Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic forced 1.38 billion learners to rush from the physical classroom to emergency remote teaching and learning (UNESCO 2020). Hodges et al. (The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning, 2020) coined the term emergency remote teaching (ERT) to define ‘a branch of distance education’ that arises out of ‘a temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to crisis circumstances’ (Another expression used was, for instance, ‘pandemic pedagogy’ (Hodges et al., The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning, 2020; Milman, This is emergency remote teaching, not just online teaching. EducationWeek, 2020)) (see also Bond et al., Int J Educ Technol High Educ 18:50, 2021). As the situation evolved and ERT became the prevalent means of instruction around the world, issues with motivation and student engagement—and, crucially, accessibility—were forced to the surface (Accessibility falls outside the scope of this volume, though references to it will be made, given the interconnected nature of issues of digital equity with motivation and engagement. A study by Adnan and Anwar (J Pedagog Sociol Psychol 2(1):45–51, 2020), looking at Pakistani Higher Education during the pandemic, illustrates how online learning cannot produce desired results in underprivileged countries such as Pakistan. Most students do not have access to the internet due to technical and/or financial constraints. This precarious situation then goes on to aggravate other issues they identify, which we have seen are also common to different settings across the globe. Among them, the absence of F2F interaction with the educator and of traditional classroom socialisation—in other words, a perceived lack of a learning community of students and educators—appears as the most problematic one). The picture that emerged worldwide, in various ways and depending on varying circumstances, was that educational infrastructures were, by and large, not resilient. Established systems, which had arguably outlived their usefulness, were faced with an unprecedented crisis for which no blueprint existed, and the ensuing issues emerged particularly in areas such as assessment and community.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Accessibility falls outside the scope of this volume, though references to it will be made, given the interconnected nature of issues of digital equity with motivation and engagement. A study by Adnan and Anwar (2020), looking at Pakistani Higher Education during the pandemic, illustrates how online learning cannot produce desired results in underprivileged countries such as Pakistan. Most students do not have access to the internet due to technical and/or financial constraints. This precarious situation then goes on to aggravate other issues they identify, which we have seen are also common to different settings across the globe. Among them, the absence of F2F interaction with the educator and of traditional classroom socialisation—in other words, a perceived lack of a learning community of students and educators—appears as the most problematic one.
- 3.
In this volume, we are not distinguishing English as a second language (L2) from the other languages considered by the individual chapters (German, Italian, Spanish), and thus, when we refer to L2, we also mean English and EFL teaching. That said, while a proliferation of research exists on ERT and the teaching and learning process throughout social distancing and its immediate aftermath, works that focus specifically on modern languages are still scarce, though many have focused on EFL, possibly due to the widespread presence of courses across the world, within and without HE.
- 4.
Other studies focusing on online assessment tools in spring 2020 cited specific concerns about not completing tests or online quizzes in time and the rigidity of the answers required or permitted (Dietrich et al. 2020); unreliable internet connections during tests (Means and Neisler 2020); and educators’ concerns about online proctoring services (Cutri et al. 2020).
- 5.
To give an example, in both the Italian and UK systems, for end-of-year high school exams (Esame di Stato and A-Levels, respectively), pupils are required to sit tests that have been centrally and externally devised. Teachers have no say in the choice of what the pupils they have known for years will be evaluated on. In Higher Education in both countries, on the other hand (leaving aside subjects that lead to accreditation), lecturers devise their own assessments and assessment patterns. Regardless of the degree of freedom they enjoy within this process (which depends on internal institutional policies), they can tailor these to the cohorts for which they are intended. Within ERT, this provided a level of resilience and agility that schools did not have, as demonstrated by the controversy surrounding school exams in 2020 and 2021. In the UK, all secondary education examinations were cancelled and an alternative method to establish qualification grades had to be devised and effected at short notice. In Italy, comparable disruption and controversy characterised the 2020 delivery of ‘Esami di Stato’. The format of the final exams underwent substantial changes with respect to what had been more or less stable and unchanged since 1999 (the year the new Esame di Stato format came into being): written tests were abolished and replaced by a ‘maxi-oral’ lasting one hour and divided into five parts. The evaluation system itself had to change: 13,000 examination boards were dismantled, and new ones were created with exclusively internal members (to avoid travelling for those involved), with only the president being external. Particular attention was given to the security measures to prevent the spread of the infection, which caused further distress and difficulties that might have been avoided with the use of an online platform. Students and commissioners had to always wear a mask, sanitise their hands, and present self-certification confirming they had not had a fever in the three days prior to the test. In Italy, that is, the focus was firmly placed on avoiding online cheating, hence the choice of oral as the main assessment method and in-person delivery for which, however, the system was simply not ready. In both countries, the rigidity of the secondary school systems meant that a one-size-fits-all approach had to be adopted, which, given the circumstances, was far from ideal.
