poor Internet connection of faculty
or the lack of webcams needed to fully participate in synchronous work-
shops. In order to improve this experience, the Information Technology
Systems Department will need to be more involved in loaning hardware
to faculty.
In the future, CSUEB plans to run the VSI each semester, as the spring
2021 semester will primarily be online. The OOC hopes to have the time
and funding to expand the curriculum to include more interactive activi-
ties and space for other support departments, such as Accessibility and
Multimedia Services, for a more robust experience. Additional curriculum
plans include adding an intermediate- and advanced-level VSI to further
support faculty who have some experience in online teaching but wish to
improve their skill set.
With uncertain funding for upcoming cohorts, the VSI may have reduced
or no funding for participating faculty members. In lieu of funding, a cer-
tification process can be incorporated to expand the curriculum and allow
faculty members to add participation to retention and promotion dossiers.
A shorter certification series can be created for incoming students to famil-
iarize themselves with online learning and different technologies, as well as
provide support to increase student success. An advanced level of under-
standing of online courses by students can decrease faculty time and effort
in explaining the technology basics during the first weeks of the class.
Faculty should be mindful of the student when designing online courses
and assignments. The forced transition to online learning and the many
life stressors may have reduced the student-centered learning focus many
faculty members typically embrace, though future semesters can allow for
faculty to focus on student success. The use of authentic assignments,
being mindful of cognitive overload and the trauma students may be car-
rying, and focusing on building a community in the course can increase
the likelihood of student success, persistence, and learning. Creating a safe
space for students to learn and share their lived experiences can increase
retention in the class while also allowing for flexibility in terms of how they
will meet the learning objectives.
Conclusion
With the continuing increase in COVID-19 cases, the need to implement
a pandemic pedagogy and support online course development is essential
in providing students with quality courses. While the pandemic learning
situation is not ideal, the application of course design with a focus on
pandemic pedagogy and authentic learning can continue to increase the
quality of learning and student success. Attempts to reduce inequities in
online education, including providing necessary technology and access
to students, should occur as financially viable. The VSI offered faculty
with limited online teaching experience a three-day experiential workshop
with immersion into vital components for online education through the
lens of trauma-informed practices, social justice, and authentic practices.
Feedback demonstrates the successes of the program, as well as opportu-
nities for improvement. The VSI can be replicated for similar results and
broken into segments for certification or individual learning opportuni-
ties to allow the material to be provided over an extended period. Should
resources be scarce, short synchronous sessions covering the use of the
learning management system, building a course online, and available tech-
nology can greatly assist faculty in increasing student success and reten-
tion. Continued professional development and monetary support can
create a cohort of faculty who develop and present quality online courses
with a lens of authentic learning through a pandemic time and in future
disaster situations.
Bios
Michelle Rippy, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor in the Department of
Criminal Justice at California State University, East Bay. Rippy’s profes-
sional career has included working in law enforcement, medicolegal death
investigations, and technology fields, including managerial and executive
positions. She holds an Ed.D. degree in organizational change and leader-
ship from the University of Southern California.
Monica Munoz is Senior eLearning Specialist and Instructional Designer

at the California State University, East Bay Libraries. In her role, Monica
works in the Office of the Online Campus at California State East Bay
with online and hybrid faculty on implementing quality standards. Her
passion lies in reducing the cost of instructional materials for students and
continuously improving online courses to increase student success.
References
Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance educa-
tion. American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 21–29. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08923649009526701
Berry, B., Doucet, A., & Owens, B. (2020). Teacher leadership in the aftermath
of the pandemic: The now, the dance, the transformation. Independent Report.
https://issuu.com/educationinternational/docs/2020_research_covid-19_
nowdancetransformation
Buchanan, L., Bui, Q., & Patel, J. (2020, July 3). Black Lives Matter may be the
largest movement in U.S. history. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.
com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html
Buzzetto-More, N. (2015). Student attitudes towards the integration of YouTube in
online, hybrid, and web-assisted courses: An examination of the impact of course
modality on perception. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(1), 55–73.
Chun-Ying, C., Pedersen, S., & Murphy, K. (2011). Learners’ perceived infor-
mation overload in online learning via computer-mediated communica-
tion. Research in Learning Technology, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.
v19i2.10345
Conrad, R., & Donaldson, J. (2012). Continuing to engage the online learner:
Activities and resources for creative instruction. Jossey-Bass.
CSUEB. (2020). Contact Us. Office of the Online Campus. https://www.csueastbay.
edu/online/contact-us.html
Devilly, G., Wright, R., & Varker, T. (2009) Vicarious trauma, secondary trau-
matic stress, or simply burnout? Effect of trauma therapy on mental health pro-
fessions. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43(4), 373–385.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00048670902721079
Fonolahi, A., & Khan, M. (2014). Are students studying in the online mode faring
as well as students studying in the face-to-face mode? Has equivalence in learn-
ing been achieved? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 598–610.
Godley, S. (2020). A love letter to my public health students during a global
pandemic. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2373379920944198
Hargreaves, A. (2020, April 7). A complete list of what to do – and not do – for
everyone teaching kids at home during the coronavirus crisis. The Washington
Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/04/07/complete-
list-what-do-not-do-everyone-teaching-kids-home-during-coronavirus-crisis/
Harrison, N., Burke, J., & CLarke, I. (2020). Risky teaching: Developing a
trauma-informed pedagogy for higher education. Teaching in Hired Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1786046
Herrington, R., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864265
Hollweck, T., & Doucet, A. (2020). Pracademics in the pandemic: Pedagogies
and professionalism. Journal of Professional Capacity and Community, 5(3/4),
295–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPC-06-2020-0038
Holly, C., Legg, T., Mueller, D., & Adelmen, D. (2008). Online teaching:
Challenges for a new faculty role. Journal of Professional Nursing, 24(4), 254–
258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2007.07.003
Howard, P., & Howard, J. (2012). Pandemic and pedagogy: Elementary school
teachers’ experience of H1N1 influenza in the classroom. Phenomenology &
Practice, 6(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.29173/pandpr19852
Institutional Research. (2020). Quick enrollment facts. California State University
East Bay. https://www.csueastbay.edu/ir/quick-enrollment-facts.html
Kranzow, J. (2013). Faculty leadership in online education: Structuring courses
to impact student satisfaction and persistence. Journal of Online Learning &
Teaching, 9(1), 131–139.
LaPrade, K., Gilpatrick, M., & Perkins, D. (2014). Impact of reflective practice on
online teaching performance in higher education. Journal of Online Teaching
and Learning, 10(4), 625–639.
Laur, D. (2013). Authentic learning experiences: A real-world approach to project-
based learning. Eye on Education.
McFarlane, A. (2015). Authentic learning for the digital generation: Realising the
potential of technology in the classroom. Routledge.
Meyers, S. (2008). Using transformative pedagogy when teaching online. College
Teaching, 56(4), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.56.4.216-224
Miller, M. (2011). Pedagogical models the discipline of online teaching, M.
Shaughnessy & S. Fulgham (Eds.). Nova Science Publishers.
Nilson, L., & Goodson, L. (2019). Online teaching at its best: Merging instruc-
tional design with teaching and learning research. Jossey-Bass.
Office of the Online Campus. (2020). Certified quality online or hybrid courses.
California State University East Bay. https://www.csueastbay.edu/online/
training-and-certification/index.html
Quality Matters. (2020). Higher ed course design rubric. QM Rubrics &
Standards. https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/
higher-ed-rubric
Rippy, M., & Munoz, M. (2019). Integration of engaging social justice assign-
ments into online courses. Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal,
12(2), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-9795/CGP/v12i02/25-38
Sinclair, S. (2018). Creativity and critique in online learning: Exploring and exam-
ining innovations in online pedagogy (J. Baxter, G. Callaghan, & J. McAvoy,
Eds.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, R. (2015). Conquering the content: A blueprint for online course design and
development. Jossey-Bass.
Stavredes, T., & Herder, T. (2013). A guide to online course design: Strategies for
student success. Wiley.
Suneson, G. (2020, March 4). Looking for an inclusive student body? These col-
leges are among the most diverse. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/
story/money/2020/02/13/these-colleges-have-the-most-diverse-student-
bodies/41152233/
Trilla, A., Trilla, G., & Daer, C. (2008). The 1918 “Spanish Flu” in Spain. Clinical
Infectious Diseases, 47(15), 668–673. https://doi.org/10.1086.590567
Van Gerven, P., Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J., & Schmidt, H. (2002). Cognitive
load theory and aging: Effects of worked examples on training efficacy. Learning
and Instruction, 12(1), 87–105.
Waterhouse, S. (2005). The power of e-learning: The essential guide for teaching in
the digital age. Pearson.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner centered teaching: Five key changes to practice.
Jossey-Bass.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Association for
Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Wood, J. L. (2018, June). Reaching underserved students through culturally
responsive teaching and learning in the online environment [slides]. Online
Teaching Conference. http://onlineteachingconference.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/06/WOOD-Reaching-Underserved-Students.pdf
Williamson, B., Enyon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and
practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus
emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641
Zhang, J., & Walls, R. (2009). Instructors’ self-perceived pedagogical principle
implementation in the online environment. In A. Orellana, T. Hudgins, & M.
Simonson (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teach-
ing, 413–426. Information Age Publishing.
3 Pandemic Pedagogy
Disparity in University
Remote Teaching
Effectiveness
Linda Dam
Introduction
In late December 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), an
infectious respiratory illness, emerged in Wuhan, China. On March 11,
2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pan-
demic and by March 26, 2020, the United States had the most con-
firmed cases of any country with 81,321 confirmed infections and over
1,000 fatalities (Taylor, 2020). To reduce the spread of COVID-19
infections in the United States, nationwide school and university closures
were implemented mid to late March (Donohue & Miller, 2020). As
the COVID-19 pandemic forced universities across the United States to
abruptly transition into emergency remote teaching, instructors and stu-
dents alike struggled with the sudden arrangement of online education
(Sahu, 2020).
With little time to plan for an emergency online transition, instruc-
tors sought out pedagogical tips through social media channels (Trust
et al., 2020). Past research has found that social media channels can
provide an online platform for instructors to seek out additional profes-
sional development (Carpenter & Krutka, 2015; Lantz-Anderson et al.,
2018; Trust et al., 2020). While research has examined the relationship
between professional development and the benefits of informally devel-
oped online teaching communities, limited research has examined the
impact of online communities for educators during a global pandemic.
As classes were moved to remote teaching, a private Facebook group
“Pandemic Pedagogy” with over 32,000 members provided an online
platform for instructors to seek out pedagogical advice. The once public
Facebook group revealed surprising disparities across teaching pedago-
gies. Colorful debates emerged between providing asynchronous versus
synchronous online instruction. Are instructors expected to adapt aca-
demic expectations and/or provide emotional support to students? The
aim of this chapter is to provide a qualitative thematic analysis of key
debates that emerged from the Pandemic Pedagogy private Facebook
group, highlighting the disparity in university remote teaching effective-
ness during a global pandemic.
Pandemic Pedagogy 29
Literature Review
Emergency school and university closures from the global pandemic
resulted in several pedagogical challenges, such as the effectiveness of
sudden online instruction, the mental health status of students, and sup-
port services from universities (Sahu, 2020; Trust & Whalen, 2020).
Specifically, one of the biggest challenges consisted of shifting in-person
courses to remote instruction, which can consist of synchronous, asyn-
chronous, or a blend of both forms of online instruction (Sahu, 2020).
For synchronous online instruction, video conference technologies (e.g.,
Zoom, Webex, Google Hangout) were utilized to provide real-time online
instruction (Henriksen et al., 2020). Research has found that synchronous
online instruction affords students the opportunity to have meaningful
interactions with their instructors and classmates (Simonson et al., 2012),
which may be particularly important during a global pandemic. However,
synchronous online instruction may pose several logistical problems for
students who are suddenly in different time zones and/or dealing with
unanticipated stresses due to COVID-19 (Sahu, 2020).
In contrast, asynchronous online instruction allows students to engage
with learning materials when it best suits them (Glenn, 2018), which may
benefit those who have had to take on additional responsibilities (i.e., tak-
ing on additional work shifts if they are an essential worker or becoming a
sudden caregiver for an ill family member). However, asynchronous online
instruction may be isolating for students since they are not receiving any
real-time interactions with their instructors and classmates (Glenn, 2018).
In one study examining the readiness of educators to transition online
during the COVID-19 pandemic, Trust and Whalen (2020) found that
most educators varied in their technological skills for online remote teach-
ing, and many learned as they transitioned. As educators were tasked with
transitioning to emergency online teaching, many utilized social media
platforms for additional pedagogical and professional support.
Research has found that instructors have utilized a variety of social
media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) to enhance professional devel-
opment and seek out pedagogical strategies (Carpenter & Krutka, 2015;
Lantz-Anderson et al., 2018; Rensfeldt et al., 2018; Trust et al., 2020). In
a study examining educator tweets during COVID-19, Trust et al. (2020)
found that Twitter provided educators an outlet for sharing teaching strat-
egies, showing encouragement, and providing information about remote
learning. A systematic review of online teacher communities found that
studies on informally developed online teacher communities (e.g., social
media channels) revealed that these platforms provided educators with an
outlet to share new pedagogical practices and to receive emotional and
professional support (Lantz-Anderson et al., 2018). However, a study
examining teacher-centered Facebook groups found that these online
communities may pose some disadvantages, such as individualized self-
promotion and attention seeking (Rensfeldt et al., 2018).
30 Linda Dam
Theoretical Framework
The current study utilized the community of practice theory (Wenger,
2000) to examine the interactions among educators in an online com-
munity group that focused on pedagogical practices. Wenger’s (2000)
community of practice theory proposes that a community of practice can
“develop a unique perspective on their topic as well as a body of common
knowledge, practices and approaches” (p. 5). Past research has demon-
strated that social media platforms support the creation of specific learning
communities among educators (Coleman et al., 2018; Luo et al., 2020;
Meishar-Tal & Pieterse, 2017). Because of the sudden educational chal-
lenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this community-centered frame-
work is utilized to explore the role of professional development as many
instructors sought out advice and strategies from social media platforms.
To examine what pedagogical discussions emerged on social media sites
such as Facebook, the following research question was proposed:
RQ1: What are the discussions on pedagogical practices during emer-

gency remote teaching on Facebook’s private group Pandemic
Pedagogy?
Research Method
To answer the research question, a qualitative textual analysis was employed
to examine the discussions among educators in the private Facebook group
Pandemic Pedagogy. Pandemic Pedagogy has over 32,000 members world-
wide and aims to provide an online platform for “educators, students, and
others to share insight into the best practices, advices, successes, chal-
lenges of teaching during COVID-19.” Pandemic Pedagogy was a public
Facebook group that was created on March 11, 2020, but was changed to
a private group on March 15, 2020. Popular subcategories include the fol-
lowing: “Tech Tools and Tips,” “Humor and Fun,” “COVID Context,”
“Communication with Students,” and “Assignment Ideas.”
Specifically, a qualitative textual analysis approach was used to exam-
ine the subcategory “Pedagogical Theory & Philosophy” in order to
explore key pedagogical debates regarding emergency online remote
teaching during COVID-19. Of the 180 posts on “Pedagogical Theory &
Philosophy,” two posts were selected based on the quantity of “reactions”
and “comments.” The first post that was analyzed was originally posted on
March 19, 2020, and stated,
I have heard from some of my students that they are overwhelmed

by the amount of work they have to do in classes that were recently
converted to online. We need to remind our colleagues across campus
that online education is more time-consuming for students, especially
if they are new to online.
The post got 49 comments and 209 reactions. The second post that was
analyzed was originally posted on March 20, 2020, and stated, “For those
out here doing synchronous online work with students, I cannot stress this
enough, please find an asynchronous alternative.” The post received 163
comments and 553 reactions.
Administrator approval to conduct research within the private Facebook
group was received and approval from an Institutional Review Board was
obtained prior to data analysis. The data analysis procedure was completed
in two phases of coding. The first phase consisted of intracoding, which
is the coding and recoding of the same data by one researcher (Corban &
Strauss, 1990). The second phase consisted of open coding, which is cod-
ing data by drawing comparisons between experiences (Strauss & Corbin,
1997). Utilizing the principles of grounded theory, data from open cod-
ing also included grouping similar data and identifying themes (Strauss &
Corbin, 1997). General categories developed in the first phase were then
identified to confirm appropriateness and expose common trends among
responses (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Then categories were examined
for common themes. Themes that appeared from both phases of analysis
were compared in order to answer the research question.
Results
Two themes emerged from the data: Student Compassion and Instructor
Autonomy. The themes contained several categories, and descriptions of
the themes are presented in the following sections.
Student Compassion
The first theme, Student Compassion, describes how educators expressed
concern for student well-being during the pandemic. The theme mani-
fested through the category, Course Modifications, which reflects opinions
about revising academic expectations in order to better accommodate stu-
dents. In examining the comments from the first selected post about the
challenges that emergency online education may impose on students, dis-
cussions about educators demonstrating empathy and compassion during
COVID-19 become apparent. As one instructor shared that daily dead-
lines were required for her now-remote class, one individual responded,
“Daily deadlines, no matter how minor, are going to create more stress…
seems to me now is the time to be as compassionate as possible.” Another
educator stated that no modifications would be made to her already online
class to which one remarked,
Are you taking into consideration that the students who initially
signed up for your online class, and who were okay with the expec-
tations then, are now in a situation where their other classes, which
32 Linda Dam
weren’t online, now are? …the real world circumstances they’re expe-
riencing are very different now and may add an additional burden?
These responses to instructors sharing their status on academic expecta-

tions of their students for emergency remote teaching seem to imply that
instructors should be more mindful of how a student’s position to success-
fully learn may be impacted during a global pandemic.
In the same post, others shared how major modifications were being
made to their emergency remote classes in order to accommodate stu-
dents. One shared,
I’m simplifying, consolidating, or eliminating some assignments in my

already online class in consideration of students hav[ing] to relocate,
or have in-person classes suddenly switching to online…. I know how
stressed I am so I can only imagine how stressed [the students] are.
Another instructor provided additional advice and commented, “You can

reduce [student] stress by having your assignments due later. There is no
need to think like a regular class. Give them what they need to know and
then trim again.” Another added,
Let’s practice a little humanity, folks. Check in on [the students’] men-

tal health. Realize this may be the first really scary situation they’ve
faced. The lessons we model about empathy, compassion, and concern
for others are far more important than any course-related material.
One educator remarked, “The politics of the moment require us as pro-

fessors to cut back on assignments and on expectations. Reduce it all. We
are not in the business of surveillance of students while in a global crisis.”
These comments seem to suggest that instructors have the option (and
duty) to help mitigate stress for the students through modifications to
their academic expectations and to take the opportunity to inquire about
the well-being of their students.
Instructor Autonomy
The second theme, Instructor Autonomy, is characterized by personal
accounts regarding one’s decision to implement asynchronous versus syn-
chronous remote instruction. The theme manifested through the category
Generalization, which reflects sweeping assumptions about teaching effec-
tiveness and one’s choice of remote instruction delivery. In an examination
of the comments from the second selected post in which an opinion that
synchronous teaching was a better approach than asynchronous teach-
ing was written, several discussions emerged about teaching effective-
ness, blanket statements, and institutional limitations. Some voiced strong
opinions that asynchronous instruction was a far superior method than
synchronous instruction during a global pandemic. One instructor stated,
So many [universities] are [synchronous], but this is classist and able-

ist. Some of my students have their own laptops, some are sharing with
three siblings. Some are available at our class time. Others live in China
and it’s in the middle of the night…. I want to offer routine but I want
students to be able to participate no matter what their circumstances.
Another asserted,
Your students are now in multiple time zones and are quickly becom-
ing care givers. It is morally wrong to require them to show up to your
10 a.m. class at what is 3 a.m. for them. Just because your school is
requiring you to use zoom or a synchronous program does not excuse
you from a moral and ethical duty at this time.
These comments reveal that some instructors strongly believe that

asynchronous delivery is the only appropriate teaching method for the
COVID-19 pandemic due to time zone and location challenges.
Other instructors expressed that their option for remote instruction
delivery was imposed by their institution. One shared, “All the trainings
at my university stressed synchronous work.” Another instructor posted,
“My academic unit has laid out an expectation of synchronous contact at
least once a week for courses that were originally [face-to-face] or hybrid.”
One wrote, “You all do realize that many schools do not give people a
choice right?” However, several instructors who shared that a synchro-
nous approach was used also indicated that lectures were recorded for
those who could not attend. One instructor explained, “I am doing my
lectures synchronous but recording for those who can’t make it.” Another
commented, “One class…overwhelmingly wanted synchronous, but I will
record class so students can watch asynchronously if needed.” Additionally,
reasons in favor of synchronous instruction included student requests, a
sense of community, and stability. One instructor explained, “[The stu-
dents] like the discussions and sense of community.” In one graduate class
that was synchronous, the educator remarked, “All [of the students] want
some stability/regular schedule.” Another shared, “One of my classes
voted to meet once a week for synchronous time…. They were worried
about community, accountability, and losing their support system.” These
comments appear to demonstrate that instructors may not have an option,
or a lack of autonomy, in deciding how their online instruction was deliv-
ered and have strived to provide additional accommodations for students
who may face challenges to synchronous instruction.
Across-the-board statements about the superiority of one form of
remote instruction over another were also prevalent. For example, one
34 Linda Dam
educator proclaimed, “I’d argue that if it can’t work for all, then it should
be reconsidered.” Many got defensive toward these sweeping statements
and felt criticized for their choice of remote instruction. One instructor
stated, “If you are concerned about putting students first, then ask them
what they want…. But stop blasting anything as unworkable given the
wide variety of situations, the millions of students, and the ever-changing
circumstances.” Another instructor remarked,
No disrespect, but I don’t understand the generic/blanket appeals for

asynchronous learning over synchronous sessions. I think so much of
the decision to use one or the other (or a combo) depends on the kind
of class being taught, the learning objectives for that course, the unique
culture and community of our classes and institutions prior to going
online, and the makeup of the student body/class. I would reconsider
such universal pleas when our classes are nothing close to homogenous.
One commented, “This is not a one-size fits all situation. Please don’t
make others feel bad for making different choices than you did.” Another
educator lamented, “Blanket statements about what everyone else should
do are not helpful.” One posted,
Look, we can disagree or even just differ in our nuances. But now is
not the time for any of us to be telling others what to do and how to
do it as though we don’t know our students, haven’t thought about
all the contingencies, and aren’t responding to their needs.
One summed up, “There is no one size fits all, so I ask that we not be so
judgmental and flatlined in our thinking.” Here the comments suggest
that instructors feel they should be trusted in their autonomous pedagogi-
cal approach in providing the appropriate type of remote instruction for
their students and do not appreciate the judgment from other instructors.
Discussion and Conclusions

Overall findings from the qualitative thematic analysis on the private
Facebook group Pandemic Pedagogy align with past research that educa-
tors seek out social media and the benefits of professional development
gained from online communities (Lantz-Anderson et al., 2018; Rickels &
Brewer, 2017). Specifically, the study found that instructors disclosed their
personal experiences and posted recommended tips regarding the chal-
lenges of emergency remote teaching. Findings suggest that the Facebook
platform provided an online community environment for instructors dur-
ing the global pandemic as evidenced by the overall discussions found in
Pandemic Pedagogy, which provided support to the community of prac-
tice theory (Wenger, 2000).
The first theme to emerge from the present study is Student Compassion,
which showed that many instructors modified academic expectations in
order to better support students during these unusual circumstances. The
empathy and compassion displayed in comments pertaining to academic
instruction reveal that instructors openly care about the well-being of their
students beyond the classroom. During these unprecedented times as a
global pandemic forced academic instruction to migrate into emergency
remote teaching, students, instructors, and institutions alike have to deal
with several unknown challenges and may hopefully learn how to success-
fully adapt to this new landscape.
The second theme, Instructor Autonomy, demonstrated that instruc-
tors appeared to push back when sweeping statements were made regard-
ing the superiority of one form of remote teaching over another. Many
defended their choice of remote instruction by specifying that various class
sizes, instructor course loads, class topics, and institutional limitations
could not be generalized. Findings suggest that instructors and educa-
tors value their autonomy in making the appropriate choices for their stu-
dents. Thus, study findings support past research that indicates a positive
relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction among educators and
student satisfaction (Kengatharan, 2020).
Additional findings revealed a divide among instructors who favored one
form of remote instruction over another. Specifically, many debates emerged
about whether asynchronous or synchronous (real-time) remote instruc-
tion was an appropriate pedagogical approach for students during a global
pandemic. Findings revealed that those in favor of synchronous instruction
explained that students preferred the consistency and social connections
during these unprecedented times. These arguments are logical as studies
have shown that the lack of human connection from COVID-19 lock-
down measures has led to increases in depression and loneliness (Banerjee
& Rai, 2020). One study found that depression rates have tripled among
U.S. adults (Ettman et al., 2020). Thus, providing synchronous instruction
for students could provide a sense of stability and desired human connec-
tion, which could lead to a reduction in overall mental health issues.
However, those in favor of asynchronous delivery voiced concerns
regarding the overall fairness of requiring (and expecting) students to
be in a position to continue with synchronous instruction. Studies have
highlighted the disparity and inequity among student learning in remote
settings as a result of diverse situations ranging from Internet support,
socioeconomic status, and second-language English speakers (Rahim,
2020). Rahim’s (2020) suggested guidelines for emergency remote teach-
ing during the COVID-19 pandemic proposed that asynchronous remote
teaching should be considered for students with diverse situations. Thus,
placing such time constraints with weekly meetings and/or deadlines
could further contribute to the disparity among equal access to educa-
tional opportunities.
36 Linda Dam
The COVID-19 pandemic created several challenges that severely
impacted the effectiveness of providing and receiving sudden online
instruction (Sahu, 2020; Trust & Whalen, 2020). Research has found that
informally developed online teacher communities (e.g., social media plat-
forms) have been used to provide educators with an outlet to share new
pedagogical practices and to receive emotional and professional support
(Lantz-Anderson et al., 2018; Rickels & Brewer, 2017). This study exam-
ined the private Facebook group Pandemic Pedagogy and found that the
popular online platform provided instructors an outlet to seek out advice
and support from one another.
Implications
The results of this study have practical implications for universities, faculty,
and instructional designers. According to a national survey from Digital
Promise and Langer Research Associates (2020), approximately 67% of
remote courses post-lockdown were synchronous (i.e., real-time courses).
This study suggested that some instructors felt their choice for synchro-
nous versus asynchronous remote instruction was limited by university
mandates or requirements. Therefore, a need for more open communica-
tion between faculty and universities could improve the overall quality
of online delivery and faculty preparedness. Specifically, the study found
that many instructors were privy to student hardships from COVID-
19. Universities and instructional designers may benefit from instructor
insights on how to better support students during a global pandemic.
Additionally, instructors may feel more comfortable with their auton-
omy to make pedagogical choices that most benefit their individualized
course loads with the support of their university. Specifically, the com-
ments regarding asynchronous versus synchronous teaching indicate that
instructors value autonomy in their pedagogical choices by individually
assessing the needs of their students and establishing their instructional
decisions based on student needs. Additionally, comments regarding the
alteration of academic expectations indicate that instructors have shown
empathy and compassion and are aware of the various difficulties that stu-
dents may be faced with during this global pandemic.
Bio
Linda Dam, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Hank Greenspun
School of Journalism and Media Studies at the University of Nevada,
Las Vegas. Dr. Dam specializes in public relations and strategic commu-
nication practices, communication and media theory and research, and
cross-cultural communication. Her major research interests include cross-
cultural communication strategies, uses, and effects of new media technol-
ogies; parasocial relationship formations within a social media landscape;
and food-related influencer marketing. Her work has been published in
the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Journal of Social Media
in Society, and Journal of Communication and Healthcare. She earned her
Ph.D. in communication from the University of Connecticut and her MA
in mass communication from California State University, Fullerton. Dr.
Dam teaches courses in public relations, research methods, integrated
marketing communication, and advertising strategies. Prior to pursu-
ing her Ph.D., Dr. Dam worked as a Communications Specialist at the
University of California, Irvine.
References
Banerjee, D., & Rai, M. (2020). Social isolation in COVID-19: The impact of
loneliness. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 66, 525–527.
Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2015). Engagement with microblogging:
Educator professional development via Twitter. Professional Development in
Education, 41, 707–728.
Coleman, J. M., Rice, M. L., & Wright, V. H. (2018). Educator communities of
practice on Twitter. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 16, 80–96.
Corban, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons,
and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3–21.
Donohue, J. M., & Miller, E. (2020). Covid-19 and school closures. JAMA, 324,
845–847.
Ettman, C. K., Abdalla, S. M., & Cohen, G. H. (2020). Prevalence of depression
symptoms in US adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA
Network Open, 3, 1–12.
Glenn, C. W. (2018). Adding the human touch to asynchronous online learn-
ing. Journal of College Student Retention, 19, 381–393. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1521025116634104
Henriksen, D., Creely, E., & Henderson, M. (2020). Folk pedagogies for teacher
educator transitions: Approaches to synchronous online learning in the wake of
COVID-19. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28, 201–209.
Kengatharan, N. (2020). The effects of teacher autonomy, student behavior and
student engagement on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Sciences: Theory &
Practice, 20, 1–15.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative
interviewing (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Lantz-Anderson, A., Lundin, M., & Selwyn, N. (2018). Twenty years of online
teacher communities: A systematic review of formally-organized and informally-
developed professional learning groups. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75,
302–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/jtate.2018.07.008
Luo, T., Freeman, C., & Stefaniak, J. (2020). “Like, comment, and share” – pro-
fessional development through social media in higher education: A systematic
review. Education Technology Research Development, 68, 1659–1683.
Meishar-Tal, H., & Pieterse, E. (2017). Why do academics use academic social
networking sites? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 18, 1–22.
38 Linda Dam
Rahim, A. F. A. (2020). Guidelines for online assessment in emergency remote
teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Special Communication, 12, 59–68.
Rensfeldt, A. B., Hillman, T., & Selwyn, N. (2018). Teachers ‘liking’ their work?
Exploring the realities of teacher Facebook groups. British Educational Research
Journal, 44, 230–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3325
Rickels, D. A., & Brewer, W. D. (2017). Facebook band director’s group: Member
usage behaviors and perceived satification for meeting professional development
needs. Journal for Music Teacher Education, 26, 77–92.
Sahu, P. (2020). Closure of universities due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-
19): Impact on education and mental health of students and academic staff.
Cureus, 12, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7541.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and
learning at a distance: Foundations of distance learning (5th ed.) Pearson.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded Theory in Practice. SAGE Publications.
Taylor, D. B. (2020, August 6). A timeline of the coronavirus pandemic. The New
York Times. https://nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-timeline.html
Trust, T., Carpenter, J. P., Krutka, D. G., & Kimmons, R. (2020). #RemoteTeaching
& #RemoteLearning: Educator tweeting during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28, 151–159.
Trust, T., & Whalen, J. (2020). Should teachers be trained in emergency remote
teaching? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 28, 189–199.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and learning systems. Organization,
7, 225–246.
4 Learning Management
Systems and Synchronous
Communication Tools
Enablers of Online Education
during COVID-19
Darren Turnbull, Ritesh Chugh, and Jo Luck
Introduction
Countries around the world are increasingly concerned about how to pro-
vide training and education to their citizens in a COVID-19 impacted
environment which is forcing many institutions to deliver programs
online. Learning management systems (LMSs) are online software plat-
forms that facilitate the delivery and administration of training programs
over the Internet (Turnbull et al., 2019). Synchronous e-learning enables
students to work together at the same time, while asynchronous e-learning
facilitates collaboration at different times (Hrastinski, 2008). There are
two types of assessment that can be facilitated by an LMS: formative and
summative. Both formative and summative assessments play an important
role in facilitating learning. Summative assessments measure the standing
of students with respect to established course benchmarks, while formative
assessments support learning through effective feedback and help-seeking
(Vonderwell & Boboc, 2013). The summative assessment of students can
be accomplished via a range of methods. Acceptable assessment methods
frequently employed in education include direct observation, structured
assessment activities, questioning, evidence compiled by the student,
review of products, and third-party feedback (Department of Training and
Workplace Development, 2016). For an assessment to be of value, it must
be valid, reliable, flexible, and fair. Looking back at our own experiences as
both online educators and students, online summative assessments using
asynchronous tools were far more common than synchronous approaches.
Test instruments such as reports, essays, and projects were relatively easy
to set up in an LMS. However, we have found that the assessment of
practical skills and knowledge requiring more synchronous approaches
cannot be adequately carried out within an LMS. Observations and inter-
views, for example, are valuable tools to gauge student competency that
necessitate human-to-human interaction outside the LMS environment.
Through reflective practice, this chapter presents the case for using syn-
chronous online assessment tools to facilitate summative assessments in a
40 Darren Turnbull, Ritesh Chugh, and Jo Luck
COVID-19 learning environment that is inhibiting the capacity of educa-
tors to evaluate student competency using traditional face-to-face meth-
ods. The anecdotes cited in this chapter are primarily the experiences of
the first author and support the collective views of the research team.
The Importance of Communication in Assessment

Traditional face-to-face (F2F) methods of assessment include knowl-
edge-based examinations, observation of student behavior, and discourse
between assessor and student (either verbal or written format). Using the
principle of constructive alignment, the choice of an assessment method
and the knowledge and skills students are expected to acquire must be
clearly communicated before initiating any teaching activity (Biggs,
1996). Underpinning the success of an assessment is clear communica-
tion between the assessor and the assessed through the instructions in
the assessment instrument. Effectively communicating the requirements
of an assessment activity ensures it accurately captures the skills and knowl-
edge of the student with respect to the knowledge or skills being assessed.
One important principle to observe when writing examination questions
is to provide an example of a worked problem so that students are famil-
iar with the language and conventions used in the test questions (Kansas
Curriculum Centre, 2001). We have witnessed many instances of poorly
written assessments that contained instructions that were misunderstood
by students. In several cases, there was little or no consideration given to
the students’ cultural backgrounds and how the instructions might be
interpreted. One example from the first author’s experience is an assess-
ment delivered to grade 11 physics students in Papua New Guinea (PNG).
One of the questions required students to correctly indicate the direction
of a magnetic field around a copper wire conducting an electric current.
To indicate the direction of electron flow, an arrowhead was used as it
might be in an examination in a Western country. The problem was that
the feathers on the arrow were interpreted by many students as indicating
the end of the arrow rather than the beginning. This is because arrows in
many tribes in PNG are often constructed with multiple prongs on the tip
of the arrow, without feathers attached to the other end. Accordingly, a
high number of students consistently gave the wrong direction of electron
flow. The problem was corrected for subsequent assessments by chang-
ing the way that electromagnetism was taught in PNG classrooms so that
assessment questions were correctly interpreted by students attempting
physics examinations.
The previous example of the consequences of incorrectly communi-
cating instructions is not only confined to F2F situations. Similar com-
munication “misunderstandings” are possible in online situations as they
are usually human-related rather than technology induced. The next
section introduces online learning in the context of the learning and
Learning Management Systems & Synchronous Communication Tools 41
communication technology available to facilitate assessment in both in-
class and fully online modes of learning.
LMSs and Communication Tools

To ensure that curriculum meets contemporary practices, the triad of ped-
agogy, technology and an engaged community of students is vital (Chugh
et al., 2017). LMSs are considered an essential technology for course
delivery in most institutions of higher learning. Even as early as 2005,
research indicated that LMSs were becoming commonplace in universities
around the world (Coates et al., 2005). These systems are used to support
courses that are delivered in F2F, blended learning, and online modes.
When used in F2F modes of delivery, asynchronous communication tools
are the main ways educators communicate with students through LMSs.
There is no need to use synchronous tools such as video and chat channels
in F2F delivery modes because students and educators regularly meet in
a physical location. Assessments delivered via an LMS are supervised by
proctors who can monitor and enforce assessment compliance if required.
Once a course or program is offered in a purely online mode, it becomes
impossible to communicate synchronously with candidates using asyn-
chronous tools such as emails and bulletin boards during an assessment.
For this reason, many institutions insist on conducting assessments in a
fixed location where candidates can be supervised – regardless of whether
they are using an LMS or not. In addition, educators are often reluc-
tant to substitute direct observation for communication that could take
place via synchronous tools in an LMS. This can be attributed to a belief
that synchronous tools within LMSs cannot be deployed to assist in the
administration of assessments that require continual student monitoring.
The following section discusses some of the synchronous and asynchro-
nous tools available in LMSs and the capacity of synchronous tools to sup-
port online assessment when F2F modes of delivery are unavailable due to
COVID-19 restrictions.
A Comparison of Asynchronous and Synchronous

Online Tools
According to Hrastinski (2008), asynchronous tools facilitate better pro-
cessing of information because on-demand access is provided to the stu-
dent as many times as required. Examples of asynchronous tools include
email, discussion boards, announcements, blogs, streaming videos,
and course-related documents. However, when it comes to summative
assessment, asynchronous tools have certain limitations. With regards to
ensuring equity in assessing student competence, particularly with knowl-
edge-based assessments, assigning a test to a student asynchronously lim-
its the assessment conditions. Online tests tend to be more of an “open
book” kind because it is difficult (but not impossible) to monitor them in
real time. While it is certainly possible to apply restrictions on test delivery
such as time limitations and Internet Protocol address constraints, the
integrity of asynchronous assessments essentially relies on the personal
ethics of the student being assessed.
Synchronous tools are a more recent phenomenon in LMSs. Synchronous
communication can take place via text, audio, video, or a combination of
all three forms. Historically, available bandwidth and software limitations
have severely limited the effectiveness of synchronous communication
tools. In terms of the learning process, synchronous communication tools
often attempt to replicate classroom environments and provide the stu-
dent with real-time interactions with their teachers and peers. Martin and
Parker (2014) even claim that synchronous virtual classrooms are superior
to physical classrooms because students can share text-based information
with other participants without interrupting the presenter. Zoom is an
example of a video conferencing software that is capable of allowing the
creation of an online classroom where teachers can create a virtual meet-
ing place for students via a unique online identification (Nobre, 2018).
Zoom, Skype, and other video conferencing tools offer the added advan-
tage that interactions can be recorded and reviewed later, which essen-
tially transforms the synchronous communication experience into an
asynchronous one when the recorded proceedings are reviewed at a later
time. With regard to summative assessments, synchronous tools are used
less frequently than asynchronous tools. This is possibly because many
educators and course administrators have grown accustomed to modes
of online delivery that present assessments asynchronously. Chao et al.
(2012) specify four types of online synchronous assessments: (1) synchro-
nous quiz assessment – enabled and monitored by the educator during a
synchronous session, (2) synchronous essay assessment – released by the
educator at an appropriate point in the synchronous session, (3) synchro-
nous oral assessment – one-on-one Socratic questioning of students in
their individual online learning space, and (4) synchronous practice assess-
ment – scenario style activities where students are monitored and assessed
in real time by educators in their individual learning space. Another type
of assessment that can be conducted synchronously is webinars. For
example, a student could deliver a webinar to another group of students
(McCLelland, 2016). Presentations could be assessed in real time by the
educator incorporating comments by other participants about the content
and execution of the delivery.
On rare occasions, it has been seen that synchronous tools are used to
invigilate knowledge-based competency assessments in a blended learning
environment. For example, in order to obtain a driver’s license in China,
it is necessary to sit a multiple-choice examination at a regional police sta-
tion. This test is effectively a summative assessment of a learner-driver’s
knowledge of China’s road rules and is delivered in a proctored online
environment. Driver knowledge tests are administered across the country
such that learner-drivers in multiple locations sit the same examination at
the same time. The stated purpose of this approach is to minimize possible
instances of cheating. Each candidate completes the examination in front
of a computer with a camera, which records and monitors the learner-
driver’s performance. The test consists of 100 multiple-choice questions
to be answered in 45 minutes. During this time, facial images are recorded
at random intervals and later appended to the candidate’s test attempt
as evidence of continuous identity authentication. While the examination
location still has to be proctored by real people, the use of video in this
way helps to ensure the authenticity of each test attempt.
Instant messaging offers a relatively inexpensive means of conveying
information in real time without the necessity to exchange more personal
data such as audio, images, or video. WhatsApp is a popular instant mes-
saging platform or chat tool that is easily installed on most smartphones.
Güler (2017) investigated the use of this communication tool to aggre-
gate anonymous and nonanonymous peer assessments of student presen-
tations. For the nonanonymous assessors, their identities were established
prior to the assessment by recording their unique WhatsApp ID in a vali-
dated list of students. The study found that students were able to suc-
cessfully submit evaluations of presentation performance to the educator
while preserving anonymity with the rest of the class. These evaluations
contributed to the final summative assessment of each student’s perfor-
mance. Most LMSs have incorporated some form of instant messaging
into their suite of communication tools. In addition, video conferencing
tools such as Skype and Zoom, include instant messaging functions that
can be deployed as part of a communication instance. We have found
limited use for instant messaging as a summative assessment tool, mainly
because of the difficulties in managing multiple communication channels
at the same time. For example, if an assessment is to be carried out with
ten candidates simultaneously, then it becomes a challenge to deal with
multiple chat channels concurrently. Audiovisual tools can also be used
in online assessments. In their study of online synchronous assessment
design, Chao et al. (2012) outlined how cyber classrooms can be used to
conduct oral evaluations of student performance. These cyber classrooms
facilitated the interaction of students and their teacher as if they were in
a physical classroom and also allowed the educator to communicate with
each student individually when assessing them orally. While two-way audio
links were the principal vehicle of communication, a live video feed was also
maintained to better replicate a F2F environment and to help ensure the
continual authentication of each student. Chat tools and video conferenc-
ing tools can be used together in summative assessment, for example, to
allow candidates to provide text-based answers to questions posed to them
by an educator through an audio-video link. If the required responses are
to be supplied in multiple-choice or short answer form, instant messaging
Table 4.1 Synchronous Tools and Their Application to Summative Assessment.
Synchronous Tools Summative Assessment Example
Chat (e.g., Yes/no answers to situation- Student is required to agree/

WhatsApp, based assessments that disagree that examples of
WeChat) require immediate responses driving behavior presented
by the assessor represent
safe driving
Web conferencing Observation of candidate Student demonstrates how
(e.g. Webinars) competence in using to apply Excel’s VLookup
software applications function to a spreadsheet
Two-way audio Interviews to gauge depth Student is asked to present
(e.g., cyber of understanding of arguments for and against
classrooms) complex issues. Audio the construction of
communication is additional coal-fired power
supplemented by a live stations using a structured
video feed to replicate conversation
physical conditions
Two-way Demonstration of competence Student demonstrates the
audiovisual requiring audiovisual correct way to don and
(e.g., Skype) information. remove personal protective
equipment in a workplace
setting
Social networking Group assessment activities Multiple students interact
sites (e.g., with each other on
Facebook) Facebook to develop a
marketing strategy
apps would be appropriate to capture this information. Such an approach

also has value in formative assessment where results could be shared with
candidates after the test. Table 4.1 lists some common synchronous tools
and examples of how they can be applied to summative assessments.
An important part of assessment validity is student identification.
COVID-19 has introduced the need to proctor examinations and other
forms of assessment remotely using synchronous tools such as video to
mitigate instances of cheating (Bilen & Matros, 2020). For summative
assessments such as examinations, where continuous authentication of stu-
dent identity is crucial to ensuring the validity of the assessment (Flior &
Kowalski, 2010), it may be possible to integrate biometric authentication
technologies into online synchronous tools. A medical university in South
Korea effectively deployed a tablet-based facial recognition system during
COVID-19 as part of a suite of measures to dissuade students in a den-
tal program from committing academic misconduct by allowing someone
else to complete their online examination in a home environment (Lee et
al., 2020). The system required the candidate to position the tablet so that
constant monitoring of facial features could occur during the examina-
tion. However, such a system may not be able to confirm that a candidate
is not receiving assistance from someone not within the camera’s field of
view. Without the capacity to continuously confirm a student’s identity in
a remote examination using some form of automated biometric verifica-
tion, educators should carefully consider alternate forms of assessment to
mitigate the possibility of undetected acts of academic misconduct.
The Importance of Observation in Assessment

Observation is considered to be an important method for gathering evi-
dence of competency because of its power to confirm that what people
say they do is actually what they do (Mulhall, 2003). Direct observation
requires real-time access to “the observed”, requiring some form of video
conferencing technology to facilitate a connection between the assessor
and the candidate to be observed. In the online education courses that
we have participated in, both as students and educators, it was found that
attempts to substitute observation with other methods such as question-
ing, significantly devalued the validity and fairness of the assessment. For
example, while working in China as an educator, the first author com-
pleted a vocational qualification in advanced web design via distance
education with a registered training organization (RTO) in Australia. An
important competence to be assessed was English language proficiency in
a workplace setting. Clearly, direct observation was the best assessment
method for this task. However, the RTO decided to use third-party feed-
back due to the perceived difficulty in conducting an observational assess-
ment remotely. The possibility of creating an assessment procedure that
used video conferencing technologies (built into their proprietary LMS)
was simply not explored by the RTO. Consequently, the reliability of the
assessment to accurately reflect competence in workplace English could
be questioned during an auditing process. Assessment tool substitution
because of preferences for asynchronous communications in online learn-
ing is a significant risk to the requirement of maintaining consistency in
assessment outcomes. The next section explores the importance of devel-
oping contingency plans to transition F2F assessment activities (including
observation) to an online environment capable of facilitating synchronous
assessment should a disruptor such as COVID-19 cause the shut down of
physical amenities such as classrooms.
The Role of Online Technology in Ensuring

Continuity in Course Delivery and Assessment During
Covid-19
The first author was working in Ningbo as an IT educator when COVID-
19 caused the immediate shutdown of most educational institutions in
China impacting more than 270 million students across the country
(Huang et al., 2020). This unexpected disruption to the expected F2F
delivery occurred during the Spring Festival, a time when most of the
country’s citizens enjoy a monthlong vacation. Students, faculty, and
other employees could not return to the campus, so regular F2F instruc-
tion was suspended. The almost complete reliance on F2F delivery prior
to COVID-19 and the absence of established procedures to transition
teaching to an online situation meant that educators were scrambling to
adapt their courses to an e-learning environment.
While several educators had integrated LMSs into their course deliv-
ery structures, these tools were inadequate by themselves to facilitate an
immediate transition to an online environment for two reasons. First,
the institution demanded that courses were to be delivered according
to a schedule that was identical to the pre-COVID timetable. Students
were accustomed to a F2F environment and were unprepared to learn
in an asynchronous environment without real-time communication with
their teachers. Second, many of the assessment procedures involved
person-to-person interactions, such as “live” group presentations and
panel discussions which required student-teacher interaction in real
time. Zoom was the principal tool used to establish the synchronous
aspects of course delivery and assessment. Administrative functions such
as learning materials management, attendance, and student records were
implemented via Moodle. Through the selective deployment of features
of both platforms, educators were able to simulate a classroom situa-
tion online and mitigate transition problems for students thrust into this
“new way of doing things”. It is interesting to note the significant effort
and investment made by Zoom Video Communications, incorporated
in the months following the outbreak of COVID-19 to upgrade their
primary video conferencing platform to accommodate the demands of a
rapidly increasing clientele.
The previous example illustrates the importance of embedding synchro-
nous online capabilities into F2F course delivery – especially as a backup
plan against disrupters such as COVID-19. The seamless integration of
online communication tools into assessment processes will also have a
transformational impact on the way educational institutions structure their
learning environments into the future. The critical challenge for decision-
makers is to internalize the lessons learned from COVID-19-inspired,
technology-based solutions to better cope with future pandemics and
crises that could disrupt the education of our students (Dwivedi et al.,
2020). Those institutions that were early adopters of blended learning are
better prepared for such disruptions.
Ethical Use of Synchronous Tools in Assessment

The COVID-19-inspired expansion of the use of synchronous tools in
assessment has raised possible ethical concerns. Even pre-COVID, peo-
ple were concerned about the use of mass surveillance technologies by
governments to observe and monitor the activities of their citizens. At
present, most LMSs routinely record asynchronous interactions with users
as they occur. In so far as this data contributes to the assessment of can-
didate competency, there is usually an acceptance by students, educators,
and institutions that the captured data can serve as evidence of acquired
skills and knowledge. However, if synchronous tools are mandated for
use in assessment, formative or summative, then it could be argued that
this is a form of mass surveillance with the potential to supplement citizen
surveillance conducted by government entities. This is particularly true in
situations where students are situated in countries and jurisdictions that
do not have well-developed privacy laws, and the audiovisual information
can be intercepted and recorded (Panos et al., 2002). The practice of
many institutions when it comes to the recording of information involv-
ing two or more parties is to seek permission from everyone involved
for the recording to take place. However, if a synchronous interaction is
surreptitiously recorded by a third party operating outside the legal and
ethical constraints of the host institution’s environment, trust between
these parties is violated. This risk can be mitigated by appropriate scrutiny
of proposed distance learning programs and the communication tools that
are to be deployed. An educational institution’s ethics committee would
be an appropriate body to carry out this function.
Conclusion and Implications

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many educational institutions to
deliver their programs online. Traditionally, most assessments conducted
in an online environment are carried out asynchronously. However,
synchronous communication tools incorporated in LMSs can assist in
improving the integrity of assessments through enhanced candidate iden-
tity verification. Summative assessment in a synchronous online environ-
ment can take many forms, including quizzes, essays, oral assessments,
scenarios, and online examinations. The validity of summative assessments
in online courses is dependent on the communication tools chosen to
facilitate the evaluation. For certain types of activities that demand a high
degree of assessor-assessee interactivity, like observation, there is no sub-
stitute for synchronous tools such as video conferencing when conducting
the assessment. For other assessments such as exams, biometric authenti-
cation is crucial to validating the identity of the students and mitigating
the temptation to commit academic misconduct online. The authors share
the concern of many educators that our COVID-19-inspired transition
to online learning has the risk of exposing students to privacy breaches.
Such risks could be mitigated by institutions enacting appropriate policies
to regulate the use of online collaborative tools – particularly if they are
deployed in an international context.
Bios
Darren Turnbull, MBA, is a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Engineering
and Technology, Central Queensland University, Australia. His profes-
sional and research interests include learning management systems, data-
base systems, and vocational education and training. He is an Information
Technology Certified Professional of the Canadian Information Processing
Society.
Ritesh Chugh, Ph.D., is a Senior Lecturer in Information Systems

and Analysis in the School of Engineering and Technology at Central
Queensland University, Australia. Ritesh has received several teaching
awards to recognize his teaching excellence, commitment to improved
student outcomes, and engagement in reflective learning and teaching
activities. He is also an extensively published researcher, whose multi-
disciplinary research interests include social media, project management,
knowledge management, information systems management, and educa-
tional technology. He is a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers and the Australian Computer Society.
Jo Luck, Ph.D., is the Academic Lead (Research Higher Degree

