Vol. 38 No. 2 (2023)
Research Articles

The Effects of COVID-19 on Higher-Education Teaching Practices

HTML PDF
Dr. Rob Power
Cape Breton University
Bio
Dr. Robin Kay
Ontario Tech University
Bio
Chris Craig
Faculty of Education, Ontario Tech University
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2023.v38.i2.1255

Published 2023-12-21

How to Cite

Power, R., Kay, R., & Craig, C. (2023). The Effects of COVID-19 on Higher-Education Teaching Practices. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.55667/10.55667/ijede.2023.v38.i2.1255
Copyright Notice

Abstract

In 2020, Canadian higher education institutions shifted to online teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While many instructors were unfamiliar with online teaching, this transition resulted in widespread innovation in the use of digital technologies and pedagogical practices. This research study focused on the significant impact of the shift to online teaching on three areas: digital tools use, immediate teaching practice, and future teaching practice. Data from 35 survey respondents and six focus group participants indicated that most instructors were comfortable with the new tools they used online, but experienced specific challenges with breakout rooms and students understanding their role in the learning process. Specific changes in immediate teaching practice included co-creating learning spaces, different ways of connecting with students, and the democratization of learning. Perhaps the most significant impact of the COVID-19 transition period was on future in-person teaching including increased use of digital tools, structural reorganization of classes, enthusiasm for teaching, and an increased appreciation for in-person environments.

Keywords: community of inquiry, communities-of-practice, COVID-19, diffusion of innovation, digital innovation, faculty supports, fully online learning community, online teaching, pandemic, professional development, TAM, TPACK, transactional distance theory, UDL, universal design for learning

Les effets de la COVID-19 sur les pratiques pédagogiques dans l’enseignement supérieur

Résumé : En 2020, les établissements d'enseignement supérieur canadiens sont passés à l'enseignement en ligne en raison de la pandémie de COVID-19. Alors que de nombreux enseignants n'étaient pas habitués à l'enseignement en ligne, cette transition a donné lieu à de nombreuses innovations concernant l'utilisation des technologies numériques et les pratiques pédagogiques. Cette recherche s'est centrée sur l'impact notable du passage à l'enseignement en ligne dans trois domaines : l'utilisation des outils numériques, la pratique immédiate de l'enseignement et la pratique future de l'enseignement. Les données issues de 35 réponses à un questionnaire et de six groupes de discussion ont montré que la plupart des enseignants étaient à l'aise avec les nouveaux outils qu'ils utilisaient en ligne, mais qu'ils rencontraient des difficultés particulières avec les salles de réunion et la compréhension par les étudiants de leur rôle dans le processus d'apprentissage. Les changements apportés à la pratique immédiate de l'enseignement comprenaient la co-création d'espaces d'apprentissage, différentes façons de se connecter avec les étudiants et la démocratisation de l'apprentissage. L'impact le plus important de la période de transition relative à la COVID-19 est peut-être celui concernant l'avenir de l'enseignement en classe, notamment l'utilisation accrue des outils numériques, la réorganisation structurelle des classes, l'enthousiasme pour l'enseignement et l'appréciation accrue des environnements présentiels.

Mots-clés : Communauté d'enquête, communautés de pratique, COVID-19, diffusion de l'innovation, innovation numérique, soutien aux enseignants, communauté d'apprentissage entièrement en ligne, enseignement en ligne, pandémie, développement professionnel, TAM, TPACK, théorie de la distance transactionnelle, UDL, conception universelle de l'apprentissage