- 6.
‘These ratings serve as a policy instrument that directly informs institutions’ reputation and, more broadly, aims to validly and reliably capture students’ satisfaction with their learning’. Thus, ‘if items within the NSS are aligned to pedagogic constructs that are ill-defined, or if there are sharp inconsistencies in interpretation, this is problematic for the reliability of NSS as a measurement’ (Prodgers et al. 2022).
- 7.
For example, West and Williams’ ‘concept of a shared “Vision” (which incorporates shared goals and missions) and “Function” (which encompasses shared actions) spoke directly to [Prodgers et al.’s] third theme of mutuality and the shared experience (or “feeling together”), whereas the concepts of “Relationships” (which encompasses sense of belonging and trust) and “Access” (which incorporates shared space and time) converged in our themes of “feeling connected” and “feeling included”’ (Prodgers et al. 2022).
References
Adnan, M., and K. Anwar. 2020. Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology 2 (1): 45–51. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.%202020261309.
Akyol, Z., and D.R. Garrison. 2011. Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 42 (2): 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x.
Alsawaier, R.S. 2018. The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology 35 (1): 56–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-02-2017-0009.
Anderson, L.W., and D.R. Krathwohl. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Complete Edition. New York: Longman.
Arbaugh, et al. 2008. Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education 11 (3–4): 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003.
Bailey, E., et al. 2021. Bridging the transition to a new expertise in the scholarship of teaching and learning through a faculty learning community. International Journal for Academic Development 1 (14): 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2021.1917415.
Barber, M., et al. 2012. Oceans of innovation: The Atlantic, the Pacific, global leadership and the future of education. https://www.ippr.org/publications/oceans-of-innovation-the-atlantic-the-pacific-global-leadership-and-the-future-of-education. Accessed 29 October 2022.
Betoncu, O., et al. 2021. Designing an effective learning environment for language learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.752083.
Bond, M., et al. 2021. Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 18: 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/S41239-021-00282-X.
Bozkurt, A., et al. 2020. A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education 15 (1): 1–126. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3878572.
Carlén, U., O. Jobring, M. Qvistgård, and M. Nilsen. 2004. Constituents of Online Learning Communities. In proceeding of IADIS International Conference of Web Based Communities (pp. 341–349). Lisbon, Portugal, 24–26 March, 2004, At: Lisbon, Portugal https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267550803_Constituents_of_online_learning_communities.
Carless, D. 2015. Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education 69: 963–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10734-014-9816-Z.
Carreres, Á. 2014. Translation as a Means and as an End: Reassessing the Divide. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (1): 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.908561.
Cocea, M. 2006. Assessment of Motivation in Online Learning Environments. In AH 2006. LNCS vol. 4018, eds. V. P. Wade et al., pp. 414–418. Heidelberg: Springer.
Cook, G. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conrad, D., and J. Openo. 2018. Assessment Strategies for Online Learning: Engagement and Authenticity. Athabasca: Athabasca University Press.
Cutri, R.M., et al. 2020. Faculty readiness for online crisis teaching: Transitioning to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Teacher Education 43 (4): 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1815702.
Davies, A., J. Ramsay, H. Lindfield, and J. Couperthwaite. 2005. Building learning communities: Foundations for good practice. British Journal of Educational Technology 36 (4): 615–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00539.x.
Denden, M., et al. 2021. Effects of gender and personality differences on students’ perception of game design elements in educational gamification. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 154: 102674. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ijhcs.2021.102674.