Experience) and a Senior Lecturer in ICT in the School of Engineering
and Technology at Central Queensland University. Her research interests
include using coursework in research degrees, educational technology, and
actor-network theory. She is a senior member of the Australian Computer
Society.
References
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher
Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00138871
Bilen, E., & Matros, A. (2020). Online cheating amid COVID-19. SSRN 3691363.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3691363
Chao, K.-J., Hung, I.-C., & Chen, N.-S. (2012). On the design of online
synchronous assessments in a synchronous cyber classroom. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365–2729.2011.00463.x
Chugh, R., Ledger, S., & Shields, R. (2017). Curriculum design for distance
education in the tertiary sector. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education,
18(2), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.306552
Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects
of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary
Education and Management, 11(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11233-004-3567-9
Department of Training and Workplace Development. (2016). Assessment in
the VET sector. https://www.dtwd.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/uploads/
Assessment%20in%20the%20VET%20Sector%20-%202016%20-%20Final.pdf
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, D. L., Coombs, C., Constantiou, I., Duan, Y., Edwards,
J. S., Gupta, B., Lal, B., Misra, S., Prashant, P., Raman, R., Rana, N. P., Sharma,
S. K., & Upadhyay, N. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on informa-
tion management research and practice: Transforming education, work and life.
International Journal of Information Management, 55(2020), 1–20. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102211
Flior, E., & Kowalski, K. (2010). Continuous biometric user authentication in online
examinations. 2010 Seventh International Conference on Information Technology:
New Generations, 488–492. https://doi.org/10.1109/itng.2010.250
Güler, Ç. (2017). Use of WhatsApp in higher education: What's up with assessing
peers anonymously? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(2), 272–
289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116667359
Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause
Quarterly, 31(4), 51–55.
Huang, R., Tlili, A., Chang, T.-W., Zhang, X., Nascimbeni, F., & Burgos, D.
(2020). Disrupted classes, undisrupted learning during COVID-19 outbreak in
China: application of open educational practices and resources. Smart Learning
Environments, 7(19), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00125-8
Kansas Curriculum Centre. (2001). Is this a trick question? https://www.k-state.
edu/ksde/alp/resources/Handout-Module6.pdf
Lee, J., Kim, R. J., Park, S. Y., & Henning, M. A. (2020). Using technologies
to prevent cheating in remote assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Journal of Dental Education. 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12350
Martin, F., & Parker, M. A. (2014). Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why,
who, and how. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2),
192–210.
McCLelland, L. (2016). 4 tools for synchronous teaching and learning. Top Hat.
https://tophat.com/blog/synchronous-teaching-tools/
Mulhall, A. (2003). In the field: notes on observation in qualitative
research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(3), 306–313. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02514.x
Nobre, C. (2018). Zoom. A user-friendly video conference tool great for online
lessons. The Digital Teacher. Retrieved March, 21, 2020 from https://thedigi-
talteacher.com/reviews/zoom
Panos, P. T., Panos, A., Cox, S. E., Roby, J. L., & Matheson, K. W. (2002). Ethical
issues concerning the use of videoconferencing to supervise international social
work field practicum students . Journal of Social Work Education, 38(3), 421.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2002.10779108
Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2019). Learning management systems: An
overview. In A. Tatnall (Eds.), Encyclopedia of education and information technol-
ogies. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_248-1
Vonderwell, S., & Boboc, M. (2013). Promoting formative assessment in online
teaching and learning. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve
Learning, 57(4), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0673-x
5 Online Teaching
and Learning during
COVID-19
Flexible Harmonies in Higher
Education
Dawn Joseph, Rohan Nethsinghe,
and Alberto Cabedo-Mas
Introduction
The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has profoundly caused
loss of life around the world (WHO, 2020), impacting economic, social,
political, and education systems around the globe (Anderson et al., 2020;
Owusu-Fordjour et al. 2020). This chapter situates itself across two coun-
tries, Australia and Spain, where higher education institutes like many
other corporate sectors around the world contribute largely to the econ-
omy of a country (Audretsch, 2014). Therefore, keeping them open and
producing graduates is imperative for the future of a country (Universities
Australia, 2020).
Australian universities like many other universities around the globe
rely heavily on international students. With economic shutdowns caused
by COVID-19, many universities suffered revenue loss (Thatcher et al.,
2020). International education is Australia’s fourth-largest export (Ross,
2020), and in Spain, it contributes majorly to the Spanish economy
(ICEF Monitor, 2020). Over the last two decades, the Spanish higher
education community has moved assertively to engage internationally in
different ways, meeting rationales and strategies, such as the geopolitics,
to open their universities to a wider audience (Rumbley, 2012). Links
with Europe and Latin America have been strengthened and new efforts
to establish new connections with Africa, North America, and Asia are
considered.
In Australia, travel bans were imposed on international travel as early as
February 2020 due to COVID-19; later, interstate borders were closed
to curtail the spread of virus (Scull et al., 2020). The higher education
sector responded to COVID-19 in relation to “international student
load concerns due to flight restrictions, then to domestic cases, and the
requirement for social isolation” (Crawford et al., 2020, p. 11). Many
campuses shut down face-to-face (F2F) classes, all teaching moved online.
Staff members were forced to rapidly change the delivery of programs
Online Teaching and Learning during COVID-19 51
(courses); they progressively moved to alternative forms of online learning
(Johnson et al., 2020; Thatcher et al., 2020).
Spain imposed a lockdown on March 16, with social distancing mea-
sures and closing all businesses, with the exception of those essential to
the country’s supply chains (Tobías, 2020). Two weeks later, on March
30, Spain also implemented a more restrictive lockdown, aimed at reduc-
ing the mobility and nonessential industrial activity countrywide (Mitjà
et al., 2020). From then until September, with the beginning of the new
academic year, Spanish universities have been teaching online.
Online (e-learning) is fast growing around the globe with many higher
education institutes embracing the trend (Digolo et al., 2011). Online
learning is a substitute for F2F teaching and learning (Guri-Rosenblit,
2005). It uses technology as a way to build knowledge and skills (Moore
et al., 2011). Unlike many professional and corporate organizations that
are adjusting to remote (online) forms of delivery, tertiary educators have
worked online prior to COVID-19; they “have a unique take on who
[their] students are” (Whitford, 2020).
We work in initial teacher education programs as tertiary music educa-
tors in the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), and
Master of Teaching (M.Teach). Dawn (Author One) and Rohan (Author
Two) are based in Australia, and Alberto (Author Three) is located in Spain.
This chapter builds on our previous study, which employed online teaching
across three universities (see Joseph et al., 2018, 2020). Since the pandemic,
we have continued to collegially connect, communicate, and collaborate
with each other to keep “afloat” as we worked from home. Through con-
versations we shared our practice and discussed ways of teaching, assessing,
managing workload, and handling student concerns. We acknowledge that
online pedagogy in music is not fully well-known because of the multifac-
eted nature of music studies and the multiple models of online learning
(Bowman, 2014; Johnson, 2017). Few studies “have been published on
how music can be taught online in higher education” (Horspool & Yang,
2010, p.16). Employing narrative inquiry, we discuss our different and
common experiences when teaching in the online environment (Hernandez
et al., 2015). We use the term “flexible harmonies” to discuss ways in which
we had to refocus our teaching and assessment tasks as we “moved to online
teaching” due to government restrictions in Australia and Spain. Our online
teaching took into consideration how students could model online teaching
when on placement or in their future classrooms.
Dawn has taught undergraduate and postgraduate students F2F and
online (off campus) since 2001. From mid-March, she has mentored and
managed many sessional (casual/part-time) staff who had never taught
online prior to COVID-19. In his previous university job, Rohan taught
a couple of units (subjects) online. Since 2019, in his new job, he only
taught on campus, but from mid-March, all his teaching moved online.
Alberto has been teaching F2F classes since 2009. In the past seven years,
52 Dawn Joseph, Rohan Nethsinghe, and Alberto Cabedo-Mas
he taught online, including supervising students in two different master’s
programs.
At our respective institutes, we used a learning management system
(LMS) as a software application to meet our pedagogical goals of deliver-
ing content to students (Machado & Tao, 2007). LMS are commonly
used at universities around the world, adding a virtual dimension to cam-
pus-based teaching, and creating fully online virtual environments (Coates
et al., 2005). LMS has the capacity to act as a repository tool that can be
used to document and track students’ progress and support their learning
(Chapin, 2018). For academics this “can be useful in determining course
access rates, frequency and duration of interaction with particular content
and course tools and assignment submissions” (Rapanta et al., 2020). We
drew on three basic areas of teacher knowledge (content, pedagogy, and
technology) as a guide to create coherent learning environments for our
diverse cohorts. Technological pedagogical content knowledge, abbrevi-
ated as TPCK or TPACK are used interchangeably in this chapter, serv-
ing as digital tools and resources (Harris et al., 2017; Mishra & Koehler,
2006; Rets, Thompson & Mishra, 2007; Rets et al., 2020).
Literature Review
Teaching is a complex vocation that requires a range of specialized knowl-
edge including “knowledge of student thinking and learning, knowledge
of subject matter, and increasingly, knowledge of technology” (Koehler
& Mishra, 2009, p. 61). The inclusion of technology in the classroom
has “fundamentally altered the practice of distance teaching and learning”
(Anderson & Elloumi, 2004, p. ix). It is important that teachers have
knowledge about the intersection between technology, pedagogy, and
content in relation to what they are teaching (Polly et al., 2010).
Teacher education programs initially focused on content knowledge
(subject matter) regarding what to teach, later they included pedagogical
knowledge (classroom practice) in relation to how to teach, independent
of subject matter. Schulman (1986) combined content knowledge (CK)
with pedagogical knowledge (PK) and introduced pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK). PCK is a blend of “content and pedagogy into an
understanding of how particular aspects of subject matter are organized,
adapted, and represented for instruction” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p.
1021). Adding technology knowledge to the two knowledge domains PK
and CK results in technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) and tech-
nological content knowledge (TCK). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) is the combination of TPK and TCK (Koehler et al.,
2013). As a framework, TPACK integrates technology, pedagogy, and CK
to teach a subject effectively (see Figure 5.1).
TPACK requires specific knowledge and skills to effectively integrate
educational technology into the design and organization of the curriculum
Figure 5.1
Graphic Representation of TPACK, Source: © Archambault and
Barnett (2010, p. 1657).
when teaching a specific content area (Koehler & Mishra 2005; Özgür,
2020). The use of technology has added flexibility to methods of deliver-
ing classes online giving way to TPACK (Archambault & Barnett, 2010).
The use of modern technologies, such as digital devices and Internet/
online platforms for teaching, is what Koehler et al. (2013) call educa-
tional technology and fluency of information technology.
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss the debates around
TPCK, as the framework is still not fully understood (Angeli & Valanides,
2009; Cox & Graham, 2009). Nonetheless, research has shown that the
use of technology improves teaching and learning (Graham, 2011; Harris
et al., 2009; Su et al., 2017; Voogt, et al., 2013). TPACK is an accepted
framework to understand teaching using technology (Rets et al., 2020). It
has given us “a language to talk about the connections that are present” or
absent when teaching music online and “the relationship between content
and technology” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1044).
While teaching online, Govindarajan and Srivastava (2020) identify the
need for teachers to have support on the ground when engaging with
technology. Many have varied digital infrastructures with poor support
services, thus widening the digital divide at universities. Not all staff are
accustomed to the shift in practice, which can be psychologically stress-
ful (Morley, 2020). Many teachers are uncomfortable with teaching
through virtual classrooms. Teaching online can be stressful for staff dur-
ing COVID-19 (Gautam & Sharma, 2020). Providing in-service training
according to Özgür (2020) is one way to reduce technostress and improve
TPACK competency. In addition, Nayar and Akmar (2020) suggest that
professional development programs for teachers should include a practi-
cal component that permits them to teach with computers in their class-
rooms. In this way, teachers will be able to reflect on their designs for use
in classrooms.
With the onset of COVID-19, “the teacher education sector in most
countries, including Australia, had not anticipated the shift to off-cam-
pus teaching” (Scull et al., 2020). Not all teachers were well prepared for
the challenge which proved stressful as “the rapid transition to an online
teaching environment has impacted on teachers” physical, emotional and
social wellbeing” (ReachOut Australia 2020).
In a recent study, Phillips and Cain (2020) found teachers reported that
the shift to online teaching has caused “relentless paperwork” and “tech-
nical, pragmatic and workload issues”. Teachers were concerned about
whether quality pedagogy and curriculum could be delivered online when
engagement is not the same as F2F teaching. This coupled with low-qual-
ity equipment and poor Internet connectivity does not help the teaching
and learning environment (Peters et al., 2020). Such factors added stress
and impacted staff and students’ well-being. Sokal et al. (2020) found
“when teachers don’t have the resources they need, and especially when
sustained job demands are high, teachers experience chronic stress – and
eventually burnout”. They added being “flooded with websites, learning
platforms and other resources…leading [led] to more teacher burnout”.
Therefore, supporting teachers’ well-being inevitably impacts students’
learning and well-being (Collie & Martin, 2020).
For teachers, achieving a work-life balance and connecting with others
is important when trying to reduce stress and build morale. All of which
positively contributes to maintaining well-being (NEF, 2011). Having
positive relationships; experiencing feelings of happiness, satisfaction, and
achievement; and having a sense of purpose in life positively contributes to
well-being (MacDonald et al., 2013; Mansfield et al., 2020).
Methods
We focus on our individual experiences that have grown out of practice
and experience during the pandemic employing narrative inquiry (Benson,
2005; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Haydon et al., 2015). As an exten-
sion to our previous project, we continued to collaborate through email,
Skype, and telephone. We communicated about our practice and our sense
of well-being by meeting online once every two to three weeks for an hour
or more for up to six months. We kept personal notes as a way of under-
standing our experience as we posed questions: What were the challenges
we faced delivering music units from home? What were some of the peda-
gogies we employed? How did working from home impact our workload,
stress, and well-being?
We employed interpretative phenomenological analysis as our ana-
lytic tool to explore our personal lived experience (Callary et al., 2015;
Smith, 2017). By sharing our notes and having discussions, we individu-
ally and collectively undertook initial codings by bracketing and making
notes in the left margin (Amos, 2016; Giorgi, 2012). We then compared
our notes before developing them into overarching themes (Lauterbach,
2018; McNarry et al., 2019). We discussed our collective challenges and
opportunities and reflected on “what we know, believe, and value within
the context of an event (COVID-19)” (Horton-Deutsch & Sherwood,
2017, xxxv).
Our narrative resonates with the notion of reflective practice as we
thought about our actions in order to alter and modify our future
actions and responses (Brooks et al., 2014; Clandinin, 2013; Schön,
1987). Through reflection (Schön, 1983), we explored the concerns and
problems we encountered (McEwan & Egan, 1995). We highlighted the
experiences that have shaped our social interactions and understanding
of our teaching and our students learning during the pandemic (Haydon
et al., 2015).
Findings: Flexible Harmonies

We call this section of our findings “Flexible Harmonies” because it
refers to the different cohorts of students we taught (undergraduates,
postgraduates, and seniors). It also refers to the diverse age groups of
students within the different programs of study. The use of the word
“flexible” is used to capture the different LMS platforms we each
employed for teaching and learning (Anderson & Elloumi, 2004). As
music educators, interweaving our voices into a single narrative creates a
blend of simultaneous harmonies at three different workplaces. Each of us
was flexible in our delivery (asynchronous and synchronous) and assess-
ment tasks (formative and summative). Once all classes moved “online”
beginning in mid-March 2020, Dawn used Zoom, Kultura, discussion
spaces, email, and telephone to communicate with students in the B.Ed.
and M.Teach program. This was similar for Rohan and Alberto, who
used Google Meet, email, Zoom, and the University Virtual Classroom
to connect with their M.Teach, B.A., and B.Ed. students. As agents of
change during a time of unprecedented change, we share two key over-
arching themes: challenges relating to administration and teaching and
opportunities encountered.
Challenges Relating to Administration and Teaching
The challenge of teaching “online” meant we had increased administration
responsibilities that added to our “usual workload.” We attended more
staff meetings than usual, which crept into our teaching day. Reading and
responding to the flurry of emails from management about governance,
curriculum, and COVID health and safety issues was time-consuming. In
addition, we had to carefully plan, prepare, and present classes “online”
that connected theory to practice. We were mindful that many of the
non-music specialists lacked confidence and competency skills. Therefore,
working closely with our respective digital teams and the library officers
was essential in providing useful resources that would complement the
content we covered “online.” We were challenged by not knowing what
music resources our students had or did not have in their homes. We had
to be flexible in the ways lessons were delivered online covering TPACK
in a short space of time. The challenge for us meant delivering practical
hands-on subjects effectively while having no control over the quality of
technology or the type of devices students used.
Dawn found she had spent many hours supporting sessional staff who
had previously not taught online. This involved many more emails and
phone calls than usual. While short and sharp professional learning ses-
sions were offered by the university, many did not take up the offer. This
meant she had to assist students and mentor staff to navigate the LMS
applications. Rohan found preparing classes in this environment challeng-
ing, he had to swiftly move to a new LMS. His students, like Dawn’s
students, were familiar with F2F teaching, though they found the sudden
change difficult and isolating. Rohan used editing tools to produce audio
and video recording examples to complement his online teaching when
teaching about the creative arts. This approach, although time-consuming
was an effective way to demonstrate to students what could be done on
placement (practicum) or in future classrooms. It also served as a way
to facilitate discussion with the students about methods of teaching and
assessing online.
While incorporating music software was not new for many of Dawn
and Rohan’s students, this was not the case for Alberto’s senior students
(65 years and older). As older learners, they preferred F2F teaching.
The on-campus classes offered them social connection and new learning
opportunities. Meeting with friends greatly contributed to their sense of
well-being. Alberto found that he had spent many hours planning and
preparing the History of Music classes. He taught 400 senior students in
the online environment. Alberto anticipated that his older learners would
find it daunting “studying online.” He had to think of ways to engage and
motivate them in a virtual space. Moving to an online teaching space with
this particular age group meant many lacked the confidence to use tech-
nology. Alberto had to be flexible in what he taught and how he taught
online. He found it challenging to connect the content (subject) through
an online environment, his students needed social F2F connections.
Many of our students at our respective workplaces encountered poor-
quality Internet speed and connectivity. Alberto’s younger students in the
undergraduate program did not have equal access to the Internet, many of
his students shared accommodations or lived in areas where the Internet
was not reliable. This was similar for students in Australia. In providing
synchronous and asynchronous teaching, Dawn found that the tutors and
students had broadband dropouts; these disruptions impacted the flow
of the lesson and group performances. This was similar for Rohan, who
found undertaking live group performances was not feasible given the
delay with real-time (live) streaming.
As students progressed through their learning, we each found there
were times some students missed the online workshops. This meant it was
time-consuming for us to manage voluminous email inquiries about what
was missed. We had to be considerate and take into account that students
were working from home with limited access to musical instruments.
Given this predicament, Dawn redesigned the B.Ed. music assignment
question to include nonconventional sounds from home (such as food
mixer, eggbeater, hammer, drill, pots) and electronic sounds from devices.
She also had to devise ways to keep her students engaged so that they
stayed enrolled in the unit and engaged with the music teaching and learn-
ing processes. This was not possible though with her primary music classes
in semester one. This cohort was taken by another staff member. As the
developer of the music content of the unit, Dawn was seeking verbal feed-
back from the students themselves. However, the staff member did not
feel comfortable allowing her to have five to ten minutes in the three-hour
F2F Zoom session to obtain student feedback about the content. The F2F
engagement is more personal; it provides emotional engagement, which
is absent in a questionnaire. This would have benefited Dawn in prepar-
ing units for the next semester, as all subjects were to be taught via Zoom
again. This negatively impacted her sense of well-being.
We found that classes were at times interrupted, for example, by chil-
dren, as some students had families, or extended families, or pets. This
was challenging for us, as we each found it disrupted the flow of learning
sequence and left “gaps” in our students’ learning experience. Therefore,
it was essential to set up “bite-size” activities that were manageable and
connected content, pedagogy, curriculum, and technology. While some
students contributed to the chat space, it was not possible to respond to
all students. Many of our undergraduate students had their cameras off,
making it rather tricky to gauge their body language to know whether they
grasped what we taught. In some instances, the cameras were turned off
to improve connectivity.
Other than teaching, we found we mentored students and staff, offered
academic advice, and directed students to support services. We worked
closely with the placement office, as many students found the issue of
placement caused much stress and anxiety. Many schools were not opting
to have students on placements. In light of this, students had to either can-
cel or defer their placement or internship. In Australia and Spain, place-
ments were dependent on the government’s advice on whether schools
were open or not. For those students who went on placement, the experi-
ence was daunting. In Australia, students worked in an online platform
with the schoolteacher and the university staff member teaching school
students from home. In Spain, Alberto had to find alternative ways for his
students to acquire professional competencies in order to complete their
placement component. Linking theory to practice in the online environ-
ment proved challenging for our students.
We found that many of our students applied for assignment extensions,
which also put pressure on us to return feedback to them in a timely fash-
ion. Many experienced a range of difficulties, such as loss of income, being
evicted from shared accommodation, relationship problems, loss of jobs,
and mental health issues. While the university offers support structures to
assist students, our students often reached out to us in the first instance.
Managing some of the severe student-related issues impacted our sense
of well-being. In Spain, Alberto dealt with students and colleagues who
had lost family and friends due to COVID-19. This aspect was particularly
emotionally draining, stressful, and confronting for him.
Opportunities Encountered
As academics, we were familiar with the concept of working from home.
However, once teaching went wholly online in mid-March, we felt iso-
lated and separated from our students and colleagues. We intentionally
stayed connected with each other and with colleagues through email, tele-
phone communications, skype, and Zoom. The professional conversations
we had with each other and with like-minded colleagues meant that we
had the chance to update teaching and learning materials. Moving wholly
online meant we had the chance to rethink TPACK; it gave us time to
reflect on what we did in the past and how we could improve our teaching.
Dawn, for example, invited local and international speakers into her online
teaching space using Zoom; this was a great opportunity for her students
to connect with experts in the field of music.
Our time during lockdown meant we had the chance to learn about
emerging technologies that our students readily use. We found during
this time that we learned more about LMS and new music software pro-
grams. Staying connected with each other and our students, talking about
our professional practice and research, positively contributed to our over-
all sense of well-being. This was similar to when we connected with col-
leagues at local and international conferences. While travel bans prevented
us from attending, we had the opportunity to participate through Zoom
and learn about emerging pedagogies and technologies in music educa-
tion. This positively contributed to our professional learning.
Alberto established new academic collaborations during the time of
lockdown. While he felt vulnerable sharing his teaching practice, he found
it rewarding to accept feedback from his peers. This newfound opportu-
nity gave him the chance to learn from his peers, particularly in relation
to assessment and ways of teaching online. Dawn found she had signifi-
cantly more contact with staff through video-conferencing meetings. This
has paradoxically worked out in her favor, as she generally works in iso-
lation as the music educator on her campus. By holding regular meet-
ings with arts education faculty staff members, she had the opportunity
to learn from them about different ways to assess assignments and dis-
covered various useful resources that would assist first-year students with
transitioning to higher education. Teaching through Zoom meant that
her off-campus M.Teach students could join the classes and collaborate
with other students. Rohan found working in teams and posting learn-
ing material in modules with instructional videos significantly helped his
students understand the work. The prerecorded clips with instructional
documents opened up opportunities for constructive discussion with his
students. This had a positive impact on them feeling less isolated.
With regular staff meetings, we each encountered new windows of
opportunity to contribute to conversations at our respective workplaces
regarding changes to the curriculum, placements, workplace changes, and
health and well-being concerns. In our newfound “online environment,”
we also had the opportunity to undertake COVID-safe compliance train-
ing online at our different institutes. Dawn found the cybersecurity and
code of conduct training useful; it helped her learn more about dealing
with student matters. We collectively found the stress of learning from
home may have contributed to students’ rudeness, demands, and impa-
tience; some felt entitled to act as “clients.” On the other hand, we equally
received many thank-you emails as we intentionally offered ongoing care,
empathy, and support to students and colleagues alike.
Discussion
Our narrative inquiry outlined some key challenges and opportunities as
we adapted our teaching to the “new normal” of working from home due
to government and university regulations. Having no F2F contact was not
the preferred way to teach or learn. We had to swiftly shift our mode of
thinking, delivery, content, and pedagogy. Employing multimodal tech-
nologies was challenging for students and staff. The complexity of the
online learning environment meant we modeled what was possible (or
not). Not having the practical hands-on F2F experience made it difficult
for students to connect PCK with TPCK (Archambault & Barnett, 2010;
Schulman, 1986). As experts, we had to prepare students with CK that
connects the learning experience to the curriculum and to pedagogy. In
addition, we had to possess knowledge of the curriculum and curricu-
lum materials that integrates technology with learning music in order to
develop students’ understanding (TPCK; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This
challenged us to rethink our lessons.
Rohan used LMS to plan, redesign, and deliver his workshops to
improve his online delivery TPCK (Angeli & Valanides, 2009). The inter-
active tool (LMS) was user-friendly and flexible as a platform; it enriched
his students’ capacity to learn and supported their needs (Kasim & Khalid,
2016; Merrick, 2020). Alberto was challenged to strike a balance between
access, resources, and participation. He felt TPK was significantly more
important to students than CK. Dawn and her sessional staff focused on
PCK, using virtual platforms as a tool to connect TPACK. In this way,
students were enabled with “skills and digital resources and technologies”
that were enriching, “meaningful, relevant, and engaged [the] learner”
(Nayar & Akmar, 2020, p. 60).
We found using synchronous and asynchronous teaching beneficial
(Dyment & Downing, 2020). In this way, students were provided with
specific examples of music content and music pedagogies that they could
use when on placement or in their future classrooms. Preparing lessons
online provided us with the opportunity to explore and experiment with
music software. It also opened up doors to think about diverse ways of
teaching. We provided instructional videos that were time-consuming and
stressful to prepare but worked well for our students (Özgür, 2020). We
found this to be an effective method of providing detailed instructions and
feedback (Henderson & Phillips, 2015). In addition, we found providing
visuals, charts, written explanations, and recorded instructions useful for
students’ learning. They were able to access them at any anytime. Students
had the flexibility to play, stop, and replay recorded learning material sev-
eral times, which was something “manageable”; it offered them opportu-
nities to “digest TPCK” at their own pace.
One of the benefits of working online during the pandemic was that our
workplaces and software companies offered students and staff free access
to software and applications. We used them to edit, record, and layer work
using virtual music instrument samplers. The digital tools and resources
facilitated opportunities to creatively engage in music and or arts educa-
tion practice (TPCK; Harris et al., 2017; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
While online teaching was accessible to all students, we also found it
did not suit all learners. Admittedly, many of our students (young and
old) struggled with online learning. They had to adapt to independent
study, self-regulate, and manage their time. They had to set aside time to
undertake self-directed learning, which was not easy for many (Sumuer,
2018). Compounded by this, many had network problems, with some
having more sophisticated equipment than others, which was not equi-
table for all students (Govindarajan & Srivastava, 2020). The opportunity
of embodied learning was not the same as learning online. In our experi-
ence, the quality of sound, time lag, and Internet dropouts proved frus-
trating (Joseph et al., 2020; Burke, 2020). What worked well was placing
students in “break-out rooms.” It helped us form relationships with them
and enabled them to build confidence as they worked collaboratively and
collegially in small groups on practical activities (Burke, 2020). While
playing or singing together was not possible “at the same time,” many
students managed to produce high-quality video clips, sound clips, and
creative compositions using technology, which served as a good teaching
and learning experience for all.
While the music learning activities were engaging, and students
appeared satisfied and happy, they also encountered several other stu-
dent and personal problems that contributed to their sense of well-being
(MacDonald et al., 2013; Mansfield et al., 2020). We found in our role
as tertiary educators, amid offering academic support, that we spent
a lot of time offering counseling and care. Alberto worked with stu-
dents at a time when 90.7% of the deceased who died from COVID-19
were over 65 (Spanish Ministry of Health, 2020). He also contacted
COVID-19. During his illness, Dawn and Rohan regularly checked on
his health and well-being. Their nurturing ethic of care positively con-
tributed to his sense of well-being (Koonce & Lewis, 2020). Dawn sent
regular motivational emails to her students that offered support service
information on health and well-being. They also included motivational
sayings to help promote a sense of togetherness as students worked in
lockdown. This was similar to Rohan and Alberto who connected to
students online by offering additional academic and counseling support.
Fostering a sense of care toward each other helped us to remain resilient.
It also enhanced our morale, which positively impacted our students and
colleagues (NEF, 2011). The use of multimodal technology during this
time of COVID-19 has brought us closer as colleagues; it also connected
us to our students in ways that we may not have had when teaching F2F
(Tarlow et al., 2020).
Conclusion
This chapter supports our previous study that relates to the use of technol-
ogy when teaching across three sites (Joseph, Nethsinghe, Cabedo-Mas,
2018, 2020). What emerged from our ongoing collaboration meant that
we had opportunities to converse about what worked or did not work as
we swiftly moved to online teaching (Cheng, 2020; Sahu, 2020). While we
each embraced a range of electronic teaching resources to enrich, enliven,
and empower our students, we were equally challenged to upskill and
rethink our teaching. Our three voices across two countries is a limitation
in itself in that we discuss our lived experience at our workplaces. While
this may be similar to other academics, generalizations cannot be made.
We were directed by government and university regulations regarding
on-campus restrictions. This meant the sudden move to online teaching
and learning was met with much trepidation. While many students faced
obstacles that may have impacted their learning (Hammond, et al., 2020;
Sahu, 2020), the university offered students ongoing teaching and learn-
ing support, financial support, and counseling. At our respective universi-
ties, teaching and learning policies were amended to accommodate the
“new online” teaching environment. Approval was granted to change
some of the practical content and assessment tasks. Due to high-stress fac-
tors, students at Dawn’s university, for example, were granted up to three-
week extensions on assignments without question. Moving to an online
mode of teaching meant allowances were made for students to intermit
studies, reduce the number of units, and ask for a remission of fees. In
addition, students who may not have considered studies enrolled midyear
into courses because of new government initiatives.
Our findings contribute to the wider body of studies that are currently
emerging regarding working from home, teaching online, and exploring
TPCK in a meaningful way during COVID-19 (Burke, 2020). Whether
students thrived or survived during the first half of 2020, at the time of
writing this chapter, we supported, guided, and enabled their learning
during uncertain times (academically and personally). We agree with Polly
et al. (2010) that more work is needed to examine what aspects of TPACK
are essential to developing learning experiences for specialized knowl-
edge areas. Working collaboratively with students and staff has offered us
a growth mindset about learning new technologies and subject-specific
technologies (Omoso & Odindo, 2020). It also has given us the chance
to think about ways we can collaboratively work across disciplines and with
communities in co-creative spaces.
At the time of concluding this chapter, Dawn remained in “lockdown,”
having worked from home since mid-March in Melbourne. Rohan was
able to work at his office and has had many restrictions lifted in Canberra,
and Alberto has returned to work teaching online in Spain. As we navi-
gate the remainder of the year and beyond, universities face significant
transformational changes. We recommend staff undertake compliance
training in online teaching, well-being and mental health, and COVID-
safe training. Further studies are necessary to explore student attitudes
regarding online learning during COVID-19. In addition, a longitudinal
study could explore whether the transformational learning experiences
during the pandemic prepared students for classroom practice. At a time
of global uncertainty with possible redundancies looming, coupled with
ongoing lockdowns, connecting with colleagues positively contributes to
well-being, building resilience to press on with business as usual. This
chapter highlighted the importance of maintaining collegial and collab-
orative communication at a time when fear and uncertainty have severely
impacted our economy and higher education. We contend that staying
connected and sharing information about practice enriches our profes-
sional learning to pursue “flexible harmonies” in a changing world.
Bios
Dawn Joseph, Ph.D., is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Arts and
Education at Deakin University, Australia. Her research and peer-reviewed
publications focus on music education, African music, cultural diversity,
aging and well-being in the arts, teacher education, and community
music. She serves as a member of the editorial boards of international and
national refereed journals. Dawn examines several Ph.D. dissertations and
is invited to peer review in international journals.
Rohan Nethsinghe, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in Creative Arts Education

at the Faculty of Education, University of Canberra, Australia. Rohan pub-
lishes in scholarly journals and presents his research nationally and interna-
tionally in the areas of music education and multicultural music education.
His research in multicultural music has contributed to the enhancement
and scholarship of teaching and learning in teacher education.
Alberto Cabedo-Mas, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Music Education

at the University Jaume I of Castellón, Spain. He is the author of sev-
eral publications, including international and national books and refereed
journals. He is Codirector of the journal Eufonía: Didáctica de la Música
and serves as an editorial board member in several national and inter-
national academic journals. His research interests include music educa-
tion, musical heritage, coexistence, interculturality, and the transmission
of music across cultures.
References
Amos, I. (2016). Interpretative phenomenological analysis and embodied inter-
pretation: Integrating methods to find the ‘words that work’. Counselling and
Psychotherapy Research, 16(4), 307–317.
Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. (Eds.) (2004). Theory and practice of online learning.
Athabasca University.
Anderson, R. M., Heesterbeek, H., Klinkenberg, D., & Hollingsworth, T. D.
(2020). How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of
the COVID- 19 epidemic? The Lancet, 395(10228), 931–934.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for
the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances
in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers &
Education, 52(1), 154–168.
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological peda-
gogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers &
Education, 55(4), 1656–1662.
Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university
for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313–321.
Benson, R. (2005). Using narrative enquiry to explore some implications of devel-
opments in educational technology for distance education. Research in Distance
Education, 6(4), 29–40.
Bowman, J. (2014). Online learning in music: Foundations, frameworks, and prac-
tices. Oxford University Press.
Brooks, A., Farquharson, L., Burnell, K., & Charlesworth, G. (2014). A narra-
tive enquiry of experienced family carers of people with dementia volunteer-
ing in a Carer Supporter Programme. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 24(6), 491–502.
Burke, K. (2020). How can the creative arts possibly be taught online?
Perspectives and experiences of online educators in Australian higher educa-
tion. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/135
9866X.2020.1777531
Callary, B., Rathwell, S., & Young, B. W. (2015). Insights on the process of using
interpretive phenomenological analysis in a sport coaching research project.
Qualitative Report, 20(2), 63–75.
Chapin, L. A. (2018). Australian university students’ access to web-based lecture
recordings and the relationship with lecture attendance and academic perfor-
mance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5). https://doi.
org/10.14742/ajet.2989
Cheng, X. (2020). Challenges of ‘school’s out, but class’s on’ to school educa-
tion: Practical exploration of Chinese schools during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Science Insight Education Frontiers, 5(2), 501–516.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry. Jossey-Bass.
Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Left Coast Press.
Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects
of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary
Education and Management, 11(1), 19–36.
Collie, R. & Martin, A. (2020, April 7). Teacher wellbeing during COVID-19.
Teacher. https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/teacher-wellbeing-
during-covid-19
Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: Using
an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher
knowledge. Tech-Trends, 53(5), 60–69.
Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M.,
Burton, R., Magni, P.A., & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher
education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning
& Teaching, 3(1), 1–20.
Digolo, B. E., Andang’o, E. A., & Katuli, J. (2011). E-learning as a strategy for
enhancing access to music education. International Journal of Business and
Social Science, 2(11), 135–139.
Dyment, J. E., & Downing, J. J. (2020). Online initial teacher education: A
systematic review of the literature. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
48(3), 316–333.
Gautam, R., & Sharma, M. (2020). 2019-nCoV pandemic: A disruptive and stress-
ful atmosphere for Indian academic fraternity. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity,
88, 948–949. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7151469/
Giorgi, A. (2012). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method.
Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43(1), 3–12.
Govindarajan, V., & Srivastava, A. (2020, March 31). What the sift to virtual
learning could mean for the future of higher ed. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2020/03/what-the-shift-to-virtual-learning-could-mean-
for-the-future-of-higher-ed
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technologi-
cal pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3),
1953–1960.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). Distance education and e-learning: Not the same thing.
Higher Education, 49(4), 467–493.
Hammond, T., Watson, K., Brumbelow, K., Fields, S., Shryock, K., Chamberland,
J. F., de Miranda, M., Johnson, M., Alexander, G., Childs, M. D., Ray, S.,
White, L., Cherian, J., Dunn, A., & Herbet, B. (2020). A survey to measure the
effects of forced transition to 100% online learning on community sharing, feelings
of social isolation, equity, resilience, and learning content during the COVID-19
pandemic. https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/187835
Harris, J. B., Phillips, M., Koehler, M. J., & Rosenberg, J. M. (2017). TPCK/
TPACK research and development: Past, present, and future directions.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), i–viii.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical
content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology
integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4),
393–416.
Haydon, G., van der Reit, P., & Browne, G. (2015). A narrative inquiry: Humour
and gender differences in the therapeutic relationship between nurses and their
patients. Contemporary Nurse, 50(2–3), 214–226.
Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assess-
ment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1),
51–66.
Hernandez, K-A. C., Ngunjiri, F.W., & Chang H. (2015) Exploiting the mar-
gins in higher education: A collaborative autoethnography of three foreign-born
female faculty of color. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
28(5), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.933910
Horspool, A., & Yang, S. S. (2010). A comparison of university student percep-
tions and success learning music online and face-to-face. MERLOT Journal of
Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 15–29.
Horton-Deutsch, S., & Sherwood, G.D. (Eds.). (2017). Reflective practice:
Transforming education and improving outcomes. Sigma Theta Tau International.
ICEF Monitor. (2020). Economic impact of foreign students in Spain estimated at
€2.2 billion. https://monitor.icef.com/2019/06/economic-impact-of-foreign-
students-in-spain-estimated-at-e2-2-billion/
Johnson. C. (2017). Teaching music online: Changing pedagogical approach
when moving to the online environment. London Review of Education, 15(3),
439–456.
Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G., & Seaman, J. (2020), U.S. faculty and administra-
tors’ experiences and approaches in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pan-
demic. Online Learning, 24(2), 2–6.
Joseph, D., Nethsinghe, R., & Cabedo-Mas, A. (2018). Creating multicultural
music opportunities in teacher education: Sharing diversity through songs.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 31–47.
Joseph, D., Nethsinghe, R., & Cabedo-Mas, A. (2020). “We learnt lots in a short
time”: Cultural exchange across three universities through songs from different
lands. International Journal of Music Education, 38(2), 177–193.
Kasim, N. N. M., & Khalid, F. (2016). Choosing the right learning management
system (LMS) for the higher education institution context: A systematic review.
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(6), 55–61.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content
knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1),
60–70.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design edu-
cational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content
knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.
Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical
content (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19.
Koonce, J. B., & Lewis, K. A. (2020). Culturally relevant care through the lens of
duoethnography. The Qualitative Report, 25(6), 1721–1735.
Lauterbach, A. A. (2018). Hermeneutic phenomenological interviewing: Going
beyond semi-Structured formats to help participants revisit experience. The
Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2883–2898.
MacDonald, R., Kreutz, G., & Mitchell, L. (Eds.). (2013). Music, health, and
wellbeing. Oxford University Press.
Machado, M., & Tao, E. (2007). Blackboard vs. Moodle: Comparing user expe-
rience of learning management systems [Conference session]. 2007 37th Annual
Frontiers in Education Conference-Global Engineering: Knowledge without
Borders, Opportunities without Passports (pp. S4J-7). IEEE.
Mansfield, L., Daykin N., & Kay. T. (2020). Leisure and wellbeing. Leisure Studies,
39(1), 1–10.
McEwan, H., & Egan, K. (1995). Narrative in teaching, learning, and research.
Teachers College Press.
McNarry, G., Allen-Collinson, J., & Evans, J. B. (2019). Reflexivity and brack-
eting in sociological phenomenological research: Researching the competitive
swimming lifeworld. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(1),
138–151.
Merrick. B. (2020). Changing mindset, perceptions, learning, and tradition: An
‘adaptive teaching framework’ for teaching music online. International Journal
on Innovations in Online Education, 4(2), 1–7. https://onlineinnovationsjour-
nal.com/download/0adeed9b5d34eeae.pdf
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowl-
edge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6),
1017–1054.
Mitjà, O., Arenas, À., Rodó, X., Tobias, A., Brew, J., & Benlloch, J.M. (2020).
Experts’ request to the Spanish government: Move Spain towards complete
lockdown. Lancet, 395 (10231), 1193–1194.
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learn-
ing, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and
Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135.
Morley, I. (2020, April 16). Rethinking teaching and learning during COVID-19
disruption. Campus Review, 30(4), 11.
Nayar, A., & Akmar, S. N. (2020). Technology pedagogical content knowledge
(TPCK) and techno pedagogy integration skill (TPIS) among pre-service sci-
ence teachers-case study of a university based ICT based teacher education cur-
riculum. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(6), 54–65.
NEF. (2011). Five ways to wellbeing: New applications, new ways of thinking. New
Economics Foundation.
Omoso, E., & Odindo, F. (2020). TPACK in teacher education: Using pre-service
teachers’ self-reported TPACK to improve pedagogic practice. International
Journal of Education and Research, 8(5), 125–138.
Owusu-Fordjour, C., Koomson, C. K., & Hanson, D. (2020). The impact of
Covid-19 on learning – the perspective of the Ghanaian student. European
Journal of Education Studies, 7(3), 88–101.
Özgür, H. (2020). Relationships between teachers’ technostress, technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), school support and demographic
variables: A structural equation modeling. Computers in Human Behavior, 112,
106468.
Peters, M.A., F. Rizvi, G. McCulloch, P. Gibbs, R. Gorur, H. Hong, Y. Hwang,
L. Zipin, M. Brennan, S. Robertson, & J. Quay. (2020). Reimagining the new
pedagogical possibilities for universities post-Covid-19: An EPAT collective
project. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00131857.2020.1777655
Phillips, L., & M. Cain (2020). ‘Exhausted beyond measure’: What teachers are
saying about COVID-19 and the disruption to education. https://theconver-
sation.com/exhausted-beyond-measure-what-teachers-are-saying-about-covid-
19-and-the-disruption-to-education-143601
Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact:
Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow's teachers to teach
with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863–870.
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online
university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher
presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 1–23. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y
Reachout Australia. (2020). Teacher well-being in a changing environment.
https://schools.au.reachout.com/articles/teacher-wellbeing-in-a-changing-
environment
Rets, I., Rienties, B., & Lewis, T. (2020). Transforming pre-service teacher educa-
tion through virtual exchange: A mixed-methods analysis of perceived TPACK
development. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1
080/10494820.2020.1826983
Ross, J. (2020). Australian international education ‘a cheap fix’. Times Higher Education.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/australian-international-
education-cheap-fix#
Rumbley, L. (2012). Internationalization in the universities of Spain: Changes and
challenges at four institutions. In F. Maringe& N. Foskett(Eds.), Globalization
and internationalization in higher education. Theoretical, strategic and manage-
ment perspectives (pp. 207–224). Continuum International Publishing Group.
Sahu, P. (2020). Closure of universities due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-
19): Impact on education and mental health of students and academic staff.
Cureus, 12(4). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7198094/
Schulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
Basic Books.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for
teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.
Scull, J., Phillips, M., Sharma, U., & Garnier, K. (2020). Innovations in teacher
education at the time of COVID19: An Australian perspective. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 46(4), 497–506.
Smith, J. A. (2017). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Getting at lived
experience. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 303–304.
Sokal, L., Babb, J., & Trudel, L. E. (2020, May, 11). How to prevent teacher burnout dur-
ing the coronavirus pandemic. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/
how-to-prevent-teacher-burnout-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-139353
Su, X., Huang, X., Zhou, C., & Chang, M. (2017). A technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPACK) scale for geography teachers in senior high school.
Education & Science/Egitim ve Bilim, 42(190), 325–341.
Sumuer, E. (2018). Factors related to college students’ self-directed learning with
technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 29–43.
Spanish Ministry of Health. (2020). COVID-19 reports. https://www.mscbs.
gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov-China/situa-
cionActual.htm
Tarlow, K. R., McCord, C. E., Nelon, J. L., & Bernhard, P. A. (2020). Comparing
in-person supervision and telesupervision: A multiple baseline single-case study.
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 30(2), 383–393.
Thatcher, A., Zhang, M., Todoroski, H., Chau, A., Wang, J., & Liang, G. (2020).
Predicting the impact of COVID-19 on Australian universities. Journal of Risk
and Financial Management, 13(9), 168–188.
Tobías, A. (2020). Evaluation of the lockdowns for the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in
Italy and Spain after one month follow up. Science of the Total Environment, 725
(138539), 1–3.
Universities Australia. (2020). Uni viability crucial to national recovery. https://
www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/media-item/uni-viability-crucial-to-
national-recovery/
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge – a review of the literature.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121.
Whitford, T. (2020, May 1). Let’s not forget quality in our rush to deliver classes
online, at scale. Campus, Review, 2020. https://www-campusreview-com-au.
ezproxy-b.deakin.edu.au/2020/05/lets-not-forget-quality-in-our-rush-to-
deliver-classes-online-at-scale-opinion/
World Health Organisation (WHO). (2020). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
outbreak. https://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19
6 The Effectiveness of
Authentic Assessments
during COVID-19
A Case of RMIT University
in Vietnam
Huy Pham, Binh Nguyen Thanh,
Thai Vu Hong Nguyen, and Jain Upasana
Introduction
Assessment is a crucial part of learning and teaching that can influence a
student’s decision to take a certain course or program and strongly shapes
the student experience. Authentic assessments are considered effective in
equipping students with skills and knowledge that will enable them to
succeed in the workplace (Larkin, 2014; Sridharan & Mustard, 2015).
With the purpose of ensuring that graduates are ready for work and life,
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University in Vietnam (RMIT
Vietnam henceforth) has implemented authentic assessments in all courses
and programs of the School of Business and Management. At RMIT
Vietnam, authentic assessments are part of an authentic learning environ-
ment that replicates the context within which the students will need to
apply their knowledge and skills at their future workplace. The important
elements of authentic assessments at RMIT Vietnam consist of industry
engagement activities, team projects, simulations, and research projects.
Notable examples of authentic assessments at RMIT Vietnam include
assessments that are based on real business problems that are presented to
the students by industry partners or team projects about creating invest-
ment portfolios that are evaluated based on live market data and trading
of financial market products in classroom simulations.
COVID-19, which is a new (or novel) strain of coronavirus, origi-
nated in Wuhan, China, and surfaced in late December 2019. This virus
is extremely contagious, and it has infected millions worldwide. The mor-
tality rate of COVID-19 is, however, much lower than that of SARS. At
the time of writing, the virus is still spreading rapidly, and the death toll
is mounting. COVID-19 has caused several national lockdowns around
the globe, and universities are also affected whereby they have to move
their activities online. Although online courses have been around for a
while, this is the first time in human history that all learning and teaching
activities of many universities in the world must take place online. The
70 Huy Pham et al.
COVID-19 crisis and the associated social distancing restrictions, which
do not allow students to come to campus, thus requiring the need for
them to study online, created unprecedented challenges to the authentic
assessment practice of RMIT Vietnam in early 2020. The challenges are
particularly severe for courses that used in-class simulations and industry
engagements as part of the assessments, which usually require face-to-
face interactions and delivery. This sudden transition might have caused
an adverse impact on the effectiveness of learning and teaching activities
and, subsequently, led to a reduced student learning experience. From
higher educations’ perspective, the ultimate goal is to ensure a similar stu-
dent learning experience between online and offline settings. However,
one of the major concerns is how to provide an effective implementation
of authentic assessments during this period. Therefore, it is important to
investigate whether it is effective to implement authentic assessments in
an online learning environment and examine whether there is an increase
or decrease in student satisfaction. This chapter examines how authen-
tic assessments have been implemented in the online learning environ-
ment for two fundamental finance courses: Business Finance and Financial
Markets at RMIT University in Vietnam. The practice of online delivery of
authentic assessments in the online environment in these courses and the
associated student satisfaction serve as case studies on the effectiveness of
authentic assessments in the online space.
Literature Review
There has been a paradigm shift toward a more complex and compre-
hensive assessment of knowledge and higher-order skill (Baeten et al.,
2013; Birenbaum 2003; Shepard, 2000) and authentic assessment; the
center of this shift has attracted significant attention among educators
around the world. According to Darling-Hammond and Snyder (2000),
Palm (2008), Swaffield (2011), and Wiewiora and Kowalkiewicz (2019),
the main reasons for an increasing application of authentic assessment in
higher education are (1) dissatisfaction with multiple-choice testing, (2)
growing interest among educators to introduce alternative assessments,
and (3) the desire to equip students with not only academic knowledge
but also the ability to apply the knowledge in practical situations. Gulikers
et al. (2006) and Swaffield (2011) claim that the authenticity of authentic
assessment is based on the nature and context of the tasks whereby the
students are required to apply their knowledge to evaluate and address
real-world problems. As pointed out by Benner et al. (2009), Raymond
et al. (2013), and Villarroela et al. (2018), the authentic assessment con-
sists of realism, contextualization, and problematization when teaching
and evaluating course content. Villarroela et al. (2018) show that realism
involves connecting knowledge with life and work activities; contextual-
ization indicates situations where knowledge is applied in an analytical and
The Effectiveness of Authentic Assessments during COVID-19 71
thoughtful manner; “problematisation invokes a sense that what is learned
can be used to solve a problem or meet a need.” Therefore, the authentic-
ity of authentic assessment plays a significant role in learning and teaching
activities in higher education.
It has been well documented in the literature that assessment is the
key incentive to learning (Boud, 1990). Newman and Associates (1996)
press the importance of authentic learning and authentic assessments with
the feature of replication of real-world tasks as a strong predictor of stu-
dent achievement. As authentic assessments require students to examine
real-world tasks from multiple perspectives, students develop their skills in
presenting their solutions to an audience other than their teachers (Avery
et al., 2001). Callison and Lamb (2004) point out that authentic assess-
ment is a key component constituting authentic learning that incorporates
workplace information problems, personal information problems, and
academic information problems. In line with the beneficial attributes of
authentic assessments, Rule (2006) emphasizes the importance for stu-
dents to apply academic theories to solve real-world problems. Kearney
(2013) further points out that authentic assessments have shown their
ability to increase student engagement and enhance student learning of
critical thinking and creativity skills.
From the ontological perspective, real-world tasks from authentic
assessments create opportunities to engage and encourage students to take
a stand on the knowledge they seek, the way they act, and their ways of
being (Vu & Dall’ Alba, 2014). Authentic assessment pedagogy has been
implemented in several disciplines. For example, Raymond et al. (2013)
observe the improvement in confidence, knowledge, and skills of mid-
wifery students who participate in authentic assessments. Moreover, Wu et
al. (2015) provide insights on how authentic assessments can be embedded
in the nursing curriculum. Similarly, Chong et al. (2016) find that learning
outcomes of nursing students are enhanced when authentic assessment
pedagogy is applied in the clinical setting. Nevertheless, research on the
implementation of authentic assessment in the business program is still
limited and controversial. Farrell (2020) demonstrates how international
marketing simulations can be implemented as an authentic assessment for
marketing students. Yet the simulations do not receive students’ apprecia-
tion in the transferability of skills acquired to other domains of knowledge.
Hence, there remains a need to further investigate the effectiveness of
authentic assessments in learning and teaching in business programs, espe-
cially during the COVID-19 period.
Methodology
According to Kaarbo and Beasley (1999) and Baxter and Jack (2008),
we can examine a real-time phenomenon within its naturally occurring
context using various data sources through the case study methodology.
72 Huy Pham et al.
The methodology is used to describe real-life phenomena rather than
developing normative statements and allows researchers to concentrate
on an individual’s behavior, attributes, actions, and interactions (Brewer
& Hunter, 1989). The case study methodology should be applied when
the researcher has little control over certain events and the focus of the
study is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context
(Yin, 1994).
Following Yin (1994), we apply the case study research methodology in
this chapter. Yin (1994) shows that a case study examines a specific pres-
ent-day event or action in a bounded environment using various empirical
evidence. In addition, case study research requires detailed investigation
with empirical evidence to analyze the context and processes involved in
the phenomenon (Rashid et al., 2019). Yin (1994) also points out that
the objective of case study research is to intensively focus on a specific
case, such as individual, group, institute, or community. In this chapter,
we focus on the effects of COVID-19 on the effectiveness of authen-
tic assessments at RMIT Vietnam. Specifically, we gather the course-level
data, such as the course’s overall satisfaction index (OSI) to examine the
effectiveness of the implementation of authentic assessment. Due to the
confidentiality constraint, we can only gather the data for two courses:
Business Finance and Financial Markets at RMIT Vietnam. Hence, our
analysis is based mostly on the outcomes of these two courses.
The Implementation of Authentic Assessment before/

during COVID-19
In this section, we present the case studies of two introductory finance
courses: Financial Markets and Business Finance at RMIT University in
Vietnam. These two courses are compulsory for first-year and early sec-
ond-year students of several business programs; hence, it is important
to examine the implementation of authentic assessment in these courses
before and during COVID-19.
Business Finance
Business Finance is a fundamental course in finance whereby the students
learn basic and advanced financial mathematics, financial principles, capi-
tal budgeting, and project valuation. Authentic assessments are the foun-
dation of RMIT University’s learning and teaching activities, especially
Business Finance. In this course, all assessments are designed based on
real-world scenarios. In the first assessment, the students are required to
establish a retirement plan based on their current and estimated future
incomes. This activity requires them to utilize and apply the knowledge
from financial mathematics and financial principles to estimate how much
they have to save and invest to achieve a comfortable retirement. In the
second assessment, the students have to apply their knowledge of capital
budgeting to conduct a project valuation and make a judgment to select
a project based on their valuation, and our industry partners provide the
scenarios or offer consultation. The knowledge and feedback accumulated
in the first two assessments are used for the final assessment, whereby
we invite industry partners to present their current problems in project
valuation and capital budgeting, and the students will have to solve these
current problems in an actual company and make appropriate judgments
based on the application of their knowledge acquired from the course. We
witness a significant increase of approximately 23% in the course’s OSI
after making the transition from normal assessments to authentic assess-
ments before the COVID-19 period. When COVID-19 hit Vietnam,
RMIT University had to move to online teaching for one semester in early
2020. Business Finance is one of the few courses that can keep all authen-
tic assessments similar to the pre-COVID period. Although the course
manages to maintain the same assessments, whereby all industry partner’s
activities are organized via Microsoft Teams, the result is relatively disap-
pointing, whereby there is a decline of approximately 35% in the course’s
OSI. This result is even lower than those before authentic assessments are
implemented, which leads to the question of the effectiveness of authen-
tic assessments for the online learning and teaching environment during
COVID-19.
Financial Markets
Financial Markets is another fundamental finance course in which the
students will learn basic financial mathematics, various financial prod-
ucts and markets, and the regulation of financial markets. The authentic
assessments for this course before Covid-19 were designed broadly to be
conducted in the classroom using RMIT’s state-of-the-art financial trad-
ing lab to trade in foreign exchange (FX) and to conduct research in the
peer-reviewed journal to find out new issues that are impacting financial
markets. The first assessment is an in-class test based on real-life case sce-
narios, such as fake emails from clients or small case studies to check the
critical thinking of the students and to prepare students to be work-ready.
This assessment is a mix of calculation and problem-solving questions. It is
quite challenging during Covid-19 times to implement the new authentic
approach for the first assessment to make it a take-home assignment and
to achieve the course learning outcome to check student’s ability to dem-
onstrate an understanding of financial mathematics. During COVID-19,
we make this take-home task available for only two hours, and submis-
sions need to be done within this time. Instead of providing the same
numbers to all the students, questions were designed to ask students to
use their Student ID to get the divergent answers and do some searches
on the web to answer theoretical questions. The second assignment is
74 Huy Pham et al.
about the FX market view and dealing with session group reports using
the financial trading lab, whereby students will take the role of FX trad-
ers within their company to either raise capital in particular currencies or
to be price makers. This assessment is extremely engaging and provides
students with a hands-on experience of what they will be doing in the
finance field. During COVID-19, this assessment has been converted into
a take-home assignment by giving students only the role of price makers
and removing the use of the financial trading lab. This assignment is not
well-received by the students, as it is not very engaging since they cannot
interact with their peers and use the financial trading lab. The final assess-
ment is about writing a research paper on the contemporary issue that is
impacting the financial sector and needs the attention of various central
banks globally. To make students work-ready, this course provided the
opportunity for them to interact in person and to meet industry partners
who talk about contemporary issues in the financial sectors. It is highly
valued by our students, as they can relate the industry engagement to the
assessment that helps them to develop their research paper, and students
also get the chance to interact with the industry partners. Our results show
an increase of approximately 15% in students’ OSI when authentic assess-
ments were incorporated into the course during the pre-COVID period.
Due to COVID-19, the course manages to keep this industry interaction
by asking our industry partners to provide the narrated slides of their pre-
sentation and share their experiences with the students. However, similar
to the case of Business Finance, we observed a drop of approximately 47%
in the course’s OSI, which indicates the ineffectiveness of authentic assess-
ments in an online space.
Discussion
In these two courses, all authentic assessments are designed following the
four-step model proposed by Villarroela et al. (2018), and the effective-
ness of these authentic assessments as benchmarked by OSI was greatly
improved when the courses moved from nonauthentic assessments to
authentic assessments during the pre-COVID period. However, we
observed a decline in OSI in both courses during the semester when all
learning and teaching activities were conducted online. This finding sug-
gests that the current authentic assessment framework might not be effec-
tive in the online learning environment. In addition, we found an important
missing gap in the four-step model from Villarroela et al. (2018). The
model consists of four steps (workplace context, design assessment, judg-
ment, and feedback) and our focus is on the feedback step. In this model,
the focus of the feedback step is placed mostly on teachers and students
in the form of formative feedback, summative feedback, or sustainable
feedback. However, a higher degree of adoption of authentic assessment
has created another type of feedback, “external-formative” or “external”
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4
Graduation Profile Draft a rich context Assessment criteria Formative feedback

Work Requirements Creating a and rubrics External-
worthwhile task Engage students formative/External
Recquiring higher with criteria feedback
order skill Engage the students Summative feedback
in judgement Sustainable feedback
Figure 6.1 Modified Authentic Assessment Model.