HTML PDF

References

  1. Anthology. (2022). Blackboard Learn. https://www.blackboard.com/teaching-learning/learning-management/blackboard-learn
  2. Athabasca University. (n.d.). CoI framework. https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/
  3. Bettany-Saltikov, J. (2016). How to do a systematic literature review in nursing: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). Open University Press. ISBN: 987-0335263806
  4. Blayone, T., vanOostveen, R., Barber, W., DiGiuseppe, M., & Childs, E. (2017, April 13). Democratizing digital learning: Theorizing the fully online learning community model. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0051-4
  5. Borokhovski, E., Bernard, R., Mills, E., Abrami, P., Wade, C., Tamim, R., Bethel, R., Lowerison, G., Pickup, D., & Surkes, M. (2011, November 17). An extended systematic review of Canadian policy documents on e-Learning: What we’re doing and not doing. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 37(3), 1–30. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/42749/
  6. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2022, December). (2022). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans: TCPS2 2022 [PDF]. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/documents/tcps2-2022-en.pdf
  7. Cape Breton University. (2023). Explore programs. https://www.cbu.ca/academics/programs/
  8. Cape Breton University. (2022, January 20). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Breton_University
  9. Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 791–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074
  10. CAST. (2022a). About universal design for learning. https://www.cast.org/impact/universal-design-for-learning-udl
  11. CAST. (2022b). The UDL guidelines. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
  12. Cavanaugh, C., Hargis, J., Munns, S., & Kamali, T. (2013, January 14). iCelebrate teaching and learning: Sharing the iPad experience. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v1n2.2163
  13. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN: 978-1506386706
  14. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022, November). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-1071817940
  15. Davis, F. D. (1989, September). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  16. EILAB. (2022). Fully online learning community (FOLC) model. https://eilab.ca/fully-online-learning-community/
  17. Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Albion, P. (2010). Beyond pedagogical content knowledge: The importance of TPACK for informing preservice teacher education in Australia. In M. Turcanyis-Szabo & N. Reynolds (Eds.), Key competencies in the knowledge society: IFIP TC3 International Conference, KCKS 2010, Brisbane, Australia (pp. 114–125). Springer.
  18. Gamage, K. A., Pradeep, R. R., Najdanovic-Visak, V., & Gunawardhana, N. (2020). Academic standards and quality assurance: The impact of COVID-19 on university degree programs. Sustainability, 12(23), 10032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310032
  19. Garaika, H. M., & Margahan, H. (2020). Adoption of educational technology: Study on higher education. International Journal of Management, 11(1), 61–71. http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=1
  20. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3526805
  21. Google. (n.d.). Google Meet. https://meet.google.com/
  22. Granić, A. (2022). Educational technology adoption: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9725–9744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10951-7
  23. Instructure. (2022). Canvas by instructure. https://www.instructure.com/canvas
  24. Irhouma, T., & Johnson, N. (2022, January). Digital learning in Canada in 2022: A changing landscape-2022 national report [PDF]. Canadian Digital Learning Research Association (CDLRA-ACRFL). http://www.cdlra-acrfl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2022_national_report_en.pdf
  25. Jean-Louis, M. (2015, April 14). An overview of online learning in Canada: Canada is a hot spot for creative and imaginative developments in open distance learning and open educational resources [PDF]. Contact North. https://contactnorth.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/an_overview_of_online_learning_in_canada_-_april_2015.pdf
  26. Kaltura. (2022). Everything video [Video]. https://corp.kaltura.com/company/about/
  27. Kelly, R. (2021, August 6). How the pandemic boosted ed tech adoption. Campus Technology. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2021/06/08/how-the-pandemic-boosted-ed-tech-adoption.aspx
  28. Kineshanko, M., & Madelaine, K. (2016, March 20). A thematic synthesis of Community of Inquiry research 2000 to 2014 [Doctoral dissertation, Athabasca University]. http://hdl.handle.net/10791/190
  29. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge [PDF]. Teachers College Record, 109(6), 1017–1054. https://punyamishra.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/mishra-koehler-tcr2006.pdf
  30. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK [PDF]. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and Routledge. https://punyamishra.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/koehler_mishra_08.pdf
  31. Masri, A., & Sabzalieva, E. (2020). Dealing with disruption, rethinking recovery: Policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in higher education. Policy Design and Practice, 3(3), 312–333, https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.1813359
  32. Microsoft. (2023a). Flip. https://info.flip.com/en-us.html
  33. Microsoft. (2023b.) Microsoft 365. https://www.office.com/
  34. Microsoft. (2023c). Microsoft Excel. https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/microsoft-365/excel
  35. Microsoft (2023d). More is possible with Microsoft Teams. https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software?rtc=1
  36. Moodle Docs. (2020, August 31). About Moodle. https://docs.moodle.org/311/en/About_Moodle