Dietrich, N., et al. 2020. Attempts, successes, and failures of distance learning in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Chemical Education 97 (9): 2448–2457. https://doi.org/10.1021/Acs.Jchemed.0c00717.
Florida, R. 2012. The rise of the creative class: Revisited. New York: Basic Books.
Hayes, A.S. 1963. Language Laboratory Facilities: Technical Guide for the Selection, Purchase, Use, and Maintenance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Heathcote, D. 1984. The Authentic Teacher: Signs and Portents. In Collected Writings Of Drama And Education, eds. D. Heathcote et al. London: Hutchinson.
Hodges, C., et al. 2020. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Hoffman, M., and J. Morrow. 2022. Investigating ‘sense of belonging’ in first-year college students. Journal of College Retention Research Theory and Practice 4 (3): 227–256.
Holmes, K. 2020. Sustaining learning communities through and beyond COVID-19. UNESCO Futures of Education Ideas LAB. https://en.unesco.org/futuresofeducation/holmes-sustaining-learning-communities-COVID-19. Accessed 02 November 2022.
Keyser, W., et al. 2022. Empathy in action: Developing a sense of belonging with the pedagogy of ‘real talk’. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 19 (4): 1–27. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol19/iss4/10.
Klimova, O. 2021. “From Blended Learning to Emergency Remote and Online Teaching: Successes, Challenges, and Prospects of a Russian Language Program before and during the Pandemic.” Russian Language Journal 71 (2): Article 5. https://doi.org/10.26067/CX61-PC87.
Knowles, E., and K. Dennis. 2007. An Investigation of Students’ Attitudes and Motivations Toward Online Learning. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching 2. https://doi.org/10.46504/02200708kn.
Kyriacou. 2006. Essential Teaching Skills. Blackwell.
Lai, C., et al. 2016. Enhancing learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning: The effectiveness of an online training platform. Computer Assisted Language Learning 29 (1): 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.889714.
———. 2018. Understanding the nature of learners’ out-of-class language learning experience with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning 31 (1): 114–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1391293.
Laviosa, S. 2014. Translation and Language Education. Pedagogical Approaches Explained. New York and London: Routledge.
Leonardi, V. 2010. The Role of Pedagogical Translation in Second Language Acquisition: From Theory to Practice. Bern: Peter Lang.
Malmkjaer, K. 2010. Language Learning and Translation. In Handbook of Translation Studies, eds. Y. Gambier and L. V. Doorslaer, pp. 185–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Maestas, R., et al. 2007. Factors impacting sense of belonging at a Hispanic-serving institution. Journal of Higher Education 6 (3): 237–256.
Mclean, H. 2018. This is the way to teach: Insights from academics and students about assessment that supports learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (8): 1228–1240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1446508.
Means, B., and J. Neisler. 2020. Unmasking inequality: STEM course experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital Promise Global.
McMillan, D.W., and D.M. Chavis. 1986. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14 (1): 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(198601)14:1<6::AID-JCOP2290140103>3.0.CO;2-I.
Milman, N. 2020. This is emergency remote teaching, not just online teaching. EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-this-is-emergency-remote-teaching-not-just-online-teaching/2020/03. Accessed 22 December 2022.
Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca. 2014. The Italian Education System. I Quaderni di Eurydice 30. Firenze: Indire.
Nieto-Escamez, F.A., and M.D. Roldán-Tapia. 2021. Gamification as online teaching strategy during COVID-19: A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648552.
North, B., and E. Piccardo. 2016. Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the CEFR. Education Policy Division, Council of Europe, Strasbourg. https://rm.coe.int/168073ff3. Accessed 29 October 2022.
Office for Students. 2019. Student satisfaction rises but universities should do more to improve feedback. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/press-and-media/student-satisfaction-rises-but-universities-should-do-more-to-improve-feedback/. Accessed 29 October 2022.
Oli, G., and Olkaba, T. 2020. Practices and Challenges of Continuous Assessment in Colleges of Teachers Education in West Oromia Region of Ethiopia. Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning 5 (1): 8–20. STKIP Singkawang. Retrieved August 14, 2023.