Source: © Villarroela et al. (2018).
feedback, which is given by the industry partners who provide the context
of the authentic assessment. The external feedback is expected to play an
important role in the students’ learning process, and this type of feed-
back can further bridge the gap between the classroom and the workplace,
whereby the students can understand what they should improve to meet
the workplace standard. This new type of feedback leads to our proposal
of a modified authentic assessment model of Villarroela et al.’s (2018)
approach as follows (Figure 6.1).
Conclusions and Implications

COVID-19 has created various challenges to learning and teaching activi-
ties in higher education institutions around the globe. One of the major
challenges is the implementation of authentic assessments and its effective-
ness during this period. RMIT Vietnam has been a leader in the imple-
mentation of authentic assessments, yet the university finds it challenging
to make a transition to an online environment. Our findings suggest that
the implementation of authentic assessment leads to a significant improve-
ment in students’ overall satisfaction during the pre-COVID period.
However, the current authentic assessments seem ineffective in the online
learning environment, as our results show a significant decrease of OSI
in these courses during COVID-19. This result suggests that alternative
authentic assessments are required to fit the online learning and teach-
ing environment. Another significant implication of this chapter lies in
the proposal of the modified authentic assessment model of Villarroela
et al. (2018) whereby the “external-formative” or “external” feedback is
introduced.
Bios
Huy Pham, Ph.D., is a Lecturer in Finance at RMIT University in
Vietnam and a regular member of the American Finance Association. His
research interests are in the fields of fintech, cryptocurrencies, environ-
mental finance, asset pricing, and empirical finance.
76 Huy Pham et al.
Binh Nguyen Thanh, Ph.D., is Senior Lecturer and Program Manager
at RMIT University, Vietnam. Thanh specializes in finance, including
financial technology, blockchain, and decentralized finance, and he has
published in leading academic journals on those topics. He also regularly
provides expert articles and comments on digitalization in economics
and finance in leading regional business outlets and is a highly demanded
speaker who has presented for high-profile institutions in the region.
Thai Vu Hong Nguyen, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Head of

Department of Economics and Finance at RMTI University, Vietnam.
His research interests include monetary policies, banking performance,
financial technology, and cryptocurrencies. He worked for HSBC Bank as
a strategist before joining academia.
Upasana Jain is an Associate Lecturer in Accounting at RMIT University

in Vietnam. She is studying for a doctorate degree from the University
of Southern Queensland Australia. She is a qualified and skilled ter-
tiary lecturer with over five years’ experience in training and teaching
various accounting, finance, economics, auditing, and taxation courses.
She has over eight years’ practical experience in audit compliance, taxa-
tion, and accounting in various medium and large companies, such as
PricewaterhouseCoopers.
References
Avery, P.G., Freeman, C., Gustafson, K., Coler, J., Hardy, R., Bargainer, G., &
Jones, A. (2001). Linking authentic instruction to students’ achievement: Using
peer coaching. Evaluation report. Minneapolis Public Schools 2001 social studies
best practices grant. http://education.umn.edu/CAREI/Reports/summary.
html
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design
and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–
559. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2
Baeten, M., K. Struyven, & F. Dochy. (2013). Student-centred teaching meth-
ods: Can they optimise students’ approaches to learning in professional higher
education? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 14–22. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.11.001.
Benner, P., Sutphen, M., Leonard, V., & Day, L. (2009). Educating nurses: A
call for radical transformation. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.3928/
01484834-20120402-01
Birenbaum, M. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and their impli-
cations for assessment. In Mien Segers, Filip Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.),
Optimizing new modes of assessment. In search of qualities and standards (pp. 13–
36). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48125-1.
Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in
Higher Education, 15(1), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079012
331377621
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. SAGE
Publications.
Callison, D., & Lamb, A. (2004). Key words in instruction: Authentic learn-
ing. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 21(4), 34–39. https://eric.
ed.gov/?id=EJ720701
Chong, E. J. M., Lim, J. S. W., Liu, Y., Lau, Y. Y. L., & Wu, V. X. (2016).
Improvement of learning domains of nursing students with the use of authen-
tic assessment pedagogy in clinical practice. Nurse Education in Practice, 20,
125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2016.08.002
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching
in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5–6), 523–545. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00015-9
Farrell, C. (2020). Do international marketing simulations provide an authen-
tic assessment of learning? A student perspective. The International Journal
of Management Education, 18(1), 100362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijme.2020.100362
Gulikers, J., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Authentic assessment, student
and teacher perceptions: The practical value of the five dimensional framework.
Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 58(3), 337–357. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13636820600955443
Kaarbo, J., & Beasley, R. K. (1999). A practical guide to the comparative case study
method in political psychology. Political Psychology, 20, 369–391. https://doi.
org/10.1111/0162-895X.00149
Kearney, S. (2013). Improving engagement: The use of ‘authentic self-and peer-
assessment for learning’ to enhance the student learning experience. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(7), 875–891. https://doi.org/10.108
0/02602938.2012.751963
Larkin, T. L. (2014). The student conference: A model of authentic assessment.
International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 4(2), 36–46. https://
doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v4i2.3445
Newman, F. M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring
schools for intellectual quality. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Palm, T. (2008). Performance assessment and authentic assessment: A conceptual
analysis of the literature. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 13(4),
1–11. https://doi.org/10.7275/0qpc-ws45
Rashid, Y., Rashid, A., Warraich, M. A., Sabir, S. S., & Waseem, A. (2019). Case study
method: A step-by-step guide for business researchers. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919862424
Raymond, J. E., Homer, C. S. E., Smith, R., & Gray, J. E. (2013). Learning
through authentic assessment: An evaluation of a new development in the
undergraduate midwifery curriculum. Nurse Education in Practice, 13(5), 471–
476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2012.10.006
Rule, A.C. (2006). Editorial: The components of authentic learning. Journal of
Authentic Learning, 3(1), 1–10.
Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational
Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004
Sridharan, B., & Mustard, J. (2015). Authentic assessment methods: A practical
handbook for teaching staff [Online]. Retrieved May 16, 2017, from https://
blogs.deakin.edu.au/learning-innovations/authentic-assessment-methods-
a-practical-handbook-for-teaching-staff/.
78 Huy Pham et al.
Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433–449. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.582838
Villarroela, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018).
Authentic assessment: Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0
2602938.2017.1412396
Vu, T. T., & Dall’ Alba, G. (2014). Authentic assessment for student learning:
An ontological conceptualisation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(7),
778–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.795110
Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study. Method in eval-
uation research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 283–290. https://doi.
org/10.1177/109821409401500309
Wiewiora, A., & Kowalkiewicz, A. (2019). The role of authentic assessment in
developing authentic leadership identity and competencies. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(3), 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/0
2602938.2018.1516730
Wu, X. V., Heng, M. A., & Wang, W. (2015). Nursing students’ experiences with
the use of authentic assessment rubric and case approach in the clinical labora-
tories. Nurse Education Today, 35(4), 549–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nedt.2014.12.009
Part II
Impacts of Distance
Education on Students,
Social Inclusion, and Access
during COVID-19
7 Life in 280 Characters
Social Media, Belonging,
and Community during the
COVID-19 Pandemic
Jack Reed and Catherine Dunn
Introduction
In 2020, global higher education (HE), an inclusive term we use to
encompass HE institutions across each continent, pivoted away from face-
to-face teaching in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For nations
such as the United Kingdom, United States of America, Germany, and
Australia, this meant shifting toward remote teaching and learning, while
shortfalls in funding, a lack of technology, and limited connectivity left HE
institutions in nations such as Egypt, Brazil, and India struggling to adapt
(Crawford et al., 2020). In the immediacy of such change, the effective-
ness of remote pedagogy, the impact on student experience, and the slid-
ing scale of technological inequalities across global HE are not yet fully
understood. With such a host of intersecting issues at play, the ability of
students to develop and maintain a sense of belonging has been brought
into sharp focus. Belonging is frequently considered a defining feature of
the HE landscape (Ennals et al., 2016; Flint, 2018). Contributing to the
development and durability of learning communities, interconnected rela-
tionships and support networks, and a sense of place, a sense of belong-
ing can contribute significantly to HE’s underpinning sociocultural fabric
(Ahn & Davis, 2020; Thomas, 2012). When a sense of belonging is over-
looked in HE, negative impacts on student experience, engagement, and
retention (Masika & Jones, 2016; O’Keeffe, 2013) have been observed.
Social media is often neglected in conversations around belonging in
HE. Yet Sobaih et al. (2020) demonstrated how social media has been
used by students to build and sustain support networks and communi-
ties, and thus a sense of belonging, during the COVID-19 pandemic. In
times of crisis, social media has been shown to enhance social connected-
ness, emotional support, and access to information (Smith & Yell, 2020),
all of which contribute to a sense of belonging. Given that economically
developing countries were the context of Sobaih et al.’s (2020) findings,
the potential of social media as a tool to facilitate a sense of belonging
across global HE seems a pertinent line of inquiry. Accordingly, this chap-
ter first discusses the place and relevance of social media in HE, drawing
key information from HE and community literature, before discussing
82 Jack Reed and Catherine Dunn
the significance of a sense of belonging. We then evaluate the extent to
which social media has informed a sense of belonging across global HE
by adopting three analytical lenses (community, relationships and support,
and place) and applying them to empirical studies on social media and
COVID-19 in HE across various continents and countries. The chapter
then concludes with implications for practice and a summary on social
media, belonging, and HE during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Social Media and HE

Since its emergence in the early phases of the new millennium, social media
use has grown exponentially and is now recognized as a core global arbiter
of participatory culture, communication and connection, and marketing
and consumption (Fuchs, 2017). In 2019 alone, 288 million more people
accessed social media, which increased the total number of users to 3.48
billion (Kemp, 2019). As reported by Aichner and Jacob (2015), the term
“social media” is a hypernym, which represents 13 subcategories, includ-
ing forums, virtual worlds, blogs, business networks, and photo sharing.
Social media is inherently complex, with Carr and Hayes (2015) and Dyer
(2020) showing how no single definition has been broadly accepted in
the literature. We recognize its limitations as a term in what is now a
hypercomplex ether but acknowledge its place in the zeitgeist of the early
21st century. With that in mind, we use the term “social media” with a
degree of hesitancy. This chapter focuses specifically on platforms such as
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WeChat and videotelephony software
such as Skype and Zoom. Finn and Holton (2019) noted how the perva-
siveness of these varying forms of social media has led to the collapse of
physical distance and time between humans and is now so ingrained in our
daily lives that reality and virtual reality are becoming increasingly blurred
and hybridized. As such, danah boyd (2014) considers our physical reali-
ties to be reorganized by our interconnected cyber world with our identi-
ties, interactions, and relationships mediated by virtual extensions of our
physical spaces. boyd (2014) refers to these spaces as networked publics.
The influence of social media on HE and our online networked pub-
lics has not escaped scholarly attention. As discussed by Chugh and Ruhi
(2018), social media use in HE is continuously rising and evolving and has
established a revolutionary platform for teaching, learning, and research.
The emerging centrality of social media in global HE has also reframed
the construction of the student experience. Virtual interactions frequently
serve to cocreate physical student connection, engagement, and retention
(Berger & Wild, 2016). Yet while students and staff maintain an active
presence on social media, there is noteworthy concern regarding institu-
tional lag in the uptake of such technologies in HE. For instance, in an
Australasian study on social media use in HE, Willems et al. (2018) found
Life in 280 Characters 83
that educational digital professionals considered HE’s use of digital affor-
dances underdeveloped and lagging. With COVID-19 placing enhanced
significance on our networked publics, our virtual spaces have become pil-
lars of influence in maintaining the sociocultural connections synonymous
with working and studying in HE.
Belonging and HE
Across the global landscape of HE, the notion of belonging is considered
pertinent to student retention and engagement. Yet our understanding of
such a concept is largely rooted in face-to-face or on-campus contact and
communications, somewhat neglecting the increasingly digitized nature
of global HE. In 2012, Thomas’s report on student retention and success
across HE in the United Kingdom centralized a sense of belonging as a pri-
mary determinant of the student experience. This was similarly described
by Wilcox et al. (2005), who suggested a sense of belonging in HE relies
on the development of connections and relationships with peers through
positive social engagement and support. Interestingly, though Thomas’s
(2012) report recognizes the importance of regular contact, social envi-
ronments, and relationships, it does not explicitly state the requirement
for face-to-face contact in fostering belonging. Indeed, Pang’s (2020)
study on how Chinese students employed WeChat to maintain a sense of
belonging and peer support demonstrates a way in which social networks
can play a significant role in ensuring successful student integration and
belonging in HE.
Building on Thomas’s (2012) report, Ahn and Davis (2020) present
four primary domains of belonging in HE: academic engagement, social
engagement, personal spaces, and surroundings. Of these four domains,
they place the greatest emphasis on social engagement (which entails rela-
tionships, peer support, and community) and surroundings (which focuses
on the educational, natural, and cultural places associated with a univer-
sity). When considering the inherent complexity of these two domains, it
could easily be concluded that they are both incompatible with an entirely
digital landscape. Yet in the last decade, social media has enabled us to
blur the lines between physical and virtual spaces (Finn & Holton, 2019),
opening HE to the possibility of nurturing place connection and commu-
nity through university-led and program-specific social media.
To expand on Ahn and Davis’s (2020) domains of social engagement
and surroundings, we now introduce three key analytical lenses of belong-
ing that relate to social media in a HE landscape shaped by the COVID-
19 pandemic. These are community, relationships and support, and place.
Using these three lenses, this chapter seeks to disentangle the complexi-
ties, benefits, and pitfalls of trying to achieve a sense of belonging within
HE’s networked publics.
Community, Relationships, and Places
Community
Aligning with the perspective of Grabher and Ibert (2017), recognizing
social media as an appropriate and productive form of maintaining social
connection in HE has presented a fresh perspective on the usefulness of
online virtual interaction. Indeed, while Ahn and Davis’s (2020) findings
demonstrated the importance of face-to-face communities in facilitating
a sense of belonging, they do not rule out the potential of achieving this
online. Yet the crux of both community development and maintenance
across the global HE landscape has long relied on physical spaces and
places. With COVID-19 replacing the physical presence of community in
HE with virtual social networks, to what extent has this impacted student
community development in global HE?
Current literature provides a conceptual and empirical platform from
which we can begin to answer this question. At the foundational level, the
relationship between community, education, and social media has been
described as a unique environment where community development can
strengthen knowledge exchange and collective scholarly development
(Stephansen & Couldry, 2014). Further, Cuesta et al. (2016) identified
Facebook as a place that can promote the development of co-learning
communities in Swedish HE and, critically within the COVID-19 context,
offer a space for community support and solidarity. It is these supportive
virtual architectures that amplify the sense of togetherness and collabora-
tion that Ahn and Davis (2020) found so important to students’ sense of
belonging.
In the literature concerning social media, COVID-19, and HE,
such supportive architectures have been realized in global HE during
the COVID-19 pandemic, most notably in economically developing
countries. Sobaih et al. (2020) and Dutta (2020) both conclude that
social media has enabled powerful community development in Egyptian
and Indian HE institutions, respectively, despite a backdrop of limited
and/or problematic remote learning provision. However, we recognize
that virtual spaces cannot simply mirror the complexity of community
development and maintenance. Instead, aligning with Ricoy and Feliz’s
(2016) investigation of a Spanish HE learning community on Twitter,
we contend that social media has offered a temporary platform that has
contributed to building a sense of community across global HE during
the pandemic.
Undoubtedly, there are numerous critiques and uncertainties embed-
ded within this perspective. In an online space with billions of daily users,
Burgess’s (2006) doubtfulness on the likelihood of a single voice being
heard in these virtual spaces casts doubt over community inclusivity and
accessibility in HE. However, Dutta’s (2020) study demonstrates the
importance of social media in increasing accessibility to remote learning
and community development during COVID-19, with social media prov-
ing useful for nearly 80% of Indian students while other remote learn-
ing approaches were hampered by connectivity issues. Of course, it is
important to interpret Dutta’s (2020) findings in the context of Burgess’s
(2006); while social media may address issues around physical accessibility
to HE communities in economically developing countries, there is limited
understanding of how these communities may or may not have promoted
inclusivity of thought.
Marwick and boyd’s (2011) conception of context collapse on social
media presents another hurdle for virtual HE communities. Context
collapse recognizes that multiple communities, such as a user’s family,
friends, colleagues, and students, all inhabit the same virtual space; the
diverse physical boundaries typical of our day-to-day interactions on cam-
pus have become blended into one overarching virtual environment. How
this contextless virtual space is engaged with by any typical user from any
HE institution represents an intricate place where identity presentation
and authentic interaction are intensively negotiated and managed. Given
the evidence already linking social media exposure to mental health issues
during COVID-19 (Gao et al., 2020), navigating the pressures of context
collapse within a community situated on social media may further isolate
some students in the global HE community.
Relationships and Support

Aligning with the work of Whitchurch and Gordon (2017), we recognize
contemporary HE institutions to be underpinned by a web of entangled
local and global relationships which frame professional practice, social
integration for students and staff, and a sense of belonging at program,
school, and institutional levels. The sweeping rise of social media has
transformed how these relationships develop and endure; our physical
and virtual realities have blended to construct a hybridized institutional
arena where relationships form and are maintained. With the emergence
of COVID-19 rendering our physical HE realities ineffectual, what influ-
ence have our networked publics had during the pandemic in sustaining
high-quality, supportive relationships in global HE?
Literature concerned with the study of relationships in HE has shown
how social media can sustain high-quality relationships (Clark et al., 2017).
In Australia, McCarthy’s (2010) study of 120 design students observed
that 82% of same-culture participants employed Facebook to develop
social relationships throughout their course, while in Germany, Kapidzic’s
(2019) research indicated that academics draw on social media platforms
for professional collaborations and engaging with others. Importantly,
Dutta (2020) further found that social media provided foundational con-
nectivity between students and teachers in India during the pandemic
and provided technologically disadvantaged students opportunities to
participate in remote learning. In Egypt, Sobaih et al. (2020) concluded
that social media was fundamental in building the student-staff relation-
ships required in an effective online learning environment.
It seems that social media has facilitated the development of relationships
and peer support across HE institutions globally during the COVID-19
pandemic, something that Ahn and Davis (2020) consider fundamental
to a sense of belonging. However, that is not to assume that these virtual
spaces have translated every complexity of HE relationships during the
pandemic. The critical nature of on-campus interaction in the develop-
ment and maintenance of relationships alongside social and academic sup-
port cannot be overlooked. For instance, we have observed institutions
across the globe using their social media channels to post visual reminders
of relationships formed on-campus, but it is not yet understood whether
the rich and visceral nature of relationships formed in person can be simu-
lated through engagement in the virtual space.
What remains unclear for global HE is whether the cessation of physical
interactions during the pandemic has negatively affected personal social
integration throughout university communities. This is further com-
pounded when acknowledging digital accessibility and engagement as
potential sites of social exclusion. While emerging literature from Egypt
and India suggests that social media has enhanced social inclusion in HE
during the pandemic (Dutta, 2020; Sobaih et al., 2020), digital acces-
sibility has impacted students across global HE (Crawford et al., 2020).
Further, Kapidzic (2019) noted that relationship initiation and manage-
ment on social media in HE is dependent on a user’s anticipated techno-
logical competence, which Dutta (2020) found to affect some students
in India. Jordan and Weller (2018) also found that academic reluctance
to engage with social media can be based on insufficient digital literacy.
Thus, it is not yet fully understood how students’ relationships and sup-
port networks with peers and staff may have suffered at the hands of the
digital divide during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Places
In 1999, Sullivan argued that the success of an institution is rooted in
its ability to sustain direction and purpose during times of crisis. Despite
its age, Sullivan’s (1999) argument seems increasingly relevant in a HE
landscape fundamentally reshaped by COVID-19. In their discussion on
belonging, Ahn and Davis (2020) introduce the concept of surroundings
as a key mediator of the student experience. Importantly, they place signif-
icant emphasis on the cultural, emotional, and physical place attachments
to an institution (and the community in which it sits) that impact a sense
of belonging. Given the notable absence of literature in this area, it seems
pertinent to ask what role has social media played in maintaining a sense
of place during the COVID-19 pandemic?
In response to COVID-19, many HE institutions have taken to social
media to maintain open communications with students and staff, respond
to pressing sociocultural issues, shift on-campus life online, and provide
direct engagement relating to student welfare. Rather than operating as
a new realm of HE, social media has become a continuation of global
institutions, allowing students and staff to attain an “on-campus” feel
through networked publics on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WeChat
and through various forms of telephonic software. Universities the world
over have used Instagram’s stories feature to bring familiar images of
campus courtyards and lecture theaters to students, neatly packaging the
chronology of a regular day of #universitylife. This may have facilitated
the maintenance of a physical place attachment during the COVID-19
pandemic. Further, there is an increased willingness from universities to
engage in sociocultural issues on Twitter, specifically in relation to social
fallout from COVID-19. Such engagement appears to fulfill the cultural
aspect of place attachment by representing a university’s complex under-
standing of prominent social issues. However, as Fairnloye et al. (2020)
contend, African universities have not yet developed the comprehensive
social media communication strategies that are so prevalent in economi-
cally developed nations. Therefore, such HE institutions may have strug-
gled to translate the cultural and physical elements of place attachment
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The emotional aspect of Ahn and Davis’s (2020) understanding of a
sense of place is perhaps the most elusive across global HE when it comes
to social media. As discussed in the relationships section, the visceral
nature of an emotional place attachment is often diluted in the online
space. That is not to say that emotional engagement cannot be achieved.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a notable trend in uni-
versities posting powerfully affective films on Facebook, often featuring
cinematic music, striking university architecture, and a blue-sky optimism,
which belies the global health crisis. Such films seem designed to galvanize
a student community whose sense of place may have waned during the
pandemic. Yet to many students, such films may not paint a recognizable
picture of their HE experiences. Their campus may not be included; their
social venues may not be visible; there may be no sense of collective student
voice; the optimistic tone may seem to neglect empathy. This highlights
one of the primary dangers of relying solely on social media to maintain
institutional place attachments; social media, such as Facebook, structur-
ally promotes emotionally driven, provocative content (Vaidhyanathan,
2018), which risks alienating a large portion of the student population.
Interestingly, it is worth noting the parallels between the online stu-
dent experience during the COVID-19 pandemic and the primarily online
connection alumni often maintain with their university. In their explora-
tion of persistent alumni engagement, Peruta and Helm (2018) found in
the United States that university Facebook pages that demonstrated pride
points (content inciting institutional pride), relevance, unifying imagery,
and nostalgia were likely to provoke deep emotional engagement from
alumni and ultimately encourage them to donate money. Indeed, by
actively maintaining a sense of identity in the student population, this four-
point framework perhaps illustrates a more effective approach to maintain-
ing emotional place attachments through social media. Thus, a focus on
collective identity, as opposed to emotionally charged, alienating content,
could unlock the final aspect of Ahn and Davis’s (2020) understanding
of institutional place attachment, allowing HE to flourish as a networked
public beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
Implications
Having considered the impact of social media on a sense of belonging in
global HE during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear that there are signifi-
cant implications for students, staff, and institutions. Returning to Ahn and
Davis’s (2020) paper on belonging in HE, they concluded that students’ sense
of belonging informs a sense of homeliness at a university. But can a placeless
networked public on social media really feel like home? If those who study
and work in HE have become displaced from what are often familiar and safe
institutional environments, we cannot rely on our virtual architectures alone
to stem feelings of social isolation and institutional detachment. If students
are no longer feeling “at home,” then the impact on mental health must
be carefully and sensitively considered. For instance, Torales et al.’s (2020)
work on global mental health as a result of COVID-19 presents outcomes
from studies considering mental health during previous societal lockdown
scenarios. It becomes clear that stress, anxiety, depression, and insomnia can
increase during periods of physical isolation. Further, Torales et al. (2020)
discuss how some circumstances can exacerbate these issues, which include
persistent social media engagement and reduced socioeconomic status.
The long-term impact of reliance on social media to maintain a sense of
belonging across global HE is a step into the unknown. What this chapter
has unpacked is the problem that arises when networked publics are the sole
avenue for achieving a sense of belonging; the virtual space cannot repli-
cate the complexity and visceral nature of on-campus communities, rela-
tionships, and place attachments. Further, while early research suggests
economically developing countries are adopting social media successfully
as a means of maintaining HE relationships and communities, it is not
yet fully understood whether this is a consistent experience across the HE
landscape. What is clear, however, is that by removing the physical param-
eters of space and time, social media can temporarily sustain and maintain a
sense of belonging during times of crisis. So, in an uncertain future where
international, national, and regional pandemic lockdowns may increase
in frequency and virtual shifts may occur, global institutions will require
comprehensively planned virtual strategies. For example, one such strategy
may be the deployment of virtual support architectures, which permeate
the networked publics both students and staff engage with, offering sup-
port, a sense of belonging, and a safe “home” for everyone. As Fairnloye
et al. (2020) contend, such comprehensive social media communications
strategies have not yet been realized in many countries and contexts, so
the global HE community must support one another to ensure no HE
institution gets left behind.
Conclusion
At the beginning of this chapter, we asked how social media has influenced
a sense of belonging across the spectrum of global HE. As we have out-
lined, our networked publics have not only entangled, sustained, and influ-
enced HE during the COVID-19 pandemic but have become so critical in
our day-to-day interactions that they have provided a temporary sense of
belonging; this is especially relevant in economically developing countries
where access to remote learning has been limited and problematic. By
exploring the outcomes of Thomas’s (2012) report and Ahn and Davis’s
(2020) study, we evaluated belonging in global HE during the pandemic
through community, relationships, and place attachments. In doing so, we
argue that social media alone can develop, sustain, and maintain a sense of
belonging in times of crisis but acknowledge its inability to replicate the
visceral nature of belonging felt physically on-campus.
With many institutions considering a progression to blended teaching
models, where teaching and learning provision are both on campus and
online, social media will continue to play a central role in whether a uni-
versity can maintain a sense of social, cultural, and academic connection
in the 2021/2022 academic year and beyond. In developed countries, it
is likely that a hybridized physical and virtual reality will characterize most
student and staff interactions. For economically developing countries,
there may be greater reliance on social media to supplement limited access
to remote learning. To what extent both of these pathways nurture a long-
term sense of belonging and continued student retention remains unclear.
However, the report from Thomas (2012) indicates that our social net-
works can provide much-needed points of contact for this to materialize. If
able to navigate complex matters around mental health, access to remote
learning, and collapsing contexts, global HE could benefit from networked
publics which supplement a sense of belonging and provide platforms for
community development across the spectrum of global HE institutions.
Bios
Jack Reed is a Ph.D. candidate at the Moray House School of Education
and Sport, University of Edinburgh, where he investigates the extent
to which mobile devices and social media influence residential outdoor
learning experiences for young people. Jack has coordinated research in
digital-based learning, learning communities, and the effectiveness of
adventure pedagogy on the transfer of learning. His research interests
include identity in the networked space, place-based education, learning
communities, and outdoor and environmental education.
Catherine Dunn is a Research Associate at the Moray House School

of Education and Sport, University of Edinburgh. Her current work is
centered on the development of a living database of outdoor spaces and
places used for outdoor learning across the university. Her research inter-
ests include girls’ experience of sport and the outdoors and the use of film
in education. Catherine has been a filmmaker for over a decade, and her
work primarily focuses on sustainability, sport and inclusivity, and diversity
in the outdoors. Her most recent feature-length documentary has been
screened at international film festivals.
References
Ahn, M., & Davis, H. (2020). Four domains of students’ sense of belonging to
university. Studies in Higher Education, 45(3), 622–634. https://doi.org/10.1
080/03075079.2018.1564902
Aichner, T., & Jacob, F. (2015). Measuring the degree of corporate social media
use. International Journal of Market Research, 57(2), 257–276. https://doi.
org/10.2501/IJMR-2015-018
Berger, D., & Wild, C. (2016). Turned on, tuned in, but not dropped out:
Enhancing the student experience with popular social media platforms. European
Journal of Law and Technology, 7(1), 1–14.
boyd, d. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University
Press.
Burgess, J. (2006). Hearing ordinary voices: Cultural studies, vernacular cre-
ativity and digital storytelling. Continuum, 20(2), 201–214. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10304310600641737
Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social media: Defining, developing, and divin-
ing. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.10
80/15456870.2015.972282
Chugh, R., & Ruhi, U. (2018). Social media in higher education: A literature
review of Facebook. Education and Information Technologies, 23(2), 605–616.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9621-2
Clark, M., Fine, M. B., & Scheuer, C. L. (2017). Relationship quality in higher
education marketing: The role of social media engagement. Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education, 27(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.20
16.1269036
Burton, R., Magni, P. A., & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher
& Teaching, 3(1), 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7
Cuesta, M., Eklund, M., Rydin, I., & Witt, A. K. (2016). Using Facebook as a
co-learning community in higher education. Learning, Media and Technology,
41(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064952
Dutta, A. (2020). Impact of digital social media on Indian higher education:
Alternative approaches of online learning during COVID-19 pandemic crisis.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 10(5), 604–611.
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.10.05.2020.p10169
Dyer, H. T. (2020). Designing the social: Unpacking social media design and iden-
tity. Springer Nature.
Ennals, P., Fortune, T., Williams, A., & D'Cruz, K. (2016). Shifting occupa-
tional identity: Doing, being, becoming and belonging in the academy. Higher
Education Research & Development, 35(3), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.108
0/07294360.2015.1107884
Fairnloye, T., Wayne, T., Mogaji E., & Watat, J. K. (2020). Social media for
universities’ strategic communication. In E. Mogaji, F. Maringe, & R. E.
Hinson (Eds.), Strategic marketing of higher education in Africa (pp. 96–115).
Routledge.
Finn, K., & Holton, M. (2019). Everyday mobile belonging: Theorising higher edu-
cation student mobilities. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Flint, M. A. (2018). Co-implicated disruptions: Narratives of belonging in higher
education. International Review of Qualitative Research, 11(2), 210–230.
https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2018.11.2.210
Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Gao, J., Zheng, P., Jia, Y., Chen, H., Mao, Y., Chen, S., Wang, Y., Fu, H., &
Dai, J. (2020). Mental health problems and social media exposure during
COVID-19 outbreak. Plos One, 15(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0231924
Grabher, G., & Ibert, O. (2017). Knowledge collaboration in hybrid virtual com-
munities. In H. Bathelt, P. Cohendet, S. Henn & L. Simon (Eds.), The Elgar
companion to innovation and knowledge creation (pp. 537–555). Edward Elgar
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782548522.00044
Jordan, K., & Weller, M. (2018). Academics and social networking sites: Benefits,
problems and tensions in professional engagement with online network-
ing. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2018(1), 1–9. https://doi.
org/10.5334/jime.448
Kapidzic, S. (2019). The social academic: A social capital approach to academic rela-
tionship management on social media. Information, Communication & Society,
23(11), 1673–1688. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1610472
Kemp, S. (2019, January 30). Digital 2019: Global Internet use accelerates. https://
wearesocial.com/blog/2019/01/digital-2019-global-internet-use-accelerates
Marwick, A., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter
users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1),
114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313
Masika, R., & Jones, J. (2016). Building student belonging and engagement:
Insights into higher education students’ experiences of participating and learn-
ing together. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(2), 138–150. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13562517.2015.1122585
McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social networking
sites to enhance the first year experience. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 26(6), 729–740. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1039
O'Keeffe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College
Student Journal, 47(4), 605–613.
Pang, H. (2020). Examining associations between university students’ mobile
social media use, online self-presentation, social support and sense of belong-
ing. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 72(3), 321–338. https://doi.
org/10.1108/AJIM-08-2019-0202
Peruta, A., & Helm, C. (2018). University Facebook pages: Engaging the alumni
community in the digital era. Journal of Social Media in Society, 7(1), 123–150.
Ricoy, M. C., & Feliz, T. (2016). Twitter as a learning community in higher edu-
cation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 237–248.
Smith, N., & Yell, S. (2020). The dynamics of place-based virtual communi-
ties: Social media in a region in transition. In A. Campbell, M. Duffy & B.
Edmondson (Eds.), Located research (pp. 203–222). Palgrave Macmillan.
Sobaih, A. E. E., Hasanein, A. M., & Abu Elnasr, A. E. (2020). Responses to
COVID-19 in higher education: Social media usage for sustaining formal aca-
demic communication in developing countries. Sustainability, 12(16), 6520.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166520
Stephansen, H. C., & Couldry, N. (2014). Understanding micro-processes of
community building and mutual learning on Twitter: A ‘small data’ approach.
Information, Communication & Society, 17(10), 1212–1227. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1369118X.2014.902984
Sullivan, W. M. (1999). The university as citizen: Institutional identity and social
responsibility. The Civic Arts Review, 16(1), 1–14.
Thomas, L. (2012). Building student engagement and belonging in higher educa-
tion at a time of change. Paul Hamlyn Foundation, 100, 1–99.
Torales, J., O’Higgins, M., Castaldelli-Maia, J. M., & Ventriglio, A. (2020). The
outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact on global mental health.
International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 66(4), 317–320. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0020764020915212
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Antisocial media: How Facebook disconnects us and
undermines democracy. Oxford University Press.
Whitchurch, C., & Gordon, G. (2017). Reconstructing relationships in higher edu-
cation: Challenging agendas. Routledge.
Wilcox, P., Winn, S., & Fyvie-Gauld, M. (2005). “It was nothing to do with the
university, it was just the people”: The role of social support in the first-year
experience of higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(6), 707–722.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500340036
Willems, J., Adachi, C., Bussey, F., Doherty, I., & Huijser, H. (2018). Debating
the use of social media in higher education in Australasia: Where are we now?
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 135–149. https://doi.
org/10.14742/ajet.3843
8 “The Course Is No Longer
Great”
The Need for Socially
Meaningful Online Instruction
for International Students
Vander Tavares
Introduction
In mid-March of 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared
the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to be a global pandemic (WHO,
2020). In response, colleges and universities in Canada promptly switched
the modality of classroom instruction from face-to-face to online. Despite
the lack of sufficient time to adequately transition to online instruction
mid-semester, the resolution made by higher education institutions to
proceed remotely was generally welcomed, as physical distancing and iso-
lation have been considered key strategies to help reduce the spread of
the novel virus among the community (Government of Canada, 2020).
This decision was particularly significant for international students, who
oftentimes do not have the same familial or social support mechanisms in
place in their host communities when dealing with adversity (Sawir et al.,
2008; Sherry et al., 2010).
However, the face-to-face classroom experience plays a complex role
in meeting many of the needs of international students. As the majority
of international students in Canada are multilingual students who speak
English as an additional language (CBIE, 2020), the classroom can func-
tion as a dynamic and productive space where academic and vernacular
registers of the English language may be acquired and practiced natural-
istically (Sato & Ballinger, 2016). Furthermore, naturalistic interpersonal
interaction allows students, both international and domestic, to expand
their social circles and potentially develop new friendships, in addition to
participating in cross-cultural learning (Belford, 2017). In spite of such
significance and complexity, emergent studies examining the online learn-
ing experience of students in higher education in light of the coronavirus
pandemic have focused primarily on the potential of technology to facili-
tate the continuity of instruction (e.g., Daniel, 2020; Schultz & DeMers,
2020) or on the impact of the pandemic on student mental health (e.g.,
Cao et al., 2020; Husky et al., 2020).
94 Vander Tavares
Studies exploring the experiences of students with online learning
during the pandemic have illustrated the significance students generally
assign to classroom-based social interaction. In their study, Perets et al.
(2020) explained that students “noted the importance of more interaction
between the instructor and students after the transition to a virtual set-
ting” and that students “desired more group work” on the virtual meet-
ing platform (p. 2444) considering the structured nature of interaction
characteristic of virtual instruction. Adnan and Anwar (2020) found that
virtual classes posed unexpected challenges for some students in relation
to coordinating and completing group work online. Similarly, Naji et al.
(2020) found that putting more effort into team building in the tradi-
tional classroom prior to the switch to online learning could have made a
difference to the students’ virtual interactional experiences.
Within this body of literature, considerably less research has been car-
ried out to understand international students’ experiences in particular.
Novikov (2020) provided some insight into the potential barrier that
online instruction can create for international students who are learning
in a foreign language. For instance, the loss of naturalistic face-to-face
conversations led some students to feel concerned about their foreign lan-
guage skills development. One student mentioned wanting “to return to
the classroom and talk with the participants to check for errors” (p. 290)
because peer interaction that is dynamic fosters opportunities to clarify
linguistic misunderstandings. Therefore, it remains necessary to further
examine how and if online teaching affords international students com-
parable opportunities to feel socially satisfied with experiences that take
place traditionally within the physical classroom but that are nonetheless
unrelated to academic learning.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore the multilingual international
student experience in the context of an undergraduate course at a large
Canadian university. Such an exploration is guided by the following ques-
tion: How can the switch to online learning in response to the COVID-19
pandemic impact the perceptions and experiences of multilingual interna-
tional students around social interaction? Drawing on the methodology of
teacher research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), I investigate the ways in
which the move to online teaching impacted the course dynamics for me
as the instructor and the 11 multilingual international students enrolled in
a Humanities course in the winter term of 2020. Prior to explaining the
design of this investigation and presenting the findings, I critically discuss
the multifaceted meaning and value of social interaction, including within
the classroom, for multilingual international students. Moreover, I focus
on the need to humanize online teaching in higher education, especially
for those learning in an additional language, in a time when technology
continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace. I conclude the chapter
with reflections and recommendations whose relevance transcends the
immediate context of the coronavirus pandemic into global scholarship
“The Course Is No Longer Great” 95
as universities continue to invest in the expansion of online education.
Consequently, the need to ethically conceptualize online education with
the multilingual international student in mind should be a continuous and
long-term goal for institutions of higher education.
Higher education fulfulls multiple purposes for international
and domestic students alike. Particularly for international students in
the Canadian context, however, who exceeded 498,000 by the end of
2019 (CBIE, 2020), studying at a Canadian college or university is a
high-stakes and long-term financial and sociocultural investment. Further
to developing expertise in their academic field, a large number of inter-
national students in Canada plan to gain Canadian-based work experi-
ence postgraduation and to remain in the country permanently (CBIE,
2018). To attain the latter, many international students go through the
Canadian Experience Class program, designed as a pathway for those with
higher-level work experience in Canada (Government of Canada, 2020).
A Canadian academic degree is thus a means through which interna-
tional students may access relevant work opportunities toward permanent
immigration.
Embedded in academic study are opportunities for multilingual inter-
national students to learn and use the English language naturalistically.
Research has shown that the vast majority of multilingual international
students initially encounter difficulties with the academic register of
English, despite passing entrance language proficiency examinations
(Hung & Hyun, 2010; Martirosyan et al., 2015). The academic classroom
is a distinctively constructive site for additional language development, for
it presents international students with various opportunities to engage in
conversational interaction with their peers and instructors in connection
with their subject matter (Tavares, 2019). In turn, peer interaction con-
stitutes a sociolinguistic space in which identities can be constructed and
enacted. Linguistic and identity development are also a part and a product
of the university or college student experience.
Finally, international students also draw upon the higher education expe-
rience to expand their social networks. A sense of community is important
for international students’ well-being and adjustment (Arthur, 2017).
However, linguistic, cultural, and interpersonal differences can seriously
impact the social experiences of international students with their domestic
peers (Tavares, 2016). A strong social network can help support inter-
national students emotionally, culturally, and academically (Sawir et al.,
2008) as they navigate their journey in the new community. Institutions
of higher education have been called on to participate more intently in
this dimension of the international student experience by creating better
opportunities for socialization between international and domestic stu-
dents (Ammigan, 2019). Instructors can also contribute to this experience
by designing structured interactive activities between students (Tavares,
2020).
96 Vander Tavares
Social Interaction and Online Teaching
Online teaching has grown substantially in higher education over the
last decade. Whether online teaching is implemented fully or partially to
“blend” it with face-to-face instruction, the need for students to experience
meaningful social interaction online remains at the forefront. However,
despite the intrinsic desire to support their students, many instructors
require adequate training and knowledge to be able to teach effectively
online, which includes not only the presentation of content, but also the
ability to engage diverse groups of students in learning. As Kilgour et al.
(2019) have explained, teaching online requires “shifts that are both onto-
logical and epistemological” and deep engagement with both technology
and pedagogy (p. 1427).
Online teaching may be even more challenging when teaching multi-
lingual international students, whose needs and expectations often differ
relative to their domestic peers. As Lawrence (2014) has argued, “Unless
social interaction and social presence are methodically cultivated…there are
often reduced opportunities for interaction, learning, feedback, technical
support that result in disengagement” (p. 129). However, disengagement
with learning is not always the product of the absence of social inter-
action alone. Other potential factors include students’ attitudes toward
technology and online learning, digital literacy on the part of students
and instructors, reliable access to the Internet, and equally important, a
sense of community, built and maintained by all participating members
(Lawrence, 2014).
Fostering social interaction online requires instructors to perform the
dual role of instructor-participant and to possess both practical and research
knowledge of technology-based teaching. Hence the need for online teach-
ing to be adequately conceptualized with a student-centered pedagogy and
continuously evaluated with feedback from students (Lawrence, 2014). A
mandate to move from face-to-face to online instruction abruptly, like that
in response to the pandemic, can pose unexpected challenges to instruc-
tors as they attempt to promote social interaction online. The challenge
to humanize online teaching can become even more pronounced upon
a switch in delivery mode when social interaction is already weak in the
face-to-face classroom. In an investigation by Lawrence et al. (2013),
one instructor spoke of how many multilingual students “feel isolated
to begin with,” and with online teaching, “you’re isolating them more
because they’re not making friends, they’re not meeting people and this
just increases their isolation” (p. 101).
When teaching in such contexts wherein international students’ social
and linguistic needs are complex, emotions also influence the manner
with which instructors approach online instruction. Naylor and Nyanjom
(2020) maintain that instructors’ “intrinsic beliefs, values, and relation-
ships with students are deeply connected” (p. 3) but that changing the
mode of instruction “has the potential to disrupt these deep and per-
sonal connections,” resulting in increased emotional responses in instruc-
tors, which, consequently, make teaching even more challenging. Positive
emotions are important, as they can influence instructors to consider new
strategies to interact with students and to help them succeed in the online
environment (Bennett, 2014; Naylor & Nyanjom, 2020). An empathic
style to teaching multilingual international students becomes even more
critical when teaching online and under atypical circumstances. For empa-
thy to make a difference, Jordan and Schwartz (2018) argue that “the
student must sense that the professor has been touched, impacted, or
influenced, even slightly, by the student’s situation” (p. 27). When doing
so, students are likely to feel less alone and to experience deeper connec-
tions with their instructors.
The significance of a strong sense of community to meaningful social
interaction for multilingual international students in online environments
cannot be overstated. In order to achieve a sense of community, Lawrence
(2014) suggests that “opportunities for spontaneous interaction are also
crucial in group bonding” (p. 132), in addition to interpersonal con-
tact, which stems from group work. Multilingual students may feel more
motivated to participate in their learning environments if their relation-
ships with their peers are characterized by quality and familiarity, and if
group cohesion is present (Dörnyei, 2007; Sailsman, 2020; Sailsman et al.,
2018). Unstructured face-to-face interactions that occur within the physi-
cal classroom contribute majorly to bringing a group together. However,
replicating this experience digitally is often difficult unless thoughtfully
devised opportunities are present.
Research Design
The investigation presented in this chapter was designed through the meth-
odological framework of teacher research (Lankshear & Knobel, 2004).
As the name suggests, teacher research is a form of inquiry carried out by
teachers into their own teaching. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) explain
that such research is characterized by “systematic, international, and self-
critical inquiry about one’s work” (p. 22), whose findings foster individual
reflection but often also extend beyond into scholarly dissemination. Borg
(2006) points out that, by engaging in teacher research, teachers can make
“justified pedagogical decisions informed by sound research evidence” (p.
22). One of the benefits of teacher research is the opportunity to examine
events, processes, and experiences within the classroom context and then
analyze them carefully before changes are implemented (Borg, 2006).
Thus, researching and reflecting on teaching and learning go hand-in-
hand and constitute a single, cyclical, and continuous activity.
The institution under consideration is a large, research-oriented univer-
sity in southern Ontario, Canada. “Southern Ontario University” (SOU,
98 Vander Tavares
pseudonym) is known locally for its multilingual and multicultural student
population. As of 2019, approximately 50,000 students, undergraduate
and graduate combined, attended the university. Figures from its website
showed that over 6,000 international students from over 150 countries
studied at SOU in 2019. The institution also held exchange agreements
with over 80 international partner universities. During the winter of 2020
(i.e., January to April), I taught a Humanities course that introduced stu-
dents to present-day Canadian culture from critical perspectives. All 11
students were multilingual international students – eight were from China
and the others from Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan. Only one student was a
first-year student; the others were at different stages in their academic
programs, from first to fourth year. All Chinese students were enrolled in
business and economics programs. Other programs included kinesiology,
computer science, and general social sciences.
The class met twice a week for a total of six hours weekly and relied
substantially on social interaction as a process and product of learning.
In-class, project-based pair and group work required students to research,
write, and present information on a weekly basis. In addition to having
a pedagogical goal, these collaborative activities afforded students the
chance to get to know one another on a more personal level. Moreover,
class discussions, led by the instructor or students themselves, allowed
students to learn from one another on a number of critical topics related
to Canadian culture and society, such as immigration, colonization, and
multiculturalism, among others. Students frequently contributed to these
discussions by speaking from personal experience and perception. As a
result, a sense of affinity and openness gradually characterized the class-
room environment.
Data collection in teacher research is normally integrated into the
teacher’s everyday practice. Borg (2014) outlines a variety of strategies
available to teacher-researchers and posits that any strategies should be
selected in accordance with the question guiding the inquiry. In the pres-
ent investigation, I was concerned with how the move to online teaching
affected the classroom dynamics in terms of social interaction and satisfac-
tion. Accordingly, I gathered data from three sources: my teacher journal,
classroom observations, and discussion with students. Teacher journals
have been studied for decades, as they afford researchers insight into a
teacher’s experience, knowledge, and beliefs (Francis, 1995). My teacher
journal contained reflections on a wide array of teaching-related matters,
which I tended to write after each class. Some reflections were long while
others brief; they were dynamically on par with how much activity and
interaction unfolded in each class. In the end, I explored 20 pages of my
teacher journal, roughly one page per class. Exploring the journal entries
(Bowen, 2009) entailed noting relevant information that relates to the
guiding question of the research.
Conversely, classroom observations were more focused on student
engagement. From the beginning of the term, I began observing a num-
ber of possible factors that could and might have influenced student
engagement. These included the physical setup of the classroom and the
arrangement of groups to the kind of activity in place and the number of
students present in class. I observed classroom activity every time we met
as a class, and some of these were later logged in writing in my teacher
journal. Such an approach to observation may be classified as descriptive
in nature, in which the teacher-researcher does not select specific events to
observe, but rather initially considers everything within the environment
under consideration (Angrosino & Mays de Pérez, 2000). Observations
were recorded as unstructured entries, which did not follow preset criteria.
Lastly, discussion with the students played a central role in my under-
standing of their social and academic experiences (Kim & Sax, 2017). These
were informal conversations, mostly had at the beginning of class when I
would allocate time to check in with students or during the breaks in the
hallways. Some of the discussions were initiated by the students themselves,
whether in private or in the group. Normally, discussions flowed out of
concerns students had with respect to the course, such as in asking for clari-
fication on an upcoming assignment, or out of personal experiences they
had outside the course. In my teacher journal, I also made reference to the
questions and concerns that students expressed during the conversations.
Discussions moved to Zoom once the course switched to online delivery.
Writing out observation notes in my journal was a process of analy-
sis in itself. As Emerson (1988) has explained, what gets reported from
observations, including in what length and order, is not chosen randomly
– “description is necessarily analytic” (p. 20). The data from the teacher
journal and the classroom discussions were analyzed thematically (Creswell,
2013). I looked for themes in my journal entries by writing key words
in the margins and organized the emerging themes under broader pre-
defined categories, such as community, interaction, language, and instruc-
tion. Analysis of content discussed in the conversations with students was
also approached similarly. On the notes I had taken, I highlighted some of
the key words or phrases voiced by the students in their questions or com-
ments to identify specific themes within my written notes. Working with
themes and categories helped reduce the amount of data (Gibbs, 2007)
before triangulating it. Triangulation helped rank identical categories from
all sources of data in terms of prominence.
Findings
In the winter of 2020, 11 multilingual international students signed up for a
face-to-face Humanities course focused on Canadian culture. The primary
objective of the course was to introduce critical perspectives on Canada,
100 Vander Tavares
while the secondary entailed the development of multilingual students’
academic language skills. Social interaction was therefore indispensable to
help students acquire both academic and linguistic knowledge. Classroom
discussions sought to juxtapose the students’ lived experiences as trans-
nationals in Canada with those presented in the course readings, most of
which were advocated by First Nations or immigrant authors to Canada.
Simultaneously, conversational peer interaction, particularly through pair
and group work, was the means through which students could further
develop their academic and English language skills. However, the poten-
tial of social interaction for the co-construction of academic and linguistic
knowledge was contingent on the development of an intimate and harmo-
nious classroom environment.
The process of socializing ourselves into a community was far from easy
as we navigated (and celebrated) many linguistic, cultural, and individual
differences. Nevertheless, the process felt like a productive one, as it was
founded on mutual trust, respect, and understanding. During the class
meeting prior to the winter break, I asked the students for their general
feedback on the course. One student opted to share it orally rather than
anonymously in writing, as I had originally requested. She stated that the
class environment was very pleasant and comfortable and that our course
was the only one within her program where she felt she could and wanted
to talk. She complemented that by saying she actually enjoyed coming to
class. Other students took advantage of the impromptu open discussion
and shared that they were learning “a lot from everyone” and that the
classroom environment was “relaxed and fun.”
In my view, it was significant that one student’s disposition to provide
feedback orally and openly encouraged others to feel comfortable enough
to do the same. This collective act spoke to the sense of community we
enjoyed prior to the pandemic. Still, on that same day of class, I explained
to the students that we would possibly not be returning to the physical
classroom after the winter break. The university had been working out a
plan in response to the coronavirus pandemic, which was now a nation-
wide concern. Indeed, a few days later, the official news came into every-
one’s email: all classes at SOU were to be resumed online following the
winter break. I spent the next few days crafting a plan for the remainder of
the course. All learning activities were moved to the online learning plat-
form, while the meetings were to be held virtually over Zoom.
To my great surprise, the very first time the class met online felt as if I
were working with a completely new group of students. Once I logged
into the virtual classroom on Zoom, everyone was already there, but only
three students had their cameras turned on. Of course, there might have
been other factors behind keeping one’s camera off, but such reticent
behavior was accompanied by a distrusting kind of silence I had never
experienced in the classroom before. When I asked questions about the
content, some of the students would turn to the chat panel on Zoom
and answer my questions in there instead. This experience was repeated
in the second online class. The online platform singled out participation,
thus making us more exposed to and aware of our own voices and faces in
this computerized space. I realized I was not the only one affected by the
impersonal climate of the new modality when one student messaged me
privately on Zoom during a lecture, saying, “Professor, I think you should
make everyone turn their cameras on.”
A heightened awareness of our own embodied existence in the virtual
environment brought about feelings of fear and resistance in the students.
Learning online meant feeling vulnerable, analogous to the first day of class
where first impressions mattered. Yet, unlike that experience, we lacked
sufficient time to sequentially overcome vulnerability in partnership while
learning online. Switching to online instruction mid-semester required us
to direct our energy and attention toward the content so that the remain-
der of the course could be completed successfully. Besides, the students
had previously acquired likely little or no formal knowledge about how
to learn online. Within such a challenging context, it was necessary to feel
with the students – to empathize with them about feeling disappointed
and uncertain with respect to online learning while simultaneously facing
a pandemic alone, physically isolated from family and from the classroom
where a sense of community had been consistently experienced.
Indeed, my first concern was that the human connection previously
experienced in the physical classroom could not be reproduced or felt
meaningfully online. For the remainder of the course, conversational
interactions had become mechanized – the lack of a physical organization,
mediated before by our desks within the material space of the classroom,
created a flat, one-dimensional experience on the screen. We were side
by side but only in small squares on the screen, most of which only had
pictures or cartoons rather than a live feed. We had been used to jumping
into a discussion to respond to one another’s comments in the physical
classroom, but now I had to call on students by name to hear them par-
ticipating: What do you think? Language was used in a more controlled
fashion: I would ask a question to a particular student, they would unmute
their microphone, answer the question, and mute it again immediately
after. Language-related mistakes became more audible and saying less
could help students avoid making them.
Second, I worried that the group identity we had built gradually and
collaboratively had not survived the switch to online teaching. This meant
that the personal identification with learning we each developed on the
basis of shared values and experiences could have been missing. Without
a collective identity, learning could translate into an isolating and isolated
experience. Teaching and learning online brought the very structure to
our group dynamics which we had worked to remove. One of the Chinese
students from the economics program, who had always participated
actively before, emailed me one afternoon to express his dissatisfaction
102 Vander Tavares
with the learning experience online. “How come the course is no longer
great?” was his honest question to me. His question led me to write this
chapter as I reflected on the criticality of face-to-face learning for multilin-
gual international students.
Discussion and Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed far-reaching consequences for inter-
national students in higher education. Research continues to shed light on
how this global event has affected the lived and hoped-for experiences of
international students worldwide. This chapter explored the ways in which
the switch to online teaching impacted the experiences of 11 multilingual
international students in the context of a previously face-to-face course at
a Canadian university. In the investigation presented in this chapter, the
face-to-face classroom experience offered diverse opportunities for interna-
tional students to potentially develop skills beyond those of only an aca-
demic nature. However, once instruction was moved from face-to-face to
virtual delivery, students generally felt dissatisfied as a result. I argue that
such dissatisfaction with the academic experience originated from the lack of
meaningful social interaction online. Although effective online teaching has
enormous potential to foster and facilitate social interaction, it can only do
so with careful and adequate planning. Nevertheless, understandingly, the
switch to online instruction occurred abruptly, which compromised my abil-
ity, even as an experienced instructor, to research and develop online instruc-
tion with critical attention to the specific needs of the students in the course.
For many international students, the face-to-face classroom experi-
ence may be the primary source of skill development in multiple domains
of experience. Meaningful social interaction is tied to linguistic, social,
cross-cultural, academic, and professional growth. Mutee Ur Rehman, an
incoming international Ph.D. student at a Canadian university, discussed
his needs and expectations once he learned about online instruction. He
explained, “Interaction with my supervisor and my group members is very
important…a campus atmosphere is a stimulus and motivates you” (Alam,
2020). Consequently, as instruction is expected to proceed online in the
fall of 2020, sufficient opportunity for international students to appropri-
ately experience the human feel in virtual interaction is necessary. Drawing
on previous research, as well as this one, the following points should be
considered as a springboard for college and university instructors:
• Assign time early in the course for students to post information about
themselves, their goals, expectations, and needs in a community-like
style (Lawrence, 2014);
• Provide tools for synchronous and informal interaction between

students outside the course in which the students can interact freely
(Lehman & Conceiçao, 2010);
• “Monitor learner interaction at the start of a program to gauge prog-
ress, to model online interaction and community development, and to
check in with learners” (Lawrence, 2014, pp. 138–139);
• Devise interactive activities in small groups to help gradually build and
foster group cohesion (Lawrence, 2014);
• Implement pair or group activities whose conclusion/solution

depends on an exchange of personal knowledge and experience between
international students; and
• Diversify the kind of interactive activities online (e.g., synchronous,
asynchronous, audio, video, imagery, writing) so that the mode of
interaction is not repetitive.
The aforementioned recommendations are broad enough that they may

be adapted to fit different courses online. The findings from the investi-
gation presented in this chapter reflect a specific academic context and
cannot represent the experiences of all multilingual international students.
Many international students may experience online instruction differently
from how those in my course did. Nevertheless, the findings reinforce
the need to bring (and maintain) the international student to the center
of the teaching and learning experience online, especially when it comes
to social interaction. This chapter provided a window into the complex-
ity and importance of meaningful social interaction for skill development
and personal satisfaction with online instruction. As colleges and universi-
ties continue to expand and intensify online education, instruction should
be designed with the multilingual international student as the target stu-
dent rather than the occasional international student in the class. Courses
whose design attends to the needs of multilingual international students
are more inclusive to domestic and international students alike. Finally, in
the context of current and future global scholarship, it is significant that
institutions of higher education better prepare multilingual international
students to learn effectively online so that they may maximize opportuni-
ties for social interaction, language acquisition, and content knowledge
development.
Bio
Vander Tavares, Ph.D., is currently a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the
Faculty of Education at Høgskolen i Innlandet (Inland Norway University of
Applied Sciences). His major research interests include internationalization
of higher education and the international student experience; the relation-
ship between language, culture, and identity; and second-language acqui-
sition. He is the Editor of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on International
Student Experience in Canadian Higher Education (IGI Global) and the
author of International Students in Higher Education: Language, Identity
and Experience from a Holistic Perspective (Lexington Books).
104 Vander Tavares
References
Adnan, M., & Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic:
Students’ perspectives. Online Submission, 2(1), 45–51.
Alam, H. (2020, May 30). International students worry about pandemic as
decisions loom on travel to Canada. https://www.thestar.com/news/can-
ada/2020/05/30/international-students-worry-about-pandemic-as-decisions-
loom-on-travel-to-canada.html.
Ammigan, R. (2019). Institutional satisfaction and recommendation: What really
matters to international students. Journal of International Students, 9(1), 262–
281. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i1.260
Angrosino, M. V., & Mays de Pérez, K. A. (2000). Rethinking observation: From
method to context. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of quali-
tative research (2nd ed., pp. 673–702). SAGE Publications.
Arthur, N. (2017). Supporting international students through strengthening their
social resources. Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 887–894. https://doi.org
/10.1080/03075079.2017.1293876
Belford, N. (2017). International students from Melbourne describing their cross-
cultural transitions experiences: Culture shock, social interaction, and friendship
development. Journal of International Students, 7(3), 499–521.
Bennett, L. (2014). Putting in more: Emotional work in adopting online tools in
teaching and learning practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(8), 919–930.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517. 2014.934343
Borg, S. (2006). Language teacher research engagement. English Teaching Forum,
44(4), 22–27.
Borg, S. (2014). Teacher research for professional development. In G. Pickering
& P. Gunashekar (Eds.), Innovation in English Language Teacher Education
(pp. 23–28). Selected papers from the fourth International Teacher Educator
Conference Hyderabad, India.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method.
Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/
QRJ0902027
Canadian Bureau of International Education. (2020). International students in
Canada continue to grow in 2019. https://cbie.ca/international-students-in-
canada-continue-to-grow-in-2019/.
Canadian Bureau of International Education. (2018). Retaining international
students in Canada post-graduation: Understanding the motivations and driv-
ers of the decision to stay. https://cbie.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Intl-
students-post-graduation-RiB-8-EN-1.pdf.
Cao, W., Fang, Z., Hou, G., Han, M., Xu, X., Dong, J., & Zheng, J. (2020). The
psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China.
Psychiatry Research, 287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A
decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches. SAGE Publications.
Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Creating a motivating classroom environment. In J. Cummins
& C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp.
719–731). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_47
Emerson, R. (1988). Contemporary field research: A collection of readings. Waveland
Press.
Francis, D. (1995). The reflective journal: A window to preservice teachers’ practi-
cal knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 229–241. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)00031-Z
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Thematic coding and categorizing. In G. R. Gibbs (Ed.),
Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 38–56). SAGE Publications. https://doi.
org/10.4135/9781849208574
Government of Canada. (2020, July 7). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Measures
to reduce COVID-19 in your community. Retrieved July 18, 2020, from https://
www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-
infection/prevention-risks/measures-reduce-community.html.
Hung, H. L., & Hyun, E. (2010). East Asian international graduate students’
epistemological experiences in an American university. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 34(4), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijintrel.2009.12.001
Husky, M. M., Kovess-Masfety, V., & Swendsen, J. D. (2020). Stress and anxiety
among university students in France during Covid-19 mandatory confinement.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 102, 152191.
Jordan, J., & Schwartz, H. (2018). Radical empathy in teaching. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 153, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20278
Kilgour, P., Reynaud, D., Northcote, M., McLoughlin, C., & Gosselin, K. P.
(2019). Threshold concepts about online pedagogy for novice online teach-
ers in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(7),
1417–1431.
Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2017). The impact of college students’ interactions with
faculty: A review of general and conditional effects. In M. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher
education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 85–139). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-48983-4_3
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research. McGraw-
Hill Education.
Lawrence, G. (2014). A call for the human feel in today’s increasingly blended
world. Contact Research Symposium, 40(2), 128–141.
Lawrence, G., Haque, E. & King, J. (2013). Rationale and recommendations for
implementing e-learning in Ontario non-credit adult ESL programs: A feasibility
report. The Toronto Catholic District School Board.
Lehman, R. M., & Conceiçao, S. C. O. (2010). Creating a sense of presence in
online teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Martirosyan, N. M., Hwang, E., & Wanjohi, R. (2015). Impact of English
proficiency on academic performance of international students. Journal of
International Students, 5(1), 60–71.
Naji, K. K., Du, X., Tarlochan, F., Ebead, U., Hasan, M. A., & Al-Ali, A. K. (2020).
Engineering students’ readiness to transition to emergency online learning in
response to COVID-19: Case of Qatar. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, 16(10), 1–17.
106 Vander Tavares
Naylor, D., & Nyanjom, J. (2020). Educators’ emotions involved in the tran-
sition to online teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research &
Development, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1811645
Novikov, P. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 emergency transition to on-line learn-
ing on international students’ perceptions of educational process at Russian uni-
versity. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11(3), 270–302.
Perets, E. A., Chabeda, D., Gong, A. Z., Huang, X., Fung, T. S., Ng, K. Y.,
Bathgate, M., & Yan, E. C. (2020). Impact of the emergency transition to
remote teaching on student engagement in a non-STEM undergraduate chem-
istry course in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9),
2439–2447.
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (Eds.). (2016). Peer interaction and second language
learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. John Benjamins.
Sailsman, S. (2020). ESL students learning online: A review of literature. Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, 21(1), 45–52.
Sailsman, S., Rutherford, M., Tovin, M., & Cianelli, R. (2018). Cultural integration
online: The lived experience of English-as-a-second-language RN-BSN nurs-
ing students learning in an online environment. Nursing Education Perspectives,
39(4), 221–224. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000301
Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). Loneliness
and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 12(2), 148–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307299699
Sherry, M., Thomas, P., & Chui, W. H. (2010). International students: A vul-
nerable student population. Higher Education, 60(1), 33–46. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10734-009-9284-z
Schultz, R. B., & DeMers, M. N. (2020). Transitioning from emergency remote
learning to deep online learning experiences in geography education. Journal of
Geography, 119(5), 142–146.
Tavares, V. (2016). The role of peer interaction and second language learning for
ESL students in academic contexts: An extended literature review [Unpublished
master’s thesis]. York University.
Tavares, V. (2019). A review of peer interaction and second language learning
for ELL students in academic contexts. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in
Education/Revue Canadienne des Jeunes Chercheures et Chercheurs en Éducation,
10(2), 113–121.
Tavares, V. (2020). Multilingual international students from the perspec-
tive of faculty: Contributions, challenges, and support. In V. Tavares (Ed.),
Multidisciplinary perspectives on international student experience in Canadian
higher education (pp. 102–119). IGI Global.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2020, June 30). Timeline of WHO’s
response to COVID-19. Retrieved July 18, 2020, from https://www.who.int/
news-room/detail/29-06-2020-covidtimeline.
9 Expanding Equitable
Access or Exacerbating
Existing Barriers?
Reexamining Online Learning
for Vulnerable Student
Populations
Romana Manzoor and Wayne Bart
Introduction
The rampant outbreak of the newly identified infectious disease, COVID-
19, has agitated global normalcy at various levels. In the realm of higher
education, colleges and universities struggle to address a plethora of cas-
cading challenges related to the equitable access of educational resources
and outcomes for underrepresented communities. This includes access
to appropriate technology, the structuring of online courses, and proper
online support services. In order for higher education institutions (HEIs)
to maintain their mission, contractual duties, and accreditation-related
approvals, instructors and students must resume their academics in alter-
native formats.
In this chapter, we review existing literature from over the last 20 years
on challenges associated with online learning and support services that
inhibit equitable access to learning resources and outcomes. We focus
on the experiences of first-generation, undocumented, indigenous, and
international students enrolled in institutions located in English-speaking
countries in the Global North. This literature includes academic jour-
nals, case studies, and material from research foundations, to name a few.
Though it is quite dated and sparse, it is meaningful and telling as it illu-
minates the need for reenvisioning. We also review current literature as it
relates to institutional responses to COVID-19. Since both government
and institutional responses are evolving based on the present nature of the
pandemic, current literature comprises interviews captured in news arti-
cles, federal and state agencies, and universities and colleges themselves.
This critical review aims to revive the conversation and research on
existing barriers marginalized communities experience with online educa-
tion. We discuss how institutions can address these issues in order to keep
the outbreak from widening the equity gap. Finally, we propose that the
widespread shift to online learning during the pandemic offers an occasion
108 Romana Manzoor and Wayne Bart
to conduct a reenvisioning process, especially as online learning may have
a staying presence for its flexibility and recruitment outreach as higher
education responds to its new reality.
First-Generation Students
First-generation students experience varied challenges related to equi-
table access of learning resources, which influence retention and persis-
tence. These obstacles include cultural differences, economic security,
language acquisition, and others. This section will examine the challenges
as they exist in order to help us understand how the current pandemic
may impact them.
First-generation college students are educational pioneers (Inkelas et al.,
2006). This population has many features; they are more often minor-
ity students from lower-income backgrounds and are more likely to be
older, married, have children, or work while taking classes (Dennis et al.,
2005; Inkelas et al., 2006; Majer, 2009; Petty, 2014; Williams & Hellman,
2004). Often, first-generation students are less equipped by their second-
ary education to be successful in a college environment (Dennis et al.,
2005). This missing preparation leads to poor academic performance
and higher dropout rates, and students require more time to complete a
degree (Dennis et al., 2005; Inkelas et al., 2006; Majer, 2009; Petty, 2014;
Vuong et al., 2010). First-generation students experience challenges on
many levels; in part, they are trying to create new traditions of education
in their families. However, in doing this, they are also breaking traditions
by attaining a degree, which may create a rift in their lives, whether per-
ceived or actual (Williams & Hellman, 2004). First-generation students
are more likely to attend a community college to improve skills for job
placement or achieve an associate’s degree needed for future employment
(Nomi, 2005). Nearly one-third of community college students are the
first-generation to attend college (Beer, 2020). Lower tuition costs, varied
enrollment options, and the racial, ethnic, and cultural demographics of
their diverse student bodies make community colleges an attractive alter-
native to a four-year institution (Majer, 2009).
First-generation students taking classes virtually may struggle to gradu-
ate, as an overwhelming number of community colleges went “primarily
online” in fall 2020 due to the rise in COVID cases (The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 2020). Consequently, students at these institutions will
likely experience added challenges related to their altering life structures,
such as family, money, health, and educational environment. Researchers
have found that success among first-generation students is related to their
environment, and being integrated into the greater college community
has shown promise in retention and persistence to degree completion
(Dennis et al., 2005; Inkelas et al., 2006; Petty, 2014; Vuong et al., 2010;
Williams & Hellman, 2004).
Expanding Equitable Access or Exacerbating Existing Barriers? 109
International research on first-generation college students conducting
their studies online reveals similar barriers to completion. A 2014 report
from the Australian Government Department of Education and Training
indicated that only 44.4% of students who conducted their studies online
graduated compared to an overall completion rate in the same time period
of 72.3% for those who conducted their studies on campus (Stone et al.,
2016). Though the geographical location and higher education context
are different from that of the United States, this statistic reveals that first-
generation college students struggle with the online platform.
The pandemic has illumined existing barriers to the equitable access of
learning resources and support services that impact retention and persis-
tence of first-generation college students. This unprecedented time pres-
ents HEIs an opportunity to reimagine ways to provide online learning to
this population. Further research as these issues evolve may demonstrate
improved strategies and models for addressing these challenging circum-
stances. Retaining students during the pandemic is a short-term benefit.
However, development of quality standards based on equity may promote
persistence beyond the pandemic and well into the future.
Undocumented Students
One hundred and twenty-four countries around the world criminalize
undocumented immigration, though not all deal with children and young
adults the same way. The common theme with undocumented students is
the acute awareness and the impact their lack of status plays within their
lives and, by extension, their education (Valenzuela et al., 2015). They
may experience discrimination from their peers, faculty, and university
staff (Chavez et al., 2007). In the United States, undocumented students
have looming fears of deportation, and so they are less likely to seek help
when needed. Undocumented students are more frequently contributors
to their household finances, and as a result, they struggle to balance their
studies and work (Kantamneni et al., 2015).
The literature indicates that undocumented students have challenges
with access and support. However, the literature is generally focused on
accessing higher education. In reporting, the undocumented often get
combined with the greater immigrant population, which masks struggles
that come with being undocumented, such as attending college under a
threat of deportation. This threat can disincentivize students from interact-
ing with the college (Hsin & Ortega, 2018). For undocumented students,
as with other populations, integrating with the greater college commu-
nity is key for undocumented students in persisting toward obtaining their
degrees (Gildersleeve & Vigil, 2015; Kantamneni et al., 2015; Valenzuela
et al., 2015). Students can experience income and language challenges
and are often first-generation college students, if not first to attend col-
lege in the United States (Chavez et al., 2007). In these instances, online
education can exacerbate preexisting issues regarding equitable learning
opportunities
The structuring of online technologies, online curricula, and the online
modality of teaching or online pedagogy reflect the dominant Western cul-
ture. U.S. researchers Smith and Ayers (2006) state, “Western culture may
be amplified through the way in which instructional technology mediates
interaction among participants in the learning experience” (p. 401). Based
on their research, they stress that educators must understand the cognitive
and psychological ethos of non-Western peoples (p. 402). Learning styles
and cultural perspectives of students should be considered when outlining
online courses. For example, collaboration with peers in the classroom is
a preference among non-Western communities. Variability and flexibility
should be considered when thinking about online delivery. Maintaining
culturally sensitive resources and integrating culturally enlivening mate-
rial allow for underrepresented students to feel represented and valuable
(Smith & Ayers, 2006).
Throughout the review of the literature on the undocumented popula-
tion, questions regarding online learning, and how it might be used to
serve their needs, remain largely unaddressed. An institution’s ability to
be flexible with undocumented students does help with retention and per-
sistence (Hsin & Ortega, 2018). This is a start, but further research is
needed to identify solutions to the challenges of undocumented students.
While immigration systems are often impacted by national policies, those
involved in higher education may be well served to find alternative ave-
nues for support for undocumented students, be it financial, emotional, or
academic. The literature suggests that undocumented students will likely
discontinue their studies rather than take leave. Innovation in outreach,
support, and delivery may keep staying in college a more viable alternative.
The pandemic presents an opportunity to review what is working and cor-
rect what may need to be corrected for life beyond the pandemic.
International Students in the United States