  37. Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction [PDF]. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. https://eddl.tru.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/EDDL5101_W9_Moore_1989.pdf
  38. Moore, M. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649109526758
  39. Moore, R. L., & Miller, C. N. (2022). Fostering presence in online courses: A systematic review (2008–2020). Online Learning, 26(1) 130–149. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.3071
  40. Navaitienė, J., & Stasiūnaitienė, E. (2021). The goal of the universal design for learning: development of all to expert learners. In A. Galkienė, & O. Monkevičienė (Eds.), Improving inclusive education through universal design for learning. Inclusive learning and educational equity vol 5 (pp. 23–57). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80658-3_2
  41. Nearpod. (n.d.). We believe teaching is the most important job in the world. https://Nearpod.com/about
  42. Ontario Tech University. (2020, June). Fact book: 2019–2020 [PDF]. https://shared.ontariotechu.ca/shared/department/oira/documents/fact-books/2019-20/2019-20_fact_book_finalv2.pdf
  43. Ontario Tech University. (2022, January 14). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Tech_University
  44. Ontario Tech University. (2023a). About Ontario Tech. https://ontariotechu.ca/about/
  45. Ontario Tech University. (2023b). Directory. https://ontariotechu.ca/directory/index.php
  46. Ontario Tech University. (2023c). Faculties and departments. https://ontariotechu.ca/faculty_staff/faculties-and-departments/index.php
  47. Ontario Tech University. (2023d). Online programs. https://ontariotechu.ca/programs/online.php
  48. Orkwis, R. & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access [PDF]. National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. ERIC Number: ED423654. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED423654.pdf
  49. Paykamian, B. (2022, October 14). Report: Higher ed CIOs must increase tech adoption. Government Technology. https://www.govtech.com/education/higher-ed/report-higher-ed-cios-must-increase-tech-adoption
  50. Power, R. (2015). A framework for promoting teacher self-efficacy with mobile reusable learning objects [Doctoral dissertation, Athabasca University]. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1160.4889
  51. Power, R. (2018a, May 16). Making mobile learning work for educators and students. Opening keynote address at Mobile Summit 2018, 16-17 May 2018, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada. http://www.powerlearningsolutions.com/making-mobile-learning-work.html
  52. Power, R. (2018b). Supporting mobile instructional design with CSAM. In S. Yu, M. Ally, & A. Tsanikos (Eds.), Mobile and ubiquitous learning: An international handbook (pp. 193—209). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6144-8_12
  53. Power, R. (2023a). Chapter 7: Theories and models of online learning. In Everyday instructional design: A practical resource for educators and instructional designers. Power Learning Solutions. https://pressbooks.pub/everydayid/chapter/theories-and-models-of-online-learning/
  54. Power, R. (2023b). Chapter 10: Meaningful and engaging. In Everyday instructional design: A practical resource for educators and instructional designers. Power Learning Solutions. https://pressbooks.pub/everydayid/chapter/meaningful-and-engaging/"
  55. Power, R., Cristol, D., Gimbert, B., Bartoletti, R, & Kilgore, W. (2016). Using the mTSES to evaluate and optimize mLearning professional development. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i4.2459
  56. Power, R. & Kay, R. (2023). Higher education faculty supports for the transition to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Educational Informatics, 4(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.51357/jei.v4i1.191
  57. 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, 923–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y
  58. Rogers, E. (1976). New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1086/208642
  59. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. ISBN: 978-0743222099
  60. Singh, G., & Hardaker, G. (2014, April 8). Barriers and enablers to adoption and diffusion of eLearning. Education + Training, 56(2/3), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2012-0123
  61. Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082
  62. Statistics Canada. (2020, May 12). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on postsecondary students. The Daily. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200512/dq200512a-eng.htm
  63. Statistics Canada. (2021, May 3). School closures and COVID-19: Interactive tool-Catalogue no 71-607-X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2021009-eng.htm
  64. The World Bank, UNESCO, & UNICEF. (2021). The state of the global education crisis: A path to recovery. https://doi.org/10.54675/JLUG7649
  65. tpack.org (2021). Using the TPACK image. http://tpack.org/
  66. van der Steen, J. T., van den Bogert, C. A., van Soest-Poortvliet, M. C., Fazeli Farsani, S., Otten, R. H., ter Riet, G., & Bouter, L. M. (2018). Determinants of selective reporting: A taxonomy based on content analysis of a random selection of the literature. PloS one, 13(2), e0188247. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188247
  67. van der Steen, J. T., ter Riet, G., van den Bogert, C. A., & Bouter, L. M. (2019). Causes of reporting bias: A theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000 Research, 8(280), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.18310.2
  68. Webb, S., van Oostveen, R., Barber, W., Percival, J., & Childs, E. (2019). Co-creation of the digital space: Examining the use of web-based tools in Fully Online Learning Community (FOLC) environments. In J. Theo Bastiaens (Ed.), Proceedings of EdMedia + Innovate Learning (pp. 1237–1242). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/210135/
  69. Zoom Video Communications. (2023). Zoom. https://zoom.us/