Piazzoli, E. 2011. Didattica process drama: principi di base, estetica e coinvolgimento. Italiano Linguadue 3 (1): 439–462. https://doi.org/10.13130/2037-3597/1243
Pink, D.H. 2006. A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York: Riverhead.
Poluekhtova, I.A., et al. 2020. Effectiveness of online education for the professional training of journalists: Students’ distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art 13 (4): 26–37.
Popkova, E. 2018. Continuous Cumulative Assessment in Higher Education: Coming to Grips with Test Enhanced Learning. In Revisiting the Assessment of Second Language Abilities: From Theory to Practice, ed. Hidri Sahbi, pp. 331–349. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3–319–62884–4_16.
Prodgers, L., et al. 2022. ‘It’s hard to feel a part of something when You’ve never met people’: Defining ‘learning community’ in an online era. Higher Education. 85: 1219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00886-w.
Redondo Juárez, P. 2021. Innovación en el aula. Profundización en el elemento lúdico: Factores y aplicación didáctica. In Internacionalización y Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera: Plurilingüismo y Comunicación Intercultural, eds. M. Saracho-Arnáiz and H. Otero-Doval, pp. 1193–1211. Oporto: ASELE.
Sambell, K. 2016. Assessment and feedback in higher education: Considerable room for improvement? Student Engagement in Higher Education 1 (1): 1–14. http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/2819/.
Tao, J., and A.G. Xuesong. 2022. Language Teacher Agency. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tosey, P. 2006. Experiential methods of teaching and learning. In Jarvis, P. (Ed.). The Theory and Practice of Teaching (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203016442.
Tulloch, R. 2014. Reconceptualising Gamification: Play and Pedagogy. Digital Culture & Education 6: 317–333.
UNESCO. 2020. From Subregional to a Continental Response Strategy in Support of More Resilient and Responsive Education Systems in Africa COVID–19 (C–19), April– June 2020. Regional office for Eastern Africa. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/covid_19_emergeny_response_plan_–_all_sectors–final–05apr2020.pdf. Accessed 22 December 2022.
United Nations Children’s Fund and International Telecommunication Union. 2020. How many children and young people have internet access at home? Estimating digital connectivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. New York: UNICEF.
Ushioda, E. 2011. Why autonomy? Insights from motivation theory and research. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 5 (2): 221–232.
Villarroel, V., et al. 2018. Authentic Assessment: Creating a Blueprint for Course Design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (5): 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396.
Wagner, T. 2009. The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need—And what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books.
Wagner, T., and T. Dintersmith. 2016. Most likely to succeed: Preparing our kids for the innovation era. New York: Scribner.
Way, B. 1967. Development through Drama. London: Longmans.
West, R.E., and G.S. Williams. 2017. “I don’t think that word means what you think it means”: A proposed framework for defining learning communities. Education Tech Research Dev 65: 1569–1582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9535-0.
Yuan, J., and C. Kim. 2014. Development of online learning communities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 30: 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12042.
Zhang, D.Y., and P. Pérez-Paredes. 2021. Chinese postgraduate EFL learners’ self-directed use of mobile English learning resources. Computer Assisted Language Learning 34: 1128–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1662455.
Zhang, K., and H. Wu. 2022. Synchronous online learning during COVID-19: Chinese university EFL students’ perspectives. SAGE Open 12: 215824402210948. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221094821.
Zhao, C.M., and G.D. Kuh. 2004. Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student Engagement. Research in Higher Education 45: 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000015692.88534.de.
Zhao, Y., and J. Watterston. 2021. The changes we need: Education post COVID-19. Journal of Educational Change 22: 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10833-021-09417-3.
Zhao, Y., et al. 2019. Tackling the wicked problem of measuring what matters: Framing the questions. ECNU Review Education 2 (3): 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531119878965.
Zhao, X., et al. 2022. A comparison of student and staff perceptions and feelings about assessment and feedback using cartoon annotation. Journal of Further and Higher Education 46 (5): 586–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1986620.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fiorucci, W. (2023). Introduction: Rushing Online. In: Fiorucci, W. (eds) Language Education During the Pandemic. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35855-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35855-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-35854-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-35855-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)