COVID-19 responses have impacted international students more directly,
with attempts at curtailing international student enrollment in the United
States by implementing policy adjustments that impact their educational
journey to completion. This has resulted in added discourse about equi-
table access to educational resources and completion for international
students, while issues remain regarding existing challenges with online
learning.
Beginning on March 6, 2020, HEIs started to close their campuses and
move their instruction online, resulting in 1,100 campus closures by mid-
March (Smalley, 2020). Moreover, more than 150 countries had closed
their borders by March 16 (The Economist, 2020). Then on July 6, the
Trump administration in the United States announced that international
students with F-1 or M-1 visas must either leave the country or transfer
if the institution in which they are enrolled will offer online classes in the
fall. Additionally, the Trump administration temporarily suspended the
Optional Practical Training for international students, which gave them
career-ready skills, as well as some income.
For many international students, costs associated with the visa process,
travel, tuition, housing, and other related expenses had already been pro-
cessed; these policies not only disregarded their educational efforts and
expenses but also directly marginalized the international student popula-
tion. Furthermore, these policies undermined international recruitment
strategies and negatively impacted international student enrollment,
which financially hurt HEIs in the United States and the economy; they
also damaged international relations.
Hence, the policies were met with immediate backlash from a number
of HEIs. Harvard and MIT sued the U.S. government two days after the
announcement was made, calling it “unlawful and arbitrary” (Treisman,
2020). The case resulted in the policy being rescinded. However, the
impact is still being felt. Visa process delays, adjustments, embassy clo-
sures, travel expenses, and political tensions have caused a drastic decrease
in U.S. international student enrollment in fall 2020, stifling both access
and completion (Fox, 2020).
Apart from the reverberations of this controversial setting, research
shows that international students face challenges with online learning.
First, the language barrier remains an obstacle in the online format. For
example, synchronous online courses often involve students having to
engage in virtual discussion boards via typed conversations, which demand
quick thinking in a language that is not their own. As Zhang and Kenny
(2010) explain in their research, non-native English speakers require con-
siderably more time to draft posts. Second, international students also
face challenges in the cultural dimension of the course design (Liu et al.,
2010). Multicultural content specific to the host country inadvertently
alienates the international students and prevents them from participat-
ing. Language barriers, technical-academic jargon, and other culturally
informed communicative lingo also hinder online participation. Third,
some cases reveal difficulties in participating in synchronous online classes.
For example, international students have to manage time zone differences,
making it especially problematic for those who are also juggling work and
family life (McDougall & Zhao, 2008). Asynchronous sessions also pres-
ent students with individualized pacing, which is helpful for those who
struggle with reading and writing in English. For others, synchronous ses-
sions are preferred, especially for those who are not severely impacted by
time zone differences. Synchronous sessions allow for interactive discus-
sions, engagement with faculty and peers, and the opportunity to ask clari-
fying questions in real time (Richards, 2020). This yields the chance for
a meaningful exchange of ideas. Synchronous classes effectively lessen the
distance in distance learning, which positively impacts the overall student
learning experience. With the abrupt move to online learning in the mid-
dle of the spring term, there was little room for institutions to assess which
method of online instruction suited their international students best.
Fourth, and finally, while transition to an online environment requires
that students utilize online resources, international students grapple with
sifting through the overflow of information (Hughes, 2013). This becomes
especially hard for international students who may not have had the expo-
sure to searching their institution’s online resources. Libraries should offer
accessible services for distance students; library staff should announce that
online services are available (Huwiler, 2015). Thus, students can perform
academic research for class assignments and final papers. Research tutorials
given by faculty or the library would be a significant avenue to address this
issue; these tutorials would also communicate to students that supportive
services are a valuable online resource to support student academic success.
Indigenous Students in the United States

The outbreak has exacerbated socioeconomic conditions for the indig-
enous community in the United States. The closing of many HEIs during
the period of lockdown forced students to return home, which meant that
they had to find alternative ways to finish their current courses virtually.
Many Native American students have limited access to the Internet and
technology. As many as 60% of Native Americans do not have access to the
Internet on tribal lands (Federal Communications Commission, 2020).
Cournoyer, a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and executive director of
the National Indian Education Association, reported, “Most Native stu-
dents don’t have the ability to purchase a laptop, and even if they received
a Pell grant or scholarship, they were used for childcare, living expenses or
food” (Blackburn, 2020, para. 4). Many Tribal Colleges and Universities
(TCUs) on the reservation were not equipped to make the sudden change
to remote learning. Those that had the technology in place were unfamil-
iar with how to use it (Retta, 2020).
Another pitfall is the level of student support services diminishing for
the Native American community. Many relied on campus employment and
work-study opportunities to support their studies. However, with campus
closures, many students lost their jobs. Most Native American students
returned to the reservation during this crisis, but work opportunities are
limited, and as a result of the outbreak, there were even fewer job open-
ings. Native American students attending TCUs on the reservation lost
access to food and housing.
Nearly all options for food on campus have been closed or elimi-
nated, which has made things difficult, said Brandon Dennison, a
senior at the University of Utah in Navajo Nation. I used to eat on
campus daily to utilize my dining dollars, which have now essentially
become obsolete.
(Retta, 2020, para. 7)
The closing of casinos and national attractions has hurt the Native commu-
nity economically as well. As a consequence, the indigenous community
is not able to respond to the health toll the virus is taking, thus impacting
the Native community and its students disproportionately (Mineo, 2020,
paras. 3–4).
As a result of the sudden and unfortunate outcomes for Native students,
TCUs and other institutions of higher education are confronting the real-
ity that exists sharply for them and other communities of underserved stu-
dents. The Oglala Lakota College of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South
Dakota purchased laptops and mobile phones with hot-spot capabilities
for their students. Cournoyer recommends that a collaboration be estab-
lished with other HEIs, particularly TCUs, to share digital tools and to
research various technological platforms that have proved successful with-
out high costs. A list of American Indian–serving organizations has been
provided in support of Native students referenced by Blackburn (2020).
These are some of the measures taken by TCUs and the communities sup-
porting them to address the immediate needs of their students. The digital
divide reminds us that access to online learning is not accessible for all.
Exploring Avenues to Expand Online Access and

Tighten the Digital Divide
The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted institutions of higher learning
to reenvision the structure and delivery of online learning and its support
services. Based on the research, the following suggestions address equity
concerns that impact underrepresented students.
Online Learning
First, the purchasing of software that offers closed captioning and voice
and audio features would benefit students with disabilities and those whose
first language is not English, such as international students, indigenous,
and undocumented students. Second, flexibility in offering synchronous
and asynchronous online class formats would meet the varying needs of
students. Most international students prefer asynchronous classes because
they remove time differences as a barrier, and they also extend the time
needed to complete the reading and writing assignments for non-English
speakers (Fischer, 2020). Nonetheless, synchronous sessions are favored in
almost all other cases. Synchronous sessions provide students the oppor-
tunity to ask clarifying questions in real time with an immediate response
following. They also give students a chance to interact with their peers
and their professors, which positively impacts the overall student learning
experience (The Best Schools, 2018). Third, involving minoritized voices
in the development of online courses is a great way to address cultural vari-
ances and assessment of learning outcomes for traditionally underrepre-
sented students, which includes students who are first-generation college,
undocumented, international, and indigenous.
Issues revolving around basic access to online education and support
services are an existing and common concern for the global indigenous,
international, and undocumented population. Moreover, implementing
a constructivist-based pedagogy to creating online content that is cultur-
ally inclusive is another way to address the equity gap (Smith & Ayers,
2006; McLoughlin & Oliver, 2000; Liu et al., 2010). McLoughlin and
Oliver (2000) proposed a bi-cultural model of education in order to meet
the diverse learning needs of the indigenous-aboriginal in Australia. The
model includes cultural maintenance, ownership of learning, communi-
ties of inquiry, and provisions of multiple perspectives. Having students
develop their own assessment criteria of learning outcomes, for instance,
allows them to feel that they are owners of their distinguished knowledge.
This methodology promotes inclusivity and creates buy-in for students.
International literature reveals that underrepresented students in
English-speaking countries in the Global North experience financial hard-
ships disproportionately, which impacts their educational journey. Though
the specificities of their experience may be nuanced, socioeconomic status,
the digital divide, language barriers, and misunderstood cultural variables
are obstacles to online learning that are shared across the Global North,
making this methodology a useful tool for promoting equity and cultural
sensitivity in distance learning for the underrepresented student popula-
tions mentioned in this chapter.
Support Services
Library services, as well as other services that assist the holistic learning of
students, such as advising, career guidance, and emotional support, should
be conducted online with easy access to related staff. HEIs have already
responded to these challenges by implementing, for example, chat boxes,
uploading tutorials, conducting virtual office hours, and hosting virtual
recruiting and admissions events.
Accessibility of support staff, personalized attention, and prompt
responses are important facets of online support services, as they positively
impact the overall online learning experience for the student (Thorpe,
2001). A lack of interaction and a feeling of isolation influence a lack
of motivation, which in turn yields a negative learning experience. These
often attribute to student attrition rates. “Identity,” “individualiza-
tion,” and “interpersonal interaction” are three interrelated characteris-
tics of learner support services. A suggested model for achieving this is
called, “scaffolding.” Scaffolding provides more structure to students in
the earlier stage of the course and then gradually encourages them to be
responsible and lead themselves through the material. This builds their
inner motivation (Ludwig-Hardman & Dunlap, 2003). A student-centric
approach, such as this, helps meet students where they are in their edu-
cational journeys. Establishing direct access to the academic advisor and
registrar while studying online are supportive facets of online learning.
However, the digital divide remains a great obstacle, especially for those
living in rural areas and those living on reservations due to a lack of finan-
cial infrastructure and support. Through government funding, a number
of institutions have been able to provide technological support in various
ways. In Illinois, for example, educational agencies like the Illinois Board
of Higher Education made a decision that all federal and state monies
be allocated directly to serve the needs of the underrepresented student
population (Illinois Student Assistance Commission, 2020). The funding
covers technological services that bolster online student support services,
financial assistance, emergency relief, and professional development and
training for instructors (Illinois Student Assistance Commission, 2020).
For those living on the reservation, it’s been suggested that TCU’s
explore digital collaborations (Retta, 2020). Digital collaborations would
lower costs associated with online technology, allowing for funds to go
to supporting students’ technical needs (Retta, 2020). Governments
across the world, including that of the United States, have taken mea-
sures to allocate funding in support of students during this difficult time.
Specifically, the U.S. government has passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security (CARES) Act. “The funding will be distributed
using the existing formula that is based on student counts, in addition
to targeting student needs related to mental health and safety, staff train-
ing, and information technology investments” (U.S. Department of the
Interior: Indian Affairs, 2020, para. 1).
Additional accommodations have been made, such as converting ongo-
ing classes to a pass/fail grading basis, eliminating entrance exams as part
of the admissions requirement, and the issuance by many institutions of
financial relief and/or adjusted pay schedules. These are key examples from
around the world as to how to address equity issues faced in the spring
term so that students who are first-generation college, undocumented,
international, or indigenous encounter fewer hardships in the fall term.
Conclusion
Issues regarding equitable access to learning resources and outcomes dis-
proportionately impact students from marginalized communities, which
have widened the gap as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. With college
and university closures, financial strife, and an overall health scare, a number
of students from traditionally marginalized communities withdrew or took
a leave of absence. Basic needs insecurities, lack of technological access,
and a lack of technological accommodations are some major examples of
the struggles facing higher education amid the pandemic. These examples
show that within this new emerging reality in higher education, there are
reminders of the long-standing struggles of vulnerable populations.
The World Economic Forum has suggested that the virus has caused
a revolution in education, commenting that “just as the First Industrial
Revolution forged today’s system of education, we can expect a different
kind of educational model to emerge from COVID-19” in support of a
wholesale transition to online education (Kandri, 2020). In many ways,
online education opens new avenues to accomplish this. Educators and stu-
dent affairs staff members have been perseverant in meeting students’ needs
and innovative in how to utilize competing platforms to conduct interac-
tive teaching. The COVID-19 experience, while challenging for institu-
tions, has presented opportunities to expand equitable access, as well as
create spaces where students of all backgrounds are more able to succeed.
Reimagining industry norms can be difficult, but it is necessary.
President of Valencia College, Sanford Shugart suggests, “Anyone can
learn anything under the right conditions” (Johnson, 2012). Perhaps this
could serve as a guiding principle for our new normal. In recognizing
that conditions for learning have shifted, educators find an occasion for
improvement. HEIs have the ability, and the opportunity, to not only
meet these new challenges but also correct deficiencies that have been
ignored in the past.
Bios
Romana Manzoor is the Director of Institutional Research and
Effectiveness and College Programs at American Islamic College. She
holds an M.A. in interreligious studies and is pursuing an M.Ed. in higher
education at Loyola University at Chicago. Her research interests include
existing issues around equity and representation for underrepresented
students, international student mobility, and the development of Muslim
institutions of higher education in North America and Europe.
Wayne Bart is an Academic Advisor at Valencia College in Orlando,

Florida and holds a M.Ed. in international higher education from Loyola
University at Chicago. His research areas include student affairs policy,
study abroad, international education, international student movement,
and immigration policy in higher education.
References
Beer, A. (2020). Diversity of community college students in 7 charts. Acct Now.
http://perspectives.acct.org/stories/diversity-of-community-college-students-
in-7-charts
Blackburn, S. (2020, May 22). How could COVID-19 affect Native American stu-
dent enrollment in higher ed? University Business. https://universitybusiness.
com/covid-19-affect-native-students-native-american-student-enrollment/
Chavez, M. L., Soriano, M., & Oliverez, P. (2007). Undocumented students’
access to college: The American dream denied. Latino Studies, 5(2), 254–263.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.lst.8600255
The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2020, July 29). Here’s our new list of colleges’ reopen-
ing plans. https://www.chronicle.com/article/heres-a-list-of-colleges-plans-
for-reopening-in-the-fall/
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation,
parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority
first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3),
223–236. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0023
Federal Communications Commission. (2020). Bridging the digital divide for
all Americans. https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-initiatives/bridging-digital-
divide-all-americans
Fischer, K. (2020, April 13). International students struggle to adjust to online
learning. Open Campus. https://www.opencampusmedia.org/2020/04/13/
international-students-struggle-to-adjust-to-online-learning/
Fox, J. (2020, September 4). How coronavirus threw America’s interna-
tional students into Chaos. The College Post. https://thecollegepost.com/
coronavirus-international-students/
Gildersleeve, R. E., & Vigil, D. (2015). Institutionalizing support for undocu-
mented Latino/a students in American higher education. In M. Freeman &
M. Martinez (Eds.), College completion for Latino/a Students: Institutional and
system approaches (pp. 39–48). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/he
Hsin, A., & Ortega, F. (2018). The effects of deferred action for childhood arrivals
on the educational outcomes of undocumented students. Demography, 55(4),
1487–1506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0691-6
Hughes, H. (2013). International students using online information resources to
learn: Complex experience and learning needs. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 37(1), 126–146.
Huwiler, A. G. (2015). Library services for distance students: Opportunities and
challenges. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning,
9(4), 275–288.
Illinois Student Assistance Commission. (2020). College changes everything confer-
ence. https://www.collegechangeseverything.org/2020-CCE
Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Leonard, J. B. (2006). Living–learn-
ing programs and first-generation college students’ academic and social transi-
tion to college. Research in Higher Education, 48(4), 403–434. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11162-006-9031-6.
Johnson, F. (2012, October 12). How a community college’s big ideas are trans-
forming education. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/
archive/2012/10/how-a-community-colleges-big-ideas-are-transforming-
education/429057/.
Kandri, S.E. (2020, May 12). How COVID-19 is driving a long-overdue
revolution in education. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.
org/agenda/2020/05/how-covid-19-is-sparking-a-revolution-in-higher-
education/
Kantamneni, N., Shada, N., Conley, M. R., Hellwege, M. A., Tate, J. M., & Wang,
S. C. (2015). Academic and career development of undocumented college stu-
dents: The American dream? The Career Development Quarterly, 64(4), 318–
332. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12068
Liu, X., Liu, S., Lee, S., & Magjuka, R. J. (2010). Cultural differences in online
learning: International student perceptions. Educational Technology & Society,
13(3), 177–188.
Ludwig-Hardman, S., & Dunlap, J. C. (2003). Learner support services for online
students: Scaffolding for success. The International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i1.131
Majer, J. M. (2009). Self-efficacy and academic success among ethnically diverse
first-generation community college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 2(4), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017852
McDougall, D., & Zhao, N. (2008). Cultural influences on Chinese students’
asynchronous online learning in a Canadian university. Journal of Distance
Education, 22(2), 59–80.
McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cul-
tural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 58–72.
Mineo, L. (2020, May 8). For native Americans, COVID-19 is ‘the worst of both worlds
at the same time.’ The Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/
story/2020/05/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-native-american-communities/
Nomi, T. (2005). Faces of the future: A portrait of first-generation community
college students. In American Association of Community Colleges (pp. 1–12).
ACT. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED493531.pdf
Petty, T. (2014). Motivating first-generation students to academic success and col-
lege completion. College Student Journal, 48(2), 257–264.
Retta, M. (2020, May 18). The coronavirus is hitting tribal schools hard. The Nation.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/the-coronavirus-is-hitting-
tribal-schools-hard/
Richards, E. (2020, May, 23). Coronovirus’ online learning is hard enough. What
if you speak English? USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/
education/2020/05/14/coronavirus-online-classes-school-closures-esl-stu-
dents-learn-english/5178145002/
Smalley, A. (2020, July 27). Higher education responses to coronavirus (COVID-
19). National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/research/
education/higher-education-responses-to-coronavirus-covid-19.aspx
Smith, D. R., & Ayers, D. F. (2006). Culturally responsive pedagogy and online
learning: Implications for the globalized community college. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 30(5–6), 401–415. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10668920500442125
Stone, C., O’Shea, S., May, J., Delahunty, J., & Partington, Z. (2016). Opportunity
through online learning: Experiences of first-in-family students in online open-
entry higher education. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 56(2), 146–169.
The Best Schools. (2018, January 31). Synchronous learning vs. asynchro-
nous learning in online education. https://thebestschools.org/magazine/
synchronous-vs-asynchronous-education/
The Economist. (2020, March 16). More than 80 countries have imposed
travel bans to curb the new coronavirus. https://www.economist.com/
graphic-detail/2020/03/16/more-than-80-countries-have-imposed-travel-
bans-to-curb-the-new-coronavirus
Thorpe, M. (2001). Rethinking learner support: The challenge of collaborative
online learning. Open Learning, 17(2), 105–120.
Treisman, R. (2020, July 14). ICE Agrees to rescind policy barring foreign stu-
dents from online study in the U.S. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/
coronavirus-live-updates/2020/07/14/891125619/ice-agrees-to-rescind-
policy-barring-foreign-students-from-online-study-in-the-u
U.S. Department of the Interior Indian Affairs. (2020). CARES Act. https://
www.bia.gov/covid-19/cares-act
Valenzuela, J. I., Perez, W., Perez, I., Montiel, G. I., & Chaparro, G. (2015).
Undocumented students at the community college: Creating institutional
capacity. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2015(172), 87–96. https://
doi.org/10.1002/cc.20166
Vuong, M., Brown-Welty, S., & Tracz, S. (2010). The effects of self-efficacy on aca-
demic success of first-generation college sophomore students. Journal of College
Student Development, 51(1), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0109
Williams, P. E., & Hellman, C. M. (2004). Differences in self-regulation
for online learning between first- and second-generation college students.
Research in Higher Education, 45(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1023/
b:rihe.0000010047.46814.78
Zhang, Z., & Kenny, R. (2010). Learning in an online distance education course:
Experiences of three international students. The International Review of Research
in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 17–36.
10 Using Information
Communication
Technologies for
Interactive Open and
Distance Learning
Experiences in the Era of
COVID-19
Mmabaledi Seeletso
Introduction
The 2019 novel coronavirus had a grave impact on education systems the
world over, Botswana included. The outbreak greatly affected education
activities, rendering distance education the most feasible option to replace
classrooms, with the intention of reducing the risk of infection and spread
of the virus. It is important to note that out of the challenges brought by
COVID-19 emerged a moment to develop alternative education opportu-
nities. The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global public
health emergency on March 11, 2020. UNESCO (2020) reported that by
March 2020, over 1.5 billion students were out of schools due to closures
as a result of COVID-19. It further reported that more than 181 countries,
constituting 88% of the worlds’ student population, were affected by this
closure to prevent the spread of the virus and attempt to “flatten the curve”
across the world (UNESCO, 2020). Online intervention was considered
necessary for teaching and learning to continue with minimal disruption.
Governments, globally, encouraged institutions to switch to digital learn-
ing to avoid gaps in teaching and learning. Mailizar et al., (2020) noted
that school closures in Indonesia due to the pandemic “left 45.5 million
students and 3.1 million teachers dependent on online teaching and learn-
ing” (p. 1). Authorities closed all schools (learning institutions) to allow for
social distancing and enforcement of other health protocols. This marked
the start of a major challenge where learning institutions had to move from
the conventional environment to distance and virtual learning.
Defining Key Words

In the next section, key words as used in the context of the chapter are
explained.
Using Information Communication Technologies 121
2019 Novel Coronavirus – Zu et al. (2020) define the 2019 novel
coronavirus as “pneumonia associated with a novel coronavirus, severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus 2,” a definition further
corroborated by Zheng et al. (2020). In this chapter, the 2019 novel coro-
navirus will be abbreviated as COVID-19. COVID-19 developed into a
pandemic that ravaged the world since the beginning of 2020, having
started in China in December 2019. The virus greatly disrupted peoples’
lives and most of the activities on the face of the earth, including education.
Digital Divide – A gap or uneven distribution between those with have
access to computers and Internet connection and those who do not have
this access. In this chapter, access also refers to both skills and competen-
cies to use computers and the Internet, as well as a lack of money to buy
both the devices and data.
Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) – A form of uni-
fied communications that allow users to access, store, transmit, and manip-
ulate information to their own benefit. These unified communications are
also recognized as catalysts of change (Ratheeswan, 2018).
Online Education – For the purposes of easy understanding, online
education in this chapter will mean the same as electronic/e-learning
when referring to electronically or technology-supported teaching and
learning. This mode of study requires the Internet for the facilitator(s)
and students to interact with each other and with content. The students
and facilitator(s) are usually separate and in different geographical places.
Online teaching and learning can be carried out at the same time (synchro-
nous) or can be flexible and happening at different times (asynchronous).
Open and Distance Learning – In this chapter, open and distance
learning (ODL) will mean the same as distance education. This is a phi-
losophy of teaching and learning in which the learner and the facilitator
are separated and away from each other. Over the years, the philosophy of
ODL has helped overcome education access barriers.
Pandemic – In this chapter, pandemic refers to a widespread, prevalent,
and uncontrollable disease, such as COVID-19.
Social Exclusion – In this chapter, social exclusion refers to a condition
of complete removal, blocked from access to a prevailing social system and
its rights, privileges, and other perks as a result of belonging to a particular
section of a population, society, or group.
The 2019 Novel Coronavirus Experience

Measures for social distancing and lockdown policies to control and stop
the spread of the virus spiraled globally as governments encouraged study-
ing and working from home. This promoted ODL that was supported by
ICTs, especially computers and the Internet. Due to extended periods of
closure because of COVID-19, institutions were forced to come up with
interventions to allow education to continue. Domecini (2020) pointed
122 Mmabaledi Seeletso
out that distance education became the only option that was to be used to
ensure that learning continued undisrupted. He further argued, “Distance
learning and distance education appeared to be the most and only way to
assure the continuity of education and learning of students at all school
and university grades” (p. 3). The pandemic led to a huge shift toward
digital forms of education. Students were kept at home and socially iso-
lated from the classroom learning that they were used to, while teachers
were in turn encouraged to be innovative and create online teaching and
learning resources.
From research, it is apparent that countries and institutions of higher
learning had varying preparedness for this emergency. Online learning
came as a “foreign” learning experience brought by the sudden shift from
traditional face-to-face to online virtual learning. This came as a shock,
especially to developing countries. However, in developing countries like
Botswana where there are ODL universities and other ODL institutions
of higher learning, the transition was much easier. In some instances, such
as at Botswana Open University (BOU), even before the pandemic, dis-
tance education was the mode of delivery used, and at some point, it was
supported by ICTs to reduce learners’ isolation. The sudden transition,
however, remained a serious challenge for institutions that have always
been conventional, offering teaching and learning only through the face-
to-face mode of delivery.
Since students and facilitators are away from each other, the students
remain at the center of their study, as they are alone most of the time.
ODL students experience isolation; hence, in institutions such as BOU,
ICTs have been introduced to bridge the communication gap brought
about by isolation to facilitate interaction. ICTs have revolutionized ODL
and made it more interactive. The Internet has introduced a new element
of electronic learning commonly known as e-learning or online learning.
This is a type of ODL supported by technology.
Structure of the Chapter

This chapter is divided into five sections. In the first section, the introduc-
tion, definitions to key words used in the chapter are provided – namely,
COVID-19, digital divide, online education, ODL, pandemic, social
exclusion. The author undertakes the task of clarifying the terms the way
she understands them, as they are used in the chapter. She will proceed to
foreground the topic through the lens of Gosky et al.’s (2004) theory of
instructional dialogue. Issues surrounding the use of technology for inter-
active ODL will be discussed. The next section on educational responses
to COVID-19 will cover interactive experiences during COVID-19 using
ICT, as well as the challenges of using ICT to support teaching and learn-
ing in the advent of COVID-19. Finally, the chapter will conclude by
summarizing key discussions from the study.
The information in this chapter is largely from documents, as well as
observations and experiences as the author is an ODL practitioner, work-
ing for an ODL institution.
Research Questions
This chapter is guided by the following exploratory questions:
1. How can ICTs be used for ODL experiences?

2. How can ICTs be used to facilitate interactive learning experiences in
an ODL environment during the COVID-19 pandemic?
3. What challenges have students experienced as a result of online teach-
ing and learning during COVID-19?
4. What are the expected positive outcomes, as well as challenges, from
using ICTs post-COVID-19 pandemic?
Gorsky, Caspi, and Trumper’s Theory of Instructional

Dialogue
The discussions in this chapter have been informed by the theory of
instructional dialogue (2004). The theory underpins dialogue as key to
effective online and distance education (Gorsky et al., 2004; Seeletso,
2016). The theory foregrounds the interaction as being between learners
themselves, learners and their facilitators, and learners and the content
they are learning. In distance education and online learning modes, this
content is mainly instructional (study) materials with conversation from a
face-to-face setup. Rowntree (1990) suggests that for ODL materials to
be interactive enough, developers design them as if they are sympathetic
tutors. Learners should be able to interact and understand their materials
with no or very little assistance from the tutor. Rowntree (1990) further
advises that this conversation can be presented by using visuals, activi-
ties, and feedback, together with the use of conversational pronouns, such
as “I” and “we,” as if one is addressing learners in person. The theory
of instructional dialogue was propounded in 2004 by theorists Gorsky,
Caspi, and Trumper (Seeletso, 2016). The theorists consider that learn-
ing is an individual activity mediated by interpersonal dialogue (Gorsky
et al., 2004; Gorsky et al., 2007). Gorsky et al. (2007) contend that not
only is human intervention required for successful ODL but also struc-
tural resources. These resources include different media that ODL stu-
dents need to use as peers for dialogue and interaction about their studies.
Seeletso (2016), however, warns that the theory takes for granted that all
distance learners will have access to all these resources. The reality on the
ground is that for developing contexts, some learners study in isolated
settings with no access to some of the required resources, especially the
Internet.
According to the theory of instructional dialogue, one can, there-
fore, not underestimate the importance of resources needed to encour-
age learning, such as technology tools, especially Internet connection, to
facilitate online teaching and learning. Technology has the potential to
initiate and maintain effective dialogue. Instructional dialogue, irrespec-
tive of resources involved, is normally geared toward giving achievement,
satisfaction, and positive results. Teaching and learning methodologies for
ODL need to close the distance gap between students and their course
facilitators. To ensure this, the theory of instructional dialogue can be
used to guide the design and development process of the study materi-
als to be able to be delivered and supported through different modes.
Many governments, including that of Botswana and other developing
countries, had implemented a noble intent of using online learning during
the COVID-19 pandemic as a way to ensure the interaction of students,
hence continuity in teaching and learning. Unfortunately, this is destined
to facilitate further social exclusion and digital divide.
Pertinent Issues on the Use of Technology for

Interactive ODL
With the introduction of online learning delivery and support in schools
and institutions of higher learning, interaction has become key to effective
ODL and online experiences. The intervention was necessary as a response
to the pandemic, though with challenges.
Educational Responses to COVID-19

When governments closed learning institutions and prioritized online
teaching and learning to contain and curb the spread of the virus, soci-
etal and educational inequalities between public and privately owned
educational institutions became more predominant and more apparent
between institutions, as well as between individual students. As the pan-
demic rages on, countries continue to implement emergency plans to
delay and circumvent the spread of the virus (UNESCO, 2020). They
are as such, preparing and embracing for extended disruption of schools
and university attendance with most remaining closed. UNESCO (2020)
reported that China provided a large share of its students with access to
online learning opportunities. This was imminent as educators and stu-
dents started to work remotely following the closure of schools. China
took a step in the right direction, as there was a great need to immedi-
ately mobilize different forms of online education, as well as educational
resources. With the virus causing unstoppable havoc and increasing mor-
talities, there is a need to encourage technology companies to make their
resources available for free to enable and inspire institutions to diversify
their modes of delivery.
Some governments, such as Indonesia, developed free online learning
platforms through their Ministries of Education. The provision of learn-
ing support materials, however, has not been adequately addressed since
it has been done hurriedly. In some parts of the world, the pandemic has
brought people together as technology companies have provided tablets
and other gadgets to disadvantaged schools and individual students. The
same gesture of goodwill has been embraced by Internet companies that
started to provide programs to economically disadvantaged families at no
cost for the duration of the pandemic – which no one knows how long it
will last.
There is a need to encourage institutional collaboration. Institutions,
for instance, need to collaborate mutually on issues of development and
the use of open educational resources. Institutions need to provide educa-
tors with the necessary resources and digital learning opportunities. This
will encourage them to share their resources and provide each other with
peer feedback. This will further enable educators to develop and share
resources for free. ODL experts have been sharing skills and possible tools
to use effectively for online delivery. Since the beginning of 2020, there
have been signs that we are in a period of emergency with lots of unknowns
and unpredictables. This, therefore, calls for extra patience with students
as they also tread during this era toward the unknown, and this has to be
faced by institutions and all stakeholders equally.
Some developed countries are advanced and way ahead in terms of digi-
tal teaching and learning. Malatyinszki (2020) contends that the govern-
ment of Hungary has observed that technology-supported learning is now
not a matter of choice but an inevitable phenomenon that everyone must
be prepared for to remain relevant in the 21st century.
Interactive Experiences during COVID-19 Using ICT

Learning is a social development. Therefore, the closure of schools due
to the pandemic forced students to remain isolated at home and socially
isolated from their classmates. This isolation caused educators to explore
different tools, such as Zoom, Google Hangouts, Microsoft Teams, and
others to facilitate online teaching, learning, and support. Some of these
tools facilitate both asynchronous and synchronous (where students can
attend a teaching session as it runs) learning environments. Students can
also follow and view recordings at a later time, which would have been
recorded for them earlier, in the event they missed the live sessions. This is
very important for students who may have problems with bandwidth or a
challenge accessing the live-streamed content.
Despite “filling the gap,” there is still the negative attitude in certain
parts of the world that distance education “is inferior and not as effec-
tive as conventional learning” (Adnan & Anwar, 2020, p.42). COVID-19
has unleashed positive opportunities for the education sector. Teachers
and students have been, for instance, exposed to most digital advances.
Face-to-face mode is largely teacher centered, resulting in passive stu-
dents. ODL, which has now been prioritized by many institutions, places
students at the center of teaching and learning; it is activity based, thus
promoting higher-order thinking skills and critical problem-solving.
Though governments encourage institutions, students, and employees
to work from home, the arrangement has proved very difficult. Several
studies, including one by Malatyinszki (2020), have established that stu-
dents from face-to-face institutions prefer to continue working at the
institutions with colleagues. They emphasized that they feel more com-
fortable working in their communities. Most educators and students feel
it is difficult to work from home with students and family there for them
to manage.
Online learning facilitates collaborative learning and brings students
together virtually while physically apart. It further enhances learner-facili-
tator and learner-learner interactions. This results in increased learner per-
sistence and improved academic performance. For online learning to be
successful, all students need to have the necessary resources. Availability of
devices is no longer a luxury but every student’s right in order to receive
education. Key to online learning is student interaction and engagement,
which facilitates access to content.
In Botswana, one of the few institutions of higher learning that con-
tinued with its operations during schools’ closures is the BOU. BOU is a
purely distance learning institution that offers secondary school programs
to out-of-school youth, while its tertiary wing offers tertiary programs to
all interested people across disciplines through the ODL mode of delivery.
BOU uses the Moodle platform as its learning management system. This
is where teaching and learning take place. It is an interactive platform
that allows for both synchronous (same time) and asynchronous (delayed)
learning platforms. To support its students during COVID-19, BOU
signed an agreement with Mascom Botswana, an Internet service provider
in the country, to provide zero-rated access to BOU’s learning portal as
an initiative to provide free access to all students who may wish to access
the content. This arrangement was initially to operate between April and
September 2020.
Online learning facilitates social presence, which provides virtual but
immediate learning space necessary for effective distance education.
Collaborative learning facilitates social presence in a virtual classroom.
Renn et al. (2016) consider teaching presence as something that can help
facilitate students’ classroom engagement, and it is normally higher in syn-
chronous learning.
In the synchronous approach, students present at the same time
through platforms such as videoconferencing, chats, Zoom, Hangouts,
Skype, and other platforms. Synchronous approaches are highly interac-
tive. The asynchronous approach, on the other hand, does not require
the presence of students and is highly flexible. This includes discussion
forums, prerecorded tutorial sessions, quizzes, and other platforms. Since
the asynchronous approach involves delayed interaction, communication
with instructional materials should be included right at the start of con-
tent design and development to facilitate this interaction. The designing
of distance learning instructional materials should facilitate interpersonal
communication between students, and there should be a “human voice”
in text. This will help facilitate learners’ self-efficacy and engagement with
both the content and learning tasks (Blaine, 2019).
It is important to always take into account the emotional well-being of
students and their families during this transformation to allow for good
learning experiences. This should, however, continue even after the pan-
demic. Adam (2020) underscored the importance of students’ emotional
well-being and extension of support, as they would have lost their sense of
community or safety, hence suggesting that spaces of belonging be created
for students.
Students can help each other in synchronous chats, which most prefer
because of real-time peer interaction. The synchronous approach facili-
tates psychological closeness among students, which is associated with
social presence in a virtual class. The synchronous approach also facilitates
collaborative learning, as students feel connected to their peers; hence,
they socially interact and mutually appreciate each other. The most posi-
tive impact of synchronous learning is that students can interact among
themselves and solve problems together as peers. This creates autonomous
students who can construct their own knowledge during their interactions
with each other.
Adnan and Anwar (2020) observed that though ICTs facilitate interac-
tion in an online delivery mode, their use in the advent of COVID-19
is not without challenges. They further argue that observed that due to
various reasons, including inability to access the Internet and other key
resources often work against desired results in some developing countries.
(They further argue that for various reasons, including the inability to
access the Internet, technology-mediated learning often works against the
desired results in some developing countries.) In their study carried out in
Pakistan, Adnan and Anwar (2020, p. 45) noted,
The findings of the study highlighted that online learning cannot pro-
duce desired results in under developed countries like Pakistan, where
a vast majority of students are unable to access the internet due to
technical as well as monetary issues.
In some developing countries, Internet and other service providers

engaged with institutions to extend support for online learning. They
negotiated data for students’ studies and zero-rated university and other
relevant websites needed for students to study. Through this arrangement,
students were able to freely access the information, as was the situation in
Botswana, South Africa, and Kenya. This initiative has proved effective in
reducing disparity in the availability and use of ICT equipment and band-
width across households, especially among the disadvantaged areas and
members of our society.
Challenges of Using ICT to Support Teaching and Learning

in the Advent of COVID-19
Universities had unequal access to ICT platforms necessary for online
teaching and learning and effective online delivery. When educational
institutions resumed online teaching and learning, most of them simply
replaced class notes with online lectures. This was a clear indication that
both students and educators were unprepared for this sudden transforma-
tion. The sudden closure of schools unsettled and disoriented students.
Interaction became a great challenge as connection and support were
problems on their own.
During COVID-19, online learning was rapidly implemented. This was
so sudden, and a number of both students and educators were caught off
guard – some without experience nor the resources. Institutions had no
budgets for emergencies like COVID-19. There were minimal budgets for
IT adoption and uptake, so COVID-19 only worsened a situation that was
already difficult to address. Online learning platforms were nonexistent
in most conventional universities, even though governments insisted on
online delivery. There was also a challenge of accessing devices by stu-
dents who had no or very limited access. Private institutions in develop-
ing countries such as Botswana resorted to providing staff and students
with laptops, but access to devices in most public institutions remained a
challenge. ODL institutions transformed much better and faster to online
learning practices since they were already accustomed to noncontact
teaching and learning. Though learning devices were provided by some
institutions, Internet connection remained a problem due to power out-
ages and low bandwidth.
One key challenge of COVID-19 was the lack of readiness by schools,
students, and educators for online teaching and learning. The majority of
higher education students were not ready when schools closed and had
reservations about online or digital learning. They cited a lack of access
to Internet facilities, lack of proper interaction, and ineffective technology
(Adnan & Anwar, 2020). In Botswana, even the largest public univer-
sity had to stop business while the open university had most of its opera-
tions running, with minimal disruption. Now, with the lockdown and the
pandemic not going away any time soon, institutions of higher learning
have to implement ODL methodologies with no expertise and limited
resources to achieve it.
Lynch (2020, p. 192) made reference to the crisis that came with work-
ing from home by stating that
students won’t be able to be as focused as usual because they aren’t

in a classroom setting. They aren’t safe from all destructions at home.
And those destructions are now multiplied because of other difficul-
ties such as having the entire family at home, further noting other
people may be trying to work from home and needing the internet for
their work. Many families will be trying to work from home and need-
ing the internet for their work. Many families will be facing economic
devastation and wondering where their food is coming from or if they
will continue to have roof over their head.
Lack of ICT skills and expertise was another challenge for students and
educators due to their limited experience with online teaching and learn-
ing. Developing countries experienced a shortage of resources, such as the
Internet and devices that were needed to facilitate and support teaching
and learning; a clear challenge is access to fast, affordable, and reliable
Internet connections. The most affected remained rural students from
remote areas and those among the marginalized and communities in chal-
lenging circumstances, such as inmates. Internet signals remain problem-
atic, with already limited access. The Internet is also too expensive, with
prohibitive costs for regular online connections and gadgets.
Some students, mainly from disadvantaged backgrounds, do not have
their own gadgets nor the money to buy them. Some may have smart-
phones to access online learning, but then they have no data bundles to
access materials. Some may have access to devices and not the necessary
digital skills to effectively study online. Most of the students will not be
able to develop online skills on their own, and staying home will only
worsen the already volatile situation. The problem of the digital divide
has, therefore, brought even more negative results now than ever before.
Some students were dependent on school resources before COVID-19
and now lack motivation and zeal to embrace online learning without the
access they had before COVID-19. Others feared the unknown, some-
thing they did not have experience with, sufficient knowledge, and skills
to handle online applications.
Other institutions lack the necessary infrastructure to support online
teaching and learning. In most developing countries, there is still a short-
age of the latest technology. This impacts negatively on the responsive-
ness of institutions and students’ capacity to fully participate in digital
learning. Poor network connection, especially in rural areas, led to frustra-
tions and anxiety among students who failed to do their schoolwork. The
“new normal” posed serious challenges to students who had to switch
immediately to online learning. Some students from conventional institu-
tions had to miss lessons, including examinations, which had to be written
online. Institutions are now faced with the challenge of upgrading techno-
logical infrastructure to support online learning. Lack of readily available
funds, therefore, means that there could be no meaningful online activities
undertaken during the pandemic.
COVID-19 has resulted in educational isolation, leaving students with
no access to physical learning environments. Online learning facilitated
social communication and promoted physical distancing and then than
social distancing (Kanno, 2020). Some institutions of higher learning
experienced resistance to online learning and a lack of motivation. Some
teachers resisted this rapid transformation and were not willing to change
their normal practice. Some students and teachers were technophobic
and had a negative attitude toward ICT, while others were discouraged
because of the extra budget facing them, as they had to buy their own
gadgets and pay for their own Internet connections.
There was also an obvious mismatch of content/curriculum and the new
mode of delivery. Most students have been taught content developed for
a face-to-face mode of delivery. As such, this sudden change of teaching
and learning brought a great mismatch between teaching and support-
ing students. Content that was developed and prepared for face-to-face
delivery had to be offered online and may as such not adequately support
technology-supported teaching and learning. The most affected was the
assessment. While students were used to onsite assessment, they now had
to sit for online assessments, including examinations.
The sudden change of teaching and learning methodologies marked a
complete departure or deviation from the norm. Adnan and Anwar (2020,
p. 45) observed, “The lack of face-to-face interaction with the instruc-
tor, response time and absence of traditional classroom socialization were
among some other issues highlighted by higher education students.” For
some institutions students used to interact with teachers online, though
at a very minimal scale. This interaction was now to replace face-to-face
interaction and remained a challenge. Virtual classes became a turnoff to
students who were used to face-to-face contact sessions and classroom
socialization. There was a lack of campus interaction, lack of socialization,
and delayed response from instructors, unlike immediate feedback from
face-to-face sessions. Online learning did not have immediacy. Generally,
both students and educators considered face-to-face more effective than
online and distance learning due to the delays, especially on the provi-
sion of feedback. Real-time discussions and knowledge sharing suddenly
became a challenge. Before COVID-19, many students have been depen-
dent on university onsite resources such as electricity, reliable Wi-Fi, and
a conducive environment to study in. With the study-at-home policy, stu-
dents were deprived of such resources. COVID-19 made obvious the digi-
tal divide and inequality between institutions, as well as between students
within the same institution. Some would be better equipped and more
experienced than others.
Implications
In this chapter, I explored the contribution of online learning to the edu-
cation sector in the advent of COVID-19. I looked at learning experiences
using ICTs during this time of the pandemic, as well as the challenges that
the students and educators face. A study by Mailizar et al., (2020) found
that there are challenges that need to be explored further that hinder stu-
dents from achieving their learning goals if exposed to ODL mode from
their normal face-to-face classes. It is, therefore, important for institutions
to have a policy on curriculum review to cater to such eventualities.
ODL institutions need to create cooperative environments to prepare
for an online mode of delivery. From this study, it is clear that institu-
tions need to collaborate rather than compete as education providers.
Face-to-face universities may have not been prepared for online edu-
cation, which was introduced as an immediate “quick fix” during the
COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is now becoming clearer that institu-
tions will make the online mode of teaching and learning part of their
systems going forward. There should always be provision for ODL and
distance education delivery. Teachers, even those in the conventional
institutions, and students should always be ready to embrace alternative
modes of teaching and learning deliveries, whether there are pandemic
outbreaks or not.
Institutions and Internet service providers need to have a conversa-
tion about the provision of education to students as a right. This would
encourage Internet providers to facilitate the provision of zero-rated ser-
vices for school content. Lynch (2020, p. 195) observed,
We need to embrace these changes as a long-term response that will

develop and improve over the next few years. That response should
include the development of better infrastructure, policies, quality
improvement, accessibility standards and strategic plans for continued
access in the future.
COVID-19 has, without argument, created an opportunity for ODL,

which now has to vigorously introduce online learning to surely become
an iconic brand in higher education.
Limitations
This chapter was written when most countries were experiencing their
second wave of COVID-19 and experiencing rising cases. However, it
would have been ideal to note how the changes in learning institutions in
response to health protocols impacted the teaching and learning experi-
ences of both teachers and students and what lessons conventional institu-
tions have learned from the pandemic.
Bio
Mmabaledi Seeletso, Ph.D., is Lecturer and Head of the Department of
Educational Management and Leadership at Botswana Open University.
Seeletso specializes in issues of open and distance learning content plan-
ning, design, and development, as well as assessment of tertiary programs
for teacher education. Dr. Seeletso was a recipient of both the prestigious
Fulbright Scholarship and the University of South Africa (UNISA) post-
doctoral fellowship.
References
Adam, T. (2020). The privilege of #pivotonline: A South African perspective.
Open Development and Education. https://opendeved.net/2020/04/22/
the-privilege-of-pivotonline/
Adnan, M., & Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic:
Students’ perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2(1).
http://www.doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2020261309
Blaine, A. U. (2019). Interaction and presence in the virtual classroom: An analy-
sis of the perceptions of students and teachers in online and blended advanced
placement courses. Computers & Education, 132, 31–43.
Domecini, V. (2020). Distance education in chemistry during the epidemic
COVID-19. Substantia, 4(1). http://www.doi.org/10.10128/substantia-961
Gorsky, P., Caspi, A., & Trumper, R. (2004). Dialogue in a distance education
physics course. Open Learning, 19(3), 265–277.
Gorsky, P., Caspi, A., & Smidt, S. (2007). Use of instructional dialogue by univer-
sity students in a difficult distance education physics course. Journal of Distance
Education, 21(3), 1–22.
Kanno, M. (2020). Maintaining and enhancing students’ collaborative learning
in a Japanese EFL higher education context. Journal of Education, Innovation,
and Communication, Special Issues, June 2020, 91–106. https://doi.
org/10.34097/jeicom_SP_june2020_4
Lynch, M. (2020). E-Learning during a global pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance
Education, 15(1), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3881785
Mailizar, A. A., Maulina, S., & Bruce, S. (2020). Secondary school mathematics
teachers’ views on e-learning implementation barriers during the COVID-19
Pandemic: The case of Indonesia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 16(7), em1860.
Malatyinszki, S. (2020). Experiencing digital education. Easy Chair (pre-print
No.3674).
Ratheeswan, K. (2018). Information communication technology in education.
Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, 3(S1), 45.
Renn, N., Maor, D., & McConney, A. (2016). Investigating teacher presence
in courses using synchronous videoconferencing. Distance Education, 37(3),
302–316.
Rowntree, D. (1990). Teaching through self-instruction: How to develop open learn-
ing materials. Kogan Page.
Seeletso, M. K. (2016). Instructional materials: Design and development as deter-
miner of academic success of open and distance learners [Unpublished doctoral
thesis]. University of Pretoria.
UNESCO (2020). COVID-19 impact on education. https://en.unesco.org/
covid19/educationresponse.
Zheng, Y., Ma, Y., Zheng, J., & Xie, X. (2020). Cardio-vascular system. Nature
Revies Cardiology, 17(259), 259–260.
Zu, Z. Y., Di Jiang, M., Xu, P. P., Chen, W., Ni, Q. Q., Lu, G. M., & Zhang, L. J.
(2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019): A perspective from China.
Radiology, 296(2), E15–E25.
11 Suddenly Online
How Russian Students
Switched to Distance Learning
during the COVID-19
Pandemic
Ivan Gruzdev, Evgeniia Shmeleva,
Raman Kalinin, and Kseniia Vilkova
Introduction
In the middle of March 2020, the Ministry of Science and Higher
Education of the Russian Federation issued an order requiring the uni-
versities to organize the learning process outside campuses because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. As most Russian universities are public, they had
to comply without question. This meant that Russian universities had to
switch to fully online and to adjust the curriculum very quickly. Putting
this order into effect proved to be quite difficult. Beyond the difficulties
common to all countries, the educational system in Russia has some fea-
tures that made this sudden transition, from face-to-face to distance learn-
ing, especially challenging. There are at least three reasons why organizing
distance learning was a struggle for the Russian higher education system.
First, the institutional landscape of the educational system is highly
diverse. A high level of heterogeneity of universities was historically
planned (Kuzminov et al., 2013) by supporting the most promising of
them with extra funding and exacerbating academic excellence programs
that favor these universities.1 It led to the increasing heterogeneity among
Russian universities in terms of availability of resources, professional quali-
fication of faculty, and the experience of using digital technology. It was
clear that switching to online would not equally transition across all insti-
tutions, and some of them would find it challenging.
The second reason is that the majority of faculty members were critical
of online technology in the learning process before the COVID-19 pan-
demic (Ajmaletdinov et al., 2019). The results of a qualitative study, which
was carried out in January and February 2020 (Abramov et al., 2020),
suggest that even the faculties from the leading Russian universities are
skeptical about including online courses in the curriculum. They see very
few benefits of the university learning management systems and, gener-
ally, tend to consider digital and online educational tools as a threat to the
quality of the learning process.
Suddenly Online 135
The third reason deals with the features of the curriculum in most
higher education programs within the Russian Federation. According to
data gathered within the Student Experience in the Research University
Consortium (2015), undergraduate students at HSE University Moscow
(the only Russian institution that takes part in the Consortium) spend
much more time in classrooms, compared to students at U.S. or European
universities. A large proportion of traditional face-to-face lectures within
the curriculum is typical for most Russian universities. Thus, going online
touched upon an essential part of the entire learning process.
All the aforementioned issues make especially relevant the analysis of
problems that emerged when face-to-face learning was replaced by the
distance mode. Such an analysis can be done from different perspectives.
In this chapter, we touch upon these issues from the perspective of under-
graduate students from various Russian universities. More precisely, we
focus on the difficulties that students faced during distance learning and
discover what factors lie behind the satisfaction from their learning expe-
rience. Using survey data collected in late May 2020, we reveal several
factors that explain some differences in the distance learning experience in
Russian universities during the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss them in
the context of further prospects for online education.
Throughout the chapter, we use the term “distance learning” instead of
“online learning” because we consider both the online and offline expe-
rience of students yet focus mostly on the former. The term also covers
all the learning practices that students and instructors were involved in
during the lockdown. As it turned out, all the parties of the learning pro-
cess implemented various ways to organize it remotely. For instance, some
lectures were held on Skype and Zoom, while students and instructors
mostly communicated via emails and social networks. At the same time,
some universities recommended using their learning management systems
or online platforms. Finally, some lecturers just sent the study materials
and literature to the students, stopping any interactive communication
with them.
Literature Review
Digitalization in Russian Universities before the COVID-19 Pandemic
In recent decades, digital technologies have drastically changed tradi-
tional higher education (Glazier & Harris, 2020), resulting in the adop-
tion of online learning in institutions of higher education and investment
in infrastructure for digitalization. These changes were mostly influenced
by government initiatives (Tømte et al., 2019). In line with this trend,
the Russian government has launched a project called “Modern Digital
Educational Environment in the Russian Federation.” The project aims
to increase the number of students taking online courses to 11 million by
136 Ivan Gruzdev et al.
the end of 2025 (Proekt “Sovremennaja cifrovaja obrazovatel'naja sreda v
Rossijskoj Federacii,” 2015).
However, there has been limited implementation of online courses
prior to the pandemic. Roschina et al. (2018) indicated that, in 2016,
74% of Russian students had never heard of Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs). In 2019, only one-third of instructors stated that they used
digital technologies during the learning process (Ajmaletdinov et al.,
2019). Research by Klyagin et al. (2020), specified that 26% of programs
in Russian universities cannot be implemented in a distance or online for-
mat since the learning process during these programs is practically ori-
ented. Despite government initiatives, online learning was not a common
part of the student experience before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Student Experience during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 crisis has caused a significant disruption in student learn-
ing experiences. Researchers indicate that, during spring 2020, students
experienced a wide range of obstacles related to poor Internet connection,
an unfavorable study environment at home (Kapasia et al., 2020), and a
sense of stress, anxiety, and loneliness (Elmer et al., 2020). These problems
were also common among students from the USA (Aucejo et al., 2020),
India (Kapasia et al., 2020), and Switzerland (Elmer et al., 2020). Similar
results were derived from surveys of Russian students (Aleshkovskiy et al.,
2020; Zener & Oshkina, 2020).
Research shows that the effects of the pandemic on students are het-
erogeneous, and some students may be at higher risk of facing difficulties.
The differences were observed in students’ expectations of difficulties in
the new format, as well as in actual challenges that occurred during the
distance learning. For instance, Larionova et al. (2020) found that at
the beginning of the pandemic, several categories of students were more
likely to expect difficulties in learning under distance learning: freshmen
and sophomores, students with lower self-regulated learning skills, intrin-
sically motivated students, and students who expected challenges with
student-faculty communication. These are important findings since the
students who have doubts about their abilities to cope with learning show
also lower engagement and lower performance in both traditional and
distance learning (Honicke & Broadbent 2016; Jung & Lee 2018; Vayre
&Vonthron, 2019). Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic had a larger
negative effect on students with lower socioeconomic status (Aucejo et
al., 2020) since they are more prone to experience technical problems or
lack a favorable studying environment at home (Kapasia et al., 2020). The
effect of the pandemic on student experiences has also varied for different
majors. During the lockdown, some of the students majoring in chemical
engineering, education, and clinical medicine were not able to complete
courses in the online format (Klyagin et al., 2020). As a result, Russian
Suddenly Online 137
students from applied sciences were not able to form and develop practi-
cal skills during the spring term (Zakharova et al., 2020).
Students’ Preferences for Course Format

