Digital transition flf

Digital transition flf

• 1.
  Lessons from thedigital transition due to COVID-19: Focus on wellbeing and beliefs about teaching in a tertiary setting Elena Ončevska Ager, Ss Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje – North Macedonia [email protected]
• 2.
  Emergency remote learning– world response to pandemic (Watermeyer et al., 2020) However, focus on offering some kind of an emergency response rather than necessarily sound pedagogical practice (McStravock, 2020), with pandemic taking its toll on: • Students’ mental health (Martinez et al., 2020; Kapasia et al., 2020; Jiang, 2020; Nasan and Bao, 2020; Glowacz and Schmits, 2020; Doolanby, 2020) • Teachers’ professional and private lives (MacIntyre et al., 2020; Watermeyer et al., 2020) Caring professions particularly impacted (Minello, 2020), with teaching already being particularly prone to stress, hence burnout (De Heus and Diekstra, 1999) Scarce European focus, though.
• 3.
  What constitutes goodonline teaching? (Salmon, 2004) Online teaching = teacher-student computer mediated interaction + exchange of materials Salmon’s (2003) model of e-moderation: • Access and motivation • Online socialization • Information exchange • Knowledge construction • Development > Online learning = cognitive + social + affective process
• 4.
  What constitutes wellbeing?(Seligman, 2011) Eudemonic understanding of wellbeing as encompassing: • Positive emotions • Engagement • Relatedness • Meaning derived from daily activities • Accomplishment in life • Vitality
• 5.
  Conte xt Context: Faculty ofphilology at a state university in North Macedonia, approx. 100 teachers and 2000 students, February-May 2020. Few, if any, opportunities for professional exchanges on academic matters within the institution.
• 6.
  Conte xt Research questions: (1) Howdid the teachers go about the digital transition? What tools and methodologies did they use? What do they, and their students, think about them? (2) What impact on their wellbeing do the two populations report? Data collection: • anonymous teacher and student questionnaires (closed + open-ended questions) • focus group interviews with both cohorts Participants: 55 out of 127 professors (43%) 344 out of 1735 students (20%) Data analysis: descriptive statistics + thematic coding Reflexivity sought via close researcher collaboration and recurring reviews of data
• 7.
  Findings (1):Tools andmethodologies used Tools: videoconferencing platforms and email Methodologies: communicative or a combination of communicative and frontal teaching Students generally approve of tools and methodologies used; their objections are to do with how the treatment they got (i.e. didn’t get) from some teachers. Students competent to discuss what constitutes good quality teaching. Contentious issues: • One-way email communication practised by some teachers, which precludes interaction • Some teachers using social networks for teaching/learning purposes (immediacy of communication vs. institutional intrusion into students’ personal space) • Students connecting without turning cameras on Consensus in both populations, however, that face-to-face teaching is superior to online teaching, with the students generally being more critical. Alignment between teachers’ and students’ opinions not ideal.
• 8.
  Findings (2): Impacton wellbeing, as self-reported by students and teachers Physical toll: screen fatigue (headache, eyestrain, eye watering, eye redness, blurred vision), back pain Mental toll: lack of motivation to learn and develop, feelings of being left to their own devices, sadness, anxiety, depression Some students reported feeling supported by some teachers displaying sensitivity for their wellbeing during the pandemic. Others complained about some teachers’ unrealistic course expectations: e.g. to be online 24/7, to be able to put in more hours on homework tasks: “Lectures coupled with extensive homework mean spending most of the day in front of the computer” Both cohorts think the institution should provide psychological support to those who need it.
• 9.
  Action points: • Teachersto get training in using online tools/methodologies and share good practice with colleagues • Students in need to get access to equipment for online learning • Institution to provide multiple forms of academic support, from which teachers and students can choose • Institution to provide psychological support for teachers and students • Teacher-student-institution communication to be improved • Lessons from the pandemic to be learnt for ‘regular’ teaching/learning (e.g. hybrid models)
• 10.
  With more ‘light’available following the first wave of the pandemic, the institution set up a committee to improve teacher-student-institution communication … Now what?
• 11.
  Committee action points: •Professional development webinars for teachers, students and professionals (e.g. teachers, translators) to share good practice and network with each other • Regular polling among students to ensure perspectives of staff and students are more alligned • Academic support for online teaching/learning for students and staff • Psycho-social support project for interested staff (and, by proxy, for students) to work on self-care and student empowerment via learner autonomy, both of which feed into improved wellbeing (publication on project forthcoming)
• 12.
  References: De Heus, P.& R. F. W. Diekstra (1999). “Do teachers burn out more easily? A comparison of teachers with other social professions on work stress and burnout symptoms”. In Vandenberghe, R. and A. M. Huberman (Eds.). Understanding and Preventing Teacher Burnout: A Sourcebook of International Research and Practice. Cambridge: CUP. Doolanby, K. (2020). Student life in the EHEA during the Covid-19 pandemic - Preliminary survey results, University of Zadar. Talk presented at the BFUG Meeting 71, June 2020. Available at http://www.ehea.info/Upload/BFUG_HR_UA_71_8_1_Survey_results.pdf Glowacz, F. and Schmits, E. (2020). Uncertainty and Psychological Distress during lockdown during the COVID-19 Pandemic: the young adults most at risk. Psychiatry Research, 293, doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113486 Hasan, N. and Bao, Y. (2020). Impact of “e-Learning crack-up” perception on psychological distress among college students during COVID-19 pandemic: A mediating role of “fear of academic year loss”. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105355 Jiang, R. (2020). Knowledge, Attitudes and Mental Health of University Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic in China. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105494 Kapasia, N. et al. (2020). Impact of lockdown on learning status of undergraduate and postgraduate students during COVID-19 pandemic in West Bengal, India. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105194 MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (2020). Language teachers’ coping strategies during the Covid-19 conversion to online teaching: Correlations with stress, wellbeing and negative emotions. System, 94, 102352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102352 Martinez, L., Valencia, I. and Trofimoff, V. (2020). Subjective wellbeing and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Data from three population groups in Colombia. Data in Brief, 32, doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.106287 Minello, A. (2020). The pandemic and the female academic. Nature. Retrieved 30th January 2021 from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01135-9 McStravock, K. (2020). USI Covid-19 Survey: Emerging from the Pandemic: Lessons Learned. Talk at IUA/EDTL Webinar: Planning for effective remote teaching during Covid-19, 24 June 2020. Available at https://www.iua.ie/events/iua-edtl-webinar-planning-for-effective-remote-teaching-during-covid-19-24th-june-12-30-13-30/ Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organisation and Change, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Salmon, G. (2003). E-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. London: Routledge. Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating in higher education. In Howard, C., Schenk, K. and Discenza, R. (Eds.). Distance Learning and University Effectiveness: Changing Educational Paradigms for Online Learning. Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing. Seligman, M. 2011. Flourish. London: Nicholas Brealey. Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C. et al. COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. High Education, 81: 623-641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020- 00561-y
• 13.
  Do get intouch if interested in any of the above. Thank you! [email protected]