Recent research indicates that student distance learning experience during
the pandemic affected students’ preferences for the course format. Aucejo
et al. (2020) specify a decrease in the students’ perceived likelihood of
taking online classes in the future. However, we do not have much infor-
mation about students’ preferences for instructional format during the
COVID-19 pandemic. To put this issue in context, we survey the research
that was made before the pandemic.
There have been tremendous efforts to make traditional higher educa-
tion more digitalized. Despite the massive integration of MOOCs and
digital services into universities, still, a lot of students prefer face-to-face
classes over distance education. Course preferences are related to issues
involving student demographics, self-regulated learning skills, and learn-
ing outcomes. There are some demographic and educational character-
istics of students, such as age, occupation, online learning experience,
socioeconomic status, and major. According to Tichavsky et al. (2015),
students enrolled in online classes tend to be older and have full-time jobs
compared to students enrolled in face-to-face classes. These students pre-
ferred the framework of online classes, regardless of individual experiences
(Artino, 2010).
Self-regulated learning skills can also shape students’ preferences. Most
students think that online learning requires more self-teaching (Weldy,
2018), and students with higher self-efficacy tend to prefer taking online
classes instead of face-to-face (Artino, 2010). Establishing positive rela-
tions with peers and instructors still requires face-to-face communication;
however, students advocate online learning for the opportunity to receive
faster feedback from instructors (Paechter & Maier, 2010).
Learning outcomes, which students expect to receive, are related to
students’ preferences for the learning format. According to Weldy (2018),
students believe that they retain less information during online learning.
This may be explained by the fact that students tend to spend less time
learning online and experience a lack of communication with peers and
instructors compared with face-to-face classes.
While the shift to distance learning made in the spring of 2020 was dev-
astating to many students, it has been addressing a number of difficulties
we mentioned before. However, it is not clear how particular difficulties,
which students had during the COVID-19 crisis, may affect their prefer-
ence for distance learning in the future. The purpose of our study is two-
fold. First, we aim to identify students who are more likely to encounter
difficulties during distance learning. Second, we are going to describe the
characteristics of students who prefer distance learning over face-to-face.
Research Method
Participants
The data were gathered with an online survey during the last week of
May 2020 among the full-time undergraduate students from Russian uni-
versities (N = 22 699). The respondents were recruited through three
channels: administrative mailing (65% of the sample), advertising in social
network services (29%), and the online opt-in panel of students (6%). The
nonrandom sample consists of students from 714 universities (74% of
institutions), with a median number of students per university equaling
four (M = 33, SD = 156). The median age of the students is 19; the share
of male students is 32%. We used 17,618 observations for the analysis after
deleting the observations with missing values.
Analytical Strategy
The analysis consists of three parts. First, we use principal component
analysis to identify the groups of difficulties for students during distance
learning in spring 2020. We used a checkbox question, “Do you have any
difficulties with the distance learning format?” with 13 types of difficul-
ties, including the option, “The distance learning format does not cause
any difficulties for me” (Table 11.1). The “distance learning” definition
Table 11.1 Difficulties with the Distance Learning Format (N = 17,618).
Difficulty Share in %
The distance learning format does not cause any difficulties for me. 12.7
It is difficult for me to find a convenient place for distance learning. 24.4
I don’t have any suitable devices (for example, a computer with an 9.5
Internet connection).
I find it difficult to understand the interface of online courses and 11.9
programs.
I find it difficult to keep my attention when watching video lectures. 29.9
It is difficult for me to concentrate when studying the study material 40.4
on my own.
It is difficult for me to ask questions to the instructors in the absence 37.3
of offline communication.
It is difficult for me to answer the instructor’s questions and clarify 36.6
what I do not understand.
I can’t discuss the study material with my classmates. 22.3
I experience a lack of communication with my classmates. 45.2
I experience a lack of face-to-face discussions with instructors. 42.2
I feel more alone and isolated. 32.0
It is difficult for me to study at home. 41.2
There are technical problems and interruptions to the Internet 54.5
connection.
Note. Question: Do you have any difficulties with the distance learning format?
Suddenly Online 139
wasn’t directly provided in the question itself, but it was understandable in
the context of the previous questions of the survey. Second, we estimated
the differences in the values of the extracted factors between different
groups of students using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests. Third,
to identify the characteristics of students who prefer distance learning over
offline learning, we use binary logistic regression. The model estimates the
coefficients for student educational and sociodemographic characteristics,
the factors indicating student difficulties with distance learning, and their
beliefs about distance learning.
To identify the students who prefer distance learning over traditional
face-to-face learning, we used a variable, indicating the degree to which
the students agree to the following statement, “I like distance learn-
ing more than face-to-face learning” (Table 11.2). This initially 5-point
Table 11.2 Independent Variables (N = 17,618).
Variables Share in %
Sociodemographic characteristics
Male 31.6
Employed 29.3
Socioeconomic status, category 1 16.3
Educational characteristics
Year 1 31.7
Year 2 25.4
Year 3 21.7
Year 4 and 5 21.2
State funding 72.0
Mathematical and natural sciences 10.5
Social sciences 12.8
Computer science 11.5
Engineering, technology, technical sciences 18.8
Education and pedagogical sciences 6.6
Humanities 8.7
Arts and culture 5.4
Health and medical sciences 12.0
Other majors 13.7
Grades in the last session: only A’s 22.5
Grades in the last session: mostly B’s and some A’s 43.6
Grades in the last session: mostly A’s and B’s but some C’s 18.9
Grades in the last session: mostly C’s 15.0
Beliefs about distance learning and satisfaction
My learning has become less effective during the distance format of 62.2
education
I am satisfied with the way how distance learning was organized at 23.4
my university
Likert scale variable (from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree” with
an option “Do not know”) was dichotomized so that options “Strongly
agree” and “Somewhat agree” were coded as “1,” others including “Do
not know” were coded as “0.”
Three groups of independent variables were used: (1) student educa-
tional characteristics (a type of funding, year of study, major, and academic
performance (grades)), (2) sociodemographic characteristics (gender, the
status of employment, socioeconomic status), and (3) factors reflecting
types of difficulties occurring during distance learning.
The socioeconomic status was measured with the question, “How do
you assess the financial situation of your family?” with four options:
– We live very sparingly; we have enough money for daily expenses,

but buying clothes is already difficult (category 1 in the following
analysis).
– There is enough money for food and clothing, but buying large appli-
ances without applying for a loan is problematic (category 2).
– We are secure, but we cannot afford expensive purchases (travel, car,
etc.) without applying for a loan or saving the necessary amount (cat-
egory 3).
– We can easily afford to buy a car or an expensive vacation (category 4).
The student’s satisfaction with the experience of distance learning dur-

ing the COVID-19 pandemic was measured with the question, “How
satisfied are you with the way distance learning is organized at your uni-
versity?”, with a five-point Likert scale from “Absolutely not satisfied”
to “Absolutely satisfied” with the neutral option “Do not know.” The
belief about the effectiveness of distance learning was measured by the
statement, “My learning has become less effective during distance educa-
tion,” to which students could express the degree of their agreement on
a five-point Likert scale (from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”
with an option of “Do not know”). These variables were dichotomized
so that options “Strongly agree”/ “Absolutely satisfied” and “Somewhat
agree”/ “Somewhat satisfied” were coded as “1”; others, including the
neutral option, were coded as “0.”
The distributions of the independent variables are presented in Table 11.2.
Results
Difficulties of Distance Learning
Only 13% of students did not indicate any of the problems related to
the distance learning format. On average, students tended to choose not
a single but several problems at a time. The most common difficulties
during distance learning are technical problems related to the Internet
Suddenly Online 141
connection (55%), a lack of communication with peer students (45%)
and instructors (42%), difficulties with concentrating on learning mate-
rial (40%), and studying at home (41%). The least common difficulties
are a lack of suitable devices for distance learning (10%) and difficulties
with understanding the interface of online courses and programs (12%;
see Table 11.3).
As a result of principal component analysis, four components were
extracted, accounting for 55% of the total variance in the selected vari-
ables. The first factor, “Difficulties related to student-student interac-
tions,” has higher correlations with the variables indicating the difficulties
related to interactions with peers. The second factor, “Difficulties with
self-regulated learning,” correlates more with the variables referring to
the difficulties with concentration and focus while studying. The third fac-
tor, “Difficulties related to student-faculty interactions,” correlates with
the variables indicating difficulties related to communication with faculty.
And the fourth factor, “Technical difficulties,” correlates with the vari-
ables related to technical issues, Internet connection, and a lack of suitable
devices for distance learning. The items, factors, and values of Cronbach’s
alpha showing the degree of internal consistency are presented in Table
11.4. The factor loadings are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Difficulties of Distance Learning

The results of the ANOVA tests and t-tests showing the differences in the
four types of difficulties across different types of students are presented in
Table 11.5.
The students from families with lower socioeconomic status, students
earlier in their studies, students who believe that distance learning is less
effective than face-to-face learning, and those who are not satisfied with
the way it was organized at their university indicate more difficulties across
all four types of problems.
Table 11.3 Dependent Variable – Preference for Distance Learning over

Traditional Face-to-Face Learning in Original and Binary Format (N = 16,718).
Share in the Original Share in the Binary

Variable (in %) Variable (in %)
Strongly agree 10.1 29.3

Somewhat agree 19.2
Somewhat disagree 28.6 70.7
Strongly disagree 35.5
Do not know 6.7
Note. Question: Indicate the degree to which you are agree with the following statement: I
like distance learning more than face-to-face learning
Table 11.4 Factors (N = 17,618).
Factors Difficulties
Difficulties related I can’t discuss the study material with my classmates.

to student-student I experience a lack of communication with my
interactions (α = 66) classmates.
I feel more alone and isolated.
Difficulties with self- I find it difficult to keep my attention when watching
regulated learning video lectures.
(α = 63) It is difficult for me to concentrate when studying the
study material on my own.
It is difficult for me to study at home.
Difficulties related Is it difficult for me to ask questions to the instructors in
to student-faculty the absence of offline communication?
interactions (α = 63) Is it difficult for me to answer the instructor's questions
and clarify what I do not understand?
I experience a lack of face-to-face discussions with
instructors.
Technical difficulties It is difficult for me to find a convenient place for
(α = 52) distance learning.
I don’t have any suitable devices (for example, a
computer with an Internet connection).
I find it difficult to understand the interface of online
courses and programs.
There are technical problems and interruptions to the
Internet connection.
The results also show that student academic performance is positively

related to difficulties with the problems with student-student interactions
and negatively with difficulties due to a lack of self-regulated learning
skills. The students with higher academic performance experienced more
problems related to peer-to-peer communication and fewer problems with
self-regulated learning.
Technical issues are more common among students who pay tuition
compared to the students with state funding, male students compared to
female students, and students majoring in arts and culture. Not employed
students experience more difficulties related to self-regulated learning and
student-faculty interactions compared to employed students.
A lack of communication with peers is most common for students
majoring in arts and culture and least common for students majoring in
computer science. Difficulties concerning self-regulated learning are most
common for students majoring in humanities and arts and culture and
least common for students studying pedagogics. A lack of communication
with faculty is more common for engineering students and less common
for students majoring in education and pedagogical sciences.
Suddenly Online 143
Table 11.5 Factor Scores by Student Characteristics (N = 17,618).
Difficulties Difficulties Difficulties Technical

Related to with Self- Related to Difficulties
Student-Student Regulated Student-Faculty
Interactions Learning Interactions
Male 0.06*** 0.01 −0.01 0.06***

Female −0.14 −0.02 0.01 -0.13
SES category 1 0.10*** 0.13*** 0.19*** 0.49***
SES category 2 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.12
SES category 3 −0.02 −0.04 −0.05 −0.16
SES category 4 −0.05 −0.18 −0.20 −0.27
Paid tuition 0.01 0.01 −0.02 0.12***
State funding 0.00 −0.01 0.01 −0.05
Year 1 0.09*** 0.22*** 0.08*** 0.04***
Year 2 0.02 0.08 0.05 0.01
Year 3 −0.03 −0.04 0.02 −0.01
Year 4 and 5 −0.13 −0.38 −0.20 −0.06
Mathematical and 0.04*** 0.10*** 0.06*** 0.04***
natural sciences
Social sciences 0.04 0.04 −0.04 0.01
Computer science −0.19 0.04 −0.05 −0.24
Engineering, −0.03 0.06 0.25 −0.16
technology,
technical sciences
Education and −0.09 −0.22 −0.19 0.14
pedagogical
sciences
Humanities 0.14 0.14 −0.07 0.12
Arts and culture 0.29 0.12 0.02 0.24
Health and medical 0.03 −0.18 −0.08 0.04
sciences
Other majors −0.05 −0.12 −0.11 0.11
Grades in last 0.11*** −0.15*** 0.00 −0.08***
session: only A’s
Grades in last 0.02 −0.03 0.00 −0.01
session: mostly B’s
and some A’s
Grades in last −0.03 0.11 0.04 0.04
session: mostly A’s
and B’s but some
C’s
Grades in last −0.19 0.15 0.02 0.10
session: mostly
C’s
Not employed 0.00 0.02*** 0.01 −0.02
Employed 0.01 −0.06 −0.01 0.05
Distance learning −0.46*** −0.65*** −0.54*** −0.27***
format is not less
effective
Distance learning 0.28 0.40 0.33 0.16
format is less
effective
Table 11.5 (Continued)
Difficulties Difficulties Difficulties Technical

Related to with Self- Related to Difficulties
Student-Student Regulated Student-Faculty
Interactions Learning Interactions
Not satisfied with 0.13*** 0.13*** 0.19*** 0.09***
the way distance
learning was
organized at
university
Satisfied with the −0.41 −0.44 −0.65 −0.29
way distance
learning was
organized at
university
Note
*** −p < 0.01
** − < 0.05
* −p < 0.1. The significance levels are presented for the whole variables, not the separate
categories.
Regression Results
The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 11.4. The
model has high prediction accuracy (area under ROC curve = 81%) and
explains 22% of the variation in preferences for distance learning. The
mean VIF value of 1.17 indicates a low level of multicollinearity.
All the factors indicating the difficulties substantially decrease the pref-
erences for distance learning. The difficulties related to student-student
interactions differentiate the student preferences at the highest rate (OR =
0.626) and technical issues at the lowest rate (OR = 0.928).
Preference for distance learning is also related to beliefs about the effec-
tiveness of online learning and satisfaction with the way distance learning
was organized at their university: the students who believe their learning
did not become less effective and who are satisfied with the arrangements
at their university are more likely to prefer distance learning over offline
learning (OR = 0.355 and OR = 2.328, respectively).
The results show no differences across the years of studying except for the
third-year undergraduate students who prefer distance learning compared
to first-year students. The students with the lowest academic performance
(getting mostly C’s) are almost twice (OR = 1.813) as likely to prefer dis-
tance learning compared to students getting only A’s. Employed students
are slightly more likely to prefer distance learning (1.240). Socioeconomic
status does not differentiate student preferences for distance learning.
Males and students paying tuition are slightly less likely to prefer dis-
tance learning. The preferences for distance learning over offline do not
vary much across the majors, except computer sciences, indicating the
highest chances of preferences (Table 11.6).
Suddenly Online 145
Table 11.6 Regression Results (N = 17,618).
Construct Odds ratio
Difficulties related to student-student interactions 0.626***

(0.011)
Difficulties with self-regulated learning 0.793***
(0.014)
Difficulties related to student-faculty interactions 0.870***
(0.016)
Technical difficulties 0.928***
(0.017)
Belief that learning became less effective during distance learning 0.355***
(0.015)
Satisfaction with the way distance learning was organized at 2.328***
university
(0.102)
Constant 0.259***
(0.029)
McFadden’s Adj R2 0.22
Area under ROC curve 0.81
Note
*** − adjusted p < 0.0004,
** − adjusted p < 0.002,
* − adjusted p < 0.004. The significance thresholds were adjusted using
Bonferroni correction to reduce the chances of Type I error. We followed
Maloshonok (2020) for the procedure. The following variables were omitted
from the tables for the sake of brevity: gender, type of funding, socioeconomic
status, major, year of study, academic performance, status of employment.
Discussion and Conclusions

This study aimed to explore the difficulties that students faced when dis-
tance learning was suddenly thrust upon them at Russian public universi-
ties because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the attempts of the
Russian government to accelerate the digitalization of the national edu-
cation system, the universities were not completely ready for the sudden
transition into distance learning. The problems that Russian universities
experienced during the COVID-19 lockdown did not noticeably differ
from universities in other countries, and the types of problems students
faced are also quite similar (Agasisti & Soncin 2021; de Boer 2021; Jung
et al., 2021; Tamrat, 2021; Yang & Huang, 2021).
According to our results, Russian students faced communication issues
with other students and faculty, difficulties related to self-regulated learn-
ing skills, and technical problems. However, the reaction of students to
restrictions implemented due to COVID-19 has some interesting pecu-
liarities. For instance, students’ satisfaction levels remained quite high: 59%
claimed they were satisfied or almost satisfied by the way distance learning
was organized at their university. Despite the fact that most students in
Russia had access to the Internet prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
technical problem relating to poor Internet connection is the most com-
mon one. Yet other problems, such as lack of communication with other
students and instructors, as well as difficulties relating to concentration,
were also highly pronounced. However, the magnitude of these problems
varies across different groups of students.
There are some categories of students who are more vulnerable because
they experience more problems than others. These include first-year stu-
dents and students with lower socioeconomic backgrounds. These findings
are consistent with previous research about the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic on students from different socioeconomic backgrounds (Aucejo
et al., 2020). To our surprise, according to our data, students majoring in
engineering and technology (excluding computer science students) also
experienced the whole spectrum of problems. This might be due to the
practical sides of the courses related to these majors.
There are certain groups of students who experience only one or sev-
eral kinds of problems but not others. For example, students with higher
academic performance tend to experience more problems related to a lack
of communication with peers; at the same time, they rarely faced difficul-
ties with the faculty, self-regulation, and technical issues. These results
are in a line with the research by Lindner and Harris (1993), showing
that the ability to self-regulate the learning process relates to students’
GPA. Naturally, communication with peers cannot be compensated by
good discipline only. Conversely, employed students claimed fewer prob-
lems related to self-regulation and communication with faculty. It seems
that they might be more satisfied with distance learning because it allows
them to combine their work and studies, spending less time on the route
between their work and university.
Although most of the students experienced some of the considered
problems, there was still a third of students who preferred distance online
learning to traditional face-to-face learning. The perceived quality of insti-
tutional readiness to provide and support the conditions for distance learn-
ing is related to the aforementioned difficulties, which are more common
for the students who are not satisfied with the way that their university
arranged the distance learning. Similarly, the difficulties also correlate with
the student belief that online education is less efficient than face-to-face
format. Therefore, it is not surprising that students who experienced fewer
problems during the lockdown are more likely to prefer distance learning
over face-to-face.
Bios
Ivan Gruzdev is the Director for Institutional Research and Student
Academic Development at the National Research University Higher
School of Economics. His major research interests lie in the area of
Suddenly Online 147
university dropouts, student success, student networks, and governing
boards in higher education.
Evgeniia Shmeleva is a Ph.D. candidate and a Research Fellow at the

Centre of Sociology of Higher Education, Institute of Education, National
Research University Higher School of Economics. Her major research
interests lie in the area of student academic dishonesty, student attrition,
online learning, and integration of educational technologies at the second-
ary level of education.
Raman Kalinin is a Ph.D. candidate and a Junior Research Fellow at the

Centre for Institutional Research, National Research University Higher
School of Economics. His major research interests lie in the area of judg-
ments about justice, reactions to injustice, and underlying social processes.
Kseniia Vilkova is a Ph.D. candidate and a Junior Research Fellow at

the Centre of Sociology of Higher Education, Institute of Education,
National Research University Higher School of Economics. Her major
research interests lie in the area of online learning, retention in Massive
Open Online Courses, and self-regulated learning.
Note
1 https://www.5top100.ru/en/
References
Abramov, R. N., Gruzdev, I. A., Terentev, E. A., Zakharova, U. S., & Grigoryeva,
A. V. (2020). Universitetskie prepodavateli i cifrovizacija obrazovanija: nakanune
distancionnogo fors-mazhora [University Professors and the Digitalization
of Education: On the Threshold of Force Majeure Transition to Studying
Remotely]. University Management: Practice and Analysis, 24(2), 59–74.
https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2020.02.014
Agasisti, T., & Soncin, M. (2021) Higher education in troubled times: On
the impact of Covid-19 in Italy. Studies in Higher Education, 46(1), 86–95.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859689
Ajmaletdinov, T. A., Bajmuratova, L. R., Zajceva, O. A., Imaeva, G. R., & Spiridonova,
L. V. (2019). Cifrovaja gramotnost' rossijskih pedagogov. Gotovnost' k ispol'zovaniju
cifrovyh tehnologij v uchebnom processe [Digital literacy of Russian instructors.
Readiness to use digital technologies in the educational process]. NAFI.
Aleshkovskiy, I. A., Gasparishvili, A. T., Krukhmaleva, O. V., Narbut, N. P., &
Savina, N. E. (2020). Studenty vuzov Rosssii o disnatcionnom obuchenii:
ocenka i vozmozhnosti [Russian University students about distance learning:
Assessments and opportunities]. Higher Education in Russia, 29(10), 86–100.
Artino Jr, A. R. (2010). Online or face-to-face learning? Exploring the personal fac-
tors that predict students' choice of instructional format. The Internet and Higher
Education, 13(4), 272–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.005
Aucejo, E. M., French, J. F., Araya, M. P. U., & Zafar, B. (2020). The impact of
COVID-19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey
(No. w27392). National Bureau of Economic Research.
de Boer, H. (2021) COVID-19 in Dutch higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 46(1), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859684
Elmer, T., Mepham, K., & Stadtfeld, C. (2020). Students under lockdown:
Comparisons of students’ social networks and mental health before and dur-
ing the COVID-19 crisis in Switzerland. PloS One, 15(7). https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236337
Glazier, R., & Harris, H. S. (2020). Common traits of the best online and face-to-
face classes: Evidence from student surveys. APSA Preprints.
Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of academic self–efficacy on
academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17,
63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002
Jung, Y., & Lee, J. (2018). Learning engagement and persistence in massive open
online courses (MOOCS). Computers and Education, 122, 9–22. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.013.
Jung, J., Horta, H., & Postiglione, G. (2021) Living in uncertainty: The COVID-
19 pandemic and higher education in Hong Kong. Studies in Higher Education,
46(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859685
Kapasia, N., Paul, P., Roy, A., Saha, J., Zaveri, A., Mallick, R., Barman, B., Das,
P.,…& Chouhan, P. (2020). Impact of lockdown on learning status of under-
graduate and postgraduate students during COVID-19 pandemic in West
Bengal, India. Children and Youth Services Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2020.105194
Klyagin A. Abalmasova, E.S., & Garev, K.V. (2020). Shtorm pervyh nedel': kak vys-
shee obrazovanie shagnulo v real'nost' pandemii [First weeks of storm: How higher
education entered into the reality of pandemic]. Higher School of Economics.
Kuzminov, J. I., Semenov, D. S., & Froumin, I. D. (2013). Struktura vuzovskoj
seti: ot sovetskogo k rossijskomu «master-planu» [University network structure:
From the Soviet to the Russian “master plan”], Educational Studies Moscow, 4,
8–69.
Larionova, V. A., Semonova, T. V., Shmeleva, E. D., Daineko, L. V., & Yurasova,
I. I. (2020). Forced transition to distance learning: Students’ expectations and
concerns. University Management: Practice and Analysis, 25(4), 22–29.
Lindner, R. W., & Harris, B. R. (1993). Teaching self-regulated learning strate-
gies. AERA Annual Meetings, 1–17.
Maloshonok, N. (2020). Undergraduate time-use: A comparison of US, Chinese,
and Russian students at highly selective universities. Higher Education Research
& Development, 39(3), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.
1684453
Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences
and preferences in e-learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292–
297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004
Proekt “Sovremennaja cifrovaja obrazovatel'naja sreda v Rossijskoj Federacii” [The
project “A modern digital environment in the Russian Federation”] (2015,
October 25). Retrieved November 2, 2020, from http://static.government.
ru/media/files/8SiLmMBgjAN89vZbUUtmuF5lZYfTvOAG.pdf
Suddenly Online 149
Roshchina, Y. M., Roshchin, S. U., & Rudakov, V. N. (2018). The demand
for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC): Evidence from Russian educa-
tion. Educational Studies Moscow, 1, 174–199. https://doi.org/10.17323/
1814-9545-2018-1-174-199
Tamrat, W. (2021) Enduring the impacts of COVID-19: Experiences of the pri-
vate higher education sector in Ethiopia. Studies in Higher Education, 46(1),
59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859690
Tichavsky, L. P., Hunt, A. N., Driscoll, A., & Jicha, K. (2015). “It’s Just Nice
Having a Real Teacher”: Student perceptions of online versus face-to-face
instruction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
9(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2015.090202
Tømte, C. E., Fossland, T., Aamodt, P. O., & Degn, L. (2019). Digitalisation in
higher education: Mapping institutional approaches for teaching and learning.
Quality in Higher Education, 25(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353
8322.2019.1603611
Vayre, E., & Vonthron, A. M. (2019). Relational and psychological factors affect-
ing exam participation and student achievement in online college courses. The
Internet and Higher Education, 43(100671). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iheduc.2018.07.001
Weldy, T. G. (2018). Traditional, blended, or online: Business student preferences
and experience with different course formats. E-Journal of Business Education
and Scholarship of Teaching, 12(2), 55–62.
Yang, B., & Huang, C. (2021) Turn crisis into opportunity in response to
COVID-19: Experience from a Chinese University and future prospects. Studies
in Higher Education, 46(1), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2
020.1859687
Zakharova, U. Z., Vilkova, K. A., & Egorov, G. V. (2020). It can’t be taught
online: Applied sciences during the pandemic. Educational Studies Moscow, 1,
115–137.
Zener, T. S., & Oshkina, A. V. (2020). Osobennosti obuchenia v onlajn-formate v
vyssheq schkole v forsirovannyh uslovijah [Peculiar features of remote learning
at the university under forced conditions]. International Journal of Humanities
and Natural Sciences, 5–3(44), 170–177.
Part III
COVID-19 as a Catalyst of
Change – Lessons for the
Longer Term
12 Could COVID-19 be a
Catalyst for Disruption in
Higher Education?
Raffaella Borasi, Richard DeMartino,
Nathan Harris and Dave Miller
Introduction
In the early 2010s, the growth of for-profit online universities, Massive
Open Online Courses (MOOCs), and stackable certificates led to dire
predictions for traditional higher education institutions (HEI). For exam-
ple, Michael Horn, cofounder of the Clayton Christensen Institute for
Disruptive Innovation, stated, “I think 25% of schools will fail in the next
two decades…. It’s going to be brutal across American higher education”
(CBS News, 2019, para 3).
Indeed, online courses and programs have increased dramatically over
the last two decades. In 2018, 35% of all undergraduate students (over
5.5 million) enrolled in at least one distance course (U.S. Department of
Education, 2019), compared to 8% in 1999 (Walton-Radford & Weko,
2011). The COVID-19 forced move to remote teaching may further
accelerate future adoption of online learning, raising the question, Will
online technologies become a “disruptive technology” (Christensen,
2013) for higher education, similar to what digital cameras have been for
photography?
Christensen described the “disruptive technology” phenomenon as
follows:
• A new technology makes it possible to develop a significantly cheaper

solution of lower quality but with new functionalities – thus appealing
to a new group of customers.
• Overtime, with technology advances, the quality and functionalities of
the new solution improve, while price decreases.
• A tipping point is reached when the new solution’s quality and func-
tionalities become comparable to those of the traditional solution – so
even customers used to the traditional solution will switch, making
the traditional solution obsolete.
Christensen also observed that powerful forces within established firms

and organizations tend to resist the adoption of new technologies, causing
them to stick to traditional solutions until it is too late. First, incumbent
154 Raffaella Borasi et al.
firms are hesitant to abandon the very products and operations that made
them successful (referred to as the “Innovator’s Dilemma”). Radical inno-
vations may also require changes in internal norms, thinking, and pro-
cesses, thus causing further resistance.
In this chapter, informed by this conceptualization of “disruptive tech-
nology,” we first evaluate whether online solutions are sufficiently advanced
to potentially cause a “tipping point,” assuming a pedagogical perspec-
tive to examine how the quality of online offerings (broadly defined)
has changed over time and may be further affected by this pandemic. We
then move to examine conflicting business and marketing factors affecting
customer demand and acceptance of alternative higher education prod-
ucts and the potential impact of COVID-19 on them. Finally, we turn to
higher education organizational theory to examine the forces operating
within HEIs (as the “incumbent firms” in this case) that can help explain
higher education’s resistance to widespread adoption of online solutions
so far and the possible post-COVID implications.
The chapter ends with considerations that we hope will inform HEIs’
post-COVID decisions about leveraging online solutions.
Literature Review and Conceptual Analysis

Is the Quality of Online Alternative Solutions Close to What Is
Needed for a “Tipping Point”?
According to Christensen’s model of technology disruption, a “tipping
point” is reached when most consumers perceive the new technology-
enabled solution as comparable in quality to the traditional solution – in
addition to being more affordable and having new valuable functional-
ities. For higher education today, the “new solution” is represented by the
options offered by a growing number and variety of online offerings – a
term we use to encompass a wide range of learning opportunities that lever-
age online teaching technologies. Examples include credit-bearing online
courses offered by traditional residential colleges and for-profit online uni-
versities, non-credit-bearing online professional development provided by
various entities, and “free” MOOCs. Using pedagogical considerations and
building on the rich literature of empirical studies about online teaching
and learning, we argue that the quality of online offerings is now on par with
comparable traditional offerings and that the remote teaching experienced
during the pandemic may lead more key stakeholders to this realization.
A Pedagogical Analysis of the Quality of Online Offerings over Time

Early online offerings had many limitations, as they mostly consisted of
video-recorded lectures followed by online quizzes, only allowed for asyn-
chronous communications between teacher and students, and used not-
so-user-friendly platforms to access materials. Despite these limitations,
Could COVID-19 be a Catalyst 155
early online courses opened up new markets for postsecondary education,
as they offered not only cheaper options but also new functionalities, such
as flexibility in time, location, and access – each extremely valuable for
nontraditional populations, such as stay-at-home parents, people with
jobs, or home-bound individuals.
Thanks to rapid advances in digital technologies, however, the design
quality of online offerings has dramatically increased. Today’s sophisticated
learning management systems make it easy to organize, access, and inter-
act with diverse content and activities. Synchronous sessions allow stu-
dents and teachers to interact in real time as a class or in small groups.
Online courses can also include animations and virtual simulations to bet-
ter understand complex phenomena. While some experiential learning
and sensitive discussions may be better served face-to-face, the pedagogi-
cal quality of well-designed online courses today is equal – and in some
cases even superior – to equivalent face-to-face courses. It is important to
note, though, that higher quality in design also involves higher costs, as
more faculty time and technology investments are needed to design qual-
ity online courses than traditional courses – as personally experienced by
one of the authors in her previous role as dean! Since the cost of delivering
an online course is still dependent on the faculty-student ratio, savings can
occur only if HEIs are willing to significantly change that ratio (Poulin &
Taylor Straut, 2017).
Another dimension of quality we should consider is the learning out-
comes achieved by students who complete online offerings. While compar-
ing learning outcomes in online versus face-to-face offerings is challenging,
there is an extensive body of research on this topic. Meta-analysis of those
studies concluded that online versus face-to-face delivery does not have
a significant impact per se; rather, learning outcomes are more affected
by the quality of the design and implementation of the course (Nguyen,
2015; Zhao et al., 2005). This, in turn, highlights the importance of fac-
ulty preparation to teach online.
Another possible measure of quality is the student completion rate of
online versus face-to-face offerings. Empirical evidence suggests a lower
completion rate in online courses than face-to-face offerings. This is espe-
cially true for MOOCs – as, for example, a median completion rate of
12.6% was reported in a study of 221 MOOCs (Jordan, 2015); since
completion is not a goal for most MOOC students, though, this measure
may not be meaningful in this case. Statistically significant lower com-
pletion rates in credit-bearing online versus traditional courses have also
been reported (Atchley et al., 2013), suggesting that online students may
encounter unique obstacles. Indeed, research has shown that motivation,
time management skills, self-directedness, and a minimum of technical
skills are prerequisites for success as an online student (Kauffman, 2015).
Therefore, evaluating the quality of a HEI’s online offerings should
include a review of the support provided to its online students.
COVID-19 Implications on the Perception of Online Offerings
While the previous analysis suggests a comparable quality of online and
traditional offerings was already reached pre-COVID-19, the emergency
remote teaching caused by the pandemic may have implications for stake-
holders’ perceptions of such quality.
On the one hand, the sudden move to online teaching in spring 2020
allowed little time for training and support, thus producing online courses
of variable quality, which may negatively affect overall perceptions about
online alternatives. On the other hand, social distancing restrictions are
making “traditional courses” and residential programs less desirable – as
everyone must wear masks in class, in-person group work is compromised,
extracurricular activities are significantly reduced, and concerns about
health safety may interfere with learning. In these circumstances, students’
evaluation of the relative quality and desirability of online alternatives may
increase – especially at HEIs that made investments in faculty training and
technology infrastructure.
Are Student Demand and Acceptance of Online Offerings Close

to What Is Needed for a “Tipping Point”?
Reaching a “tipping point” in Christensen’s model of technology disrup-
tion also requires that most potential customers be willing to switch to
the new technology-enabled solution. This calls for examining customer
demand and acceptance of alternative online higher education products
through a business lens. While much of traditional higher education is
confounded by intense government subsidies, oblique price and benefit
scenarios, and cultural norms, business research concepts and tools can
help us understand why existing products/services that leverage digital
technologies have not yet led to the predicted disruption of higher educa-
tion and derive other implications of the current pandemic.
A Business Analysis of Forces Affecting Customer Demand and Acceptance

of Online Alternatives
Dramatically increased costs of traditional college education have caused
students and parents to assume considerable student loans, thus impact-
ing early adult life decisions about purchasing a home, lifestyle-work bal-
ance, and even when to start a family. As a result, students and families are
seeking to understand the opaque “return on investment” (ROI) of spe-
cific HEI programs (Carnevale et al., 2019; Pew Research Center, 2011).
While policy makers and scholars have long substantiated the returns on
higher education for students (Cappelli, 2020; Hout, 2012), a surprising
percentage of students, parents, and the general public (upwards of 50%
in some surveys) no longer view higher education as a worthy investment
(Dann, 2017; Gallup, 2015).
Potential customer dissatisfaction with the cost/value of higher edu-
cation, combined with the widespread availability of online educational
products and college-age students’ comfort with technology, would sug-
gest a market ripe for change. Yet other forces have so far prevented post-
secondary students and their families from giving full consideration to
cheaper online alternatives. These include risk considerations, a general
lack of knowledge of alternative approaches to traditional higher educa-
tion, cultural perceptions reinforced by parents and school counselors, and
uncertain price differentials, as elaborated next.
Risk Reduction. In terms of time and resources, a college education is
one of the most substantial investments individuals make. How do stu-
dents and parents assure their degrees have value? Educational standard-
ization, accreditation, rankings, institutional reputation, and community
social acceptance all contribute to reducing customer risk to some degree.
Employers also play a central role in the reduction of consumer risk.
Current hiring and promotion processes show that companies’ still value
traditional baccalaureate degrees from high-profile institutions, thus pro-
viding important support for traditional programs – as alternative creden-
tials, while having some acceptance in the technology (primarily software)
industry, have failed to gain broad acceptance among employers.
Pathways Knowledge. Even consumers interested in leveraging online
alternatives for higher education lack the knowledge to navigate the best
pathways to achieve their goals. The pathways offered by traditional uni-
versities are well-known and accepted. In contrast, there is yet no clearing-
house of information for valuable curricular and employee skill needs, nor
credentialing methods to assure learning outcomes that could assuage the
concerns of both learners and employers. This barrier to reform motivated
Christensen and Eyring (2011) to argue that accreditation should focus
on courses and competencies, instead of degrees.
Cultural Perceptions. Perhaps the most significant barrier, particularly
among the upper- and middle-income classes, is the perception that the
process of professional and social success is associated with a traditional
residential baccalaureate degree. In a culture where parents, friends, and
high school counselors have all navigated this process, the traditional path-
way becomes more than an expectation – it becomes an imperative.
Price Differentials. Uncertain price differentials also hinder higher edu-
cation choices. While some graduate markets benefited from cost reduction
associated with online delivery modes, universities mostly employ online
courses for convenience rather than cost reduction. Pricing is further com-
plicated by the “bundling” of many services in the tuition costs of residen-
tial HEIs – including (beyond the delivery of instruction) an increasing
number of student services, extracurricular activities, expensive infrastruc-
tures, and even the cost of research and services to the community.
It is also worth considering that demand for higher education is not
monolithic. For example, adult and continuous learning customers have
embraced the online educational modality much more than traditional
baccalaureate programs given the value they associate with higher flex-
ibility and convenience because of their work and family responsibilities.
In contrast, traditional baccalaureate customers enter university with very
different educational desires and motivations (Horn & Moesta, 2019).
COVID-19 Potential Impact on Customer Demand and Acceptance

As previously summarized, so far, many negative forces have balanced
postsecondary students and their influencers’ desires for more affordable
alternatives to HEIs’ traditional programs – thus effectively decreasing
their acceptance of nontraditional options and delaying a “tipping point.”
While not directly affecting risk reduction, pathway knowledge, or cultural
perceptions, students’ personal experiences of online learning during the
pandemic may dispel common misconceptions, thus making them more
open to online-based alternatives.
Even more importantly, the crisis surrounding the pandemic will inevi-
tably make students and their families even more price sensitive. The ROI
of a traditional residential college experience may be further challenged as
campus reopenings in the fall of 2020 have curtailed many extracurricular
and social activities that are an integral part of the value offered by resi-
dential colleges – thus potentially making students and their families more
reluctant to pay current high costs.
These developments may force HEIs to reconsider their pricing models
in order to stay in business – especially when considering the already pre-
dicted decrease in college enrollment due to increased college costs and
changed demographics. In particular, there may be pressures for HEIs to
“de-bundle” tuition prices so as to provide more affordable alternatives to
students who want the academic quality and credentials offered by high-
prestige universities but are willing to do without other aspects of a resi-
dential experience. This, in turn, may lead HEIs to try out new business
models that would have been inconceivable pre-COVID-19.
Which Internal Dynamics Are Contributing to HEIs’

Responses to Online Innovations?
From the experience of industries disrupted by digital technologies, as
examined in “The Innovator’s Dilemma” (Christensen, 2013), we can
expect that traditional HEIs (as the “incumbent firms” in this case) will
face internal resistance toward embracing new technology innovations
that challenge their existing norms and practices. It is therefore important
to turn to the field of higher education organizational theory to better
understand key forces at play within HEIs that may affect acceptance of
and/or resistance to online solutions. To help explain why faculty and
administration resistance to online education has been so impactful so far
and how that resistance may be affected by this pandemic, in this section,
we examine the origin and influence of faculty authority over academic
affairs, along with the circumscribed authority of senior administrators.
This requires the introduction of key concepts and theories from higher
education organizational theory that are particularly relevant to explaining
these phenomena – most notably professional bureaucracy, decentraliza-
tion, and revenue-centered budget models.
An Organizational Dynamics Analysis of What Has Contributed to HEIs’

Adoption of and Resistance to Online Education so Far
The curious organizational realities of colleges and universities begin by
considering faculty authority over academic affairs and the circumscribed
authority of senior administrators. First, a special form of bureaucratic
structure, professional bureaucracy (Mintzberg, 1979), describes the
organizational design of most universities. The foundational features of
bureaucracy – standardizing work by instituting policies and procedures
and creating a vertical hierarchy of managers to monitor and evaluate work
– cannot efficiently accommodate the complexity and diversity of teach-
ing and research across a university. Even a skilled administrator would
unlikely possess sufficient expertise to evaluate specific, even idiosyncratic,
details of teaching and research across many unrelated disciplines. To
address this conundrum, the professionals – professors, in concert with
colleagues who serve as department chairs – assume authority for most
decisions associated with teaching and research, including curricular and
programmatic decisions (Lattuca & Stark, 2009; Lombardi, 2013).
Second, the specialization of expertise by academic discipline, which
forms the foundation of professional authority, necessitates a high degree
of decentralization in HEIs. While HEIs have developed centralized
bureaucracies to support administrative and student services, the academic
core remains fragmented by academic specializations in the form of dif-
ferent departments and schools, resembling an “academic holding com-
pany” or “a federation of quasi-autonomous subunits” (Birnbaum, 1988,
p. 17). Academic departments and schools within the same institution can
look and feel quite different from each other by preserving their own mis-
sions and identities, developing their own structures (e.g., procedures),
and cultivating their own cultures (e.g., norms). Weick (1976) describes
this organizational phenomenon – subunits exhibiting distinctive identi-
ties and operations while demonstrating nominal linkages to other units –
as loose coupling. Decisions about curriculum or research in one school,
for example, might not affect academic operations in other schools at all.
Third, recent shifts in university budgeting practices have amplified these
tendencies toward loose coupling and decentralization. Many institutions
have replaced centralized, incremental budget models with decentralized,
revenue-centered budget models (American Academy of Arts & Sciences,
2016; Deering & Lang, 2017). These models (such as responsibility
center management) devolve budgetary authority from presidents and
provosts to deans in academic units (Hearn et al., 2006). Deans emerge
as entrepreneurial chief executives who develop programs that increase
enrollments (and revenues), trim expenditures, and accumulate reserves to
reinvest into programs (Carlson, 2015; Curry et al., 2013).
These three organizational features of universities – (1) faculty author-
ity over academic affairs, (2) the loose coupling of academic departments,
and (3) the emergence of revenue-centered decentralized budgeting –
help to explain both the adoption of digital technologies in higher educa-
tion and frustration with scaling these technologies within institutions. On
one hand, curious and enterprising faculty members possess the author-
ity to adopt new instructional technologies in their courses. Department
chairs who hope to stimulate innovation can encourage their colleagues to
experiment with digital technologies (Lieberman, 2018). Entrepreneurial
deans who want to tap into new student markets and generate new tuition
revenues can incentivize faculty by offering grants to design new online
offerings (Selingo, 2017). So, while some schools might not embrace digi-
tal technologies beyond flipping some traditional classes, other schools
might transform their modes of instruction, even converting some degree
programs into hybrid or fully online offerings.
The same organizational dynamics, however, impede opportunities to
scale local adoption. Prior to March 2020, collegiate faculty’s negative
opinions of online learning could lead them to refuse to adopt digital tech-
nologies by exerting their professional authority over teaching and learning,
thus thwarting the development of online education at many universities.
A 2016 study showed that only 18% of full-time instructors agreed that
online courses could achieve equivalent learning outcomes as in-person
courses, whereas 57% of full-time faculty disagreed with this claim (Jaschik
& Lederman, 2016, p. 19). Prognosticators and scholars have offered
numerous rationales for these perceptions, ranging from sentimentalizing
classroom teaching, questioning the reliability and validity of enabling tech-
nologies, realizing few returns from early initiatives (such as MOOCs), and
fearing erosion of curricular authority (Allen & Seaman, 2015; Betts &
Heaston, 2014; McQuiggan, 2012; Meisenhelder, 2013; Picciano, 2016).
Second, as presidents, chancellors, and provosts possess limited author-
ity to implement academic reforms without securing support from faculty,
chairs, and deans (Bastedo, 2012; Bok, 2015; Lombardi, 2013), they have
also been affected by faculty’s negative perceptions about online learning.
For example, survey data revealed 32% of chief academic officers reporting
that faculty attitudes posed a significant obstacle to developing online edu-
cation, whereas only 17% disagreed that faculty attitudes were an obstacle
(Allen et al., 2016, p. 47). Without faculty support, presidents and pro-
vosts shy away from large-scale online interventions, settling to support
many fragmented experiments that enjoy local support.
COVID-19 Potential Impact on University Responses
The COVID-19 pandemic, however, has disrupted these long-standing
organizational dynamics. The urgent necessity to migrate from in-per-
son to online instruction in March 2020 nullified conventional impulses
to resist experimentation and revert to standard practices (Christensen,
2013; Hannan & Freeman, 1984, 1993) and presented an even more
extreme exogenous shock than those stemming from most disruptive
innovations.
This abrupt adoption of remote learning transforms the prospects of
online education for many colleges and universities. During spring 2020,
many students and faculty experienced online learning and teaching for
the first time. Throughout transitions to remote teaching, faculty dem-
onstrated astonishing adaptability. This initial exposure has increased the
curiosity, competence, and confidence of faculty to teach more online
courses (Fox et al., 2020; June, 2020). The shift to remote teaching also
satisfied many college students’ demands for courses that leverage digital
technologies, thus enabling other aspects of their lives (Biemiller, 2014).
While students, faculty, and administrators reported mixed satisfaction
with remote learning and teaching over spring 2020, they attributed many
frustrations to the crisis circumstances (June, 2020; Lederman, 2020).
These positive experiences of students and faculty are bound to mitigate
skepticism about online education, thus opening new opportunities to
expand and refine online offerings.
Furthermore, fiscal crises due to the pandemic are testing stakeholder
claims on decision-making authority within HEIs. Under the direction
of senior administrators, institutions have slashed expenditures to miti-
gate revenue shortfalls, including furloughing staff, cutting salaries, and
delaying capital projects (AAC&U, 2020; Carlson, 2020; Friga, 2020;
Kelderman, 2020b). In fiscal crises, time is money; pressing decisions,
including those about fall 2020 reopening, expose the gradual pace of
shared governance, testing the resolve of even the most collaborative
administrators. This increased administrative influence, if only out of exi-
gency, could catalyze online options. In the short term, senior administra-
tors report plans to increase investments in online education, including
expanding professional development for faculty and scaling course offer-
ings as “insurance policies” (Kelderman, 2020a; Lederman, 2020). With
these investments, deans are bound to investigate opportunities to offer
more online courses and programs beyond the pandemic to increase and
diversify enrollment (Kelderman, 2020a). These pressures to trim expen-
ditures and generate revenues, coupled with widespread exposure to
online education for students and faculty, may push institutions closer to a
tipping point in which online education can be framed as a viable alterna-
tive to in-person instruction.
Conclusions
Technology disruptions have occurred in many industries whenever qual-
ity, cost, and new functionalities of new technology-enabled solutions
gradually reached a “tipping point” that made them preferable for most
customers. Despite the increasing popularity of online education, pre-
COVID19, such a tipping point had not been reached in higher educa-
tion. However, the experiences during the move to remote teaching in
spring 2020, followed by changes imposed by social distancing require-
ments for the following academic year, have resulted in reduced resistance
to online options, more pressure from customers to lower college costs,
and numerous fiscal pressures on HEIs. When taken together, these fac-
tors are likely to accelerate a tipping point.
Yet these changes may also act as a catalyst for traditional HEIs to
embrace new solutions leveraging online technologies. Faculty ability to
switch quickly to remote teaching in early 2020 is a testament to this
potential. New technology-based instructional innovations tried during
the pandemic may eventually improve the quality of all institutions’ edu-
cational programs, thus blurring the line between traditional and online
instruction. New, nonresidential options at differential prices may emerge,
thus opening up new, more affordable, and accessible pathways to acquire
a quality college education and new business models for HEIs as well.
These innovations could make traditional HEIs more responsive to cus-
tomer demand and thus more competitive but will require HEIs to over-
come their natural resistance to radical innovation, as well as changes in
current norms and processes.
Let’s remember that, even in industries affected by disruptive technolo-
gies, becoming obsolete is not the only option – as there are always orga-
nizations that manage to thrive. After all, universities are among the oldest
existing institutions and have survived many other disruptive technologies
in the past – including printing! This could not have happened without
universities’ willingness and ability to “reinvent” themselves over time.
To effectively embrace new online solutions post-COVID-19, though,
HEIs will need to be ready to take certain steps. More importantly, this
will require investments in faculty preparation to ensure the design and
delivery of high-quality online courses, services to provide the supports
needed for student success when learning remotely, and experimental
alternative programs (with differential pricing) to better understand what
is possible and doable.
Bios
Raffaella Borasi, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for Learning in the
Digital Age (LiDA) at the Warner School of Education, University of
Rochester, Rochester. In her role, Borasi helps educators leverage digital
technologies through a combination of research projects, program offer-
ings, networking opportunities, and services. Originally trained as a math-
ematics educator, Borasi’s expertise now also includes teacher education,
education reform, entrepreneurship in education, and LiDA. As a former
dean, Borasi led the start-up of online offerings in her school and success-
fully launched a program to prepare online instructors. Her publication
record includes 5 books, 12 book chapters, 23 peer-reviewed articles, as
well as numerous practitioner articles and multimedia products.
Richard DeMartino, Ph.D., holds the Albert J. Simone Endowed

Chair for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Rochester Institute of
Technology (RIT). He also serves as the Director the Simone Center
for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at RIT. DeMartino’s research and
teaching interests include radical innovation, technology commercializa-
tion, entrepreneurial motivation, and small business growth. DeMartino
has received external funding from the Kauffman Foundation, U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Science Foundation, VentureWell,
and NY Empire State Development. His current administrative responsi-
bilities include promotion of the RIT Innovation and Entrepreneurship
ecosystem, where he has developed various incubation and acceleration
education programs.
Nathan Harris, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education at

the Warner School of Education at the University of Rochester. In his
research and teaching, Harris explores problems of university governance
and leadership through the conceptual lens of organization theory. His
work spans academic deans’ leadership and management behavior, the
antecedents of ethical misconduct in colleges and universities, and how
academic leaders engage their senior administrative teams. He has pub-
lished in New Directions for Higher Education and Planning for Higher
Education, and his commentary has been featured in numerous media
outlets, including the Chronicle of Higher Education. Prior to earning his
doctorate at the University of Michigan, Dr. Harris worked as a senior
analyst at the Corporate Executive Board in Washington, D.C., and as a
special assistant at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Dave Miller, Ed.D., is a Clinical Associate Professor of Education at the

Warner School of Education at the University of Rochester where he also
serves as Associate Director for the Center for LiDA. Miller’s expertise
includes an unusual combination of technology, business, entrepreneur-
ship, and teaching. A textbook author and former owner of a start-up
edtech company, Miller now teaches a variety of online courses at the
Warner School, directs the Warner program preparing K–12 digitally
rich teachers, supports other Warner faculty in designing and teach-
ing online courses, and serves on the Steering Committee of the K–12
Digital Consortium (a K–12 university collaboration between the LiDA
Center and 21 local school districts involved in instructional technology
innovations).
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the
United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card.
Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2016). Public research universities.
Understanding the financial model.
Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2020, April 3). COVID-19
strategy survey of AACU presidents.
Atchley, W., Wingerbach, G., & Akers, C. (2013). Comparison of course completion
and student performance through online and traditional courses. International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4), 104–116.
Bastedo, M. N. (Ed.). (2012). The organization of higher education: Managing
colleges for a new era. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Betts, K., & Heaston, A. (2014). Build it but will they teach? Strategies for increas-
ing faculty participation and retention in online and blended education. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 17(2), n2.
Biemiller, L. (2014, August 14). Colleges race to keep up with technology change.
The Chronicle of Higher Education 60(45), 58–59.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization
and leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Bok, D. (2015). Higher education in America. Princeton University Press.
Cappelli, P. (2020). The return on a college degree: The US experience. Oxford
Review of Education, 46(1), 30–43.
Carlson, S. (2015, February 9). Colleges “unleash the deans” with decentralized
budgets. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Carlson, S. (2020, June 2). The plan for college budgets next year? Improvise. The
Chronicle of Higher Education.
Carnevale, A. P., Cheah, B., & Van Der Werf, M. (2019). A first try at ROI:
Ranking 4,500 colleges. Georgetown University, Center on Education and the
Workforce.
CBS News. (2019, August 31). Expert predicts 25% of colleges will “fail” in the
next 20 years. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/expert-predicts-25-percent-
of-colleges-will-fail-in-the-next-20-years-2019-08-31/
Christensen, C. M. (2013). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause
great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing
the DNA of higher education from the inside out. Jossey-Bass.
Curry, J. R., Laws, A. L., & Strauss, J. C. (2013). Responsibility center manage-
ment: A guide to balancing academic entrepreneurship with fiscal responsibility.
NACUBO.
Dann, C. (2017, September 7). Americans split on whether 4-year college degree
is worth the cost. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/
americans-split-whether-4-year-college-degree-worth-cost-n799336.
Deering, D., & Lang, D. W. (2017). Responsibility center budgeting and man-
agement ‘lite’ in university finance: Why is RCB/RCM never fully deployed?
Planning for Higher Education, 45(3), 94–110.
Fox, K., Bryant, G., Srinivasan, N., Lin, N., & Nguyen, A. (2020, October 6).
Time for class – COVID-19 edition part 2: Planning for a fall like no other. Tyton
Partners.
Friga, P. N. (2020, April 3). The hard choices presidents will have to make. The
Chronicle of Higher Education.
Gallup. (2015). Great jobs, great lives. The relationship between student debt, experi-
ences and perceptions of college worth.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational
change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1993). Organizational ecology. Harvard University
Press.
Hearn, J. C., Lewis, D. R., Kallsen, L., Holdsworth, J. M., & Jones, L. M. (2006).
“Incentives for managed growth”: A case study of incentives-based planning
and budgeting in a large public research university. Journal of Higher Education,
77(2), 286–316.
Horn, M. B., & Moesta B. (2019). Choosing college: How to make better learning
decisions throughout your life. Jossey-Bass.
Hout, M. (2012). Social and economic returns to college education in the United
States. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 379–400.
Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2016). The 2016 Inside Higher Ed sur-
vey of faculty attitudes on technology. https://www.insidehighered.com/
booklet/2016-survey-faculty-attitudes-technology.
Jordan. K. (2015). Massive Open Online Course completion rate revisited:
Assessment, length and attrition. International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 16(3), 341–358.
June, A. W. (2020, June 8). Did the scramble to remote learning work? What
higher ed thinks. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and sat-
isfaction with online learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23.
Kelderman, E. (2020a, June 1). Spurred by coronavirus, some colleges rush to
move online. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Kelderman, E. (2020b, October 8). 2020 has been a hard year for higher ed.
Could 2021 be worse? The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic
plans in context (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lederman, D. (2020, April 27). Low-income students top presidents’ COVID-19
worry list. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/presidents-biggest-
covid-19-worries-low-income-students-and-colleges-financial-strain
Lieberman, M. (2018, March 14). Overcoming faculty resistance – or not.
InsideHigherEd. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/
2018/03/14/experts-offer-advice-convincing-faculty-members-teach-on-
line-or
Lombardi, J. V. (2013). How universities work. Johns Hopkins University Press.
McQuiggan, C. (2012). Faculty development for online teaching as a catalyst for
change. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 27–61.
Meisenhelder, S. (2013). MOOC mania. Thought & Action: The NEA Journal of
Higher Education, 29, 7–26.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Prentice Hall.
Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant
difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 11(2), 309–319.
Pew Research Center. (2011). Is college worth it? College presidents, public assess
value, quality and mission of higher education.
Picciano, A. G. (2016). Online education policy and practice: The past, present, and
future of the digital university. Taylor & Francis.
Poulin, R., & Taylor Straut, T. (2017, February). Distance education price and cost
report. WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET).
Selingo, J. J. (2017). The state of innovation in higher education. Insights from a
survey of college and university deans. Academy for Innovative Higher Education
Leadership.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019).
Digest of education statistics 2019, Table 311.15.
Walton-Radford, A., & Weko, T. (2011, October). Learning at a distance:
Undergraduate enrollment in distance education courses and degree programs.
U.S. Department of Education.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the differ-
ence? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education.
Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884.
13 Global Higher Education
and COVID-19
A Virtual Autoethnography
of a Faculty
Anatoly Oleksiyenko
Introduction
The global infrastructure of academia was paralyzed in 2020 when the
COVID-19 pandemic spread across the world, throwing one country after
another into highly regulated and restrictive lockdowns (Bisht et al., 2020;
Mishra et al., 2020). Educators and students were directed to work and
study from home. Classes, student consultations, theses examinations, job
recruitment activities, faculty meetings, seminars, international confer-
ences, and other live events were redirected to video conference rooms
(Jena, 2020; Niner et al., 2020). The virtual world suddenly emerged
as an inescapable and pervasive artifice supporting the continuation of
academic activities, which previously relied primarily on face-to-face inter-
actions (Chan, 2020). Cyberspace became the main setting for commu-
nication and learning locally, as well as internationally (Watermeyer et al.,
2021). This development could be a cause for gratitude and resentment
at the same time; often, however, these conflicting and complicated feel-
ings would remain hidden behind people’s digital screens, in their isolated
physical spaces.
International scholars and students seemed to be divided in how they
perceived this new reality (Marinoni et al., 2020; Zhai & Du, 2020).
While global academic media channels widely reported on the chal-
lenges (see 2020 articles in University World News, Chronicle of Higher
Education, Inside Higher Education), narratives also emerged, inspiring
hope regarding efficient crisis management (Zheng, 2020), environmen-
tal rejuvenation, and the positive aspects of curtailed international mass
tourism flows (Toquero, 2020). Nonetheless, many idiosyncratic accounts
remained floating in the sea of generalizations and relentless “breaking
news” on escalating rates of infection and death from COVID-19. Even
if one could engage researchers to share their idiosyncratic points of view
through individual or collective writing (see, for example, Oleksiyenko
et al., 2020), the reflexive parts of learning from the disaster were often
ambiguous. Idiosyncratic scholarly reflections tended to be limited to the
confines of small communities of qualitative researchers (Chang, 2017;
Denzin, 2009), while traditionally positivist journals remained skeptical of
168 Anatoly Oleksiyenko
idiosyncratic analysis. As a result, many valuable insights were left trapped
in isolated pockets of the pandemic-affected academia – overlooked and
unexplored.
In cyberspace, the flows of academic narratives are temporal, and it is
impossible to capture them in their entirety; yet it is important to con-
sider select insights from disparate parts of cyberspace, as we recognize
the unavoidability of crisis-produced bubbles of virtual existence and seek
to understand their positive and negative impacts on the future of teach-
ing and learning. This chapter seeks to draw out such insights from the
virtual global higher education space created by the COVID-19 pan-
demic. Higher learning in cyberspace urges ambitious participants to
aim higher – beyond the “normal” aspirations bound by curricula and
credential requirements of a tertiary education institution or its particu-
lar academic or professional programs (see more on this in Oleksiyenko,
2018a). Within the cyberspace created by the global pandemic, interna-
tional learning is a transboundary concept in which the formality of edu-
cational processes is supplementary rather than central, and the process
of self-education is predominant in achieving a higher degree of cognitive
development and emotional intelligence. Autoethnography is a central
part of such learning. As Trahar (2009) notes, reflections rooted in the
lived experience, with all their emotional insights, open conversations,
and exchanges of information, play a significant role in revealing the com-
plexity of the academic narrative. This also applies when the lived experi-
ence moves online.
Virtual Autoethnography
This chapter examines the narratives, memories, and reflections that
defined my professional and social cyber existence during the COVID-19
pandemic. As I see it, the virtual world is both a sanctuary and a space
where pandemonium erupts, created by idiosyncratic and collective forces
that produce a multitude of emotional and cognitive strains, which stimu-
late anxieties and tensions. The cyberspace of global higher education is
a vast international setting consisting of idiosyncratic digital niches, each
of which is shaped by an individual’s choices of computer interfaces, sup-
ported by an Internet infrastructure of various velocities and capacities,
and endowed with options defined by software, settings, and filters. The
cyberspace around digital niches is packed with flows of private messages
and images, social stories, corporate news, and advertisements – all pushed
by various providers and their algorithms (Hjorth et al., 2017).
To reflect on the interaction of idiosyncratic and social flows in the global
cyberspace, I have engaged virtual autoethnography, which allows for self-
examination and heightened self-reflexivity in the digital world (ibid.). The
methodology has its detractors (Anderson, 2006) and “has been criticized
Global Higher Education and COVID-19 169
for being self-indulgent, narcissistic, introspective, and individualized”
(Stahlke Wall, 2016). Yet this method enables me to explore in-depth
how the virtual world, with all of its technological settings and choices,
shaped relations between “virtual me” and “virtual others” at a time when
teachers and students across the world had no other choice but to operate
virtually – this being the only option for engaging “important others” in
learning processes (Oleksiyenko, 2015). In pandemic-driven remote exis-
tence, individuals were compelled to continue performing their disparate
roles – as scholars, citizens, family and community members – yet on a
broader scale and in a more synthetic set of roles: as cyber citizens, cyber
parents, cyber teachers, cyber learners, etc. The technologically and epide-
miologically bound mix of these roles defines people’s cyber existence and
learning perspectives. As cyberspace becomes global (in some countries,
where the Internet is circumscribed by firewalls, it is not global though),
cyber-bound learning becomes a reflection of local regulations and indi-
vidual behaviors, such as self-censorship.
Interactions in the cyberspace of global higher education are different
from those in the real world, where embodied gestures, looks, outfits, and
emotions register meaning to others present in classrooms, lecture halls,
and libraries (Shachar & Neumann, 2010). In the cyberspace linked to a
private living area, expressions and emotions explicit in social in-person
interactions become hidden or are exposed to very few people who are
traditionally outside the formal educational space. Instead of class-based
human interaction, one encounters avatars on Google, Teams, or Zoom
accounts as various actors congregate in cyberspace and project their vir-
tual identities and backgrounds onto each other, expressing themselves
through artistic renditions, curated photos, or colored quadrants with
enigmatic initials. These digital interfaces indicate the presence and readi-
ness of the camouflaged participants to engage with others online while
periodically going beyond their disguised representations through random
sounds, chat notes, and emojis, etc. The voice-based and image-driven
exchange of ideas and emotions seemingly enhances the social presence of
their virtual embodiments.
Different participants in the global academic cyberspace respond dif-
ferently to the junctions between idiosyncrasy and sociality. Some are
more inclined to stay camouflaged and secluded, while others strive to
be socially engaged. At the same time, common preoccupations emerge
that unite them – e.g., uncertainty about the duration of the pandemic
and concern about the return to the “old normal” (no matter how
treacherous that normality had been), basic safety strategies, or hope
for solutions, such as effective vaccines that will enable us to overcome
the crisis. This particular intersection of idiosyncratic and social beliefs is
what makes these memories and narratives interesting and valuable for
international learning.
Idiosyncrasy and Sociality in International Higher Learning
The COVID-19 crisis made me reevaluate the meaning of international
learning. It required learning from disaster and learning throughout the
disaster. Suspended between Canada and Hong Kong, my intellectual life
was torn by temporal and spatial discontinuities. Before the crisis stranded
me in a different time zone than my students, I never had a chance to
teach at 6 a.m. Suddenly, I had to conference in from Toronto in the
early morning, continue with my offline academic work throughout the
day, while facilitating educational assignments and teamwork for my stu-
dents in Hong Kong in the evening, and sometimes at night. Separated
from me by 13 hours and 12,500 km, my postgraduate students, many of
whom hold daytime jobs, were nonetheless eager to immerse themselves
in a three-plus-hour-long, cross-continental exchange of ideas at the end
of their day – some doing so three to four times a week, others less fre-
quently. Each class started with a discussion of social and organizational
issues faced by communities and governments in Hong Kong, mainland
China, India, and Canada – with participants weighing in on the situation
in their physical locations. Our geo-locations produced vastly different
perspectives on our “common” predicament – some hopeful, others more
despondent.
In all courses, my key purpose was to help my students meet their learn-
ing objectives and expectations, as well as to seed more hope about the
value of what they were learning. Some students had broad objectives,
such as furthering their professional development or analytical skills in
the field of higher education, while others had a narrower focus – for
example, to learn how to put together an effective presentation or a cap-
stone project. Regardless, I was made keenly aware that the curriculum
was designed in pre-pandemic times. I questioned whether the theories
and strategies we had been using remained relevant or valuable in the new
order of global higher education unleashed by the pandemic. I began ask-
ing my students, Did you find value in what we read, discussed, and the
questions we posed? What exactly did you learn? Could we make adjust-
ments in our coursework and include new cases that would encourage
thinking about policies and management solutions that do not currently
exist? Developing the sense of innovation seemed to be the only sensible
way to urge future higher education leaders and managers to learn how
to be resilient and responsive to uncertain and volatile circumstances and
to equip them with the skills to design unconventional interventions in
response to new crises in the future. Enhancing the aptitude of the trained
university professionals for greater critical inquiry, as we pursued in the
original design of the program (see Oleksiyenko, 2017), required con-
tinual reexamination of the aims of higher learning, with a focus on the
global crisis as something very central and unavoidable rather than fleeting
and circumstantial. Was this the right mindset to shape?
Meanwhile, our aspirations and abilities to be critical were curtailed by
political circumstances; following a year of massive and at times violent
street protests, China’s top legislature passed a new national security law
for Hong Kong. According to Altbach and Postiglione (2020),
The new law [did] not include travel restrictions in either direction for
students or academics. Yet after it was promulgated, one prominent
international scholar issued a warning to “be very careful collaborating
with Chinese colleagues or Hong Kong academic colleagues now,”
and a major international academic association sent a statement to its

members noting that the new “legislation’s vague working and expansive
categories of offence make it impossible to know what speech and actions
will result in severe legal consequences.” The type of international sta-
tus anxiety that once primarily existed in the higher education systems of
repressive regimes (Oleksiyenko et al., 2018) appeared to be leaking into
Hong Kong’s higher education. Instead of entering a new and more hope-
ful “normal,” which many had contemplated (Oleksiyenko et al., 2020),
Hong Kong was being pushed back into a renewed “old.”
Nobody had a clear idea of what to expect in the future as the govern-
ment began to arrest activists, and many students and professors were
under scrutiny and suspicion. In the social context of Hong Kong, the
COVID-19 health crisis conjured up frightening memories of the past and
imaginings of the future, which dovetailed with recollections of previous
crises: SARS and avian flu outbreaks, a string of social revolutions, and
changes in political regimes (Holliday & Postiglione, 2020). When teach-
ing, it was impossible to discount the effects of these unceasing anxiet-
ies. According to Choy (2020), reporting on a University of Hong Kong
survey,
Some three-quarters of Hongkongers are harbouring negative

thoughts in the aftermath of last year’s social unrest and amid the
ongoing coronavirus pandemic, with young people suffering signifi-
cantly more from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depres-
sive symptoms, a new study has found.
Ongoing stressful events over the past year, including the anti-
government protests, Covid-19 and difficult personal life events have
cumulatively resulted in “alarming” levels of negative feelings, such
as persistent fear, anger, self-doubt and thoughts of death, according
to the University of Hong Kong (HKU) survey.
Almost half of those surveyed (c.11,500) aged 24 or younger re-
ported symptoms of PTSD (almost 46 per cent) or depression (just
under 50 per cent).
“We see very clearly that the situation is even worse for young peo-
ple,” Chen said. “We have to do our very best to protect ourselves,
friends and family members. We cannot control what happens around
us, we cannot control stress events…but we can control our reaction
to these events. Mutual support is very important.”
Certainly, I tried to be more critical in my interpretations of the conflu-

ences of politics and the pandemic in Hong Kong. Our community of
international higher learning would be wholly ineffectual if we put exces-
sive anxiety about what we studied above the needs of critical inquiry
that academic thinkers required at a world-class university. However,
the new reality was giving rise to a set of uneasy questions: What did
it mean to practice critical thinking within an undemocratic society?
Was Asia’s world city turning into a police state? Would our words and
activities be controlled? If one was an international learner who had
enrolled at Hong Kong University expecting the freedoms that existed
in the city before the lockdown, how should he or she deal with the lost
opportunity to study in an open-minded democratic environment? Had
those freedoms simply disappeared? What would it mean to study in a
new social construct where there was no guarantee of free speech? Fears
of political repression, coupled with the isolation caused by COVID-
19, became a double burden for both local and international learners
linked to the city (Lo, 2020). The crisis experienced by Hongkongers
was unlike any other.
Meanwhile, cyberspace – a refuge from the dangers of the public health
crisis – was nonetheless treacherous, as Jackson eloquently explained (see
Peters et al. 2020). Codes, passwords, stored data, records, etc., seemed
like a source of particular vulnerability during the crisis, with many con-
cerns about cybersecurity. The problems with Zoombombing (Ling et al.
2020) kept reminding all of us reliant on the popular platform that we
were not as protected as we might wish.
Common Spaces and Recombinant Flows

As an international scholar, I am used to moving between numerous
socio- and techno-existentialities, including short- and long-haul com-
mutes between cities and countries I often visited for my research and
fieldwork. On many occasions, I spent as much as 24 hours on transpacific
flights, feeling uncomfortable in my seat and guilty about my carbon foot-
print, while binge writing, reading, watching videos, and using that time
of disconnection from the world (and Wi-Fi, in particular) just to think. At
the end of each tiring flight, however, there was a reward: exploring new
cities and cultures, expanding networks and ideas, making new friends.
Conversations with colleagues from other parts of the world inspired me
to reexamine previous assumptions and conclusions about the world of
higher education. New layers of interpretation emerged as colleagues
discussed nuances in their thinking, many of which were not explicit in
their published papers and conference presentations. “Confessional tales”
(Van Maanen, 1988) were shared in the corridors at conferences and dur-
ing joint visits to local restaurants, historical museums, art galleries, and
remote archeological sites. None of those social constructs of academic
existentialities could be replicated in the time-bound tunnels of cyberspace
we all entered during the pandemic. Linking online was a poor technical
replica of spending time alone on a long-haul flight but without the prom-
ise of a rewarding experience at the end, rife with unexpected possibilities.
The previously held comforts of established frameworks of scholarly
communication also disappeared. Spaces, flows, and participants from
physical and virtual realities overlapped and competed. Drawing on the
experiences of the attendees at an international conference of the Human
Genome Organization (originally meant to be held in Perth, Australia, but
rescheduled and hosted virtually), Fleming (2020), a science writer based
in Bristol, provided a colorful illustration of an unexpected clash between
virtual and physical realities on Zoom:
Unexpected attendees included Shu, Forrest’s three-year-old daugh-

ter, who was heard shouting “Daddy, Daddy” during a session he
was chairing, and a cat that walked across the foreground during
its owner’s talk. More serious problems included a fault during the
live streaming of one of the plenary lectures, issues playing back on-
demand videos and delays in questions reaching speakers during some
live sessions.
At the same time,
A cocktail party using video-conferencing software failed to replicate

the spontaneous social interactions and discussions that might have
been expected had it occurred in real life. “It wasn’t a disaster,” says
Forrest. “But a Zoom meeting with 40 or so people listening to one
person just doesn’t have the same feeling as a party where people form
little groups and talk properly over a beer or wine.”
Thrust into cyberspace, I was forced to recalibrate my sense of network-

ing. I had to develop a better sense of digital nomadism while moving all
aspects of my academic life online: teaching, research, program admissions,
doctoral supervision and examination sessions, administrative meetings,
and scholarly conferences. My working day was getting longer as I tried to
accommodate as many external requests as possible in view of the increas-
ing stress experienced by disparate students and colleagues. Doing work
across time zones allowed me to develop a better sense of appreciation
for colleagues who were considerate of my distance and willing to accom-
modate me when scheduling meetings. In turn, I tried to be more accom-
modating in addressing their calls for unexpected assignments, keynotes,
and collegial advice. While human relations were adaptable, technological
tools imbued work with an element of rigidity and tyrannical pressure –
one was expected to comply with protocols entailing the use of systems
within their limited functionality, as well as lack of accommodation for
individual users’ needs, capacities, and emotional states. Managing those
instruments in large-scale webinars sometimes created havoc, as some
users were inevitably more challenged than others when it came to their
connectivity, technical capacities, and/or user skills.
Responding to anxieties about virtual teaching and learning, university
administrators urged academic faculty members to train in online course
design and delivery. Educational technology managers disseminated webi-
nars encouraging the use of new platforms that could steer the learners’
emotions to a greater satisfaction. But what exactly could technology do
to relieve the stress and despair felt by students affected by immobilization,
de-socialization, and growing anxiety about their future? Would a more
extensive menu of emojis, gifs, and memes really help them to reframe
the social emoscapes of despondency? My students seemed to care very
little about the artificial embellishing of my online lectures. Many did not
bother to personalize their profile settings. What they cared more about
was my attitude toward their personal circumstances, work-study bal-
ance, and their disrupted opportunities for social being. Many joined the
program to enhance their sense of organization and leadership through
real-time projects that nurtured emotional intelligence. The online format
curtailed those opportunities. The virtual world provided fewer chances
for honing a sense of empathy toward peers, as well as for learning from
them – the major benefits noted by many students in pre-pandemic course
evaluations. Alas, technological platforms were limited in their capacity to
nurture social comfort and confidence, which the development of emo-
tional intelligence necessitates.
Yet my introverted students seemed to relish their time in cyberspace.
In response to my after-class blitz surveys and in private correspondence,
some shared with me that they felt a greater sense of control over the
social space and more in charge of their learning process. With less need
to pay attention to their physical and emotional expressions, they were
free to focus on the learning flows and eager to adjust to and persevere
in their online studies. In cyberspace, they felt more comfortable focus-
ing on verbality and messaging, as was their preference, without being
shamed for being asocial. It seemed that the introverts were relieved
of anxiety and the pressure they previously felt to express themselves
through gestures, outfits, and manners in a way that would define their
social identity, image, and impact. In virtual classes, they were less
focused on their surroundings, less distracted by externalities, and bet-
ter able to attune to the discussion at hand. Being an introvert myself, I
could relate.
Recalibrating Senses and Sensibilities
When reflecting on living in pandemic reality, most of my interlocutors
reinforced what most of us already knew – retreating online does not
mean that we are free from the politics and pre-pandemic constraints of
the material world (Gaulee et al., 2020). With our professional and intel-
lectual existence suddenly suspended in cyberspace, there was still con-
cern about maintaining the integrity of our physical spaces. Watching the
anti-mask movement take form in Toronto was shocking, particularly for
someone from Hong Kong, where mask wearing is a standard practice
in cases of any respiratory illness. Yet some Canadians (and even more
Americans) eschewed expectations that we should all wear face masks in
public spaces to slow the spread of COVID-19, insisting that they pre-
ferred death over losing the freedom to do as they pleased (in this case,
necessarily translating to the freedom to infect others; Hapuhennedige,
2020). Meanwhile, many small and medium businesses were concerned
about survival (Beland et al., 2020; Deschamps, 2020). For them, lock-
downs meant ruin. On campuses separated from urban centers, small food
and convenience stores became increasingly vulnerable, as their main cus-
tomers, the students, suddenly disappeared; meanwhile, food insecurity
increased for many students in general (Lederer et al., 2020).
In the academic world, many campuses embraced the “work from
home” (WFH) mode due to large student populations, coupled with lim-
ited carrying capacities. The massification of higher education had been
previously justified as a means to solicit income generation (as was com-
municated in professional circles) or meet demands for access and equity
(as was communicated to the greater public; Scott, 1995). Given the
2-m social distancing rule mandated by most jurisdictions, it was hard
to satisfy the access and equity quotas for larger numbers of students in
overcrowded and poorly ventilated spaces. Classrooms, lecture halls, and
libraries were all exceptionally susceptible to the transmission of infec-
tious disease via both air and touch. Moreover, some campus managers
also became cognizant of potential liabilities arising from students con-
tracting COVID-19 on campus, especially if parents sued them over a
mandatory classroom attendance requirement that led to their children’s
deaths. Accordingly, “stay home,” “learn from home,” and “WFH” were
framed as better options. Everyone was urged to anticipate a long-term
WFH confinement, as experts warned of potential virus mutations and the
fallacy of believing in quick fixes, which were being promoted by some
desperate neoliberal managers and news outlets.
As citizens and scholars, many of us were pressed to reconceptualize
the old “normal” (Jung et al., 2021; Metcalfe, 2021). Clearly, the new
model required better management of complex discourses and emotive
flows overlapping and clashing across personal networks, scholarly com-
munities, and social media. Within international learning communities,
these complexes were particularly burdensome and ungainly. Scholars and
students stranded in foreign places and cultures faced cognitive and orga-
nizational changes and pressures that were often simultaneously bewilder-
ing and mentally devastating (Zhai & Du, 2020).
While being removed and distanced from their offices, classrooms,
and libraries, many academics had to redefine their relations with the
old frames of governance at their institutions. For colleagues from self-
financed community colleges and corporate universities, WFH proved to
be a particular challenge, as managers and supervisors worried about their
ability to assess performance and conduct evaluations. In some cases, these
had previously been closely linked with superiors’ abilities to show face
around their busy offices, at meetings, and in corridors, all the while con-
trolling their employees’ time, bodily presence in and out of the office,
monitoring outfits and haircuts, and rebroadcasting compliance reminders
(Oleksiyenko, 2018b). In authoritarian environments, the legitimacy of
managerial hierarchies was suddenly challenged by the pandemic, as it was
not clear how the implementation of managerial control would be main-
tained under WFH orders. Some supervisors ignored the risks to their
employees’ health and urged their subordinates to manifest their loyalty
by going back to offices and maintaining long workdays. Meanwhile, some
faculty members required to WFH experienced mounting fatigue and anx-
iety amid competing priorities and responsibilities (Mavin & Yusupova,
2020; Nash & Churchill, 2020).
The situation was especially precarious for pretenured academics, sin-
gle-income householders, families with small children, and those with
inadequate home-based resources to support online work and/or study.
For the scholars whose home workspaces consisted of exposed areas amid
a busy household, conducting classes online or finishing papers on time
sometimes required sneaking back into their closed offices on empty cam-
puses in order to find space conducive to concentration and uninterrupted
work. Some felt guilty about leaving their families for the sake of enhanc-
ing performance records and being unable to resist the global neoliberal
design of higher education (Oleksiyenko & Tierney, 2018).
The situation seemed to be somewhat different in places where “ser-
vant leadership” emphasized “empowerment, involvement and collabora-
tion” and where academic leaders were placing “the interests of others
above their own” (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020). As far as I could observe
from my exchanges with colleagues at research universities, it seemed that
pandemic-driven changes and challenges were handled well in academic
divisions and programs where professors were treated as intellectual lead-
ers in charge of their own courses and allowed to make improvements by
utilizing student feedback, collegial advice, and outcomes from their own
research projects. Crucially, these professors would also be in control of
maintaining their individual pipelines of readings, writings, “revise and
resubmit” papers, and peer-review assignments within bounded knowl-
edge fields and niches. Throughout the pandemic, they maintained the
freedom to choose how to develop and communicate knowledge locally
and globally (see more on the privileges and challenges of intellectual lead-
ership in Macfarlane, 2013; Macfarlane & Burg, 2019; Oleksiyenko &
Ruan, 2019).
Concluding Remarks
In the previous sections, I have provided a brief overview of my “field
trips” through the crisis-driven cyberspace of global higher education. The
social worlds I was able to observe or partake in online were complex and
ill feeling. One way to deal with the anxiety associated with the health cri-
sis and the emoscapes of the neoliberal academia was to pay attention to
the idiosyncrasies of disparate intellectuals who shared helpful and thought-
provoking ideas and stories (Shahjahan et al., 2020). I frequently felt frus-
trated with the demands and tensions arising from my suspended existence
in cyberspace, which was a disquieting place of pandemonium more often
than an intellectual sanctuary. Like all my colleagues, I was deeply affected
by uncertainty, and analytical writing was helpful in defining the disruptions
(Jung et al. 2021). The experimental investigations in virtual autoethnog-
raphy were thought-stimulating too. However, on various occasions during
webinars and interviews, I felt nostalgic for face-to-face interactions and the
atmosphere of camaraderie and solidarity experienced in a common physi-
cal space. Instead of making life easier and providing easy access to wider
networks, working behind a digital screen reinforced my feelings of solitude
and isolation. Would my existence be different after the pandemic? How
would I conceptualize my virtual identity, commitment, and workplace in
the future? What would I want to leave in the past from these cyber-expe-
riences, and what would I like to take into the future? With a return to the
“old normal” unlikely, it seems to be important to answer these questions
as we forge ahead with creating a new reality that distills the most positive
aspects of our idiosyncratic and collective experiences.
Bio
Anatoly Oleksiyenko, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Higher Education
and Coordinator of the Master of Education (M.Ed.) Higher Education
Specialism, as well as Director of Comparative Education Research Centre
at the University of Hong Kong. His research focuses on the agency of
internationalization in higher education and dilemmas of governance
and leadership in neoliberal and post-Soviet research universities. He
addresses these issues in his books: Global Mobility and Higher Learning
(Routledge), International Status Anxiety and Higher Education: The Soviet
Legacy in China and Russia (coedited, CERC-Springer), and Academic
Collaborations in the Age of Globalization (Springer). Oleksiyenko cur-
rently serves as Cochair of the Comparative and International Education
Society Higher Education Special Interest Group.
References
Altbach, P., & Postiglione, G. (2020, 25 July). Will new security law prove a turn-
ing point for HE? University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.
com/post.php?story=20200724110105165
Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 35(4), 373–395.
Beland, L. P., Fakorede, O., & Mikola, D. (2020). Short-term effect of COVID-19
on self-employed workers in Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 46(S1), S66–S81.
Bisht, R. K., Jasola, S., & Bisht, I. P. (2020). Acceptability and challenges of
online higher education in the era of COVID-19: A study of students’ per-
spective. Asian Education and Development Studies. https://doi.org/10.1108/
AEDS-05-2020-0119
Chan, R. Y. (2020, June 1). Studying coronavirus (COVID-19) and global higher
education: Evidence for future research and practice. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/
abstract=3622751or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3622751
Chang, J. S. (2017). The docent method: A grounded theory approach for
researching place and health. Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 609–619.
Choy, G. (2020, August 5). One-two punch of protests, coronavirus playing
havoc with mental health in Hong Kong, study finds. South China Morning
Post.https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/
article/3096326/one-two-punch-protests-coronavirus-playing-havoc
Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: Or extending the con-
versation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9(2), 139–160.
Deschamps, T. (2020, October 18). For small businesses that survive COVID-
19, recovery is expected to be difficult. CTV News.https://www.ctvnews.ca/
business/for-small-businesses-that-survive-covid-19-recovery-is-expected-to-
be-difficult-1.5150023
Gaulee, U., Sharma, S., & Bista, K. (Eds.). (2020). Rethinking Education Across
Borders . Singapore: Springer.
Fernandez, A. A., & Shaw, G. P. (2020). Academic leadership in a time of crisis:
The coronavirus and COVID- 19. Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(1), 39–45.
Fleming, N. (2020, August 03). What’s on the agenda for post-pandemic meet-
ings? Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02254-z
Hapuhennedige, S. (2020, October 19). Public health experts are learning from
Canada’s anti-mask protests. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 192(42),
E1274–E1275. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1095901
Hjorth, L., Horst, H., Galloway, A., & Bell, G. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge
companion to digital ethnography. Routledge.
Holliday, I., & Postiglione, G. (2020). Hong Kong higher education and the 2020
outbreak: We’ve been here before. International Higher Education, 102(2020).
https://www.internationalhighereducation.net/en/handbuch/gliederung/#/
Beitragsdetailansicht/811/2911/Hong-Kong-Higher-Education-and-the-
2020-Outbreak%253A-We%25E2%2580%2599ve-Been-Here-Before
Jena, P. K. (2020). Impact of Covid-19 on higher education in India. International
Journal of Advanced Education and Research (IJAER), 5(3), 77–81. http://
www.alleducationjournal.com/archives/2020/vol5/issue3/5-3-27
Jung, J., Horta, H., & Postiglione, G. A. (2021). Living in uncertainty: The
COVID-19 pandemic and higher education in Hong Kong. Studies in Higher
Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859685
Lederer, A. M., Hoban, M. T., Lipson, S. K., Zhou, S., & Eisenberg, D. (2020).
More than inconvenienced: The unique needs of US college students dur-
ing the CoViD-19 pandemic. Health Education & Behavior. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1090198120969372
Ling, C., Balcı, U., Blackburn, J., & Stringhini, G. (2020). A first look at
Zoombombing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03822.
Lo, W. Y. W. (2020). A year of change for Hong Kong: From east-meets-west
to east-clashes-with-west. Higher Education Research & Development, 39, 1–5.
Macfarlane, B. (2013). Intellectual leadership in higher education: Renewing the
role of the university professor. Routledge.
Macfarlane, B., & Burg, D. (2019). Women professors and the academic housework
trap. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(3), 262–274.
Marinoni, G., Van’t Land, H., & Jensen, T. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on
higher education around the world: IAU global survey report. Paris: International
Association of Universities.
Mavin, S., & Yusupova, M. (2020). Gendered experiences of leading and man-
aging through COVID-19: Patriarchy and precarity. Gender in Management,
35(7/8), 737–744. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-09-2020-0274
Metcalfe, A. S. (2021). Visualizing the COVID-19 pandemic response in Canadian
higher education: An extended photo essay. Studies in Higher Education, 46(1),
5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1843151
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
Nash, M., & Churchill, B. (2020). Caring during COVID-19: A gendered analysis
of Australian university responses to managing remote working and caring respon-
sibilities. Gender, Work & Organization. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12484
Niner, H. J., Johri, S., Meyer, J., & Wassermann, S. N. (2020). The pandemic
push: Can COVID-19 reinvent conferences to models rooted in sustainability,
equitability and inclusion? Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 2(3), 253–256.
Oleksiyenko, A. (2018a). Global mobility and higher learning. Routledge.
Oleksiyenko, A. (2018b). Zones of alienation in global higher education:
Corporate abuse and leadership failures. Tertiary Education and Management,
24(3), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2018.1439095
Oleksiyenko, A. (2017). Enhancing university staff capacities for critical inquiry:
Organizational change, professional development and cumulative powers in
higher education. In G. Postiglione & J. Jung (Eds.), The changing academic
profession in Hong Kong (pp. 125–142). Springer.
Oleksiyenko, A. (2015). Social mobility and stakeholder leverages: Disadvantaged
students and “important others” in the “glonacal” construct of higher learning.
Education and Society, 33(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.7459/es/33.1.03
Subramaniam, M., & Zha, Q. (2020). Comparative and international higher
education in a new key? Thoughts on the post-pandemic prospects of scholar-
ship. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1838121
Oleksiyenko, A., & Ruan, N. (2019). Intellectual leadership and academic com-
munities: Issues for discussion and research. Higher Education Quarterly, 73(4),
406–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12199
Oleksiyenko, A., & Tierney, W. G. (2018). Higher education and human vulnera-
bility: Global failures of corporate design. Tertiary Education and Management,
24(3), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2018.1439094
Oleksiyenko, A., Zha, Q., Chirikov, I., & Li, J. (Eds.). (2018). International status
anxiety and higher education: The soviet legacy in China and Russia. CERC/
Springer.
Peters, M., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur, R., Hong, M. ... &
Misiaszek, L. (2020). Reimagining the new pedagogical possibilities for uni-
versities post-Covid-19: An EPAT Collective Project. Education Philosophy and
Theory. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1777655
Scott, P. (1995). The meanings of mass higher education. McGraw-Hill Education
(UK).
Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2010). Twenty years of research on the academic
performance differences between traditional and distance learning: Summative
meta-analysis and trend examination. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 6(2), 318–334.
Shahjahan, R. A., Sonneveldt, E. L., Estera, A. L., & Bae, S. (2020). Emoscapes
and commercial university rankers: The role of affect in global higher education
policy. Critical Studies in Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/175084
87.2020.1748078
Stahlke Wall, S. (2016). Toward a moderate autoethnography. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1609406916674966
Toquero, C. M. D. (2020). Will COVID-19 bring the Armageddon? Expanding
psychosocial support and environmental care: An autoethnographic research.
Aquademia, 4(2), ep20022. https://doi.org/10.29333/aquademia/8438
Trahar, S. (2009). Beyond the story itself: Narrative inquiry and autoethnography
in intercultural research in higher education [41 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(1), Art. 30, http://
nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0901308
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field. University of Chicago Press
Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C., & Goodall, J. (2021). COVID-19 and
digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency
online migration. Higher Education, 81, 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-020-00561-y
Zhai, Y. & Du, X. (2020). Mental health care for international Chinese students
affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(4), e22.
Zheng, Y. (2020). Mobilizing foreign language students for multilingual cri-
sis translation in Shanghai. Multilingua, 1(ahead-of-print). https://doi.
org/10.1515/multi-2020-0095
14 Sustaining Liberal
Education by Online
Learning in the Era of
Global Crises
The Case of Community
Colleges in COVID-19 Hong
Kong
Hei-hang Hayes Tang, Beatrice Y. Y. Dang,
Rosalind Latiner Raby, and Joanna W. Y. Yeung
Introduction
The global crisis of COVID-19 has severely impacted the entire higher
education sector (Marinoni et al., 2020) and spurred timely, innovative,
radical, and entrepreneurial responses from educational institutions across
the sector and the world. The focus of much of this attention has been on
universities and the higher education sector in general (University World
News, 2021). However, the impact of COVID-19 has been specific or
even more severe on other institutional types, such as community colleges
and global counterparts. The global higher education sector, serving 200
million students, is differentiated and segmented in terms of educational
purposes, institutional types, and public/private operation modes. Instead
of generalizing the overarching impact of COVID-19 on the global higher
education sector, this chapter focuses on the impact of the COVID-19
crisis on the everyday practices of teaching and learning and the lessons
learned for the reimagination of the future of higher education in the con-
text of community colleges located in Hong Kong.
The scope and outcomes of the impact of COVID-19 will uncover
themselves over the long term in post-COVID times (Altbach & de Wit,
2020). Many in the international higher education community main-
tain that higher education will come out of the pandemic crisis with
stronger institutional rigor, resilience, and capacity for entrepreneurial
responses. Apart from the “new normal” emerging in research activi-
ties, academic seminars, and international conferences (and it is now
immature to examine the implications of the long-term impact on the
international academic profession and research communities), COVID-
19 has had an immediate impact on everyday routines of teaching and
182 Hei-hang Hayes Tang et al.
learning in almost all universities and colleges. About two-thirds of the
20,000 universities worldwide reported that online classes had substi-
tuted face-to-face teaching, while the altered practices of teaching and
learning through digital means call for new pedagogies; access to the
Internet, digital devices, and technical infrastructure; and digital litera-
cies of instructors and students from diverse backgrounds (Marinoni
et al., 2020). The impacts of the rapid transition to online delivery of
teaching on the academic profession are profound (Watermeyer et al.,
2020). A similar finding is found for community colleges and global
counterparts, as this chapter will show. What is evident in a comparative
construct is that institutions, instructors, and individual students with
greater resources and capacities tend to devise better strategies to mini-
mize the disruption of teaching and learning or even capture and capi-
talize on the entrepreneurial opportunities given by distance and digital
learning. However, instructors and students from less wealthy higher
education institutions and disadvantaged families are more vulnerable to
the consequences caused by COVID-19, and the changing practices for
the new normal of postsecondary teaching and learning de facto exacer-
bate inequalities (Anderson & Hira, 2020).
This chapter focuses on an exploration of the effects and implications
of COVID-19 on the case study of Hong Kong’s community colleges.
Comparisons are made with the United States and other global coun-
terparts as well. The liberal education that community colleges deliver
traditionally depends on the concept of a dynamic learning community,
featuring liberal teacher-student interactions and a pedagogic environ-
ment, learner-centered formative assessment, effective student services
for strategic university articulation, and dynamic student activities and
engagement (Tang & Dang, 2019). In the case of Hong Kong, a small
community college campus serves as a hub of the geographic location
where the aforementioned activities take place in real time. In late 2019, it
was unprecedented that COVID-19 made Hong Kong’s community col-
leges close their campuses and moved teaching, learning, and assessment
completely online. This chapter engages in the case study of Hong Kong’s
community colleges in view of how it mitigated COVID-19 through
organizational adaptation and sustained the delivery of liberal education,
especially when social protests and the global pandemic may persist in
upcoming times.
This research is grounded in the use of qualitative interviews conducted
with college lecturers and students who have different academic achieve-
ments and who come from different social classes. The chapter delves into
empirical analysis about the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the every-
day practices of teaching and learning and the reimagination of the future
of higher education in the global city. More importantly, the chapter will
examine the implications for a possible paradigm shift of liberal education
in light of synergizing online and face-to-face teaching.
Sustaining Liberal Education by Online Learning in the Era 183
Community College and Its Global Counterparts in
COVID-19 and Beyond
Throughout the world, community colleges and their global counter-
parts (Raby et al., 2018) have had to swiftly make changes to curricula
and alter teaching mobilities. In U.S. community colleges, the shift to
virtual teaching was devastating for students without Internet access and
clearly showed the fractured social class divisions among students (Raby
et al.). In Canada, 60% of CEGEPs (Collège d'enseignement général et
professionnel) in Montreal and 48% of polytechnics in Ontario had no
response plan for COVID-19, and 78% of colleges stopped international
research and mobility projects (Martel, 2020a). In the European Union,
an anticipated loss of 61% of international students was projected to result
in a loss of $2.85 billion in student expenditures (Mitchell, 2020). In
Hong Kong, all community colleges, which serve mainly local students,
converted their classes to digital and distance learning beginning in
January 2020. In Australia, 90% of international students at Technical and
Further Education (TAFE) institutions (World Federation of Colleges and
Polytechnics, 2020) choose to not return for the fall 2020 semester. In the
United States, even domestic students were choosing to change or cancel
their educational plans (Clayton, 2020).
COVID-19 decimated U.S. community college student mobility pro-
grams. Thirty-seven percent of international students did not return to the
United States after the winter break in 2019, and in the spring of 2020,
67% of international student directors shared concerns for future inbound
students from China (CC-IIG, March 16) and from India (CC-IIG,
Blog, May 4, 2020). U.S. national policies complicated future enroll-
ment, including suspension of some Chinese students and researchers
(Youhanna, 2020) and the July 2020 policy that forbid online instruction
for international students and threatened deportation for those not taking
on-ground classes. Although that policy was later rescinded, a newer pol-
icy now forbids international student from taking primarily online courses
in a context where most campuses are only virtual. Out-bound mobil-
ity has been decimated. For example, all California community colleges
canceled their study abroad programs for 2020–2021, and four colleges
eliminated their study abroad offices (CalAbroad, 2020). Similar patterns
were found in other countries. In Australia, there is a predicted revenue
crisis for TAFE institutions (Capstone, 2020). In Canada, budget cuts for
colleges that began in late spring 2020 are anticipated to expand into the
fall (Martel, 2020b). The financial situation for Hong Kong’s commu-
nity colleges was not significantly affected by COVID-19, as the student
enrollment sustained. However, in the United States, in July 2020, 68%
of community colleges projected both domestic and international student
enrollment declines (CSCC, 2020; Martel, 2020b), and by late August
2020, 70% of U.S. community colleges were planning for significant cuts
in the budget (Clayton, 2020). These cuts will substantially alter educa-
tional programs, as not all classes will be open or available.
Reimagined Practices
The pandemic has created a moment in time that, like other disasters,
offers a chance to rethink current practices and develop institutions
and systems that can result in them being ultimately stronger and more
responsive to their communities. By early 2020, U.S. community college
international student leaders reimagined international student enroll-
ment for a changing world, including online visibility, virtual market-
ing, and virtual outreach programs (NAFSA, CC-IIG, May 18). Some
U.S. community colleges began to reposition themselves as leaders in
the community by hosting COVID testing sites and counseling for job
changes. These community colleges also counseled students who were
unable due to cost or unwilling due to health issues to attend a university
and needed an alternative (Goldrick-Rab, 2020) by showing the com-
munity college as an affordable choice that would allow students to live
at home and help their families survive the economic impact (Philips &
Horowitz, 2020).
Problematic Economic Responses

U.S. community colleges have experienced and learned from periods of
past economic crises that could inform future policy and practice in a
post-COVID world. During periods of economic decline, U.S. commu-
nity colleges became havens for students needing training and retrain-
ing (Raby, 2012). There are complications in meeting this task today, as
community colleges are not well equipped to handle a potentially large
influx of students, and students who have been without jobs for months
will be unable to pay tuition. Unemployment results in fewer taxes that
support a healthy state budget and severe higher education cuts are
expected (Goldrick-Rab, 2020). For example, the approved California
state budget for community colleges deferred $330.1 million in pay-
ments through 2019–2020 to 2020–2021 and an additional $662.1
million through 2020–2021 to 2021–2022, with an anticipated loss of
$791.1 million (CCLC, 2020). In addition, there is an expected addi-
tional loss of $801.9 million to the state that will result from the loss
of international students (NAFSA/IIE, 2019). Other financial losses
include a decline in on-campus services that provide revenue for the
college and fewer students who will dine out and shop, which provides
revenue for the community. Finally, concerns about homeless and food
insecure students are real, as 70% of California’s 2.2 million community
college students were facing basic-needs insecurity before the pandemic
(Diverseeducation.com, 2020).
The Case Study of Hong Kong’s Community Colleges
and Their Emergency Online Teaching and Learning
Comparatively unique among its global counterparts, the case study of
Hong Kong’s community colleges is situated in the meritocratic and
competitive local higher education system. One key function of the sys-
tem is to streamline high school students into different further education
study tracks according to their results on high-stake open examinations.
Most students only consider a vocational track when they fail the open
examination, as they “become aware” of their incapability of academic
performance measured by the system. Hong Kong’s community colleges,
however, play a function of rejuvenating disadvantaged students’ educa-
tional desires for academic studies – namely, by self-discovery of their own
latent academic capabilities throughout the college experience. Meanwhile
high-quality liberal arts programs offered by the community college were
established to build students’ academic capabilities and generic skills.
According to Tang and Dang (2019), community colleges in Hong
Kong play the dynamics and processes of capabilities building of stu-
dents, including those from disadvantaged families, through relatively
democratic college admission, a liberal pedagogic environment, learner-
centered formative assessment, and effective student services for strategic
university articulation. Aiming to mediate the educational disadvantages of
the specific group of students who lack the necessary resources and capa-
bilities for entering higher education, community colleges offer a “second
chance” for university admission. Before the creation of community col-
leges in 2000, Hong Kong’s students could only attempt another chance
for university admission by retaking the high-stake open exam, which is
by nature a high-stake summative assessment. Nonetheless, community
colleges in Hong Kong provide the second opportunity for university
entrance through formative assessment, which includes ongoing tutorial
participation, presentation, essay writing, and/or a final examination.
The academic profession of Hong Kong’s community college faculty
comprises mainly young academics who graduated from local top graduate
schools. These young practitioners mostly teach on a part-time basis and
mainly teach practice-oriented courses. Because these young academics are
developing their academic identities as college lecturers, they usually adopt
an approachable and dynamic relationship with their community college
students. The members of the teaching staff who possess the social capital
of bridging and bonding with Hong Kong’s universities have the unique
capability to empower disadvantaged students with relevant intellectual
resources for the articulation to a university degree. The outcome is an
engaging and open learning environment that cherishes learner autonomy
and critical inquiry. Moreover, most community colleges provide effective
student guidance services for strategic university admission, called transfer
in the United States, which can convert students’ accumulated and newly
discovered academic capacities into individual credentials instrumental for
application strategies of university articulation. Effective student services
narrow the information gap between disadvantaged students and aspiring
university programs, therefore enabling students to make realistic expec-
tations and develop successful strategies. On top of the prior research
that conducted macroscopic analysis of social class and community col-
leges (for example, Wong 2019a, 2019b), the latest emerging research
focusing on the processes of college life has shown that community col-
leges attempt to rectify educational failures of disadvantaged students and
become the “new winners” of the higher education competitions in Hong
Kong by offering alternative pathways to higher education, which cannot
be otherwise achieved without such policy innovation (for example, Tang
et al., 2019).
Like its global counterparts, Hong Kong’s community colleges adopted
emergency remote teaching (ERT) for the online learning of college
students in early 2020. Online teaching and learning have been a well-
established field of practice in postsecondary education, as evidenced by
a robust community of empirical research and a specific body of litera-
ture (for example, Kim & Bonk, 2006; Ko & Rossen, 2017; Palloff &
Pratt, 2013). The key concerns of the professional practice of teaching and
learning at the higher education level encompassing class size, quality and
timeliness of feedback, synchrony, pacing, learners’ characteristics, and
learning needs are well researched in the literature. Means et al. (2014)
conceptualized various dimensions of understanding the complexity of
instructional design and the decision-making processes involved. They are
namely (1) instructor role online, (2) modality, (3) online communica-
tion, (4) pacing, (5) pedagogy, (6) role of online assessments, (7) source
of feedback, (8) student-instructor ratio, and (9) student role online.
However, deliberate design and well-designed online teaching and learn-
ing are significantly different from the timely conversion from face-to-face
or blended instructional design to a total online setting and delivery in
response to the abrupt crisis of COVID-19. This chapter borrows the
emerging conceptualization of ERT, which guided the data collection,
analysis, and research implications of this study. Although the responses,
adaptations, and innovations that emerged during the current COVID-19
crisis will create a new normal, thus impacting the practices of teaching
and learning at Hong Kong’s community colleges, this chapter under-
stands ERT as a short-term and temporary change of instructional design
and delivery to an alternate delivery mode attributable to unexpected cir-
cumstances brought along by an abrupt crisis. As Hodges et al. (2020)
furthered,
It involves the use of fully remote teaching solutions for instruction

or education that would otherwise be delivered face-to-face or as
blended or hybrid courses and that will return to that format once the
crisis or emergency has abated. The primary objective in these circum-
stances is not to re-create a robust educational ecosystem but rather
to provide temporary access to instruction and instructional supports
in a manner that is quick to set up and is reliably available during an
emergency or crisis. (p. 5)
The ERT framework by Hodges et al. (2020) informed the analysis of

this research, focusing on the aspect of context evaluations and making
future research and policy recommendations from input evaluations, pro-
cess evaluations, and product evaluations. Special attention will be paid to
making sense of the needs, problems, assets, opportunities, and, especially,
unique contextual conditions and dynamics of Hong Kong’s community
colleges in experiencing the processes of ERT.
Research Methods
This study is based on two case studies of community colleges that were
purposefully selected. College A provides both higher diploma and associ-
ate degree programs in the areas of social science, business, and science
while College B is a specialist provider of higher diploma and degree
courses in the areas of health science and science. This design of qualitative
inquiry seeks to generate an in-depth analysis of a particular bounded phe-
nomenon over time (Yin, 2016) and capture the social meaning of a par-
ticular context. The resulting epistemology-framing case study reveals that
people and their values are primary in creating sensemaking and therefore
should be the focus of the research. Subsequently, the case study is inher-
ently concerned with social meaning, including context, values, conflict,
and time (Maxwell, 2013).
Data collection of this study employed a qualitative design using semis-
tructured interviews. Interviews were conducted in July 2020. Participants
were recruited by convenience sampling from the two local colleges. We
interviewed seven teachers (T1 to T7; males = 3; females = 4) from various
disciplines (e.g. Chinese, English, information technology, mathematics,
social sciences) and seven students (S1 to S7; males = 4; females = 3) from
nursing and social sciences. Each interview lasted for about 40–60 minutes
and was audiotaped and transcribed. Thematic analytical approach (Braun
& Clarke, 2006) was adopted to analyze the data in this study.
The research processes for data analysis involved the systematic proce-
dures of (1) becoming familiar with the data: authors rereading the tran-
scripts several times in order to get a sense of the whole; (2) generating
initial codes: after reading the transcripts, codes were extracted and fine-
tuned; (3) searching for themes: codes were identified across the data set;
(4) reviewing potential themes: authors reviewed and checked the codes
and themes to see whether some of the codes did not fit there; and (5)
defining and naming themes: six themes emerged from the interview data
– namely [i] “greater flexibility,” [ii] “more interactions in new forms,”
[iii] “constraints and technical issues of online interactions,” [iv] “less
effective teaching and learning,” [v] “digitizing formative assessments,”
and [vi] “weakened teacher-student relationship.”
Results
This study found that all Hong Kong’s community colleges converted to
online learning throughout the spring/second semester of 2019/2020
in an attempt to sustain the quality and liberal education they have been
delivering in normal times. Many of the instructor and student respon-
dents in our study revealed the advantage of flexibility given by digital
and distance learning, be it in a synchronous or asynchronous format.
However, qualitative data of this research shows that both faculty and
students had opinions about the limitations of online teaching and learn-
ing, at least in the initial adaptation when instructors were not fully
equipped with the resources and professional skills, and students were
not offered sophisticated guidance. There are, however, diverse views
concerning whether online learning platforms can enhance interactions
and their quality.
Greater Flexibility
Digital and distance learning offers convenience and flexibility, as one
instructor shared, timetabling easier as the schedule would not be limited
by availability of classroom:
To students, I guess the flexibility is even higher. I had a student who

“attended” my class on the bus in the evening. I could tell from the
background sound and he admitted it. (T4)
The convenience of conducting teaching and learning even from home can
save time and energy from traveling and concerns with personal appear-
ance. Another lecturer revealed: “I worry less about the preparation for
my appearance as I do not need to fully make up my outlook” (T5).
A few student respondents also revealed that as they could self-arrange
time for viewing prerecorded lectures, this saved time traveling, and they
can better focus on revisions and assignments. They also felt more ener-
getic, as they could have more rest time. A student reported,
For the schedule I find it quite flexible, I can wake up 15 minutes

right before morning class. The only qualm is with 1p.m. classes,
where a food coma slowly hits me in the middle of the class. I person-
ally would avoid classes that take place right after lunch. (S5)
More Interactions in New Forms
Online teaching and online platforms, depending on the specific features
of the software, offer a social world that allows more interactions in new
forms. A student expressed the following:
The interactive nature of the class has been strengthened. There will
be more classroom discussion activities such as group discussions and
some mini-games related to the classroom to make the classroom
atmosphere more active. Some online question mini-games will be
used to make knowledge absorption faster. (S2)
An instructor pinpointed the function of the online chat room, which is

very effective:
Online interaction worked best in the chat room when students were
willing to contribute ideas, and I believe they were comfortable with
typing in the chat room as that was very similar to their usual mode of
communications like WhatsApp and other social media platforms. My
students typed answers to my questions in the chat room, and I typed
them out on the screen with markings and this was in fact easier than
writing on the white board in a classroom as, sometimes, my students
could not read my handwriting. (T1)
One student respondent also echoed this point:
According to my impression, most students prefer using the chat box.

In regular face-to-face class sessions, some students feel embarrassed
to speak up. But now they express themselves without face-to-face
contact, they become more outspoken and have less concern about
the others’ reactions. . . . Regarding academic engagement, I think it
offers favorable conditions as we are given more opportunities to ask
questions. (S7)
Two other students also expressed similar opinions:
I can type fast…. I don’t want to open my microphone and speak, as

I may feel embarrassed. (S5)
I think there are more interactions. Students are more active in speak-
ing up. (S3)
It is important to note that the effectiveness of the chat room depends on

whether the instructors feel acquainted with checking the chat box from
time to time while they focus on delivering the lecture contents.
Constraints and Technical Issues of Online Interactions
Our interview data show that the increased interactions are, however, con-
fined by the format of “questions and answers” in a chat room setting.
Although the educational technology can allow students to interact with
their instructors in a more interactive way – for example, through synchro-
nous real-time audio or video conferencing – Hong Kong’s students do
not feel comfortable with that given the physical space constraints of their
living environments. A student admitted,
Our instructors welcome us to open/unmute our microphone and

ask questions. However, our classmates do not prefer doing so. It
would be very embarrassing if the whole class overhears the conversa-
tions of our family members in the same flat. The microphone can
pick up the sound in the background.
The online teaching and learning platforms call for different interactions
and social life. In comparison, all instructors participating in the study
have revealed the downsides of digital learning in terms of quality of inter-
actions, space for explaining and elaborating teaching ideas, difficulty fine-
tuning the teaching pace, and technical issues.
One instructor expressed, “The interactions are relatively less than we
had in face-to-face classroom teaching,” while another teaching respon-
dent shared,
Most of the time my students do not respond to my questions but

only type their responses in the chat room. There is a lot of time self-
talking merely by me. In face-to-face teaching, students at least say
something when I call their name. They would feel embarrassed by
being unresponsive. But they do not feel the same in online classes.
(T6)
Regarding the quality of responses and interactions in the online class, one
student observed and reported, “The comments are not very much informa-
tive. They contain one word for instance. If we are in a face-to-face class, our
instructor passes the microphone to us and lets us talk and elaborate” (S6).
Another student pinpointed that “I think the kind of learning software
or platform we use determines the level of interaction” (S3). For exam-
ple, one student respondent mentioned an instance when his instructor
changed to Zoom, as the regular platform Adobe Connect does not allow
students’ active participation in discussions. For digital and distance teach-
ing and learning to become effective to sustain liberal education at com-
munity colleges, innovative exploration of educational technology and
institutional resources is important for the new professional development
of college instructors.
Less Effective Teaching and Learning
All instructor respondents of this study reported that it is a lot harder to
understand students’ learning progress and fine-tune the teaching pace,
as they do not see whether students understand when their faces are not
shown online. A lecturer illustrated,
Teaching quality is a bit affected in my case. I cannot react to students’

responses online easily as I don’t really know whether they understand
or not the content from their facial expression and body language.
But I would say that online teaching can enhance learning in some
other ways but personally, I could not manage to modify the course
content and delivery in a very short period. (T6)
Two other instructors echoed the point:
My lectures involve explanations, examples, exercises; and when we

conducted certain tasks in a classroom, I could easily see from stu-
dents’ facial expressions whether they needed more explanations and/
or examples before doing the exercises. (T1)
I feel that my students absorbed less knowledge through online
teaching. Usually only just a few students responded to my questions.
I was not sure if the other students already fell asleep, or they did not
understand my teaching at all. In face-to-face teaching, their facial
expressions can tell me when they do not understand. (T5)
A student reflected,
I think the pace is slower than teaching face-to-face and there are less
explanations in the teaching…. It seems to me that my instructor was
reading from the notes without much elaboration. If we are in the
physical classroom, when we are confused our instructor would know
at once. Hence, I think this is one of the limitations of online teach-
ing. (S7)
From the learners’ side, all seven students participating in this study
revealed that they found it difficult to concentrate in online classes:
There are too many temptations at home. (S4)

I perceive that the quality of online class is different from that of
face-to-face teaching. Then I become less motivated, always think-
ing that I can revisit the recorded class later…. I can focus better in
the physical classroom. There are so many distractions at home. It is
especially the case that I am living in a public estate. My flat is very
small. My family members are so noisy that I find it hard to concen-
trate in attending my class. (S6)
I would feel the need to respect the lecturers in the campus, but
when it comes to online class, I became less self-disciplined and less
attentive. (S1)
I found myself less active in learning attitude as the class mode was
changed to online. (S2)
I’d check my phone quite frequently compared to having classes
on campus. (S7)
I think taking online lessons at home is less efficient than face-to-
face learning in the classroom. For example I found myself sleepy for
the 10:30 am class hence I took the class on my bed. I then fell asleep.
Subsequently, I needed an additional 1.5 hours to view the lecture
again. (S3)
The student responses agree with the instructors’ views: “Students admit-
ted that they were easily distracted.” “Students were even less motivated
to engage in these activities without the peer pressure.” Unstable Internet
connection means students unexpectedly missed some parts of the class,
as one student reported:
I found that the connection was not smooth when I attended a class
of about 250 students. It was not the case before but only in that
class. I was disconnected for almost 5 minutes and could not get back
to the class. My instructor delivered many important contents during
that time. I needed to consult my instructor again when I was recon-
nected. (S6)
The most affected classes are practical workshops and field-based learning.
Those activities were either canceled, postponed, or replaced by the online
mode. However, a student gave this comment:
My instructor mentioned that a video about the laboratory work

would be supplemented later. It assumed that after viewing the video,
we would learn the skills. But sometimes we need to actually practice
for a number of times so as to acquire a certain skill. I think this is the
major drawback of digital learning. (S7)
Digitizing Formative Assessments

There are diverse views about changing the formative assessments into
digital form, and it is inconclusive to argue whether digitizing assessments
can serve as a good substitute for the formative assessments that form
an essential component of the liberal education Hong Kong’s commu-
nity colleges offer. One lecturer of English experimented with changing
the final exam to an open-book test and essay writing and had a positive
experience:
We changed the exams to essay writing and an open-book test. Yes,
they were fair. At first, I was worried that the open-book test would
be too easy for students because they could easily find samples on the
Internet, but in the end, the open-book test went well, and it was not
as easy as I thought. Another colleague from the same college shared
that the software for similarity checking was also very helpful. (T1)
However, an instructor of a computer-related course revealed, “My com-

puter lab sessions need to be conducted online and therefore I actually
cannot evaluate student’s real-time performance” (T3).
Weakened Teacher-Student Relationship

Although the class time and communication with instructors had been
sustained by the online platform, four out of seven students perceived that
there was decreased interaction with instructors and lecturers:
I think the relationship becomes distant. A lot of lecturers do not

prefer giving us their personal contacts of social media but only their
official email addresses. I myself do not like using emails at all. That’s
why I have fewer contact with my lecturers. (S4)
Compared with face-to-face teaching, I had fewer interactions with
my instructors. It’s because it’s rather difficult to type a long para-
graph in online classes. Usually we just asked about assignments.
(S2)
Usually the communication is like a question followed by an answer.
It’s not chitchat at all. (S5)
Academic exchange also becomes complicated. (S1)
A college lecturer also highlighted that face-to-face interactions in campus

life cannot be replaced by digital alternatives,Under the COVID-19, I felt
frustrated as I was unable to meet my students face-to-face to give them
guidance on both academic and career. My students also told me that they
were longing for classroom interaction. I think both modes of teaching
have their own place. But I do prefer the face-to-face one…. Lack of face-
to-face teaching support would definitely affect students’ performance.
Students reported that they were exposed to more distractions in online
classes. I found that this year we had more students who failed the require-
ment for progression. (T6)
Discussion
Many of the instructor and student respondents in our study reveal the
advantage of flexibility given by digital and distance learning, be it in a
synchronous or asynchronous format. However, qualitative data of this
research shows even more views about the limitations of online teaching
and learning, at least in the initial adaptation when instructors were not
fully equipped with the resources and professional skills, and students were
not offered sophisticated guidance. There are, however, diverse views con-
cerning whether online learning platforms can enhance interactions and
their quality.
During campus closures, instructors and teachers in colleges have strug-
gled to sustain the liberal education focus while catering to the diverse
learning needs of students in their classes. One purpose of this study is to
examine the implications of a possible paradigm shift of liberal education
in light of synergizing online and face-to-face teaching. The preliminary
analysis of this study appears to show that community colleges in Hong
Kong are vulnerable to the consequences caused by COVID-19, at least
in the initial adaptation of digital and distance learning when instructors
were not fully equipped with the resources and professional skills, and
students were not offered sophisticated guidance.
Students from disadvantaged families encountered problems with
Internet access, availability of electronic equipment, limited physical
space for individual online learning, privacy (for example revealing their
poor home environment in a synchronous online class), and lack of digi-
tal literacy. A significant number of the students need to share a com-
puter with their families, while some of them have no electronic device at
home. Disadvantaged college students with psychological problems (for
example, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder) lacked learner auton-
omy and were unable to focus on online learning. While coping with the
global crisis of COVID-19, Hong Kong’s community colleges have been
devising and updating plans for campus reopenings and hybrid modes
of online/face-to-face and synchronous and asynchronous learning and
teaching. Some instructors worried about a “tsunami-scale” learning dif-
ference caused by the digital divide between disadvantaged students and
their peers when normal classes gradually resume. Strong evidence reveals
that disadvantaged students struggle most in electronic learning, induc-
ing more inequalities in educational outcomes than learning in classroom
environments (Baum & McPherson, 2019). Teachers who are used to
working with different groups of students in the physical classroom may
not know how to work with and manage different groups in an online
learning environment. This is especially the case if the digital literacy of
the students is lacking or varies significantly. If the pandemic situation
persists for more semesters, instructors will need much more professional
development to be equipped with pedagogic, technological, and contex-
tual knowledge for delivering quality liberal education via online modes.
Apart from academic and technical support, colleges should monitor staff
and student well-being regularly. The workload issues arise more strongly
when instructors are expected to teach their classes with hybrid modes
of online/face-to-face. On the other hand, limited access to campus and
social distancing have made it harder for students to access counseling and
other available support services.
Conclusion
Community colleges have been spinning the narrative that their story is
one of resilience and continuity. This chapter examined the case study of
Hong Kong’s community colleges in view of how it mitigated COVID-
19 through ERT for online learning and organizational adaptation. It
especially investigated the unique contextual conditions and dynamics of
Hong Kong’s community colleges in experiencing the processes of ERT
and sustained the delivery of liberal education. We are living in an era
of global crises. The Institute for International Education shared that in
the last 20 years, there were four global health crises and that the field of
international education rebounded after slight periods of decrease, and
after COVID-19, they will continue that pattern (Goodman, 2020). Raby
(2012) also projected the same regarding past economic crises and was
correct for those periods in time. Yet those were different contexts, and
COVID-19 foreshadows even more ominous underpinnings. While many
suggest that higher education reinvents itself, those reinventions need to
occur within an environment in which the viability of the institution itself
is questioned since layoffs and even institutional closures are now com-
monplace. Nonetheless, it is likely that COVID-19 will transform educa-
tion at community colleges and their global counterparts, as it will cause
a permanent rethinking that recognizes practices which increased global
insularity and xenophobia and contributed to interpersonal and collective
anxieties. If they are not addressed, they will intensify existing economic
and social divisions. Community colleges and their global counterparts are
uniquely poised to respond to the unfolding crisis and support recovery
efforts, as their ability to provide affordable education to all students will
help to reduce poverty, restore the economy through the retraining of
the workforce, and address issues of access, social justice, and equity. The
innovation community colleges have been navigating and creating in sus-
taining liberal education will continue the narrative of their resilience and
continuity in the era of global crises.
Bios
Hei-hang Hayes Tang, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department
of Education Policy and Leadership and Program Leader of the M.A. in
Leading Innovative Learning Organizations at the Education University
of Hong Kong. He currently serves as Associate Editors of the Journal
of Comparative and International Higher Education and Humanities
and Social Sciences Communications and is an Editorial Board Member
of Chinese Education & Society. As a sociologist, Dr. Tang is interested in
the fields of higher education, education policy, academic profession, and
youth studies. His research focuses on the sociological role of higher edu-
cation in entrepreneurial society and the global city. He is committed to
creating new knowledge in the application of better education governance
and policy innovation in East Asia. Currently, he conducts an international
research project entitled “Reconsidering Academic Entrepreneurialism
in East Asia: Diverse Voices and Critical Insights from the Academic
Profession of Flagship Universities.”
Beatrice Y. Y. Dang, Ed.D., is a Senior Lecturer at the HKU SPACE Po

Leung Kuk Stanley Ho Community College. Her research interests are in
the areas of education policy, sociology of education, and further educa-
tion. In particular, she is interested in the learning experiences of commu-
nity college students. Her work now focuses on the influence of social class
on the educational aspirations of community college graduates.
Rosalind Latiner Raby, Ph.D., is a Senior Lecturer at California State

University, Northridge, in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
Department of the College of Education and the Editor in Chief of the
Journal of Comparative and International Higher Education. She also
serves as the Director of California Colleges for International Education,
a nonprofit consortium whose membership includes 86 California com-
munity colleges. Dr. Raby received her Ph.D. in the field of comparative
and international education from UCLA, and since 1984, she has worked
with community college faculty and administrators to help them interna-
tionalize their campuses.
Joanna W. Y. Yeung, Ed.D., is a Senior Lecturer at Tung Wah College

with research interests in nursing education, especially in simulation meth-
odology. She is also interested in young adolescents’ health perception
and practice. She is currently working on a simulation experience project
before clinical placement and nutrition label knowledge of the general
public.
References
Altbach, P. G., & De Wit, H. (2020). Responding to COVID-19 with IT: A trans-
Anderson, E., & Hira, A. (2020). Loss of brick-and-mortar schooling: How
elementary educators respond. Information and Learning Sciences, 121 (5/6),
411–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0085
Baum, S., & McPherson, M. (2019). Improving teaching: Strengthening the col-
lege learning experience. Daedalus, 148(4), 5–13.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
CalAbroad. (2020, May 1). Quick poll. Virtual town hall meeting. www.CalAbroad.
org/townhall2020/
Capstone. (2020, June 8). Capstone update from Viet Nam. Recruit in Viet Nam.
https://recruitinvietnam.com/updates/blog.html
Clayton, D. (2020, July 19). Five trends postsecondary education leaders need to watch
this fall. Strada Education Network. Inside Higher Education. https://inside-
highered.com/sponsored/five-trends-postsecondary-education-leaders-need-
watch-fall?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=b9888d69bb-
DNU_2020_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_lfcbc04421-
b9888d69bb-236562954&mc_cid=b9888d69bb&mc_eid=1dfab72d09
Community College Institutional Interest Group (CC-IIG). (2020, March 16).
Collegial conversations. COVID impacts. NAFSA. https://network.nafsa.
org/communities/community-home?CommunityKey=c52fcc16-8238-47bf-
a6dc-a443482d67cd. May 4, 2020. Collegial conversations. NAFSA. https://
network.nafsa.org/communities/community-home?CommunityKey=c52fcc16-
8238-47bf-a6dc-a443482d67cd. May 18, 2020. Collegial conversations. NAFSA.
https://network.nafsa.org/communities/community-home?CommunityKey=
c52fcc16-8238-47bf-a6dc-a443482d67cd
Diverseeducation.com (2020, June 15). During the pandemic, 3 in 5 students face
food and housing insecurity. DiverseEducation. https://diverseeducation.com/
article/181024/#
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2020, May 22). Community colleges aren’t prepared for this
crisis. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/
community-colleges-could-help-students-through-pandemic/611884/
Goodman, A. (2020). Letter to the field. IIE email communication. agoodman@
iie.org
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference
between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27,
1–12.
Kim, K. J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in
higher education. Educause Quarterly, 29(4), 22–30.
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2017). Teaching online: A practical guide. Taylor & Francis.
Marinoni, G., van’t Land, H., & Jensen, T. (2020). The impact of COVID-19
on higher education around the world. International Association of Universities.
International Association of Universities. https://www.iau-aiu.net/IMG/pdf/
iau_covid19_and_he_survey_report_final_may_2020.pdf
Martel, M. (2020a). Comparative impacts of COVID-19 on global campuses. Webinar.
IIE/EHEA: European Higher Education Area/Canadian Colleges & Institutes.
https://www.iie.org/en/Connect/COVID-19/IIE-Network-COVID-19-
Engagement-Series
Martel, M. (2020b). IIE COVID-19 snapshot survey series. Report 3. New
realities for global student mobility summer and fall 2020. https://www.
iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Publications/COVID-19-Effects-on-US-
Higher-Education-Campuses-Report-3
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE
Publications.
Means, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning online: What research tells
us about whether, when and how. Routledge.
Mitchell, N. (2020, June, 16). What have we learned and how will HE change post
COVID-19? NAFSA Webinar.
NAFSA/IIE. (2019). International student economic benefit: 2011–2019.
http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/eis2019/California.pdf
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2013). Lessons from the virtual classroom: The realities
of online teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Philips, B. C., & Horowitz, J. E. (2020). Creating a data-informed culture in com-
munity colleges: A new model for educators. Harvard Education Press.
Raby, R. L. (2012). Re-Imagining international education at community colleges.
Audem: International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy, 3, 81–99.
Raby, R.L. & Valeau, E.J. (2018). Handbook on comparative issues of community
colleges and global counterparts. Springer.
Tang, H.H.H., & Dang, B.Y.Y. (2019). Democratizing higher education through
community college: Some qualitative evidences from an East Asian entrepreneur-
ial city. American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting
“Leveraging Education Research in a ‘Post-Truth’ Era: Multimodal Narratives to
Democratize Evidence,” Toronto, Canada.
University World News. (2021). Coronavirus Crisis and HE. University World News.
https://www.universityworldnews.com/page.php?page=Coronavirus_Hub
Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C., & Goodall, J. (2020). COVID-19 and
digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency
online migration. Higher Education, 81, 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-020-00561-y
Wong, Y. L. (2019a). An empirical illustration of social legitimation through hege-
mony: Narratives of students from a community college on seeking a transferal
in Hong Kong. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 44(10–
12), 771–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1680462
Wong, Y. L. (2019b). Angels falling from grace? The rectification experiences
of middle-class community-college students in Hong Kong. Studies in Higher
Education, 44(8), 1303–1315. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.14
28949
World Federation of Colleges and Polytechnics. (2020). August newsletter. www.
wfcp.org/newsletter/Summer/2020
Yin, R. K. (2016). Case study research: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE
Publication.
Youhanna, D. (2020, June 27). Ways to assist international students during pan-
demic. World University News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20200625153047746
15 Students’ Experiences with
Distance Learning under
COVID-19
Critical Perspectives from an
Indian University
Mousumi Mukherjee, Tatiana Belousova,
and Deepak Maun
Introduction
This chapter provides a critical perspective on distance learning from the
Indian higher education context based on student experiences with dis-
tance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study is based on
evidence from an online survey conducted by the authors of this chap-
ter, who are also teachers within the Indian higher education system with
varying levels of teaching experience and training (both on campus and
online). The arguments based on the findings from this study are lim-
ited to an extent since it captures the experiences of only those students
who had access to the internet and who participated in classes delivered
online during the spring 2020 semester (for details on sampling, please
see “Research Method” section). In the introductory section, we provide
a brief context of the mainstream Indian higher education system before
and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Then we engage with the existing
literature on distance learning, especially with a focus on the COVID-19
pandemic. Thereafter, we explain our research methodology to present
and analyze the data from our research.
The Indian Higher Education Sector

India has the third-largest higher education sector in the world, next only
to the United States and China. There are 993 universities (38% private),
39,931 colleges (78% private), and 10,725 stand-alone institutions in India
(AISHE 2018–2019). The gross enrollment ratio in higher education in
India stands at 26.3% (37.4 million students; 48.6% female). Open and
distance learning (ODL) opportunities have been available within India
since the mid-1980s. Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU),
an ODL only university, has the largest enrollments for a single institution
(3.5 million students). Yet, of the total enrollments, only 10.62% are ODL
students (44% females; see Figure 15.1 for details; AISHE 2018–2019).
200 Mousumi Mukherjee et al.
Figure 15.1 Comparative Gross Enrollment Ratios for ODL and Regular

(On-Campus) Courses in India.
(Source: AISHE 2018–2019 report)
Higher Education in India during the COVID-19

Pandemic
As a survival mantra in this pandemic time, social distancing is being vig-
orously advocated and practiced. With university campuses shut since the
first national lockdown announcement on March 24, 2020, the delivery of
higher education has moved online in many private and public institutions
within India. Students have been forced to stay away from the campus
ecosystem, keeping them at a distance from their teachers and peers. These
human interactions contributed to their social identities as “students.”
Equal access to physical campuses afforded them a chance for a better
future by providing them access to knowledge, resources, and opportuni-
ties. The pandemic has upset this.
The universities have a long history of struggles against “social ineq-
uities,” such as struggles against caste-, class-, race-, and gender-based
exclusion and marginalization (Malish, 2020). While everyone is affected
by the pandemic in one way or another, people’s vulnerability to the pan-
demic has been uneven based on their socioeconomic status. This is true
even for those university students who do not have the wherewithal to
continuously stay connected to the university through technology. During
the pandemic, such students form the “socially disconnected” population
(Malish, 2020).
Mathews (2020, p. 22) has reflected on this, citing a recent circular to
faculty issued by the vice-chancellor of Kolkata’s Jadavpur University. In
his message, he requested faculty members to be cautious about conduct-
ing online classes or sharing digital content. He urged his faculty members
to consider the socioeconomic backgrounds of the students in the teach-
ing-learning process since many students cannot afford a computer at
home. This underscores the importance of ensuring equity in the process
Students’ Experiences with Distance Learning under COVID-19 201
of promoting online learning because the Internet density in India is still
quite low. The National Sample Survey 2017–2018 shows that only 42%
of the urban population and 15% of rural households have internet access
(Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 2019, p. 3).
This data does not highlight the quality of internet access. Not surpris-
ingly, students in rural/remote regions face more frequent electricity out-
ages compared to their city counterparts and slower internet access speeds.
Leave aside high speed, students from one state (Jammu and Kashmir) had
not had access to the internet since August 5, 2019, due to restrictions by
the Government of India that changed the political status of the state and
converted it into a centrally governed union territory (Ashiq, 2020; GK
News Network, 2020).
In the middle of the pandemic, a committee was set up by the University
Grants Commission1 led by the vice-chancellors of Central University
of Haryana and IGNOU. Taking into consideration the ground reality
within the larger Indian context with regards to the digital divide and
the spread of the virus, it was decided that instead of commencing in
July, the new academic year would commence in a staggered manner from
September 2020. Online classes and exams would be conducted only
when it was possible. Entrance examinations for the incoming batches,
as well as the end of semester examinations for already enrolled students,
had been postponed multiple times due to the increasing COVID-19
caseload across India. Much has been already written about the need for
reforming the “sick” Indian higher education sector even prior to the
pandemic (Agarwal, 2009; Agarwal, 2012; Altbach & Jayaram, 2009;
Jayaram, 2003; Kumar, 2018), but the digital divide was rarely a major
concern. Under current circumstances, we need to ask if the digital divide
is now a key concern facing Indian higher education during the pandemic?
Mukherjee (2020, p. 36) asks whether “access to online education [will]
help manage the learning gaps of even so-called privileged students in
India?” Analysis of data from our research will help us to understand some
of the problems from the critical perspectives of students in the middle
of the pandemic. However, prior to presenting the analysis, we provide a
brief review of literature on ODL and the literature on student experiences
of distance learning in the middle of the pandemic.
ODL: Pre- and Post-pandemic

Open Distance Learning (ODL), especially its recent version of online
education, has been recognized for its potential for democratizing access
to “knowledge for all,” not just for the select few but for anyone who is
motivated enough to seek learning (Zwaan, 2017, p. 143). Online educa-
tion builds on the “distance learning model” by pivoting increased avail-
ability of and access to the internet and mobile connectivity around the
world. This is crucial particularly for the marginalized sections of society
that have been at a disadvantage vis-à-vis access to education delivered
in physical classrooms. Geographical or time factors that have previously
deterred students from campus-based universities that require physical
presence at lectures are no longer a constraint in this model. Students can
study from anywhere with a broadband connection, at any time that suits
them (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2020, p. 46).
In India, the shift toward online courses, both by universities and
nonuniversity entities (edtech start-ups) was already a well-established
trend for some years now. Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), Indian
Institutes of Management (IIMs), and several private universities have
been offering fully online courses or online/hybrid degree programs. The
COVID-19 pandemic accelerated them manifold, leaving universities and
students with no option but to shift to online classes to continue their
education. This “forced” shift has created an opportunity for a large vol-
ume of research by providing novel data to academics around the world.
Articles are being published on learning in the online mode. The results
are still not final, for this is an emergent phenomenon (there are already
more than 700 articles on Google Scholar with the words “online + learn-
ing/education + COVID” in the titles).
Within the pre-pandemic context, Hirner and Kochtanek (2012, p. 122)
stated that the continued growth in online programs in higher education
comes with concerns regarding support services, learning resources, and
effectiveness of instruction. Widening access to higher education requires
a change in attitudes and mindsets that emphasizes flexible growth instead
of fixed traditions. All paradigms, from curriculum design, learning path-
ways and styles, services, and delivery to assessments must be revisited.
The means of recognition and validation also require reconsideration as
the lines between formal and informal learning become more and more
blurred (Ossiannilsson et al., 2016, p. 170). Although there is a growing
consensus towards the point of view that the basic methodology of quality
assurance would be the same for both traditional and distance education,
there is disagreement on the extent of modifications needed. Distance
education tests conventional assumptions, raising fresh questions as to the
essential nature and content of an educational experience and the resources
required (Stella & Gnanam, 2004, p. 151). There is no doubt that the
unprecedented increase in the provision of online education caused by the
pandemic requires an equally strong and timely response toward its quality
assurance.
Scholars who have been studying online education during the pandemic
have warned about taking the evidence from “emergency remote teach-
ing” experiences and generalizing it to make sense of online education
delivered by skillful educators who design digital pedagogies and content,
building on extensive research in the field. They want researchers to dis-
tinguish that from
flexible digital education deployed in haste, driven by an immediate
need to adapt to rapid changes in delivery, namely as suddenly other
than face-to-face, all amidst the threat and uncertainty of a widely
circulating, poorly understood pathogen .
(Veletsianos & Houlden, 2020, p. 849)
This is a crucial consideration for anyone researching online education

during the pandemic.
Challenges of Online Learning during the Pandemic

Prior to the pandemic, universities, faculty members, and students had
primarily relied on the campus-based, face-to-face mode of teaching
and learning. ODL, including online courses and degrees, had not
been considered effective substitutes to such physical experiences. The
students, especially the undergraduates, barely had familiarity with full
online delivery. They had opted for a physical experience but were
forced to undergo online education, albeit not always well-designed
by faculty without any training in online pedagogies (Altbach & De
Wit, 2020b, p. 3). Highlighting the challenges faced by such students
during the transition to remote online learning within the context of
the pandemic, a University of California report argues that the biggest
obstacles were not technical in nature. These were adaptive challenges
involving “students” lack of motivation, lack of interpersonal connec-
tions with classmates, learning difficulties in online formats, and lack of
appropriate study spaces amid distracting home environment (Soria et
al., 2020, p.3).
Peters et al. (2020, p. 2) observed that the COVID-19 health emer-
gency is having a profound impact on the theory and practice of higher
education worldwide. Bryson and Andres (2020, p.1) see a shift toward
more diversified but intensive forms of online content delivery. Others see
more negative implications, with online modes working to amplify the
existing gaps and inequities among learners, HEIs, and nations, with the
poorest ones suffering the most (Altbach & De Wit, 2020a). Amemado
(2020, p. 12) argues that rather than being optimists or skeptics, the
focus, especially in the short term, should be on finding ways to maximize
the quality of online education, improve student learning experiences, and
improve the reliability of the medium. This cannot be accomplished by
faculty alone but requires the support of students, information technology
experts, learning designers, online education experts, and student support
staff (Leask & Green, 2020). Thus, sharing learnings from experiments
and experiences arising within very diverse geographic and institutional
contexts becomes crucial for such a project.
Learning in the Online Mode
As opposed to the teacher being the main source of communication and the
center of the teaching-learning experience in face-to-face mode, ODL mode
is centered on media to enable effective communication. Yet the teacher
remains an important facilitator for learning (Nage-Sibande & Morolong,
2018, p. 495). “Perceived communication” refers to students’ perceptions
of a teacher’s communication skills (Ganesh et al., 2015, p. 67) and impacts
student learning. Faculty-student interactions that enhance students’ knowl-
edge acquisition increases their perceived competence of the instructor in
accomplishing the course tasks. This is crucial not just in face-to-face, but
also in online modes. Although difficult, it is not impossible to achieve simi-
lar levels of perceived competence in both class formats.
Bryson and Andres (2020, p. 1) have also argued that peer-to-peer and
student-instructor communication plays a crucial role in facilitating and
supporting the online learning process. Support specifically includes three
dimensions: (1) instructional, (2) technical, and (3) peer. Instructional
support involves teachers encouraging and facilitating students to con-
tinuously ask questions and take an active part in discussions. Technical
support focuses on using tools and technologies that are responsive to stu-
dent needs. Peer support involves creating spaces for students to engage in
constructive debate and developing a supportive culture to encourage stu-
dents to build virtual social communities focused on interactions around
classroom-based teaching.
Dani et al.’s (2018, p. 336) study revealed that when the online learner
becomes familiar with the online instructor, they may feel more relaxed
while taking the instructor’s online class. However, there are challenges
in achieving such familiarity. Harrison et al. (2018, p. 480) point to dif-
ficulties faced by teachers in contextualizing students’ online learning
environments, more so when the class is diverse and students represent
different nations. Thus, despite the established importance of personalized
and adaptive learning experiences from a pedagogical perspective, these
may be difficult to achieve in practice, more so during situations like the
current pandemic.
Assumptions about Students

There are perceived and real differences in the efficacy of ODL compared
to physical face-to-face learning opportunities in brick-and-mortar class-
rooms. Yet when one chooses to pursue ODL classes, it may be argued that
such students pursue their education under higher constraints of time and
money compared to those attending physical classes. In ODL, the learn-
ers are assumed to be more autonomous and in control of their learning
process and environment. They are more motivated, display better self-
control, and better self-monitor their activities (Shearer et al., 2020, p. 36).
These assumptions fall flat in online classes forced during the COVID-
19 pandemic as has been noted by Altbach and De Wit (2020, p. 3). Thus,
the course instructors may require additional mechanisms to address these
issues for diverse groups of students. Further, given the possibility of
learners not having the necessary independence/autonomy, instructors
need to provide them with cognitive, emotional, and social support and
help them develop autonomy by offering pedagogical and psychological
dialogue and interactions.
Online Learning versus Distance Education

Even prior to the pandemic, there was a definite trend towards increasing
enrollment in online courses. By 2018, more than 25% of students were
enrolled in at least one online course. Ninety percent of academic leaders
expected this number to increase to 100% over the next five years – i.e.,
every university student taking at least one online course (Stauffer, 2018).
Despite such progress, there are misconceptions about online degrees and
their market value compared to traditional degrees. Hence, blended learn-
ing that combines the strengths of both physical and virtual components
is more acceptable compared to fully online programs (Palvia et al., 2018,
p. 233).
Nonetheless, Kemp (2020, p. 5) asks if the present increase of inter-
est in online learning will be short-lived and result in attitudinal changes
in universities and among potential students? He argues that it is diffi-
cult to replicate the campus experience online. However, Swan (2021)
makes a very clear and important distinction between online learning and
distance education of the past. He highlights that traditional modes of
both on-campus and distance education were teacher-centered, focused on
independent study, and grounded in behaviorist and cognitive psychology.
In contrast, online learning is student-centered, focuses on collaboration,
and grounded in social constructivist learning theory. Furthermore, he
discussed at length how online environments can be designed for learner
centricity by shaping the knowledge, assessment, and community aspects
of the experience. In his pursuance, he examined the community of inquiry
(CoI) model (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 87) of online learning and suggested
some ideas for collaborative constructivist approaches to online teaching
and learning, as well as an important framework for designing research.
In the following section, we will discuss our research method and modes
of analysis drawing on this CoI model.
Research Method
As stated in the introductory section of this chapter, we conducted an
online survey of a total of 106 students from three classes who took
our fully online classes during spring 2020. This convenient sample of
106 students included undergraduate, masters, and doctoral students
from different departments who studied in three online classes taught by
the three faculty authors of this chapter. They are representative of the stu-
dent population of this premier Indian university, which is comparatively a
more well-resourced higher educational institution than the average uni-
versity. Out of the three classes, one was designed to be delivered fully
online prior to the pandemic by an instructor with long experience and
training in both on-campus and online teaching. The other two classes
were converted into a fully online mode of delivery as an emergency
response since the pandemic enforced a campus lockdown.
Fifty-four of the 106 students surveyed were undergraduate students, 42
were doctoral students, and 10 were masters students. When the semester
classes and grading were over, the students were sent this short, reflective,
anonymous survey using Google Forms. The following five short open-
ended questions were asked in the survey:
. How was your overall experience of distance learning this semester?

1
2. What did you like and what you did not like about this experience?
3. Did you have good access to a computer and internet facility to par-
ticipate in the online classes from home? If not, then how did you
manage to participate in distance learning?
4. Briefly describe the online class experience compared to the physical
classroom experience. How similar or different was this experience?
5. Given that the COVID-19 threat is a long-haul issue and we cannot
resume classes in the physical classroom soon, how can we improve
the distance/online learning experience for you?
It may be important to note that the questions did not ask specifically
about the experiences of students in the three courses taught by the
authors of the chapter. These concerned online learning experiences in
general and hence, the responses drew from their experiences of the five
to seven courses they would have attended during the Spring 2020 semes-
ter (i.e., during April–June 2020). Another aspect worth a mention is
that the pandemic happened mid-semester. By that time, the students had
already attended classes for six weeks with the same faculty that taught
them online. So they could easily draw on the teaching styles of faculty
members in online and physical classes, as well as their own experiences of
the two scenarios.
Data Analysis
Textual data from the survey was first coded into positive and negative
experiences. Thereafter, data was coded with regards to positive/nega-
tive experiences about online learning, drawing on the CoI process-ori-
ented model of the learning experience, where social presence, cognitive
Figure 15.2 The CoI Framework.

(Sources: © Garrison, 2017)
presence, and teaching presence (Garrison, 2017; see Figure 15.2) play
a key role.
Within this model, social presence refers to the degree to which learn-
ers feel socially and emotionally connected to the teacher and their peers
in an online environment. This is very important because a number of
research studies have found that the perception of interpersonal connec-
tions with virtual others is an important factor in the success of online
learning (Picciano, 2002; Richardson, Maeda et al., 2017; Richardson &
Swan, 2003; Swan, 2002; Swan & Shih, 2005; Tu, 2000, as cited by Swan
2021, p. 80). Cognitive presence refers to the extent to which learners are
able to construct and confirm meaning through course activities, sustained
reflection, and discourse (Garrison et al., 2000, as cited by Swan, 2021, p.
82). Teaching presence refers to the design, facilitation, and direction of
cognitive and social processes by the course facilitator/instructor for the
realization of personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learn-
ing outcomes by the students (Anderson et al., 2001, as cited by Swan
2021, p. 81). The “social distancing” imposed by the pandemic increased
the stress felt by many teachers, as well as students, facing a sense of loss of
community and needing to quickly adapt to the online learning environ-
ment, which makes the CoI framework suitable for analyzing the collected
qualitative data.
Findings
Students’ responses to the survey questions in terms of positive and neg-
ative experiences were quite mixed. The reflective statements from the
students about their online distance learning experience clearly indicate
that all the positive experiences are connected to social presence, cognitive
presence, and teaching presence. The negative experiences, on the other
hand, are connected to the absence of these three important elements.
Here are some of the students’ statements that highlight the importance
of having a sense of community through social, cognitive, and teaching
presence, even within the online learning environment:
“Experience was good for all the courses that were more interactive
than the ones where it was kind of a monologue.”
“Fortunately, the administration and faculty members were co-oper-
ative and putting in extra effort to accommodate students’ needs.”
“It allowed me to work on my preferred schedule and spared me the
extra effort of dressing up and covering the distance to classrooms.”
“Flexibility and studying while staying with family certainly eased
stress boosting productivity to an extent.”
“I most appreciate the fact that lectures were getting recorded for
the convenience of the students, so that we could play them if and
when we missed out on live sessions.”
“I loved the fact that I could be part of lot more courses now as I
did not have to travel all the way for a class or two each day.”
“Online experience was good, and I preferred it over the face to face
one on account of convenience.”
“Oddly, a lot of my introvert colleagues and classmates were able to
confidently participate through chat box options and voice options,
who otherwise feel shy in stating their views in front of a physical
audience.”
“The teachers really tried hard to make it interactive but still there
was some lack of an interactive experience as compared to the online
classes. The physical presence gives a different touch to the classes.”
It is clear from these statements that the students missed the interactivity
of the face-to-face classes. Classes that were more interactive even in the
online mode were successful in creating a sense of community among the
students through the social presence and teaching presence. It was an over-
all positive learning experience for the students. Moreover, the flexibility of
the online mode facilitated the social presence and cognitive presence for
several of the students, thus enhancing their learning experience.
The larger Indian context of the digital divide and the pandemic-related
lockdown inhibited the formation of a sense of community for some stu-
dents. For these students, the online learning experience appeared nega-
tive. Despite being enrolled in a relatively affluent private Indian university
and having computer access at home, some students were facing issues
related to Internet connectivity and speed fluctuations because of the
infrastructure constraints of the city/village they live in. Moreover, it is
evident from some of the comments that the students’ learning experi-
ences were negative also in classes where the teacher delivered a mono-
logue lecture over the computer. Apparently, such a model of teaching,
practiced either in a face-to-face classroom or during online classes, fails to
create a sense of community for the students. The teaching model fails in
creating social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence. Here
are some quotes from the students expressing negative experiences:
The demographic composition of every student’s household can vary.

The households with old people require geriatric care, for instance.
Secondly, as grown-up adults, it is normally not expected from us to
sit back quietly for online classes and demand services at home from
others. These things must have had effect on student’s performance,
as it did have in my case.
Access to computer and mobile was there but, Internet service was
a problem. Poor network speed and disturbance in connectivity was
a problem. One needs high speed Internet connectivity for online
classes. That involves an extra cost.
Lecture schedule was too choked. There was no time for studies and
reflection, only listening to lecturers.
It is either a monologue or dialogue between two parties and the
scope for argument and discussion is limited.
I missed being in college (being a part time student these classes are
the only reason to come and visit college).
Learning from peers and teachers was not there. It was like a robot is
speaking to us in monotonous tone.
It is clear from the quotes that for these students, the online classroom
experience was overall negative due to the lack of social, cognitive, and
teaching presence for the students. As it has been highlighted in the CoI
framework, the educational experience becomes meaningful and effec-
tive at the intersection of social, cognitive, and teaching presence. Hence,
our study demonstrates that within the context of the COVID-19 global
pandemic and diverse circumstances at home, some students, even from
relatively privileged backgrounds, have experienced massive disruption to
their learning processes during the spring 2020 semester.
Concluding Remarks
With the commencement of the COVID-19 pandemic, ODL has taken
a sharp turn worldwide. From the fringes, the online cousin of ODL
has reached the mainstream higher educational institutions, with most
universities either operating online or not operating at all. In India, the
sudden shift has shaken up institutional lethargy. Most universities, espe-
cially the private universities and stand-alone research and technical train-
ing institutions, have quickly embraced the online mode of teaching and
learning. The large public universities, with their diverse, geographically
distributed and differentially endowed campuses, have been less successful
in making the transition. This happened despite the faculty in such pub-
lic institutions receiving advice from senior administrations to reach out
to the student communities in whatever way possible – through phones,
WhatsApp messages, recorded lectures/scanned notes shared through
emails (Chowdhury, 2020).
The institutional focus, at least during the spring 2020 semester, was
on ensuring continuity by finishing course curricula and evaluations to
allow students to graduate or move to the next semester. Faculty mem-
bers conversant only with the face-to-face mode of teaching often strug-
gled to customize the course content and pedagogy for the online mode.
At the same time, students found themselves struggling at home, away
from their teachers, peers, and campus facilities. Even in the case of a
premier private university (like our university) where many students come
from well-off families with little challenges in accessing digital devices,
the internet infrastructure in the rural areas or small towns presented a
significant challenge. For students from relatively less well-off families
to meaningfully engage in distance learning was even more challenging.
The physical distance from peers, faculty, and campus resulted in dimin-
ished social, cognitive, and teaching presence (Garrison, 2017), leading
to less than desired learning experiences. Yet positive experiences were
also shaped during such physically distanced engagements. The barriers
arising from physical processes of “dressing up” for class or “covering the
[physical] distance” to reach classrooms were dissolved. This led to stu-
dents attending more classes, though this was also contingent upon stu-
dent motivation. The students had good experiences when the teachers
were more interactive than pursuing a monologue. However, the student
reflections suggest that “monologues or dialogues” remained more com-
mon in online classes than genuinely engaging “discussions” that were
happening in the same courses prior to the pandemic.
Therefore, it can be argued here that the teachers” “perceived com-
munication” (Ganesh et al., 2015, p. 67) and “expertise” for designing
such experiences created a difference. But most of the teachers work-
ing within the Indian higher education sector do not receive any preser-
vice training to teach. In-service professional development and teachers’
training programs for pedagogical training are also ineffective or com-
pletely absent. There are only subject-specific refresher courses available
through the University Grants Commission. Thus, teachers are usually left
to their own means to improve their pedagogical skills, even prior to the
pandemic. Such teachers cannot be expected to have any prior training in
online pedagogies.
Finally, our study suggests that university campuses play a crucial role in
equalizing opportunities by removing infrastructural constraints to facilitate
student learning experiences. Some students reported that they struggled
with power backup and steady internet facilities in their hometowns. It can
be assumed that these are students coming from less well-off families or from
rural/suburban backgrounds, as nearly 50% of the students at this particular
university campus received partial to full scholarships. In a country with a
large digital divide (geographic divide: rural vs. urban, large vs. small city, and
even intracity for localities with differing socioeconomic affluence), univer-
sity campuses play the role of the equalizer. They allow students from diverse
regions and socioeconomic backgrounds to come together and make the
campus facilities accessible to all. The campus, by allowing everyone access
to high-quality infrastructure and resources, reduces the personal challenges
certain students may face owing to their socioeconomic backgrounds. The
hope of online learning making education accessible to the masses while
ensuring that it meets the goals of effective learning outcomes needs to over-
come multiple physical (infrastructural) and pedagogical challenges within a
context like India. The COVID-19 pandemic has moved things forward to a
great extent, but much distance still needs to be covered for India.
Bio
Mousumi Mukherjee, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Deputy Director
of the International Institute for Higher Education Research and Capacity
Building (IIHEd) at O.P. Jindal Global, India. She is Member Secretary of
the Research Ethics and Review Board and founding Executive Director
of the Centre for Comparative and Global Education at O.P. Jindal Global
University. She is a Fulbright alumna. Currently, she is a Fellow and coun-
try director (India) of the Society for Transnational Academic Researchers
(STAR) scholars’ network. She is a Research Standing Committee Member
of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES). She is
also a Steering Committee Member of the Association of Commonwealth
University’s (ACU) Supporting Research Community. She has served for
over 4 years as Associate Editor of Taylor & Francis journal- Diaspora,
Indigenous and Minority Education. She has served as guest editor and
reviewer of a number of internationally peer-reviewed journals. She has
published over 20 internationally peer-reviewed journal articles and book
chapters by reputed publishers, including Routledge. ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0001-9251-9165
Dr. Tatiana Belousova is currently an Assistant Professor & Assistant
Director at the International Institute for Higher Education Research
& Capacity Building (IIHEd), O.P. Jindal Global University, India. In
the year 2019 she received her Ph.D. degree at the University of Kerala,
Department of Political Science. Prior to this, Tatiana completed her post-
graduate studies at the St. Petersburg State University (Russia), Department
of World Economy. One of her research interests is internationalization of
higher education in India, particularly, inbound student mobility. Tatiana’s
recent article is “Internationalization of Higher Education in Kerala: A
Performance Audit”, published by Higher Education for the Future. Dr.
Belousova is also a contributor to the University World News.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9310-7293
Dr. Deepak Maun is an Assistant Professor at the International Institute

for Higher Education Research & Capacity Building (IIHEd) at O. P.
Jindal Global University, India. He received his Ph.D. in Innovation
and Management in Education (IME) from the Indian Institute of
Management (IIM) Ahmedabad. His thesis focused on collaborative
learning of government primary school teachers in online spaces. Prior
to his Ph.D., he was working with a social sector organization focused on
teaching XI–XII grade students from poor families. His current research
interests also include governance and leadership in higher education, criti-
cal thinking, and unschooling/homeschooling.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9489-9920
Note
1 The regulator that governs most Indian higher education institutions.
References
Agarwal, P. (2009). Indian higher education: Envisioning the future. SAGE India.
Agarwal, P. (Ed.). (2012) A half-century of Indian higher education: Essays by
Philip G. Altbach. SAGE India.
Altbach, P., & Jayaram, N. (2009). India’s effort to join 21st-century higher
education. International Higher Education, 54. https://doi.org/10.6017/
ihe.2009.54.8415
Altbach, P., & De Wit, H. (2020a, April 4). Post pandemic outlook is bleakest for
the poorest. University World News. Retrieved April 12, 2020, from https://
www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200402152914362
Altbach, P., & De Wit, H. (2020b). Responding to COVID-19 with IT: A trans-
formative moment? International Higher Education, 103 (Summer), 3–5,
https://www.internationalhighereducation.net/api-v1/article/!/action/getP-
dfOfArticle/articleID/2988/productID/29/filename/article-id-2988.pdf
Amemado, D. (2020). COVID-19: An unexpected and unusual driver to online
education. International Higher Education (Special Issue No. 102), 12–14.
Ashiq, P. (2020, December 12). Jamia online exam: J&K students left in the lurch.
The Hindu. Retrieved December 15, 2020, from https://www.thehindu.com/
news/national/other-states/jk-students-left-in-the-lurch/article33310909.ece.
Bryson, J. R., & Andres, L. (2020, August 17). Covid-19 and rapid adoption and
improvisation of online teaching: Curating resources for extensive versus intensive
online learning experiences. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 44, 1–15.
Chowdhury, S. (2020). Digital-divide caution from Jadavpur VC. The
Telegraph Online. https://www.telegraphindia.com/west-bengal/calcutta/
digital-divide-caution-from-jadavpur-vc/cid/1761513
Dani, S., Singhai, M., & Hyde, A.M. (2018, October). Factors affecting student’s
perception of online learning: An empirical analysis. The Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, 54(2), 336–346.
Ganesh, G., Paswan, A., & Sun, Q. (2015). Are face-to-face classes more effective
than online classes? An empirical examination. Marketing Education Review,
25(2, Summer), 67–81.
Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry
framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-
based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet
and Higher Education, 2, 87–105.
GK News Network. (2020, December 12). 4G internet ban extended in J&K.
Greater Kashmir. Retrieved December 15, 2020, from https://www.greater-
kashmir.com/news/front-page-2/4g-internet-ban-extended-in-jk/.
Harrison, R.A., Harrison, A., Robinson, C., & Rawlings, B. (2018). The experi-
ence of international postgraduate students on a distance-learning programme.
Distance Education, 39(4), 480–494.
Hirner, L., & Kochtanek, T. (2012). Quality indicators of online programmes.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(2), 122–130.
Jayaram N. (2003) The fall of the guru: The decline of the academic profession
in India. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The decline of the guru (pp. 199–19s). Palgrave
Macmillan, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403982568_8
Kemp, N. (2020). Distance learning and global demand. International Higher
Education, 103 (Summer), 5–7, https://www.internationalhighereducation.
net/api-v1/article/!/action/getPdfOfArticle/articleID/2988/produc-
tID/29/filename/article-id-2988.pdf
Kumar, C. R. (Ed.). (2018). The future of Indian universities: Comparative and
international perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Leask, B., & Green, W. (2020, May 2). Is the pandemic a watershed for interna-
tionalization? University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/
post.php?story=20200501141641136
Malish, C. M. (2020). Social distance on campus, but social disconnect online.
University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=2020072510090843
Mathews, E. (2020). India’s higher education and COVID-19: Responses and
challenges. International Higher Education, (Special Issue No. 102), 22–24.
Mukherjee, M. (2020). Can a better higher education system emerge out
of the coronavirus crisis? In Higher Education in Southeast Asia and Beyond
(HESB), Special Issue 8 (pp. 35–37). The Head Foundation. Available online:
https://headfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/HESB-8-
COVID19_2020.pdf
Nage-Sibande, B., & Morolong, B. L. (2018). A trend analysis of opportunities
and challenges of open and distance learning provision in dual-mode institu-
tions. Distance Leaning, 39(4), 495–510.
Ossiannilson, E., Altinay, Z., & Altinay, F. (2016). Transformation of teaching and
learning in higher education towards open learning arenas. In P. Blessinger &
T. J. Bliss (Eds.), Open education: International perspectives in higher education.
Open Book Publishers.
Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi,
S. (2018). Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implica-
tions. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21(4), 233–241.
Peters, M.A., Wang, H., Ogunniran, M. O., Huang, Y., Green, B., Chunga, J.
O., … & Hayes, S. (2020, May 8). China’s internationalized higher education
during covid-19: Collective student autoethnography. Postdigital Science and
Shearer, R. L. Aldemir, T., Hitchcock, J., Resig, J., Driver, J., & Kohler, M. (2020).
What students want: A vision of a future online learning experience grounded in
distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 34(1),
36–52.
Soria, K.M., Chirikov, I., & Jones-White, D. (2020, July). SERU COVID-19 sur-
vey. ‘The obstacles to remote learning for undergraduate, graduate, and profes-
sional students.’ Retrieved October 16, 2020, from https://cshe.berkeley.edu/
seru-covid-survey-reports
Stauffer, R. (2018, January 19). The real experience of an online-only university
student. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/
student/blogs/real-experience-online-only-university-student
Stella, A., & Gnanam, A. (2004). Quality assurance in distance education: The
challenges to be addressed. Higher Education, 47(2), 143–160.
Swan, K. (2021). Teaching and learning in post-industrial distance education.
In Martha F. Cleveland-Innes & D. Randy Garrison (Eds.), An introduction
to distance education: Understanding teaching and learning in a new era (2nd
ed).Routledge.
The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2020). Report ‘new schools of thought:
Innovative models for delivering higher education.’ 46.
van der Zwaan, B. (2017). The global university and the knowledge ecosystem
of the future. In B. van der Zwaan (Ed.), Higher Education in 2040: A global
approach (p. 195–204). Amsterdam University Press.
Veletsianos, G., & Houlden, S. (2020). Radical flexibility and relationality as
responses to education in times of crisis. Postdigital Science & Education, 849–
862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00196-3.
16 Teacher Education in
Times of Disruption
Lessons Learned from
Teaching and Learning in
Australian Universities during
the COVID-19 Pandemic
Eden C. Stephens and Jen Scott Curwood
Introduction
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization mandated that the
global spread of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; SARS-
CoV-2) “can be characterised as a pandemic” (WHO, 2020, para 7).
Efforts were made to take heed, and a week later, the Australian govern-
ment officially declared a state of national pandemic (Federal Register
of Legislation, 2020, p. 1). Atop the imminent health threat posed by
COVID-19, initial rhetoric indicated the pandemic’s potential “to dis-
rupt our community socially and economically” and subsequently called
for efforts to “minimise social disruption” (Department of Health, 2019,
p. 9, 18). Superseding the public health threat was the fact that the impli-
cations of the COVID-19 pandemic were all-encompassing of social,
economic, and political spheres, consequently impeding on all aspects of
everyday life.
The Prime Minister of Australia accompanied the declaration of a biose-
curity emergency with a series of measures to mitigate the inherent spread
of COVID-19 on March 18, 2020 (Prime Minister of Australia, 2020).
The implications of this profoundly affected educational institutions:
“University and higher education ‘should continue at this time’ with risk
mitigation measures, including working from home arrangements where
effective” (para. 1). Evidence of positive cases emerging on campus and
influence from public opinion resulted in universities within the Australian
state of New South Wales (NSW) almost unanimously and instantaneously
shifting to online learning. It was this unprecedented and disruptive
change that formed the basis of this study, which sought to gain insight
into the preparedness, effectiveness, and potential consequences that may
have resulted for university educators and students alike. The intent of this
study was to examine how a representative sample of higher education
institutions (HEIs) within NSW conducted their English teacher educa-
tion courses during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.
216 Eden C. Stephens and Jen Scott Curwood
Situated in sociocultural perspectives and drawing on qualitative
research methodologies, this study asked the following research questions:
• What are the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for teacher

education at Australian universities?
• How have English teacher educators’ teaching, learning, well-being,
and professional livelihoods been impacted due to the pandemic?
• How are English preservice teachers affected by the changes to teacher
education as a result of the pandemic?
While our world is still in the midst of the pandemic at the time of writ-
ing, this chapter also considers the potential ramifications for current and
future conceptions of teacher education, both in Australia and globally.
Literature Review
The Australian Government’s Tertiary Education Quality and Standards
Agency accredits 43 universities within Australia, all of which pride
themselves on striving toward and maintaining an exemplary standard
of education (Norton & Cakitaki, 2016). The Group of Eight universi-
ties represents the flagship Australian universities that prioritize sustain-
able national higher education, support innovative research, and cultivate
international research partnerships. The Grattan Institute acknowledges
that universities create extensive revenue, “making higher education a
significant industry” within Australia, adding that “humanities and com-
merce remain the most popular fields of study,” which includes teacher
education (Norton & Cakitaki, 2016, p. 3). The Australian Institute
for Teaching and School Leadership highlights 358 accredited teaching
courses, with 116 available in NSW (AITSL, 2017). Teacher education
courses allow preservice teachers, who are tertiary students currently
undertaking formal training and accreditation processes, to pursue
careers as qualified early childhood, primary, and secondary teachers.
The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted normality on a global scale and
incited mass change to the governance of HEIs. This literature review
considers historical and contemporary changes for Australia’s HEIs, the
role of technology in higher education, and, finally, how teacher educa-
tion has been traditionally conceptualized and enacted as well as pres-
ently impacted by the pandemic.
Educational Change: Systemic and Localized

The ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic for HEIs predominantly
manifested as a shift from face-to-face or blended to fully online modes
of delivery (Bao, 2020; Crawford et al., 2020; Rapanta et al., 2020). The
genesis and implications of the COVID-19 pandemic are unprecedented,
Teacher Education in Times of Disruption 217
yet education systems and institutions have long been the subject of
reform, with a tendency for systemic amelioration (Reigeluth & Garfinkle,
1994). Being innately linked to respective contexts and influenced by a
plethora of societal values, political agendas, and renewed educational
ideals, HEIs are tasked with effectuating dynamic, and often contend-
ing, input from multiple stakeholders. One example of radical reform
to higher education within Australia occurred in 1983, as “the change
in government in Australia and with the worldwide economic recession
deeply entrenched, priorities for universities changed drastically,” with
fiscal motivations “preparing students for the labour market” (Curri,
2002, p. 134). This historical moment shows the influence of political,
social, and economic priorities in exacting dynamic and multitudinous
agendas for HEIs.
Educational reform is not solely a constituent of extenuating circum-
stances; rather, the concept of change is a common and regulated attribute
of educational structures. Content and pedagogy, alongside ideals and
objectives, are frequently altered to optimize educational outcomes, pre-
dominantly via the systemic overhaul of curriculum and policy (Dawkins
et al., 2019). Although policy dictates what is to be taught and under
what conditions, HEIs, their faculties, and respective educators are often
afforded autonomy in implementing the stipulated goals. Korthagen
(2001) acknowledges the need to redress an evident gap between the the-
ory and practice of teacher education, reiterating the significance of adapt-
ing practices at a localized level in order to comply with systemic changes.
With educational practices evolving to reflect the changing values of soci-
ety, technological devices and strategies similarly transform. The following
sections consider how technological innovations and pedagogical changes
impact teacher education.
Technology and Innovative Practices

The ability of HEIs to provide quality teacher education, both in Australia
and abroad, has been hindered by the paucity of knowledge and lack of
time to account for the impositions of the pandemic. Compared to prior
systematic change in HEIs, the industry was not afforded time to prepare,
trial, or revise the reactionary measures to accommodate the COVID-19
pandemic. Despite not having the benefit of foresight or adequate time
to account for the enacted changes, many HEIs in Australia had systems
and structures already in place to facilitate the rapid shift to online learn-
ing, with many already technologically equipped for the growing trend
of online or distance education (Rumble, 2019). Emerging international
studies stipulate that while experiences varied, teacher education programs
were equipped with the skills and means to redesign their content and
pedagogy for emergency online teaching and learning measures (Assunção
Flores & Gago, 2020; Donitsa-Schmidt & Ramot, 2020; La Velle et al.,
2020). Deviating from prior examples is the capacity at which these sys-
tems were operating, the timeliness of these changes, and the professional
learning and support for university educators to teach online. The prom-
inence of existing technology within the educational industry has sug-
gested that online student learning is comparable to experiences within
traditional classrooms (Hurlbut, 2018).
In many respects, the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pan-
demic have forced HEIs and university educators to situate technology as
a key priority for teacher education (Ferdig et al., 2020). When consider-
ing the nuances of applied teacher education, technology is not only a
viable means of content delivery and assessment within HEIs but also a
significant pedagogical tool and a general capability skill across all subject
teaching areas (ACARA, 2013). Teacher education must equip preser-
vice teachers with an understanding of innovative practices and a knowl-
edge of how to align their pedagogies with ever-evolving technological
advancements. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated
that teacher education needs to be adaptable to changing circumstances
and technologies.
Achieving Quality Teacher Education

Teacher education shapes the development of preservice teachers’ beliefs,
values, and practices throughout the duration of their careers (Curwood
& O’Grady, 2015; DeAngelis et al., 2013). It is paramount to ensure that
interim solutions in the wake of the pandemic do not compromise or hin-
der the quality of teacher education. Carroll (2005) has advocated for the
development of interpersonal skills through interactive learning in order
to instill necessary skills and practices for preservice teachers to become
capable career teachers. Interactive learning priorities are significant when
considering the hindrances of the COVID-19 pandemic, as these ideals
must be effectively replicated online in order to maintain quality teacher
education during times of disruption.
Teaching vocations are renowned for altruism, with teacher education
emphasizing the need to employ flexibility in adapting to unforeseen cir-
cumstances, often instantaneously or within extremely limited time frames
(Collie & Martin, 2016). In many respects, the events of this pandemic
have afforded preservice teachers with an understanding of the need to be
equipped for unpredictable and often challenging demands (Ferdig et al.,
2020). Similarly, the field of education must be malleable and resilient in
order to evolve and survive, especially during times of global crisis. Despite
presently enduring the unprecedented implications of the COVID-19
pandemic, our study sought to understand how the abrupt transition to
online learning has offered both challenges and opportunities for second-
ary English teacher education in Australia.
Methodology
Research Context and Design
This case study examined three HEIs within Australia from March to July
2020 and considered how COVID-19 impacted the design and delivery
of English teacher education courses. We focused on the state of NSW, as
Australian legislation stipulates that “primary responsibility for managing
the impact of a severe outbreak of influenza, or a pandemic, lies with the
state and territory governments and that each jurisdiction will have its
own plans and protocols” (DoH, 2019, p. 16). A case study methodology
afforded special regard to the individual experiences of each teacher edu-
cator and their respective institutions while using multiple data sources to
provide insight across a broader context.
We examined authentic experiences and lived consequences as they
unfolded during the pandemic in an effort to represent the gravity of the
situation and its unique repercussions on professional livelihoods and per-
sonal well-being. Merriam (1988) described a case as any social unit in
which researchers have provided clear boundaries for and assessed through
a specific lens; in this instance, we situated each teacher educator as a
case study. A multicase study approach afforded analogous insight into the
ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic across the three subject HEIs.
Participants
This study pertained to English teacher education, which provides educa-
tion in English methodology practices to tertiary students who wish to
become English teachers within secondary schools. Secondary schools
provide the highest mandatory level of education within Australia and
are the precursors to achieving optional postsecondary education within
HEIs. All 13 HEIs in NSW were invited to participate in this study; three
actively participated, four expressed an interest yet subsequent incapac-
ity to participate, one rejected the offer, and the remaining five did not
respond. Recruitment invitations were sent via email addresses available
publicly online, with participation being on a voluntary, opt-in basis. As a
result of this, the final sample included three English teacher educators at
three respective HEIs from greater metropolitan Sydney. In acknowledg-
ing the limited sample size, reflection on the tumultuous conditions and
limited contingencies afforded in staffing, time, and resources, while expe-
riencing pandemic conditions, must be accounted for. Similarly, the influ-
ence of industry-wide fiscal concerns and employment precarity, which
are explored in this study, may potentially have impeded the willingness
for participation. Despite this, the study captures broader experiences and
opinions, as expressed through the sample of representative participants, all
of which identified as either a permanent or casual employee who worked
as a teacher educator in the field of English teacher education in 2020.
To preserve confidentiality, pseudonyms have been used for all HEIs,
which will be referred to as Banksia University, Eucalyptus University, and
Waratah University, and for all teacher participants. Clare was a full-time
teacher educator at Banksia University, a prominent HEI within the Sydney
metropolitan region. Being well established in her position and uphold-
ing the role of course coordinator, Clare was a valued member of her
faculty and has significant influence over the design and delivery of both
the course initially and in enacting reactionary measures to the COVID-
19 pandemic. Daniel was a casual employee, with limited full-time equiv-
alent (FTE) rates and precarious employment conditions. Employed at
Eucalyptus University, a respected HEI located within the greater Sydney
region, Daniel fulfilled roles spanning from casual lecturer, to tutor, with
only minimal input into the governing and conduct of the course and
its elected content. This position is Daniel’s secondary place of employ-
ment, with Daniel primarily being a head of the English Department at an
independent school. Lastly, Robert provided a unique perspective on the
employment tendencies of HEIs, as he was in the process of moving from
a casual position at Waratah University to another HEI. At the time of the
study, Robert worked as a casual tutor who was afforded a great deal of
insight into the implementation of reactionary measures, boasting a close
and effective working relationship with the course coordinator.
Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection consisted of multiple sources, including two hours of
semistructured interviews with each participant, along with representa-
tive posts from their respective online platforms that conveyed the nature
of both online learning and communication, as well as publicly accessible
protocols and documentation pertaining to the conduct of each HEI. The
same interview schedule was used for each participant, and a semistruc-
tured interview format allowed for the questions to be tailored to the
unique circumstances of each participant and their respective HEI.
Given the nature of the interview data, the transcripts were initially
reflected upon by analytic memos through Saldaña’s (2013) frame-
work for qualitative analysis. This allowed both researchers to cumulate
a thematic understanding of the data and establish an effective process
for coding, and multiple rounds of coding informed an understanding
of emerging themes. First-round coding pertained to an understanding
of the shift to online learning; second-round coding addressed teacher
educator emotionality and perceptions of this shift; third-round coding
delved into the implications of this shift for teacher educator and student
well-being, university experience and protocol, and long-term ramifica-
tions. Themes were then read against the participants’ online posts, via
triangulation, in order to ensure the internal validity of the study (Meijer
et al., 2002). In this manner, interview data, predominantly relating to
the experiences and opinions of participants, was triangulated with the
online posts, which provided insight into the nature of HEI protocols and
interactions with student cohorts. In examining the effects of personal and
professional reverberations within the case study context, discourse analy-
sis (Weiss & Wodak, 2007) provided further insight into the pandemic’s
impact on English teacher education.
Findings and Discussion

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Australian HEIs had to make
significant alterations to the design, delivery, and content of teacher educa-
tion while striving to maintain and model effective online pedagogy and
provide pastoral support for preservice teachers. Although this was notably
impacted by the high casualization of university educators, revenue deficits,
and austerity measures, teacher educators remained committed to being
responsive, reflective, and innovative during a time of significant disrup-
tion. In striving to achieve quality teacher education during a pandemic,
the findings highlight three prominent themes that emerged from the
study: (1) changes to the design and delivery of education, (2) alteration to
content and values, and, finally, (3) an understanding of how the pandemic
affected university experiences and employment tendencies more broadly.
Design and Delivery during the Pandemic: “An Emergency Shift”

A profound consequence of the pandemic for Australian HEIs was the
immediate shift to online modes of delivery (Scull et al., 2020). The
rushed implementation of online teaching and learning meant that many
decisions were largely improvised, enacted incrementally, or frequently
altered, with minimal consistency, which posed significant logistical and
pedagogical concerns that disrupted learning for all participants, to vary-
ing extents. The notion of an “emergency shift” describes the limited time
frame within which online learning was implemented and the lack of knowl-
edge regarding the ongoing scope of this change (Ferdig et al., 2020).
The notion of an emergency shift was not uniformly employed across
the Australian HEI sector. Participants shared that Banksia University
temporarily suspended teaching in order to provide a week for university
educators to implement necessary changes. Eucalyptus University enacted
changes overnight and afforded each course the agency to implement
adjustments at their discretion. Waratah University educators were offi-
cially provided 48 hours forewarning but were informally warned of the
impending changes a fortnight prior.
The Australian secondary English teacher educators in this study unani-
mously agreed that the emergency shift was a complex task that would have
benefited from a greater allocation of time, resources, and clear communica-
tion. Daniel suggested that communication would have benefited from a
ubiquitous and consistent approach, as “all of a sudden overnight it changed.”
Clare was disconcerted in ascertaining a knowledge that other HEIs “had
been planning for a number of weeks. The word was we were going to go
online but there was nothing official and I expected a more incremental and
measured lead into the online teaching.” Despite forewarning and initiating
protocols to progressively move online, Robert “got an email stressing that
we needed to move online immediately or as soon as possible.”
Australian HEIs are hierarchical institutions, governed by top-down
structures that shape the design and delivery of teacher education. Hence,
the potential for a collective decision to be reached and communicated
effectively, across the entirety of an HEI, is reasonable, if impractical, dur-
ing a pandemic. Teacher educators in this study voiced concerns about
receiving a multitude of misconstrued or contradictory information that
convoluted vital instruction. Clare stated, “I felt overwhelmed…there was
so many emails coming through.” Given his limited engagement with the
HEI, Daniel similarly expressed the need to establish a succinct reference
point for both staff and students rather than perusing numerous contend-
ing emails. Robert shared concern that “there were often media releases or
publications in the newspaper, giving us information that we were moving
online, before we had even been informed about it” and that “conces-
sional or casual staff were being left out of emails.” Exacerbating con-
cern was the degree of speculation, as Daniel was alarmed that students
were provided with convoluted, and sometimes conflicting, information
at the same time as the teacher educators. This concern was unanimous,
as Robert concluded that discerning “whether it was mandated or encour-
aged” was the most challenging aspect.
The participating HEIs each had a university-endorsed online platform,
or learning management system (LMS), such as Canvas, that was utilized
prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. A multitude of studies
suggest the benefits of incorporating an LMS as an additional or support-
ive resource, yet few have considered LMS platforms to be a primary peda-
gogical device (Georgouli et al., 2008). With the shift to online models
of learning, these platforms adopted new functions, now facilitating com-
munication, as well as teaching and learning practices. Now a vital peda-
gogical tool, Robert’s online post to his class’s LMS prompted students
to immediately “download both Zoom and Canvas student” in order to
resume class online. The newfound centrality of technology meant that
established and emerging practices had to evolve, with Clare, Daniel, and
Robert each either opting or being instructed to utilize a combination of
both synchronous and asynchronous strategies, a pedagogical choice that
is advocated by Hrastinski (2008), even prior to the pandemic
In adopting pedagogical practices that could be completed either coop-
eratively or independently, teacher educators accounted for the inevitability
of technological issues while also replicating a traditional classroom setting.
In this manner, Clare tried to conduct her class “as much as possible, in a
similar way to the first three weeks when [they] had [their] classes onsite”
to provide “some sort of continuity and security in that routine.” The
teacher educators each indicated that asynchronous activities ensured that
students were actively participating, while synchronous structures afforded
teacher educators the opportunity to monitor students’ progress and guide
them as usual. While Daniel emphatically supports technology, he reiter-
ated that it wasn’t the epicenter of teaching values and pedagogy: “It is a
tool. It’s like a textbook, it’s like a whiteboard…. It’s a powerful tool but
it’s not education and it’s not teaching.” Although the mode and delivery
of teacher education had to rapidly shift in 2020, teacher educators felt
that their ideals and principles remained the same. Teacher educators drew
on their content knowledge and values to overcome, to adapt, and to inno-
vate in order to maintain quality teacher education during the pandemic.
From Content to Values: Life Lessons, Connections, and Relationships

Provided the significant ramifications of the pandemic and consequent
limitations to class times and structures, the scope of content that could be
achieved within the online learning parameters was often hindered. Daniel
conveyed that content was condensed at Eucalyptus University to save
time and resources during the pandemic, as “prior to COVID, we would
deliver subject specific lectures…. Once COVID hit, the unit coordina-
tors put together lecture material, that was…generic so that [everyone]
got the same lecture about programming,” meaning that Daniel now had
to reiterate the specificities of English methodologies, a time-consuming
task. Similarly, the generalization of content that is usually ingrained in the
subject prevents the ability of differentiation or authentic engagement to
be achieved. Daniel continued that having demarcation between a lecture
and tutorial space allowed him to systematically teach the theory before
practically implementing it, with clear parameters and explicit links to
English methodology. The rapid shift to synchronous and asynchronous
online learning demanded changes to established best practices. Robert
similarly suggested that content had to be tailored as “trying to move
three-hour tutorials face-to-face, wouldn’t necessarily effectively repli-
cate into a three-hour online Zoom tutorial…it’s not the same [and] we
needed to accommodate for that.” Similarly, Daniel felt the role of the
teacher had diminished in an online space, with typical instruction now
being textually prescribed, as conveyed in an online post stipulating the
asynchronous task was mandatory and accounted for “attendance and par-
ticipation requirements” in the unit.
English methodology is often grounded in embodied learning, drama
pedagogies, and movement, which allow students and teachers alike to
explore perspectives, engage with diverse texts, and make meaning.
Acknowledging that teacher educators innately model teachers’ values
and practices, Daniel expressed concern as students are “not going to see
in-action what we’re trying to teach them.” A profound consequence has
been the inability to achieve practicum experiences or even the ability to
become familiar with the real-life classroom contexts, a significant hin-
drance to practical content, which should ideally be equally weighted with
the theory. Most Australian HEIs had to postpone school-based pract-
icums, which disrupted the typical course structure and sequence. The
reduction of content minimized opportunities for students to implicitly
engage, and Daniel suggested that the “level of questioning and personal
sharing of experiences” might be hindered by the superficial tailoring of
the content at the detriment to the preservice teachers’ education.
The nuances of teacher education cannot be emulated to the same extent
within an online space. Clare stated, “Teaching is relational, it’s about
interpersonal relationships and developing them and physically being in
the class.” Daniel agreed, as “it is the life lessons and the connections and
the relationships…they’re things that you have to model and foster within
your students.” The teacher educators expressed frustration in delineating
what constitutes best practice online and the fact that they had to reas-
sess their values to “establish rules and conventions” in a digital setup.
Clare stated that while she wanted to model effective pedagogy, respect
her students’ agency, and encourage their authentic engagement, “there
were aspects of the online experience which were for me disconcerting, in
so far as students would log in but a lot of them didn’t turn the cameras
on.” When faced with students that appeared to be disengaged, Clare
reluctantly found herself utilizing what she deemed “scare tactics,” calling
on students randomly or testing students with unprovoked challenges to
email her as a means of verifying their attention. She felt this distrust and
surveillance were seldom needed when she could previously form inter-
personal rapport with her students, an effective classroom management
strategy (Rogers, 2015). Robert agreed, as “you don’t necessarily know
if students are there, so that is a problem with the engagement side of
things.” The decline of student-teacher rapport also hindered the ability of
teacher educators to support student well-being and mental health, which
were primary concerns due to the severe financial and emotional implica-
tions of the pandemic for many Australian students. Consequently, these
ramifications affected university operation and structure, thus impeding
the provision of quality English teacher education.
University Experiences: “Campus Life Has Changed”

Throughout 2020, Australian universities implemented a variety of mea-
sures to overcome the implications of COVID-19. Despite its resilience,
the higher education industry has suffered significantly because of the pan-
demic (Doidge & Doyle, 2020; Thatcher et al., 2020). Impacts on global
mobilization caused a significant detriment to Australian HEI revenue,
with the closure of international borders and imposed travel bans causing
significant ramifications for the intake of full-fee-paying international stu-
dents. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017 international
student enrollments in Australian HEIs accounted for nearly 30% of the
total intake and contributed a substantial “$32.4 billion to the Australian
economy” (DoPS, 2019, p. 1), which had increased in subsequent years.
Doidge and Doyle (2020) outline the precarity of Australian HEIs with
recent “government funding cuts, the deleterious consequences of mar-
ket-based reforms and the loss of academic autonomy under an increas-
ingly audit and metric-driven culture” and acknowledges that these are
exacerbated by further consequences of the pandemic, including “devas-
tating revenue shortfalls, mass staff layoffs…exclusion of universities from
national emergency assistance packages and…university funding reforms”
(p. 1). Daniel acknowledged that HEIs are “a business,” with fiscal priori-
ties often at the forefront of decisions.
Daniel’s circumstances provide valuable insight into the effects of
high casualization within HEIs and the ensuing employment precarity.
He stated, “I didn’t participate [in forums relating to the pandemic]
because I sometimes feel like I don’t have enough of a role [at Eucalyptus
University].” As casual employees, Daniel and Robert held multiple posi-
tions and had contending priorities, which posed complications when con-
sidering the pandemic’s additional demands on time and resources, factors
that were not accounted for within their limited FTE allocations. As Daniel
noted, “I’m a lowly casual that comes in for three hours a week.” While
Daniel and Robert were both fortunate in retaining or advancing their
positions throughout this uncertainty, Welch (2020) outlines the implica-
tions of high casualization as causing a detrimental fissure in managerial
models, beyond the ramifications of COVID-19. Similarly, modeling of
the impacts of COVID-19 has indicated significant effects on job security
within the HEI sector, as in many instances, the consequences equated to
voluntary redundancies or dismissals, while economic recovery entails a
projected downfall in the availability of FTE positions, ultimately result-
ing in immense uncertainty for the mass of academic staff members who
are, or were, occupying casual positions (Thatcher et al., 2020). Robert
highlighted, “We can’t all be working at our top capacity given the cir-
cumstances,” as the ramifications on well-being and welfare are consider-
able and indiscriminate, having collateral impacts not only for the casual
teacher educators but also for their preservice students who rely on casual
staff as an instrumental part of teacher education within Australian HEIs.
The pandemic has resulted in revenue deficits and imposed austerity
measures that impeded the university experiences of preservice students.
The teacher educators recognized that the closure of university campuses
posed significant concerns for inaccessibility and inequity, with the shift
to online education potentially alienating the preservice students who rely
on access to university resources and support services. Clare reiterated that
the skills that HEI students acquire throughout their education go beyond
those that are taught in the classroom setting and that the university expe-
rience is essential in developing life skills more broadly. Acknowledging
extracurricular activities and networking, for example, the aspects of uni-
versity education that are invariably undervalued in the scope of literature,
Clare stated, “Campus life has changed…. [There was a] really vibrant
campus life with bands playing, there were political speeches, there were
rallies, there was always something happening,” suggesting that the cen-
trality of the campus setting has changed significantly in recent history.
While the teacher educators perceived a capacity to operate within the
newfound online measures as necessary, they unanimously presumed that
online instruction is likely the future of education within Australian HEIs,
and they expressed concerns for the implications for students’ welfare,
access, and equity should campus facilities be eradicated.
Conclusion
Australia has long prepared for the eventuality of a pandemic and the
subsequent impacts that inevitably entail economic, social, and politi-
cal disruption, yet the nature and extent of COVID-19 have profoundly
impacted teaching and learning within Australian HEIs. In striving to
conquer these challenges, Clare, Daniel, and Robert were each optimistic
that while the pandemic has shifted the priorities of teacher education in
the interim, these changes have not negatively impacted quality teacher
education, both now and into the future. Both explicit and implicit rami-
fications of the pandemic have underpinned a newfound appreciation for
the values and structure of teacher education, the use of technology as an
educational tool, the exponential growth in online and distance education
models, and a growing commitment to student well-being and equity. The
teacher educators acknowledged that while the personal and professional
lives of students and staff alike were profoundly affected by the pandemic,
alongside the nature of teacher education courses in Australian HEIs, the
enacted changes to design and delivery were largely functional and acces-
sible – yet hopefully temporary.
Bios
Eden C. Stephens is an English and History Teacher in Sydney, Australia.
Eden completed a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Education (Secondary,
Honours) at the University of Sydney, and she is interested in researching
technology and contemporary issues in teaching.
Jen Scott Curwood, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Sydney School

of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney in Australia. Her
research explores the intersections of literacy, creativity, and technology.
References
Assunção Flores, M., & 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), 1–10.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2013).
The Australian Curriculum: General capabilities. https://docs.acara.edu.au/
resources/General_Capabilities_2011.pdf
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2017).
Accredited programs list. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/deliver-ite-programs/apl
Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case
study of Peking University. Human Behaviour and Emerging Technologies, 2(2),
113–115.
Carroll, D. (2005). Learning through interactive talk: A school-based mentor
teacher study group as a context for professional learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21(5), 457–473.
Collie, R. J., & Martin, A. J. (2016). Adaptability: An important capacity for effec-
tive teachers. Educational Practice and Theory, 38(1), 27–39.
Burton, R., Magni, P. A., & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher
& Teaching, 3(1), 1–20.
Curri, G. (2002). Reality versus perception: Restructuring tertiary education and
institutional organisational change—a case study. Higher Education, 44(1),
133–151.
Curwood, J. S., & O’Grady, A. (2015). Answering the call: Reflections on profes-
sional learning and English teaching. English in Australia, 50(3), 31–34.
Dawkins, P., Hurley, P., & Noonan, P. (2019). Rethinking and revitalising tertiary
education in Australia. Melbourne: Mitchell Institute.
DeAngelis, K. J., Wall, A. F., & Che, J. (2013). The impact of preservice prepara-
tion and early career support on novice teachers’ career intentions and decisions.
Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 338–355.
Department of Health (DoH). (2019). Australian health management plan for
pandemic influenza.Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Department of Parliamentary Services (DoPS). (2019). Overseas students in
Australian higher education: A quick guide. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/par-
lInfo/download/library/prspub/6765126/upload_binary/6765126.pdf.
Doidge, S., & Doyle, J. (2020). Australian universities in the age of Covid.
Educational Philosophy and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.202
0.1804343
Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Ramot, R. (2020). Opportunities and challenges: Teacher
education in Israel in the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 46(4), 1–10.
Federal Register of Legislation. (2020). Biosecurity (human biosecurity emergency)
(human coronavirus with pandemic potential) declaration 2020. https://www.
legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L00266
Ferdig, R. E., Baumgartner, E., Hartshorne, R., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Mouza,
C. (2020). Teaching, technology, and teacher education during the covid-19 pan-
demic: Stories from the field. Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education.
Georgouli, K., Skalkidis, I., & Guerreiro, P. (2008). A framework for adopting
LMS to introduce e-learning in a traditional course. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 11(2), 227–240.
Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause
Quarterly, 31(4), 51–55.
Hurlbut, A. R. (2018). Online vs. traditional learning in teacher education: A
comparison of student progress. American Journal of Distance Education,
32(4), 248–266.
Korthagen, F. A. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic
teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum.
La Velle, L., Newman, S., Montgomery, C., & Hyatt, D. (2020). Initial teacher
education in England and the Covid-19 pandemic: Challenges and opportuni-
ties. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 1–13.
Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (2002). Multi-method triangulation
in a qualitative study on teachers’ practical knowledge: An attempt to increase
internal validity. Quality and Quantity, 36(2), 145–167.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach.
Jossey-Bass.
Norton, A., & Cakitaki, B. (2016). Mapping Australian higher education 2016.
Grattan Institute.
Prime Minister of Australia. (2020). Media statement: Update on coronavirus mea-
sures. https://www.pm.gov.au/media/update-coronavirus-measures
Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online
university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher
presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 1–23.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Garfinkle, R. J. (1994). Systemic change in education.
Educational Technology.
Rogers, B. (2015). Classroom behaviour: A practical guide to effective teaching,
behaviour management and colleague support. SAGE Publications.
Rumble, G. (2019). The planning and management of distance education.
Routledge.
Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: The coding manual for qualitative
researchers. SAGE Publication.
Scull, J., Phillips, M., Sharma, U., & Garnier, K. (2020). Innovations in teacher
education at the time of COVID19: An Australian perspective. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 46(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2
020.1802701
Thatcher, A., Zhang, M., Todoroski, H., Chau, A., Wang, J., & Liang, G. (2020).
Predicting the Impact of COVID-19 on Australian Universities. Journal of Risk
and Financial Management, 13(9), 188.
Weiss, G. & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2007). Critical discourse analysis. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Welch, A. (2020). Tensions in the evolving Australian higher education system:
A complex, evolving mix. Higher Education Governance & Policy, 1(1), 32–48.
World Health Organisation. (2020). WHO director-general’s opening remarks at
the media briefing on COVID-19 – 11 March 2020. https://www.who.int/dg/
speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-brief-
ing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020
17 The Expansion of
E-learning in the UAE
Implications and
Opportunities in the
Post-COVID-19 Era
Shytance Wren
Introduction
It has been 44 years since the initiation of higher education in the United
Arab Emirates (UAE). Over time, higher education institutions (HEIs)
in the UAE have developed educational systems that produce predict-
ability, stability, and tradition. However, the current landscape of higher
education is uncertain and volatile. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced
HEIs in the UAE and globally to hastily rework their systems and become
more innovative in their online teaching and learning approach, also
known as e-learning. However, investing in e-learning innovation without
a clear understanding of the accompanying challenges of the COVID-
19 pandemic is problematic and can lead to unforeseen complications.
Before embarking on the development of e-learning, the contextual and
situational factors that may prohibit its adoption in the post-COVID-19
recovery era must be examined. Rogers’s (2003) diffusion of innovation
theory provides a useful framework to explain how an innovation gains
momentum and is adopted over time through a specific social system. The
diffusion of innovation theory asserts that five determinants of innovation
dictate the adoption rate and decisions to adopt a new idea or system: (1)
relative advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) trialability, (4) complexity, and
(5) observability. These five determinants will give valuable insights into
the factors that may influence the UAE’s e-learning adoption decisions
and how certain factors affect the UAE’s adoption intention. This chapter
will use the diffusion of innovation theory as a conceptual basis to deter-
mine the feasibility of implementing e-learning within the UAE’s public
higher education system in the post-COVID-19 era.
Background
The UAE has developed into a modern, affluent state, characterized by
high investment in infrastructure, institutions, and technology. It has conse-
quently built a diversified system of higher education. Multiple private and
international branch campuses in the region supplement the public sector.
230 Shytance Wren
There are three public, federally funded institutions in the UAE: UAE
University, the first university established in 1977; the Higher Colleges of
Technology (HCT) founded in 1988; and Zayed University established in
1998. UAE nationals are granted free tuition at all levels at public institu-
tions, limiting educational attainment barriers. The free tuition policy helps
increase enrollment, putting pressure on public HEIs to expand capacity.
Moreover, the numerous HEI options available to students in the private
sector urge public HEIs to continuously improve their programs’ quality.
Quality of education is one of the UAE government’s primary con-
cerns. Having a high standard of education ensures that UAE nationals are
successful and competitive in the labor market to advance the country’s
social, economic, and cultural development. The UAE Vision 2021 stra-
tegic plan was created by the Ministry of Education, which is responsible
for the general planning of education in the UAE. The purpose of the
strategic plan is to develop a first-rate higher education system with sci-
ence, technology, and innovation at the core of its values. As a result of
the UAE’s government agenda of making the country a global hub for
innovation, the UAE has had a frictionless transition to remote learning.
Their advanced infrastructure assisted schools of all levels in supporting
student learning for 1.2 million students (Ministry of Cabinet Affairs &
the Future, 2020). This capacity reflects the high technology outputs and
infrastructure development in the UAE.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic occurred, the UAE government dis-
cussed incorporating e-learning into the bulk of the higher education cur-
riculum to increase accessibility and employability of its UAE national
graduates (Ministry of Cabinet Affairs & the Future, 2020). However,
the application and deployment potential of e-learning technologies in
higher education are yet to be fully utilized (Alfy et al., 2016; Elango
et al., 2008). The COVID-19 pandemic has given HEIs opportunities
to address challenges and evaluate innovative solutions to build a “First-
rate education system” aligned with the UAE Vision 2021 (Vision 2021,
2020). E-learning is one of the innovative solutions. E-learning is consid-
ered an innovation because it changes how public HEIs in the UAE struc-
ture, manage, and execute teaching and learning. It offers an alternative
and innovative learning environment compared with current traditional
teaching and learning practices. As the pandemic continues to be an exter-
nal driver for innovative change, the adoption of e-learning innovation
will play a crucial role in producing post-crisis growth. Before federally
funded HEIs in the region decide to invest in e-learning post-COVID-19,
identifying the factors that promote e-learning’s feasibility is imperative.
Framework
Coping with the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic
requires moving beyond disciplinary silos by utilizing transdisciplinary
approaches to highlight the norms, values, and economic factors that
The Expansion of E-learning in the UAE 231
shape the advancement of the e-learning post-COVID-19 era. Therefore,
Rogers’s (2003) diffusion of innovation theory that transcends multiple
disciplines, such as anthropology, sociology, communications, and busi-
ness marketing, is used as a theoretical framework in this chapter. The the-
ory aims to predict how, why, and at what rate a new idea or technology is
likely to be adopted among the members of a social system. The diffusion
theory consists of five determinants that affect the rate of adoption of an
innovation. The five determinants are (1) relative advantage, (2) compat-
ibility, (3) trialability, (4) complexity, and (5) observability. Innovations
that are perceived as providing relative advantages and being more com-
patible, less complex, observable, and trialable are known to diffuse more
rapidly than other innovations. These five determinants will be used to
determine the probability of e-learning adoption in the UAE.
Relative Advantage
The relative advantage of the diffusion of innovation theory is the extent
to which the innovation is more productive, efficient, cost-effective, or
suitable in improving existing practices (Rogers, 2003). Rogers (2003)
stated that relative advantage is the strongest predictor of the rate of adop-
tion. Subdimensions of the relative advantage attribute include economic
profitability, low initial cost, decreased discomfort, social prestige, and
immediacy of results (Rogers, 2003). A new modern approach defined
by technological capabilities and smart learning solutions, which the UAE
has been developing over the years through various initiatives and strategic
plans, is now being considered more intently as a result of the COVID-
19 pandemic. E-learning adoption may give the UAE the advantage of
social prestige by becoming a distance education/smart learning hub in
that region and the world. Online education in the region is expected to
expand almost a tenth annually in the next three years (Ndichu, 2018).
This time frame may decrease due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which
forced the UAE to adopt and improve e-learning methodologies at an
unprecedented pace. The UAE’s adoption of e-learning will help the UAE
become a smart learning hub which directly relates to its national agenda.
In 2017, the Ministry of Education established the National Strategy
for Higher Education 2030 to support the UAE in becoming a unique
global model for education (United Arab Emirates Government, 2020c).
One of the National Strategy initiatives launched by His Highness Sheikh
Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, vice president and prime minister
of the UAE and ruler of Dubai, is the Smart Learning Initiative, which
advocates for innovative technologies to make learning more futuristic and
interactive.
The UAE aims for all schools and universities to be equipped with
“smart” systems and devices and to veer from the existing traditional learn-
ing practices (UAE Vision 2021, 2020). The innovative initiatives from
the National Strategy of Higher Education 2030 plan to stop traditional
232 Shytance Wren
learning patterns by developing a new generation of technologically skilled
and creative thinkers. These initiatives will help dissolve the traditional edu-
cation model and invent innovative solutions to employ new educational
methods and tools (United Arab Emirates Government, 2020c). This
improvement of current traditional learning practices is a relative advan-
tage of e-learning. Rote memorization is an instructional method in some
UAE secondary schools (Ati & Guessoum, 2014; Weber, 2010). Once stu-
dents progress to postsecondary education, they may be more accustomed
to traditional methods and the authoritarian and passive learner models.
These instruction modes emphasize traditional teacher-dominated, exam-
oriented, and passive approaches limiting students’ development of higher-
order thinking abilities. With e-learning, students are more likely to be
steered away from rote learning and put in charge of their learning.
The UAE labor markets are known to go beyond country borders, search-
ing for individuals with specific technology-based skills. With the potential
decrease of globalization, technological changes, and expatriation due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, local human capital development is becoming
more critical for a nation’s economic progress. The UAE’s economy relies
on expatriates due to few locals working in the private sector and 80% of
local employees lacking sufficient training for the workforce. (Awad, 2017).
With potentially new expatriation laws, the UAE will need to start search-
ing within its local population to fill positions. According to Raji (2019),
there is a need for the UAE government to focus on vocational education
and higher learning using computer-assisted education programs in place
of the current traditional education system. Through the integration of
technology, e-learning has the relative advantage of progressing the econ-
omy through the upskilling of the UAE’s local citizens. The Ministry of
Education has recently announced the launch of a virtual system of vari-
ous summer activities to allow students to refine their skills and knowl-
edge (Ministry of Education, 2020). His Excellency Hussain Al Hammadi,
Minister of Education, stated that some plans and programs for smart learn-
ing were scheduled for the coming years, but COVID-19 accelerated their
implementation (Ministry of Cabinet Affairs & the Future, 2020).
Compatibility
Compatibility is the degree to which the innovation is perceived to be
consistent with sociocultural values, norms, or practices (Rogers, 2003).
E-learning is successfully applied to higher education when there is user
acceptance of the new technology. Therefore, it is imperative to examine
users’ sociocultural norms that influence the adoption of e-learning. The
UAE’s push for innovation changes its society’s norms, which helps with
accepting e-learning as a future adoption. The multiple visions, initiatives,
and agendas to transform UAE’s knowledge economy through technol-
ogy implementation are causing new ways of thinking and behaving.
The dispersal of innovation does not operate distantly but within
the confines of a social system. Social systems are characterized as hav-
ing either individualistic or collectivistic cultural dimensions (Hofstede,
2001). These cultural dimensions influence e-learning systems’ success-
ful adoption (Aparicio et al., 2016; Hofstede, 2001). Individualistic indi-
viduals prefer autonomy and self-initiative, while collectivistic individuals
favor interdependence. The UAE has a collectivist culture characterized
by interdependence, group identity, and hierarchical control, making it
more plausible for Emirati students to be collectivistic learners. Generally,
local students in the UAE have attended government-funded schools that
reflect a traditional teaching and learning approach to teacher-centric rote
learning and memorization (Al-Hunaiyyan & Sharhan, 2008; Mynard,
2003). This early dependence on traditional teaching methods based
on memorization and lack of active student participation is carried into
students’ postsecondary learning (Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum
Foundation & United Nations Development Program/Regional Bureau
for Arab States, 2014). E-learning is expected to be a new experience
for most Emirati students, mostly since e-learning is built on the premise
of student-centered learning. Because of the power dynamic in collective
societies, students may need to adjust to taking the initiative in their learn-
ing. Moreover, collectivist cultures emphasize group work and in-person
communication. Consequently, students might feel more comfortable in
face-to-face communication than in activities through online systems (Alfy
et al., 2016). One of the main obstacles that Emirati students faced dur-
ing remote learning were the lack of physical interactions with classmates
(Almuraqab, 2020; Wren & Negron, 2020). With most students being
English to Speakers of Other Languages learners, knowledge acquisi-
tion mostly comes from peer-to-peer guidance and translation. Students
expressed the inability to ask peers questions for language understanding,
not having anyone to confirm material comprehension, and complications
with communication in group projects (Wren & Negron, 2020).
While the UAE education system has undergone multiple economic
changes for a more modern approach, the UAE federally funded education
institutions are rooted in religious and cultural norms. Therefore, tradi-
tional rote learning remnants from previous conventional educational sys-
tems are still evident in HEI, culture, and society (Alhebsi et al. 2015). For
instance, although more technologically advanced than other countries
in the Middle East, the UAE blocked video calling until the COVID-19
pandemic forced new technology implementation for people to communi-
cate in the education sector. The UAE’s Telecommunications Regulatory
Authority was required to unblock multiple video applications amid the
pandemic (Serkal, 2020). There are currently cultural tensions in the Gulf
region regarding the implementation of video applications (Hurley, 2020).
On traditionally segregated college campuses in the UAE, class sessions
and office hour links remained segregated online to mitigate the potential
234 Shytance Wren
cultural constraints around using video software for e-learning. However,
for final examinations, video usage was required per the decree from the
Ministry of Education. Gulf-Arab women felt uncomfortable breaching
cultural taboos by showing their faces online. There were complaints from
parents and female students about requiring students to use video and
show their faces during examinations (Sanderson, 2020). Living in a col-
lectivist or communal culture where face-saving or preserving self-image is
a highly valued virtue and practice (Moussa & Seraphim, 2017), Emirati
men and women consider societal, religious, and cultural constraints when
online. Moreover, cultural and social norms have caused teachers to be
mindful of state reprisals if things go wrong in the usage of e-learning
(Watson, 2001). A cultural conflict may occur if male and female student
interactions cannot be controlled (Al-Hunaiyyan et al. 2008). Thus, apply-
ing new technologies to student learning should be approached prepensely
for political, social, and cultural reasons (Gokah et al., 2015).
Trialability
Trialability means the ability to try out an innovation within a limited
time frame (Rogers, 2003). Innovative changes are manageable if they are
tested temporarily. HEI in the UAE have used the COVID-19 pandemic
to develop and improve platforms for e-learning. The spring and summer
2020 semesters served as an experimental trial period for HEIs due to the
COVID-19 pandemic causing universities to go online in early March.
While the online learning period was not predetermined, it served as an
adequate diagnostic to assess how e-learning on a global scale would oper-
ate. Had the crisis not occurred, this change might have taken the UAE
years of planning before being tested or implemented (Ministry of Cabinet
Affairs & the Future, 2020). This minimal investment period improved the
likelihood of adoption and diffusion by allowing HEIs in UAE to assess the
intervention, resource availability, implementation methods, and students’
learning outcomes. Various learning platforms were reviewed during the
distance education period to determine the ones that were the most ben-
eficial (United Arab Emirates Government, 2020a). Another pilot project
that assesses the external validity of adopting complete e-learning in HEIs
is warranted. The first COVID-19 pandemic emergency trial period was
unexpected and conducted in unstable conditions, potentially skewing any
assessment results. Overall, this unanticipated pilot helped reduce opera-
tional uncertainty for e-learning implementation in the future.
Complexity
Complexity is defined as the degree to which the innovation is perceived
as challenging to understand, learn, or use (Rogers, 2003). The complexi-
ties of the implementation and adoption of e-learning can be related to
personal issues and technical issues. By having this trial period, possible
future complications were able to be assessed and alleviated. The UAE’s
resource readiness allowed for fewer complications in terms of information
technology (IT) infrastructure. Technical issues for students and faculty
mostly corresponded with connection issues. The UAE’s stable and reli-
able broadband connectivity was ensured by partnering with Ankabut for
technical support to execute digital communication and distance learn-
ing solutions. Ankabut provides IT infrastructure to remove technology-
use barriers and empower educational institutions to incorporate learning
technologies in classrooms (Online Learning Accelerates, 2020). The
Ministry of Education collaborated with Al Yah Satellite Communications
Company to facilitate students’ access to e-learning platforms amid the
COVID-19 pandemic. The company provided high-speed satellite broad-
band services to various locations where terrestrial broadband services are
unavailable. This service gave students not living in one of the major cit-
ies, where federally funded universities are located, the opportunity to
receive higher education (United Arab Emirates Government, 2020c). A
free home internet connection was also made available. Families in the
UAE who had no home internet connection could sign up for a free
Internet package through one of the two telecommunications suppliers in
the UAE. These strategies are innovative and complement the Ministry of
Education’s long-term vision of using technology to improve the educa-
tion system. If these collaborations continue, working parents, students
who live remotely, and students with a lack of transportation will have
greater access to education.
Outside of connection issues, faculty had the most technical difficulty
using the e-technology due to changing their teaching methodology to
integrate the technological innovation into their instruction and transfer
their courses online to a new learning system. Training for faculty was
ongoing, and spring break was moved forward by two weeks to allow
faculty to prepare for distance learning (42,000 Teachers, 2020). The
continuous asynchronous and synchronous training helped mitigate the
complexity, but issues still occurred as they do when using a new system.
Extensive training programs to support students, faculty, and staff were
held, along with the implementation of hotlines for students to direct que-
ries about lectures and IT issues, and tutorial and problem-solving sessions
were conducted. Numerous online workshops were planned for the two
weeks during spring break and beyond, covering both synchronous and
asynchronous strategies. HEI practitioners in the UAE can influence the
rate of adoption by ensuring that consistent support is available for faculty
and students. As stated by Minister of Education Hussain Al Hammadi, the
teacher’s role will change immensely in the next phase of the COVID-19
pandemic (Ministry of Cabinet Affairs & the Future, 2020). Based on an
online study conducted in Dubai, students agreed that instructors did not
give a proper explanation of class materials (Almuraqab, 2020). Hamdan
236 Shytance Wren
Bin Mohammed Smart University has tried to mitigate the lack of faculty
preparedness by providing the necessary online teaching skill training for
faculty in the UAE (Tabrez, 2020). The continuation of e-learning peda-
gogy training is imperative for faculty to revamp their curriculum and not
just transfer their in-class curriculum online.
For students, their most commonly cited e-learning barriers were related
to personal issues entailing time management problems and learning styles
or preferences (Wren & Negron, 2020). Students did not have difficulty
using the new learning platforms, as they were user-friendly, but they did
have trouble understanding how to learn online. The absence of direct
guidance from the instructor, who is often viewed as the sole source of
information, caused students to struggle with distance learning. Students
found themselves having to learn how to organize and time manage their
courses and assignments without their instructor’s or peers’ accountability.
The increased use of online student support resources, such as tutoring
services and skill development workshops, is warranted for the future.
Observability
Observability refers to the extent to which innovation produces tangible
results (Rogers, 2003). The chances of e-learning adoption increase if the
relative advantages of the new technology can be easily observed. Besides
the observed benefit of limiting the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic,
e-learning has shown how higher education access can be increased regard-
ing access to remote areas. This increase in accessibility improves the
scalability of resources available to students. It was observed that incorpo-
rating more e-learning helped increase enrollment (HCT Looks, 2020).
At Higher College of Technology campuses, the largest higher education
provider in the country with 17 campuses across all the Emirates, a pilot
study to test institutional readiness in technology, administration, support,
content, and faculty delivery capability was conducted. The survey results
also showed a satisfaction rate of over 90% for students and 75% for the fac-
ulty. Faculty even saw more participation from students in online delivery
than face-to-face teaching (HCT’s Online E-Learning, 2020). The results
from this observation will guide the continuous improvement of programs
and the student learning experience. While all federally funded institutions
participated in a study to document the effects of distance e-learning, these
findings must be made visible to openly communicate the advantages and
disadvantages of distance education to all HEIs in the region.
Discussion and Conclusion

Challenges that ensued from the COVID-19 crisis compelled HEIs to
rethink their current teaching and learning practices. In the UAE’s case,
the trialability of e-learning due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic
allowed the UAE’s current initiatives toward e-learning to be acceler-
ated and evaluated. The UAE’s government is now considering operating
through modern teaching and learning paradigms. From contemplating
the UAE’s feasibility of widespread e-learning adoption using the deter-
minants from the diffusion of innovation theory, valuable insight on the
relative advantages, observed benefits, complexities, and possible com-
patibility issues in adopting e-learning in the region were identified. The
matter of eradicating traditional pedagogy to better prepare students to
be independent thinkers emerged as a theme throughout the three pri-
mary determinants of relative advantage, complexity, and compatibility. As
these determinants account for considerable variances in explaining future
adoption decisions, it is suggested that the blended learning approach
be utilized to lessen complications from exchanging traditional teaching
and learning practices with e-learning pedagogical approaches. Based on
the presented cultural compatibility issues in this chapter, it is anticipated
that students may have difficulty transitioning to e-learning due to being
accustomed to rote learning and having direct face-to-face communica-
tion. Blended learning as the preferred instructional delivery method will
help promote learner autonomy and direct communication by combin-
ing in-person teaching and interaction with supplemental online educa-
tional tools. Moreover, since students have received little support during
the transition to online learning, additional online student workshops
and resources are necessary to provide students with effective e-learning
strategies. The current swift transfer of in-class learning material to an
online setting does not support students’ learning. It is recommended
that faculty innovate new constructivist teaching methods aligned with an
e-learning environment to support students’ independent thinking.
With the UAE’s plans of becoming a smart learning hub, e-learning is
likely to promote innovative learning for students. By using computer-
assisted education programs and innovative teaching methods online in
place of the current traditional education system, blended learning has
relative advantages of positioning the UAE as a global innovation hub
and upskilling UAE national students to be successful and competitive in
the labor market. The Dubai Future Foundation predicts that regulatory
bodies in education may begin setting up more ambitious redesigning of
traditional schooling to develop more innovative solutions (Dubai Future
Foundation, 2020). It is reasoned that new policies, frameworks, and pro-
grams for e-learning will be adopted in the months to come. Policy mak-
ers internationally should further consider systematically identifying the
determinants that alter the adoption of e-learning within their region’s
institutions to better perceive the rate and barriers of adopting a new edu-
cation system in the post-COVID-19 era. Overall, with the observed ben-
efits of increased access, higher enrollment, and development of a new
generation of technologically skilled and self-empowered creative think-
ers, the UAE and its advanced infrastructure are equipped to move toward
238 Shytance Wren
being a global hub for e-learning. As the potential expansion of e-learning
progresses in the region, it is vital to increase the visibility of e-learning’s
benefits by openly communicating the advantages and disadvantages of
e-learning from the studies and data collected from HEIs in the region.
Bio
Shytance Wren is an Instructor and Advisor at Zayed University, United
Arab Emirates. Shytance received her master of arts in student affairs
administration with a specialization in international development from
Michigan State University. Her research interests encompass improving
the effectiveness of international higher education through integrated
reforms in curriculum, teaching, leadership, research, and assessment.
References
42,000 Teachers pass UAE distance learning course. (2020, March 16). Gulf News.
https://gulfnews.com/uae/education/42000-teachers-pass-uae-distance-
learning-course-1.70419973
Alfy, S. E., Gómez, J., & Ivanov, D. (2016). Exploring instructors’ technology
readiness, attitudes and behavioral intentions towards e-learning technologies
in Egypt and United Arab Emirates. Education and Information Technologies,
22(5), 2605–2627.
Alhesbi, A., Pettaway, L. D., & Waller, L. (2015). A history of education in the
United Arab Emirates and trucial shiekdoms. The Global eLearning Journal,
4(1), 8–14.
Al-Hunaiyyan, A., Al-Huwail, N., & Al-Sharhan, S. (2008). Blended e-learning
design: Discussion of cultural issues. International Journal of Cyber Society and
Almuraqab, N. A. (2020). Shall universities at the continue distance learning
after the COVID-19 pandemic? Revealing students’ perspective. International
Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), 11(5),
226–233.
Ati, M., & Guessoum, N. (2014). E-learning in the United Arab Emirates. In U.
Demiray (Ed.), E-learning practices (pp. 20). Anadolu University.
Aparicio, M., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2016). Cultural impacts on e-learning
systems’ success. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 58–70.
Awad M. (2017), The cost of foreign labor in the United Arab Emirates (Working
paper No. 2010–001). Zayed University. https://www.zu.ac.ae/main/en/
research/publications/_documents/The%20Cost%20of%20Foreign%20
Labor%20in%20the%20United%20Arab%20Emirates.pdf
Dubai Future Foundation. (2020). Dubai future foundation foresees the future
of distant learning. https://www.dubaifuture.gov.ae/dubai-future-foundation-
foresees-future-distant-learning/
Elango, R., Gudep, V. K., & Selvam, M. (2008). Quality of e-learning: An anal-
ysis based on e-learners’ perception of e-learning. The Electronic Journal of
E-Learning, 6(1), 31–44.
Gokah, T. K., Gupta, N., & Ndiweni, E. (2015). E-learning in higher education-
opportunities and challenges for Dubai. International Journal on e-Learning,
14(4), 443–470.
HCT’s online e-learning pilot wins big with high student satisfaction rates. (2020).
http://news.hct.ac.ae/en/2020/03/hcts-online-e-learning-pilot-wins-big-
high-student-satisfaction-rates/
HCT’s online summer semester courses prove big hit with students. (2020).
http://news.hct.ac.ae/en/2020/06/hcts-online-summer-semester-courses-
prove-big-hit-students/
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-
tions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). SAGE Publishing.
Hurley, Z. (2020). Showing their faces online is difficult for some Arab women:
Educators must respond. Al-Fanar Media. https://www.al-fanarmedia.
org/2020/06/showing-their-faces-online-is-difficult-for-some-arab-women-
educators-must-respond/
Ministry of Cabinet Affairs & the Future (2020). Successful “distance learning” for
1.2 million students leveraging UAE’s futuristic vision, flexibility and advanced
infrastructure. https://www.mocaf.gov.ae/en/media/news/successful-dis-
tance-learning-for-1.2-million-students-leveraging-uae-s-futuristic-vision-flexi-
bility-and-advanced-infrastructure
Ministry of Education. (2020). MoE virtually launches skill and academic activities
system 2020. https://www.moe.gov.ae/En/MediaCenter/News/pages/MoE-
virtually-launches-skill-and-academic-activities-system-2020.aspx
Moussa, M. B., & Seraphim, J. (2017). Digital gender divides and e-empower-
ment in the UAE: A critical perspective. IJEDICT, 13(3), 145–161.
Mynard, J. (2003). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and learner
autonomy in female Emirati learners of English [Doctoral dissertation].
University of Exeter.
Ndichu, D. (2018) E-learning in the Middle East poised for strong growth. https://
www.itp.net/616397-e-learning-in-the-middle-east-poised-for-strong-growth
Online learning accelerates in United Arab Emirates amid COVID-19 outbreak with
Ankabut, Mediasite partnership. (2020). https://www.globenewswire.com/
news-release/2020/04/29/2024058/0/en/Online-Learning-Accelerates-in-
United-Arab-Emirates-Amid-COVID-19-Outbreak-with-Ankabut-Mediasite-
Partnership.html
Raji, B. (2019). Significance and challenges of computer assisted education
programs in the UAE: A case study of higher learning and vocational educa-
tion. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 153–164. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10639-018-9767-6
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Sanderson, D. (2020, April 13). UAE students speak out against webcam policy for
online exams. The National News. https://www.thenational.ae/uae/education/
uae-students-speak-out-against-webcam-policy-for-online-exams-1.1005549
Serkal, M. M. (2020, March 24). UAE: TRA unblocks Skype for business, Google
hangouts amid covid-19 outbreak. Gulf News. https://gulfnews.com/uae/
uae-tra-unblocks-skype-for-business-google-hangouts-amid-covid-19-out-
break-1.1585047632245
Tabrez, H. (2020, August 10). E-learning at UAE universities-what are your
options? Gulf News. https://gulfnews.com/living-in-uae/education/e-learn-
ing-at-uae-universities--what-are-your-options-1.1597072447874
240 Shytance Wren
Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation & United Nations Development
Program/Regional Bureau for Arab States (UNDP/RBAS). (2014). Arab
knowledge report 2014: Youth and localization of knowledge. Al Ghurair
Publishing House.
UAE Vision 2021. (2020). First-rate education system. https://www.vision2021.
ae/en/national-agenda-2021/list/first-rate-circle
United Arab Emirates Government. (2020a). eLearning, mLearning and distance
learning. https://u.ae/en/information-and-services/education/elearning-
mlearning-and-distant-learning
United Arab Emirates Government. (2020c). National Strategy for Higher
Education 2030. https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/strategies-initiatives-and-
awards/federal-governments-strategies-and-plans/national-strategy-for-higher-
education-2030
Watson, D. M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relation-
ship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6 (4),
251–266.
Weber, A. S. (2010). Web-based learning in Qatar and the GCC states (Occasional
Paper No. 5.). Center for International and Regional Studies, Georgetown
University School of Foreign Service in Qatar. Center for International and
Regional Studies. https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/han-
dle/10822/558293/CIRSOccasionalPaper5AlanWeber2010.pdf?sequence=5
Wren, S. T., & Negron, C. (2020, June 27). Changing Paradigms: Reflecting and
assessing students’ remote learning experiences. [Conference presentation]. ALLT
Summer 2020 Academic Forum, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Epilogue
The Future of Online
Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education after
COVID-19: Lessons Learned
and Best Practices
Roy Y. Chan, Krishna Bista,
and Ryan M. Allen
The 17 chapters in this book (along with the foreword from Gerardo L.
Blanco) have highlighted several key overarching messages and common-
alities surrounding the current and future state of online teaching and
learning during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Among them recog-
nizing the dignity of all students remotely (regardless of their background
or circumstance), embracing equity-mindfulness and culturally responsive
pedagogies in online learning environments, and helping individuals and
institutions work toward justice with purpose and hope. Of these over-
arching commonalities, we believe that two major themes were consis-
tently shared and expressed by our contributors: (1) addressing unequal
access and affordability to information and communication technologies
(ICT) and (2) embedding digital transformation in institutional culture
and investing in digital infrastructures for a more robust online learning
ecosystem.
First, we believe that access and affordability to ICT have remained
vastly unequal between rich and poor countries throughout the COVID-
19 lockdown, as outlined by several of our contributors (e.g., Dam, Pham,
Manzoo, Gruzdev, Mukherjee, Wren). Specifically, students from lower-
income countries have consistently experienced limited Internet deploy-
ment and low broadband capacity compared to middle- and upper-income
countries, thereby affecting their ability to complete remote courses vir-
tually. These barriers have only increased inequality in a system that was
already unequal before the pandemic. To address this digital divide, policy
makers and practitioners must develop innovative educational approaches,
at the national and institutional levels, that focus on achieving equity and
inclusivity for all students. For example, the world’s top research universi-
ties (or wealthy elite institutions) could explore the possibilities of offer-
ing international degree programs, teaching online courses collectively,
and conducting virtual research collaboratively, combining their talent
and financial resources more effectively. In addition, aspiring world-class
research institutions could donate outdated or unused technological
devices to students from less well-off families and offer Internet bundles
to provide online access remotely. By doing so, colleges and universities
worldwide can ease some of the exacerbated inequalities in access for all
students regardless of income, gender, age, or race/ethnicity, although
true equality will take more than individual institution action, as these
issues are system-wide problems.
Second, we observe that the COVID-19 restrictions have accelerated
the professionalization, normalization, and legitimization of online teach-
ing, learning, and assessment around the world, as noted by several of our
contributors (e.g., Rippy, Turnbull, Seeletso, Tavares, Stephens). Prior to
the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, online and distance education pro-
grams were viewed as a “hidden market” to primarily older adults and
high school graduates who held full-time jobs and had families at home.
This inevitably changed when the worldwide pandemic forced several
institutions of higher education to conduct their courses fully remotely,
thus prompting a digital transformation in institutional culture for a more
robust online learning ecosystem. As noted by Altbach and de Wit (2020),
“The fact is that developing high-quality online courses requires skill, new
ways of thinking about pedagogy, and money” (p. 4). There is likely no
turning back from this digitization trend, as the unprecedented nature
of the situation proved that the educational curriculum can be delivered
easily and efficiently through digital platforms. There is no denying that it
can be done, but the real question remains in the efficacy of the new trend.
Because online teaching is complex, demanding, and can often lead to
burnout, we believe that campus leaders should think hard and critically
about the effects of these digital transformations. With the snap of a figure,
hundreds of millions of students across the world were suddenly thrust
into schooling online, an unprecedented scale and rapid change in educa-
tion that has not been seen before in human history. We must admit, this
is all an experiment, one happening on the global level. The early research
born from this book does provide hints at how these trends will fair in the
long term when they are further normalized and adapted. For instance, we
believe that in order to thrive in the new system, institutions will have to
develop meaningful partnerships with external constituencies and stake-
holders, including digital technology and telecommunication companies,
that promote global learning and development. Specifically, institutions of
higher education should invest in digital infrastructures and platforms that
enable them to stay current with the changing digital preferences, expecta-
tions, and capabilities of students, faculty, and professional staff. Although
many campus leaders have recently begun to professionalize, normalize,
and legitimize online and distance education at the institutional level, very
little research has shown whether such efforts will positively (or nega-
tively) promote inclusivity, intersectionality, and interdisciplinary teaching
and learning after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Epilogue 243
Even with these important early studies on the impacts of the pandemic
on education, there is still considerable unknowns for the future of the
sector. Further studies should unpack information on how the faculty
and staff can design remote courses of quality and excellence that foster
students’ social and emotional development in the post-COVID-19 era
and outline innovative educational approaches, paradigms, and methods
to normalize the student experience from a distance (Oleksiyenko et al.,
2020). Future articles, books, and policy briefs should also examine longi-
tudinally the effects of online and distance education on student outcomes
and assess those impacts among underserved and underrepresented groups
(Shahzad et al., 2020). We must also not forget that the digital environ-
ment is only a part of education, not the whole thing, and that it is crucial
to understand how the traditional physical spaces operate and incorporate
the new online aspects. It is more important now than ever before that our
efforts to create inclusive environments go beyond words and translate
into actions. We sincerely hope that the lessons learned and best prac-
tices highlighted throughout this book have inspired you to become more
equitable, accessible, affordable, outcomes-focused, flexible, resilient, and
sustainable during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Bios
Practice in the Helen DeVos College of Education at Lee University,
Tennessee, USA.

Maryland, USA.

Educational Studies at Chapman University, California, USA.
References
Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2020). Responding to COVID-19 with IT: A trans-
Sivasubramaniam, M., & Zha, Q. (2020). Comparative and international
higher education in a new key? Thoughts on the post-pandemic prospects of
scholarship. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education.
https://doi.org/:10.1080/03057925.2020.1838121
Shahzad, A., Hassan, R., & Aremu, A. Y. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 in
e-learning on higher education institution students: The group comparison
between male and female. Quality & Quantity. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11135-020-01028-z
Index
assessment 114, 130, 185, 242 India 9–10, 81, 84–86, 136, 170, 183,
Australia 9, 45, 50–52, 57–58, 81, 85, 199–202, 206–212
109, 173, 183, 215–226 Indonesia 120, 125
authentic learning 13–15, 22, 69, 71 international students, 50, 93–95, 99,
102, 111, 113, 183, 225
Iran 98
Botswana 8, 120–124, 126–128
Brazil 81
Native American 112–113,
115–116, 118
Canada 93, 95–100, 170, 183
China 28, 33, 42, 45, 69, 83, 98, 121,
124, 170–171, 183, 187, 199 online courses 15, 21, 121, 205
COVID-19 3–5, 7, 28, 36, 45, 73, online teaching 7, 20, 24, 50, 56, 60,
122, 128, 130, 134, 181 94, 96, 121, 124, 236
curriculum 20, 21, 41, 60, 134, open and distance learning 120,
230, 242 121, 132
disabilities 4–5, 113 Pakistan 98, 127

Disruption in Higher Education 9, pandemic pedagogy, 16–18, 23, 28,
153, 154, 209, 218, 226 30, 34, 36, 121
distance learning 121, 199, 205, 210 Papua New Guinea 40
post pandemic 13, 201
Egypt 81, 84, 86
e-learning 39, 46, 51, 229, 230, remote teaching 8, 28, 30, 35, 154,
232, 233 162, 186, 202
equitable access 107, 110, 115 Russia 8, 134–138, 145–146
Germany 81, 85 Spain 50–51, 58, 63

global crises 32, 170, 181, 194, 218 social inclusion 8, 79, 86,121
global higher education 81, 168, 170, social media 8, 28, 29, 81, 82, 85, 86,
177, 181 189, 193
South Korea 44
student experience 82, 85, 93, 95,
Hong Kong 170–173, 175, 181–190, 136, 243
192–195 Sweden 84
Index 245
teacher education 9, 51, 52, United Arab Emirates 9, 229–237
216–218, 222 United Kingdom 81, 83
teaching and learning 3, 7, 50, United States 4, 17–18, 28, 81, 87,
57, 62, 89, 121, 128, 131, 109–115, 153, 175, 182–185, 199
141, 186, 190, 203, 230, 242
Turkey 98 Vietnam 69–76

[Routledge Studies in Global Student Mobility] Roy Y. Chan (Editor), Krishna Bista (Editor), Ryan M. Allen (Editor) - Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education During COVID-19_ International Perspectives and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Routledge Studies in Global Student Mobility] Roy Y. Chan (Editor), Krishna Bista (Editor), Ryan M. Allen (Editor) - Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education During COVID-19_ International Perspectives and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“This timely book on the effects of COVID-19 on the already rapid

growth of online higher education provides valuable insights and informa-

“As educators kept teaching through the COVID-19 pandemic, online

“This volume includes valuable perspectives on a dramatically altered

“This book excellently examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

“This timely volume brings a much-needed global perspective to conver-

“I appreciate the diverse, global perspectives shared in this collection –

“This remarkable volume of international perspectives on higher educa-

Roy Y. Chan is Assistant Professor of Education and Director of the

Krishna Bista is Professor of Higher Education in the Department of

Ryan M. Allen is Assistant Professor of Practice in the Attallah College of

Routledge Studies in Global Student Mobility offers a scholarly forum for

For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.rout-

1 Is Online and Distance Learning the Future in Global

2 Designing Authentic Online Courses Intra-­and Post-­

3 Pandemic Pedagogy: Disparity in University Remote

4 Learning Management Systems and Synchronous

6 The Effectiveness of Authentic Assessments during

7 Life in 280 Characters: Social Media, Belonging, and

8 “The Course Is No Longer Great”: The Need

9 Expanding Equitable Access or Exacerbating

10 Using Information Communication Technologies for

11 Suddenly Online: How Russian Students Switched to

12 Could COVID-­19 be a Catalyst for Disruption in

13 Global Higher Education and COVID-­19: A Virtual

14 Sustaining Liberal Education by Online Learning in

15 Students’ Experiences with Distance Learning under

16 Teacher Education in Times of Disruption: Lessons

17 The Expansion of E-­learning in the UAE: Implications

2.1 Pandemic Pedagogy 18

4.1 Synchronous Tools and Their Application to Summative

Roy Y. Chan is Assistant Professor of Education and Director of the

Krishna Bista is Professor of Higher Education in the Department of

Ryan M. Allen is Assistant Professor of Practice in the Attallah College of

The COVID-­19 pandemic constitutes a rare true global event. While

The editors of this book are extremely grateful to several teacher-­scholars,

• Amber Dailey-­Hebert, Director of Faculty Center for Innovation &

• Anthony G. Picciano, Professor, Hunter College and Graduate Center,

Innovative Forms of Online

Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

Organization of the Book

• How do we make learning valuable and successful when teaching

Krishna Bista, Ed.D., is a Professor of Higher Education in the

Ryan M. Allen, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Practice in the Attallah

Figure 2.1 Pandemic Pedagogy.

may continue to change the landscape of higher education. The basis of

Virtual Summer Institute

Monica Munoz is Senior eLearning Specialist and Instructional Designer

RQ1: What are the discussions on pedagogical practices during emer-

I have heard from some of my students that they are overwhelmed

These responses to instructors sharing their status on academic expecta-

I’m simplifying, consolidating, or eliminating some assignments in my

Another instructor provided additional advice and commented, “You can

Let’s practice a little humanity, folks. Check in on [the students’] men-

One educator remarked, “The politics of the moment require us as pro-

So many [universities] are [synchronous], but this is classist and able-

These comments reveal that some instructors strongly believe that

No disrespect, but I don’t understand the generic/blanket appeals for

Discussion and Conclusions

The Importance of Communication in Assessment

LMSs and Communication Tools

A Comparison of Asynchronous and Synchronous

Synchronous Tools Summative Assessment Example

Chat (e.g., Yes/no answers to situation- Student is required to agree/

2 Designing Authentic Online Courses Intra-and Post-

12 Could COVID-19 be a Catalyst for Disruption in

13 Global Higher Education and COVID-19: A Virtual

17 The Expansion of E-learning in the UAE: Implications

2.1 Pandemic Pedagogy 18

The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a rare true global event. While

The editors of this book are extremely grateful to several teacher-scholars,

• Amber Dailey-Hebert, Director of Faculty Center for Innovation &

Graduation Profile Draft a rich context Assessment criteria Formative feedback

Figure 6.1 Modified Authentic Assessment Model.

Male 0.06* 0.01 −0.01 0.06*